[Capt.FlushGarden]

hi chaps! i've spotted this school in florence that I'm interested of, I was just wondering if any of you have heard of it or if you went to that school, is it any good? i know that what u make of the school is what makes it good but i think u know what i mean

heres the link
http://www.florenceacademyofart.com/

[Drunken Monkey]

there is a guy in LA who studied there... he now teaches at laafigart.

http://www.adriangottlieb.com/

He is very popular at laafigart. From what i gothered so far the method they teach, and the reason why i cancelled his classes, is to copy the model down to exact angle and measurment untill it looks like a photograph perfect copy and not like a caricature . If thats what you are going for... i dont think there is any anatomy studies there like you get with vilppu or kchen. They will however teach you how to mix paint so it retains color through billions of years and multiple nuclear fallouts.

[spooge demon]

don't do it,***evil catty remark removed***

[Capt.FlushGarden]

LOL thanx guys, maybe Florence will be nothing more than a nice vacation then

[REALITYcheck]

I just wanted to say that I don't think anyone here understands he nature of the training offered at FAA or at LAAFA. There's no one to speak to some of the comments here.

First of all, the drawing techniques you're talking about have nothing to do with photorealism. They are observation training. These methods are learned in order to give an artist as close to total control over the end result as is humanly possible. That means you can choose to work realistically - in context, for perhaps modeling for special effects or traditional work.

Somebody trained in this way can perfect their "eye." They can recognize how to create better caricatures or even recognize the difference between a truly realist result and a character, which many people can't. Villpu is good but his stuff is all caricature. It is not the way people look in nature.

You want control, power over your work? This is the way to go.

I don't know how much you know about FAA, but applicants compete with a huge international body of art students and not only is it wicked difficult to get in, but the waiting list is bloody huge and the tuition at FAA is going sky high -- supply and demand. It'll be close to 13,000 USD soon and that doesn't cover the required modeling fees, cost of art materials, rent a flat in Florence, utilities, food, and travel basic needs. All of which has skyrocketed over the past couple of years.

The program at LAAFA offer like classes by Adrian Gottlieb but also other faculty teach a number of different drawing mythologies. So you can combine the historic training he focuses on which was developed during the Renaissance through the 17th century, with more contemporary methods. I don't know of any other program that's doing that and is still affordable.

I found this link which lists both schools one right after the other on the same page:

http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/atelier_list.asp?page=2&sort=school&order=ascending

One can Google "Adrian Gottlieb" he's pretty clear that he believes in teaching academic methods then using the tools to create individual work.

This type of study requires hard work as well as an understanding of the long term value of what it has to offer.

http://www.americanartists.org/art/artist_detail_71.htm

Here's a good link about FAA which is a much less open to including any new iideas - they stick to a disciplined 19th century academic curricula :

http://www.newbohemia.net/Library/Articles/NewDirection.htm

http://www.newbohemia.net/Library/Articles/21stCenturyTradition.htm

http://www.adriangottlieb.com/Philosophies/philosophies.html

Discussion should remain open.

[burn0ut]

im curious to hear your thoughts on it spooge and why you say dont do it?

[Drunken Monkey]

[Capt.FlushGarden]

uh oh...

[ceenda]

I've already mentioned to you about the Florence thing (and that old thread over on EP), as I was really keen to do this myself last year and had set aside some capital to begin. I'd even started learning Italian.

Something I didn't mention was that I don't entirely agree that a traditional background will make your work stiff and academic to the point that you won't be able to move out into variations of that style. To be honest, I just don't know.

But I think that there are Ateliers over in the states, like Watts Atelier that might help you emphasis on the Drawing aspect as much as the "mass painting".

But either way, stick with Loomis in the meantime while you decide...

[Capt.FlushGarden]

thank you everyone and reality check for all the numbers and info and crrits


I think what we are discussing here might depend on the person going through the eduction. either he or she learns the techniques, but not taking them like rule nr 1, uses alot of it but re-bakes it into his/her own thing, or, gets comnfused and feels most confortable ONLY working the way the school has taught him/her.

[spooge demon]

The atelier education is very deep and very narrow. If you like the work they produce, and think that you will always like it, by all means go that route. But it is not a well rounded art education.

If you go there are don't paint the way they want you to, you will get the same reaction as if you go to a more liberal school and try to paint academically. You will be ridiculed, as wrong as that may be.

I was pretty happy combining art center ID and illustration. It has been a good combination. I could not do what I do if I had gone to an atelier. When I was younger, I thought pretty much as they do, academic art is the One True Way and anyone who disagrees is a commie pinko whiner looking to get out of hard work. Having learned a bit more about the vastness of human expression, I am very glad I did not go and have my myopic ignorance set into stone so I could never grow and learn.

The academics fear and paranoia about "modern" sensibilities is every bit as dumb as the moderne who mocks realist art. Maybe I should say that each may not have a problem with the art, only the dumb things each say about the other out of fear and insecurity.

I have seen very very few people who have been trained the atelier way do well in the commercial arts. There are exceptions, but only a few. It may be a preference on their part, but they are not given the tools to do it. As I said, it is teaching a narrow and highly refined skill.

Learn to draw the way Mr. Villipu and Chen draw, if you want a broader base from which to go in different directions in the future. It focuses on understanding form, not replicating the optical effects of halftones.

If you like the work you see around these forums, ID or even architecture is a good choice.

The bigger problem is how to you educate someone how to be creative? Any structure you give them limits something. It is a problem in all education, not just art. But creativity itself is not a given. In eastern art and the atelier school, continuity and reverence for the master is a higher value than individual expression. That�s fine, as long as you are aware of it.

I am not going to rehash everything I have already said on this subject. Search on my name and art renewal if you want to find some quotes that I will probably regret.

Realitycheck, your choice of screename is... uh.. never mind.

[burn0ut]

ahhhh ok, cool, i had almost the same ideas. (prolly from reading this forum for how many years now..?.)

I was just curious cause i've recently been taking adrian gottlieb's class , and found it to be a nice addition to what i've been being taught before that (kchen/villpu/perkins/fowkes) who just about all have been commercial artists. so im trying to take what i've learned from both sides and try to intergrate them best i can. and i've found alot of downsides and upsides in both. (altho not as many downsides from the more commercial artist teachers i have to admit)
andits getting late so im gonna cut this short

thanks again.

[REALITYcheck]

combine the drawing training.

That is the whole point. To break out and offer more options.
But, of course, while you're studying one, you work to accomplish what that one class or method has to offer.

A combined program developed by Chen and Gottlieb together and including other faculty, all teaching various drawing methods sounds like a paradigm breaker to me. One can only benefit.

Perhaps people are getting the philosohy of one chairman of one organization, ARC, mixed up with the philosophy of different artists and even a movement.

Most atelier associated people I know, do not agree with Fred Ross.

The atelier and studio school pages on ARC were not the brainchild of Fred Ross though he wouldn't agree now. It makes sense for a school or new program to be listed on those pages because of the huge number of visitors it gets but being listed there or even having Fred Ross like your work, doesn't mean you agree with all the negative backlash.

FAA is not ARC and ARC is not FAA. FAA is a very defined program but I haven't heard anyone from there say they are happy that ARC uses every opportunity to open old wounds.

LAAFA and this new Atelier California they are starting is a melding of the contemporary realist and classical realist training. Since Gottlieb supports this, I assume he is much more open minded. He'd have to be.

[Mikko K]

Hmm.. I'm trying to count how many different ways can you write "Vilppu" wrong.. (edit: that's a finnish surname by the way)

It's funny how serious people are about these academic vs. modern things. I guess there's been a lot of shit throwing from each side to make such a debate.

[Socar MYLES]

It would be well worth it just to live in Florence. You would enjoy it. Even if you didn't find the education you were getting fit your goals, it WOULD give you some new techniques and a solid academic foundation. More importantly though, man, have you SEEN Florence? There are things to draw there! Great things! And then there's the whole rest of Italy, which is full of great art, great architecture, and, er, pigeons, but we can forget about them, eh?

Seriously, while you're young and you still can, it would be great to do something like this as much for the life experience as the education. Too many people forget about that, and just go to any old school where, you know, stuff is taught. Have a sense of adventure!

Spooge has some good points, there, too, and so does this REALITYcheck fellow, but you should make the decision based on what you want out of life.
_________________
Dignity isn't important. It's everything.

www.gorblimey.com - art

[REALITYcheck]

During most of the 20th century right up to say the early 90's, if you wanted to even work in a representational style you would have to have a thick skin because you'd inevitably experience ridicule. That is a fact.

Until the later part of the century you couldn't find a gallery to represent you. If you were able to organize your own exhibition, critics wouldn't review your work. If you were studying art in an art college or university, you were given lousy grades unless you painting from your inner depths i.e. abstract expression.

I know about Andrew Wyeth but he not only had his father 's fame to help him but he was richer than God. Even he had problems. When the Met agreed to an exhibit, the curators walked out because "realism is dead."

Normal Rockwell is only recently being praised as a true artist. Before that, he was dubed an illustrator which meant he was a working stiff and commercial art was a unfortunate necessity. It was a bastard child of art. Apparently that ate at Rockwell. And for good reason.

Why is it OK to produce representational art and even realism today?
Well, there are a lot of reasons. No one single reason.

Probably a new millennium encouraged change but I believe that the film industry and cgi had a powerful impact on the art world. Special effects require a realist perspective even if the characters are creatures. And of course, now cgi modelers and animators etc. are producing ultra realistic characters which are integrated into the film. People were/are impressed and that affects how they respond to all art.

There are more reasons that I want to cover. It gets tiring. Lack's "classical realists" did have an impact on the return of realist art but the ateliers are also growing as a result of a multitude of different factors.

At any rate, now it�s ok to express yourself realistically but the older crowd who either gave up in disgust or had a nasty time of it, remember. Some are bitter. It was stupid. A lot of modernists are still determined to deny the validity of representational art - maybe they feel threatened. They believed they dominated the art scene. They don't want to share the limelight. And the ARC is at the other end of the spectrum. They won't let it die - negativity rules and so you get these polarized groups and a lot of artists have to defend themselves because they paint a certain way and are immediately categorized as if they are part of this onging ridiculous battle.

A new generation and older people who have always taken a broader view and liked a lot of different movements, aren't interested in digging up all this old shit. They�re happy that people can finally just express themselves in any way they want to. These people include a lot of realists as well as abstract painters. They couldn't care less. Its not fair to immediately categorize people without asking them how they feel or even reading information that clarifies their positions.

Some of us absolutely love cgi and contemporary realist painting and sculpture and classical realism, all of it. We recognize that each has something to offer, including the training.

I think its bloody stupid to throw the baby out with the bathwater in order to make a point in favor of the kind of work YOU want to create. That's the proverbial "you" not anybody here.

A smart person takes the best of what is offered and learns the best tools to make them the best at what you do.

It is certainly relevant to develop keen observation skills, study anatomy and perspective etc. If character modelers were exposed to a broader range of traditional techniques including sculpture, it would make for a generation of some outstanding modelers.

If you Google you'll find that there are two Gottliebs in CA by the way. I found a filmography site for Gottlieb's brother. One went for a classical education and the other went for an MFA in cgi for special effects. The older brother is a lead modeler working for Giant Killer Robots - he's working on Fantastic Four according to a forum. He modeled the baby Hellboy character other characters for Hellboy. You'd have to look at his filmography to see other films he's worked on but he apparently also has done some gaming work.

I'm not interested in this stupid war which would be less of an issue if not for the determination of ARC's chairman and a few die hard abstract artists to keep it going ad infinitum. It�s over and done with for Cris sake.

Its time to use all the skill sets at one's disposal and master whatever type of work you do.

[fluO]

hehe i remember being mocked at, when i presented my portfolio at the 'Beaux Arts' ( french public school ) :"We dont do stuff like 'that' anymore"



on topic : Florence is a beautiful town if you dont mind the hordes of tourists !! And I hope you have a nice income, because it really aint cheap there.
_________________
- They're in the kidney bowls, next to the colostomy bag with the chilli sauce in it.
...
- This isn't a meal - this is an autopsy!

[REALITYcheck]

Florence has a rainy season starting in fall, and winter can be damp/cold. Not freezing but very damp.

The tourists arrive mostly in summer then disappear so the streets aren't full of people year 'round. During the academic year it isn't bad. Most people love the experience of having studied in Florence.

Used to be reasonable to live there. Most students share flats in town or get a group together and might rent a flat in Tuscany in one of the farmhouses. Gorgeous area and so rich in the arts everywhere. Etruscan, Roman, Menieval, Rennaissance etc.

It is expensive to live there today and the FAA is raising their tuition to almost $13K per year over a period of time. You can't work in Italy if you have a student visa although there are sometimes jobs at the studios but they don't pay very much. If you qualify as an instructor over time, you either pay reduced tuition or if you're a favorite you might get a scholarship but that's iffy.

[REALITYcheck]

Adrian Gottlieb is teaching from his private studio now. He teaches more than sight-size drawing technique by the way. His style is a hybrid of FAA and much more open to a wide variety of methods. He is also one of the best "colorists" I've ever seen - doesn't even look like he studied at FAA - Their color palette is so dark and almost sepia or grey. His is a naturalist palette.

Gottlieb Studios
1839 Blake Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90039-3806

[jfrancis]

It's not just a classical (representational) vs modern (abstract) divide -- There's also a "copy the model" vs "analyse the model" thing on the representational side.

I think if you want to be an animator or draw comics or illustrate from your imagination, you'll find Vilppu's approach more helpful -- even if it is an approach open to the criticism of "caricature."

[REALITYcheck]

None are best.

The trick is to study more than one approach and not to denegrate any one method.

Each has its applications. Broaden your abilities and perspectives.

[LadyHydralisk]

It would be an experience of a lifetime, I think. I have no qualms about studying realism. Until one studies classically from a model, with an open heart, over the course of several weeks, one can have no idea exactly why it is not just "copying". I know, I could not see the value in it before I experienced it, even though I read many artists stating the exact same thing I just did! Photographs are photographs and life is life. It is a distinct difference, like that between an opera and a soap opera on tv.

My style was, on the contrary, quite stiff and lifeless before my classical training. Now I feel I am just beginning to have the ability to add life and influence to my work. I was so frustrated before, it was all too neutered and powerless, like a highschool drawing.

If one's work is boring and stiff after a classical education, this is nothing that cannot be solved with meditation...imagine paying an art school to give you a personality...hahahahahhahaha! How idiotic! Though judging by the majority of humanity, I can appreciate their effort, and thank them for trying to relieve my boredom!


Now, digital workings, such as 3D animation, or concept art, this requires some broader education, but none that you can get at any art school at all, except for the overpriced schools that have grasped this industry, such as the AI's. Classical training does offer even a cursory knowledge of biology mechanics, in that dissecting a corpse, or remaking a human body is an oft-completed chore. I am just beginning to realize the value of this sort of an exercise, and am eager to try it...I would like to be able to draw/paint realistic strange and evil ugly things...by far one of the most difficult endeavors in realism, showing all of that exposed muscle and decay.

Some artists like to say they get inspiration, even in realism works from modernist figureheads. I find it silly, since much more abstract thought and weird, wild beauty can be drawn from nature, if one just takes the time to examine the bizarre planet we live on.

I don't give a damn about not denegrating dribbling paint on a canvas, scribbling and pasting construction paper on board and calling it an "art". Art is not so easily had, though in our society it's easy to see why some lazy schmuck, like thatr misogynist idiot, Picasso, might like to think that.

Our classical school actually encourages abstraction and stylization, and it is a school firmly rooted in classical roots going back in the lineage to Michaelangelo, Bouguereau, etcetera. It is well known that the masters of masters were more than just copying life down on a page, they were breathing life into it somehow. Each artist has his or her own personality, and this manifests in the work too, which is called "facteur" Most of the masters were able to abstract, so well in fact, that you might just believe Waterhouse convinced a real mermaid to pose for him!

The reality is, modernism is dying. Abstraction is alive and well, though, it is nothing that you cannot teach yourself, and perhaps, should teach yourself. Allowing some school to influence your precious individuality by forcing you to absorb their propaganda of what your art shouldn't be is foolhardy at best. Let the training be something you can use, not something which uses you, to furtherize a money-driven industry.

Naomi Chan

[watmough]

[pb]

[REALITYcheck]

I think his later works were embarassing. But most geniuses produce their best stuff in their earlier years. No matter the subject matter. Seems like they make their names in their youth through middle age.

[LadyHydralisk]

Picasso was never a master, or a genius. Just another con artist.One look at his works is enough to tell you that. Or one look at the intellect level of most of humanity...their desire to belong to the herd.

All masters improve with age, consistent across the board from painting to martial artists.

[Mikko K]

Ho aye ho hum

[Drunken Monkey]

LadyHydralisk,

Go take an art history course, a general sourvey of renaiisance to modern art will do. It will help to wash away the rust that has accumulated in the folds of your brain. Don't take this as an insult, i used to think just like you and even posted the same stuff you posted.

Picasso did a lot of things that you are unaware of. Maybe not for naturalistic painting, but for 2d design and material usage. He was one of the first for instance to start using everyday objects to integrate into his compositions. He would take a piece of fence, bolts and nuts and fuse them into the canvas with paint. Maybe this doesn't sound like something overly original now, but back then its was first of its kind. He was one of the fathers of 2D design afaic. All this stuff you see done in photoshop on software boxes and shampoo bottles... all started then.

And no not all masters improve with age, look at atheletes or boxers. Look at Monet, did he improve as he was nearly losing his sight at the end of his life? Look at Repin, he did a few EPIC works when he was young, but then nothing.

P.S.

Its funny, but i took 2 art courses one was early renaisanse to high renaissanse other was general survey, but with emphasis on modern art. Modern art course was heads and shoulders more intersting than uber realistic crap we had too look at during renaiisanse course. And i personally prefer realism still.
_________________
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" - Sigmund Freud

[LadyHydralisk]

Please don't assume I have not had art history courses. On top of reading every book in every library I've ever been too about art history, (trust me, I've been around) I've also taken course including art history under several teacher...modernist establishment teachers! I have simply had it! I come from a solid FAMILY foundation of abstractionist, and always grew up with a wonderment..."Why am I not smart enough to "getit"?" I asked myself, when viewing the horrid Peter Max oven mit my mother treasured.

Also, please refrain from personal insults (unless I'm mistaken in assuming Sijun is a civilized forum) Especially the part about "thinking like me" by far the worst insult you could ever give anyone, some kind of conversational terrorism I am sure. Thanks, I can have my own solid, alternatively based opinions and not copies of your past ideas.

Picasso did nothing I am unaware of. He was not original, he only sensationalized the ordinary. One can easily reference far more ancient unknown artists in ancient egypt who could just as easily represented the foray into this modern style...the penis statues of anubis, the geometric abstractions of the hieroglyphics. Hell we can even go to Scythian art for a VAST display of abstract, 2D imagery...then to Vedic India, etc. This is severely misrepresented in popular education and artist development courses. No, Picasso was not original. Personally I view him as a perpetual adolescent...accepted for it, never growing up, behaving and speaking contrary to any truth given to him, a rebel without a cause who made really ugly art and had a hissy fit whenever someone disagreed with him. Not "ugly" in a beautiful way, like Giger's work (drawn from nature herself), but ugly as in "Wtf that is totally gradeschool"

And then the sheep take the art history courses. Bahahahha!

Art teacher: "Blabla-so-and-so is a great artist, here is some of his work, let's compare it to these really awful examples of fat ruddy dutch nudes from the dark ages...."

Student "Durrrrr, okaaay"

On the News: "Blablabla, one of the greatest artists of all time...."

Public: "Hmm, well If I guess the tv says so, then he must be"

Dead memes in action, funded and nursed by those who want to jettison the consumer-capitalist relationship into light speed money-making levels. People, especially students, trust their teachers to give them a broad education, but we're starting to see this isn't the case. There is abuse in all levels of education, from the medical industry, to the art industry, to the computer industry.


Please, just stop insulting me, if you wish to continue this at all. I am asking nicely.

Picasso, with all his angsty woman beating sorrow, could never reproduce this grotesquerie...he simply hadn't the talent. Can we blame him for desperate circus acts in the shadow of the greatest master of the 19th century?



Dante et Virgile au Enfers
William Bouguereau
Oil on Canvas
1850

[Drunken Monkey]

Don't tell me you can't appreciate this abstraction:

_________________
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" - Sigmund Freud