[Wayne Johnson]

HaRdC0rePixxX,

You make a good point, but the problem I have found in breaking up values into four, is there is no middle Hat Hanger value. nothing neutral in value.

I do however like breaking it into four because there is more to work with..

the other points,

You said " cezanne and other painters didn't have technical knowledge"

Cezanne was a scientist, much like Suerat, they studied color like a science and approched it from a scientific point of view. His painting were more experiments in color than paintings, See Faber Birren's "Principles of Color" and "Creative Color" for more on that.

You also said

"Wayne, i don't believe in your absolute Truth.
i'm one of those that creep in the shadows like you put it.
i'd rather stay in the shadows and keep looking for new questions than be enlightned in the One and Only Truth and only look for answers to questions that others make for me. "

The following is absolute truth and requires no belief from anyone, It is how the human eye works. It's how we see, Unless your from neptune and have a third eye on a stalk then this is how it works, barring injury or defect to the eye, this is how everyone sees.

I said,
"Why, Well hear comes that Truth stuff again.

The human eye only works one way, it can only focuse on one thing at a time. It moves so fast and focuses so fast, some assume that the human eye sees everything in focuse, but that is not true. Some who use photography are tricked into thinking that the photo is real, or true. But infact the photo is a lie. Wildlife art is an example of what I'm talking about. The camera can set its depth of field to infinate and everything can be seen in crystal clear clarity. But the human eye does not see that way." See Creative Illustration for more on that.

thanks for the discussion



_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Tomasis]

wayne johnsson, what do you say about rembrandt and velazquez works? do you can compare both artists?
_________________
out

[Akolyte]

Jason Manley says to paint from life.
_________________
-jm

[Wayne Johnson]

Tomasis,

you wrote,
wayne johnsson, what do you say about rembrandt and velazquez works? do you can compare both artists?

Valazquez, is probubly one of the best examples of brevity and simplicity, next to Sargent, did you know that Manet traveled to the Prado in Spain just to copy a Rose that had five petals and Valazquez painted it in only four strokes! His abbriviation and simplification of detail is almost unserpassed, and that is one thing that most digital painters can learn from, Alot of digital work is photo realistic.

Rembrant is another matter. His work is the sublime! his use and understanding of Light striking form in space is revalatory! His deep spirital expression in his paintings is next to that of Bach's in his music.

It has been said of Rembrandts worK: "There is more truth, more religion, more of the stuff that makes life worth living, in an ounce of Rembrants beef, than in a mile of guido renies angels"

The secret to rembrants luster is the sequencing of his color. Pure color in highlight, Rich shades in mid tone, and Black in shadow, on a black BG.
See above mentioned Birren books.

Later

_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Ragnarok]

Wayne I think you're missing the main point of hpx's post.

I've been in El Prado and watched some of the best paintings of Vel�zquez and I didn't look at the strokes once. I stood about five minutes just feeling. That's the point.
_________________
"Ever forward, my darling wind." -Master Yuppa
Seigetsu

[Drew]

[AndyT]

Drew: I think what he meant is that the eye is kinda build like a camera, but it doesn't work that way.
I think he's right! The eye doesn't actually create images that sharp.
The illusion of seeing a sharp "picture" is just created because the eye "moves fast and focuses fast".
Just as he said.
And I think he meant the eye beats the camera ... I don't know why ... maybe because of the depth perception!?
I might be wrong though.
_________________
http://www.conceptworld.org

[_mario]

Just one question to Wayne Johnson:
Why are you so focused on just two illustrators?
Today there is so much variety of ways to describe something on a canvas or screen (whatever you use).
Why just focus on two people?
Why claim that they way istheonly one to go?
During this whole topic you have accused others of hacking at you but at the same time are you ignoring that other people use other ways to paint and describe on the canvas.

You are writing about the "one true way" but we are talking about illustration and painting.
There are many ways that are all possible and still true.
Your way of starting a "discussion" only resulted in some angry people because you showed yourself somehow very narrow minded (from my point of view) and and some confused people who didn't know where to start this "discussion" because you were just dropping some texts like bombs; massive and without aim.
some little discussions have started but you could havehad it easier.

and "Pyle was the Father of American Illustration":
He may be the father of American Illustration but there is more illustration onother continets, andbeing fatherof illustationdoesn't make him the father of Art or Design or anything.
That's just a title give to him for his great work.
My opinion:
With your focus you are totally restricting yourself.
You find his theories fascinating; well nice for you butin my opinion you should read about some other theories and other artists or illustrators
you could find something else that you like even more and probably something that new that you think is true.
what would have happenend if mankind never evolved and tried new stuff (in art and science): mankindwouls have stopped in the middle of 'evolution'

i don't know if you ever read anything else besides work by your two 'heroes' but it souns like you didn't and i just hope that i am totally wrong with this asumption.

If you really want a discussion then start a totally new topic that focuses on one part and not the whole theory. That way the discussion can stay focused and won't be interrupted my other subplots of the discussion.

and one thing to always remember:
other people can have other opinions and that a discussion is about sharing and 'evolving' with the additional information, it's not about saying: "i am right, you are wrong" (even if it may look like that sometimes )

my respect to you for managing to stay so focused on one thing for such a long time but some people want to base their painting (or whatever you want to put here) on many different things and not just "the one way"

so finally:
sorry for any typos and spelling mistakes but it's 4 am here and english is not my primary language

[HaRdC0rePixxX]

first a small parenthesis about cezanne :
. you're right, he's works are basically experiments.
. what i meant by 'technical knowledge' is 'classical knowledge'. the guy didn't study classical art, he learnt by copying (he obviously had some drawing flaws, perspective issues and stuff), whereas Seurat studied art @ les Beaux Arts of paris.
and classical refers to the aesthetics of beauty, the aesthetics principles inherited from greco-roman culture, neoclassism and renaissance stuff to an extend (i know it's kind of 'rough' but you get the point i think).
. i choose cezanne because he's considered by some as the father of modernism. he started with impressionism-like pictures, then did a bunch of classical paintings, then moved to what wan be described as the earlier stages of cubism.
. his main concern was the ACT of painting, before the 'subject of matter'. Form over Content.
. i used 'meaning' instead on 'concept' that is more appropriate. so basically, his concept is to explore the graphic aspects of paint before depicting a subject. that was a new approach to painting. The end of classical symbolism.

so basically, that's one of the painter that had this concern about science and art. (modernism started that way if i'm not wrong. dump all the classical/historical art stuff and look for new grounds to explore based on progress, science, etc...)
lots of these painters used the first premisces of the Gestalt Theory as a basis for their experiments.
and F. Birren's books are also closely linked to the Gestalt T.
(i suppose that's why you pointed me to his work, that i happen to know)

so let's continue from here :

you say "The human eye only works one way" -->
yes and no. (and i've read creative illustration)

"... it can only focuse on one thing at a time" -->
right.
there are even perception 'laws' that seem to work :
ie. hierarchy / group theory :
. we see big groups before individual elements (when we read, we tend to see the whole shape of the word before individual letters. that's why we are able to read known words faster than unknown languages)
. we tend to assimilate similar shapes in groups
. spacing enables grouping, etc...
(lots of more laws in the Gestalt Theory, i've talked about that matter in a previous thread. scale, contrast, etc...)

now this works because the eye operates along with the brain.
there are no pure images, only representations.

the eye may 'only work in one way', but you can't take the eye as a lone device. everyone does not perceive things the same way. We, as painters, try to order things so as people see our point.
Cognitive science studies this eye/brain connexion (for a part. it's also about language, culture, psychosociology...).

cognitive psychology is not a Pure Science. let's say it's still work in progress.
the fact is, that in the last few years, cognitive sciencists have demonstrated that the Gestalt Theory is incomplete, and sometime false. things are more complex. (no wonder, Gestalt is like late 19th, beginning of 20th century after all). just take a cognitive psychology book and read past the first two chapters (usually the ones about the perceptive system and the gestalt theory).

so of course there are basic rules.
that's why we learn them in art school and then teach them to art students.

all i'm saying is that i don't believe in a One and Only Thruth.
because if there's a Truth, there's no need to look any further.

that means the earth would still be fucking flat, all figures would still be flat dead 2D profiles shapes like in egyptian frescos and all...

now, i'm not saying we should dump all the previous knowledge, quite the contrary.
of course, one should strives to get better understanding of his field, learn and improve his skills and knowledge.
but there's more than only one way of doing so.
some people (including me) learnt anatomy via the X-Men, Spiderman or Sienkiewicz (yeah, that guy is a super hero too), and i've been learning color using spraycans instead of books (ok, after that i've been though the 'classic' datas, even if that part doesn't show up a lot in my work)
by eliminating people that didn't read Pyle or Loomis, you are acting elitist (i assume that as a teacher, you voluntarily reduce the range of the topic to Loomis, Birren and Pyle)
that's my main concern.
"read these then you have the right to talk."
by extent, "learn this, then you can draw".

nope.
_________________
Wet tentacles, horny chixxx & scary designs
www.hpx1.com

[liv the fish]

[Wayne Johnson]

HaRdC0rePixxX,

Are you talking about recognition factors, like

the first thing we recognize is geometric shapes, the second is natural shapes, and the third is abstract shapes.

Is that what your talking about?

If so I agree. I am talking less from a perceptionist point of view and more from a physics point of view. Have you read Birrens Color Perception in Art?

I am more interested in telling the truth about light striking form in space, and as Loomis says, "don't fake the light" so I will use photography to get the "Shadow Patterns" right, and allow natural "Shadow Patterns" to crate the design for me. My current work which is not posted is all value studies from life where I simplify natures values to create design.

As far as feeling and emotion are concered you can use loomis's Emotion of line in the first part of Creative illustration. Horizontal=peace calm rest death. Vertical = power honor , repect strength, Oblique = clash, action, motion, combat, ect.

The field you put your work in helps emotion as well. Horizontal or vertical.

Are you familure with Pressure Psycology?

As for Drew. We have two eyes. Binacular vision, a camera has only one lense, thus the image is not true to the way the human eye physically see's the world, thus the photo is a lie. I'm not saying it should not be used but it is not true to the way we see the world. It is an abstraction.

As for _mario, Pyle is the Father of American Illustration. He is the beginning
for american Illustration. I am only interested in American Art from 1889, to the present and with primaraly the American Illustrators. I am not looking for a European look or style or emotion, I am not looking for an Eastern look, style, or emotion, I am interested in American Art and artists, that forwards an american Idea. Pyle is the beginning of that, Loomis is the next step, then John Pike. there are tons of other great american Illustrators and painters, but the topic is "the importance of howard Pyle and the Loomis connection."

But lets move on, Allowing natural "Shadow Patterns" to be design., HaRdC0rePixxX what do you think?
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Zwaeback]

Wayne,

You said:
"But lets move on, Allowing natural "Shadow Patterns" to be design., HaRdC0rePixxX what do you think?"

Natural shadow patterns have value, like everything else in the picture, so why wouldn't they be a part of the design as everything else is?

[Drew]

[Wayne Johnson]

Zwaeback,

well what I mean is this. In doing a value study I would first link all of the darks together as much as possible so as to pick them up in one piece.
In doing so I have created "Linkage and Passage through the Design and used the "shadow Patterns" as natural visual pathways.
Then I would work out my lights and Mids. Is this how anyone else works?

Loomis then goes on to say that a "small light on a medium dark and both on a gray field is design.

What he is talking about is value patterns. There are four Area Oriented Value patterns. Light on dark and both on gray BG, Dark on light and both on gray BG, Light on gray BG, and Dark on gray BG.

Edgar Whitney discovered this in the 30's I believe. He took 100 of the greatest masterworks and found them to all fall into 3 catagories of value patterns.

1. Plane oriented value patterns

2. Area Oriented Value Patterns

3. Surface Patterns.

Out of all, 75% of the paintings were one of the four Area oriented value patterns.

His experiment is reprinted in "Water Color Portraiture", by O'Hara, Walker, Short. And Tony Couch "Water Color you can do it!"
Loomis also explains a simaler method but uses four steps of value instead of three.

Any one else Paint like that?
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Zwaeback]

[Wayne Johnson]

for those who know not of Pyle here is a good site.

http://www.bpib.com/pyle.htm

Later
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[AliasMoze]

The irony in art training is that you're trying to use words and the intellectual process to describe abstract stuff. I mean, isn't that why we have art in the first place, to describe indescribable things? Not sure if it's ironic or a paradox...

I'm not saying training and education are not important, but I think they are minor parts of a good artist's mind. It's sorta like astrophysics. The really smart guys get educated, but it AIN'T the education that makes them great; they were great already. Me, you could tell me about that stuff all day, and I could learn it all, but I'd never be a Stephen Hawking. That's the difference between personal understanding and education.

[AliasMoze]

[Wayne Johnson]

Is art there to describe abstract things? I don't believe art is there to describe the abstract I believe it it used to help people see the great truths in life. Is it the artists job to show people things that are abstract to them or is it to help them see the every day things in a new way?

This is a big question. Also what is the purpose of art. Is it to educate? Is it to promote ideas? alot of artist use art to promote a cultural divercity, or a political agenda, or a sexual preferance. Art today is used as a propaganda device, to sell you something.

Here is the big kiker... Art is excrement!

Art has no purpose. Art is simply what is left over when the person has expressed himself. Art is useless. Art has no utilitarian function. as soon as it does it is no longer art its something else.

So what is your definition of art? I have been to some orginizations where they define art and artists as anyone who calles themself an artist is one.

Is that right?

Has anyone read Hogarths anatomy book, I mean really read it? the beginning is a discussion he has about the Dualisum of art and science. the lack of definition, and standards, and any thing that would require art to be a proffession.

this book was written in 1957, at the hight of the modern movement. He makes some hard arguments about what art has become next to what art has always been. Now for those of you who don't read I'm sorry. but for those of you who care about the "Craft" maybe you should check it out.

As to what AliasMoze said.

"The irony in art training is that you're trying to use words and the intellectual process to describe abstract stuff. I mean, isn't that why we have art in the first place, to describe indescribable things? Not sure if it's ironic or a paradox...

I'm not saying training and education are not important, but I think they are minor parts of a good artist's mind. It's sorta like astrophysics. The really smart guys get educated, but it AIN'T the education that makes them great; they were great already. Me, you could tell me about that stuff all day, and I could learn it all, but I'd never be a Stephen Hawking. That's the difference between personal understanding and education."

As to that I have this to say,

Late in his life Van Gogh said "Oh these laws and priciples of color...if only I had learned them in my youth."

nuff said.
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[amichaels]

I think most real artists before they ever known anything about color, composition and whatnot, already have an eye for it. It's like people who can look at a picture hanging on the wall and tell you if it's straight or not. They don't NEED a level because they're sort of spacially gifted in the first place.

[Mon]

[HaRdC0rePixxX]

i feel tired.
_________________
Wet tentacles, horny chixxx & scary designs
www.hpx1.com

[Wayne Johnson]

Mon,

Van Gogh was saying that he wished he had lerned the fundamentals of color in his youth so he could go further in his painting. Van Gogh started as a painter late in his life, he was training to be a minister. After failing to do well in that proffession he became a painter, where he studyied the fundamentals and academic art.
Even Van Gogh the champion of modern art stressed the learning of academic knowlege. Late in his life!

As far as the excrement part, what i ment is this. Art has no utilitarian purpose. It is what is left over when an artist is done. It's the shit in the toilet.
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Lunatique]

[amichaels]

Well Wayne, that's a really terrible way to think about something many of us have devoted our lives too. I hate that philisophical bull. Art is a product of our passions for it, it's what we create. Not some philisophical burger we digest and crap out on the page.

[Wayne Johnson]

I'm not trying to demean art, I am simply trying to state that Art has no utilitarian function, no political, alternative lifestyle, geopolitical, enviromental purpose. and those people who use thier gift on people to educate or attack are not making art.

It's propaganda.

Art is what is left behind after the artist has expressed them self. that can be viewed by others and may even inspire others to try to achieve the same thing. But the art itself serves no purpose. If you approch your art that way you won't fall into the catagory of propaganda.

Do any of you know the differance between art and entertainment, and art and propaganda(pornography)?

Entertainment, lets you escape from your self. (forget your self)

Art, makes you look inside your self. (sometimes seeing things you don't want to know about yourself, or reveiling things about you, you didn't know you had.)

Propaganda, serves an agenda to persuade you into thinking a specific way.(brain washing you)

Pornogrophy, makes you want something. (covet something. Advertisement in a way is pornogrophy)
_________________
Art is long and time is fleeting.

Andrew loomis

[Tomasis]

Wayne Johnson, what are you doing in your life?

will you become a famous painter or critic? What do you will use your large and valuable knowledge to? Write a lot biographies of several famous painters?

I'm just curious because you seem to know a lot. You might be something great.
_________________
out

[needles]

i just had to register after reading through this thread...

wayne, i dont know if youre aware of this.. but its horribly rude of you to tell people 'what' to draw. If you want to see 'hope, valor and compassion' then paint it.

If you think something is 'filth' or 'perverse', it does not matter.. its just not your cup of tea.. please move on. I believe creating art is one of the greatest freedoms we have. Dont impose your beliefs on other people. Im not saying you cant get upset at some art, but you cant tell those artists what to create. Preaching on these forums about what kind of art you hate seems kinda immature.

I would love to hear how old you are. It would give me (and a lot of others here) a better perspective of where you are coming from...

edit: oh and thanks for defining 'art' for all of us.. now that youve figured it out we can sit back and relax..

[amichaels]

Well, I don't draw pictures or sculpt or paint because I am trying to say something. Not all artists have some message or NEED to express heart wrenching emotion. I do it because I love it. Even if no one likes what I do and I will never amount to anything. I do it because I am driven to do so for no other reason than the action itself. I don't have a message. I don't need to share my pain or heap my emotional baggage on anyone else. I draw, therefore I am.

[Mon]

Wayne,

I don't share your views. I don't think that art can be separated from propaganda or anything else, and that art can be all those things at the same time. That art exists outside the artist, and that the perception of the artwork is altered depending on the context.

I don't use a definition of art because I don't need one. I go with gut feeling, you should try it, it's quite liberating.

But this is not getting anywhere.
_________________
www.mattiassnygg.com
Blog!