tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post811810856605397333..comments2024-03-18T11:06:05.506-04:00Comments on ILLUSTRATION ART: STYLEDavid Apatoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comBlogger144125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-59884429316245848522014-05-26T08:20:36.531-04:002014-05-26T08:20:36.531-04:00Liimlsan-- Thanks for sharing these, I hadn't ...Liimlsan-- Thanks for sharing these, I hadn't seen them. Looks like you picked a good house to grow up in.David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-49589503230302701622014-05-24T22:08:13.472-04:002014-05-24T22:08:13.472-04:00Oh god, Carter Goodrich is an inspiration. He drew...Oh god, Carter Goodrich is an inspiration. He drew my father's book covers, and I grew up with the originals of these two paintings hanging in my dining room.<br /><br />http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ksbEJCEPPX8/TiVP3fYNG0I/AAAAAAAAAuQ/WMqjB6CXfIg/s1600/Once%2BUpon%2Ba%2BMore%2BEnlightened%2BTime.bmp https://chaoglobal.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/120720102293-001.jpg <br />I spent many a childhood staring at these paintings trying to figure out... well, drawings, the colored chalk... how he built these up? You can't see it in the reproduction very well, but the original Sleeping Beauty, the shaft of light and its powerful streak across the image, the gorgeous neutralized hatchings on the cloth, the panoply of colors in the characters' fur! <br />(The Frog Prince is a caricature of my dad, fun fact.)<br /><br />I thought you'd enjoy this. Someday, when I gain skill with an art camera, I intend to take them out of reflective frame and try to capture the light and joy I saw as a kid looking at an original Goodrich. But I can testify, Goodrich's anatomy is pure caricature, and it feels right at a visceral level. <3Liimlsanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14477319514152606005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-67541200216266393592014-05-14T09:34:14.452-04:002014-05-14T09:34:14.452-04:00sorry about thatsorry about thatsean farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-50760402334441415062014-05-14T09:32:52.659-04:002014-05-14T09:32:52.659-04:00etc. etc.,
Yes, but Degas was far more complicated...etc. etc.,<br />Yes, but Degas was far more complicated than meets the eye. Wonder on the highlights on the Dancers in Entrance of the Masked Dancers. <br /><br />Artists did continue, after Degas, to set their paintings up on grids and use multiple diagonals and other devices to connect, stabilize or create / assist movement, but only far less so and with less complexity. Such was replaced with simpler things like the golden rectangle and other sophisticated stuff, but the problems in the newer pictures weren't spatial, but were more to do with graphic solutions to the picture plane for basically graphic images.<br /><br />Norman Rockwell was one those who continued to set his images up with designs to resolve spatial pictures on the picture plane. He wasn't alone, but the number of people making ambitious spatial pictures dropped rapidly as the century bustled along. By the 1970s, almost everything was being designed as a graphic image, (and traced). <br /><br />So when young artists in the 1980s were dropping the photos and started to draw out of their heads, many of whom were doing cartoons and stuff like Goodrich, it was completely refreshing. It also meant it might be time to go back to the beginning and figure out some of the stuff that got lost, because the cartoons could only reproduce themselves and still are after thirty years.SeanFarrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-67679482047606421332014-05-14T09:32:01.529-04:002014-05-14T09:32:01.529-04:00etc. etc.,
Yes, but Degas was far more complicated...etc. etc.,<br />Yes, but Degas was far more complicated than meets the eye. Wonder on the highlights on the Dancers in Entrance of the Masked Dancers. <br /><br />Artists did continue, after Degas, to set their paintings up on grids and use multiple diagonals and other devices to connect, stabilize or create / assist movement, but only far less so and with less complexity. Such was replaced with simpler things like the golden rectangle and other sophisticated stuff, but the problems in the newer pictures weren't spatial, but were more to do with graphic solutions to the picture plane for basically graphic images.<br /><br />Norman Rockwell was one those who continued to set his images up with designs to resolve spatial pictures on the picture plane. He wasn't alone, but the number of people making ambitious spatial pictures dropped rapidly as the century bustled along. By the 1970s, almost everything was being designed as a graphic image, (and traced). <br /><br />So when young artists in the 1980s were dropping the photos and started to draw out of their heads, many of whom were doing cartoons and stuff like Goodrich, it was completely refreshing. It also meant it might be time to go back to the beginning and figure out some of the stuff that got lost, because the cartoons could only reproduce themselves and still are after thirty years.SeanFarrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-1386229932217791272014-05-14T09:29:54.346-04:002014-05-14T09:29:54.346-04:00etc. etc.,
Yes, but Degas was far more complicated...etc. etc.,<br />Yes, but Degas was far more complicated than meets the eye. Wonder on the highlights on the Dancers in Entrance of the Masked Dancers. <br /><br />Artists did continue, after Degas, to set their paintings up on grids and use multiple diagonals and other devices to connect, stabilize or create / assist movement, but only far less so and with less complexity. Such was replaced with simpler things like the golden rectangle and other sophisticated stuff, but the problems in the newer pictures weren't spatial, but were more to do with graphic solutions to the picture plane for basically graphic images.<br /><br />Norman Rockwell was one those who continued to set his images up with designs to resolve spatial pictures on the picture plane. He wasn't alone, but the number of people making ambitious spatial pictures dropped rapidly as the century bustled along. By the 1970s, almost everything was being designed as a graphic image, (and traced). <br /><br />So when young artists in the 1980s were dropping the photos and started to draw out of their heads, many of whom were doing cartoons and stuff like Goodrich, it was very refreshing. It also meant it might be time to go back to the beginning and figure out some of the stuff that got lost, because the cartoons could only reproduce themselves and they still are after thirty years.SeanFarrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-66218925304651322772014-05-14T08:15:41.770-04:002014-05-14T08:15:41.770-04:00Sean,
I don't think Degas employed Italian de...Sean,<br /><br />I don't think Degas employed Italian devices nearly as much as the Italians themselves did; but obviously his work was informed by photography and more modern looking, and much in his subject matter that would appeal to a romantic spirit such as yours.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-88208660663918499352014-05-14T00:23:34.906-04:002014-05-14T00:23:34.906-04:00etc. etc.
PS: As invisible as such devices usuall...etc. etc.<br />PS: As invisible as such devices usually were, they did have an effect on what people came to understand as the style of Degas. His art in much of this was truly hidden.Sean Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-69277110219644036882014-05-14T00:18:59.977-04:002014-05-14T00:18:59.977-04:00etc. etc.
That's funny, but also the devices c...etc. etc.<br />That's funny, but also the devices certainly helped where extensive planning was valuable, such as Michelangelo's Pieta, 1498.<br /><br />What made Degas so interesting is that he was perhaps the culmination of such Italian devices and applied them in such ingenious ways as part of the western solutions to the eastern picture, Cezanne's graphic solutions to the eastern picture were embraced and the ball just rolled onward from there as if the horizon line and many formal devices for bringing the representational image to the picture plane never happened.<br /><br />Existing schools of thought seem to have gotten dismissed along with Degas. As Degas' solution to the eastern image was revived in mid-century illustration, it returned largely without the complex formalist mechanisms which characterized his most ambitious compositions.<br /><br />But, it would be hard to say that Degas's use of such devises were integral to a subject's form because because Degas often decorated the surfaces of his subjects to accommodate the devices. In other words, they were not always placed according to something of the figure's substance, but did so as either to stabilize or create movement through attachments. Yet they were very effective to his intentions.<br />Sean Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-57397813938294637132014-05-13T22:14:41.698-04:002014-05-13T22:14:41.698-04:00There are numerous formal things artists do afterw...<i>There are numerous formal things artists do afterwards to adjust their paintings and drawings which don't actually relate to the form of the subject matter.</i>.<br /><br />Sean,<br /><br />Yes, and in much Italian Baroque/Rococo the "formal things" can take precedence over the subject matter; to combine Kev's "expressive distortion" and a Spinal Tap reference, their amps went to 11.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-1031979912428492422014-05-13T22:01:39.619-04:002014-05-13T22:01:39.619-04:00etc., etc.
Thanks, I appreciate the reference ver...etc., etc. <br />Thanks, I appreciate the reference very much. <br /><br />There are numerous formal things artists do afterwards to adjust their paintings and drawings which don't actually relate to the form of the subject matter. Little things like adjusting some tone in a shape of wall which otherwise might be popping too much. The pulling together of a picture often involves a fair amount of adjusting of this nature.<br /><br />I can only guess Degas added devices afterwards and other times saw opportunities as he was going along and still on some occasions, saw an entire premise he may have discovered there for the development at the outset. There's no way to know when and how he applied various devices, but it's probably fair to conclude he didn't apply them as he was doing life drawings and studying scenes and character poses, because by their nature they required full attention and the devises addressed the overall picture, the linkage of things, etc. possibly in relation to a preliminary sketch based of an existing scene, or existing parts of a scene.<br />Sean Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-2954916714854988172014-05-13T21:53:28.194-04:002014-05-13T21:53:28.194-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-40601778720013173952014-05-13T21:47:47.023-04:002014-05-13T21:47:47.023-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-61466899997965440122014-05-13T21:31:37.516-04:002014-05-13T21:31:37.516-04:00Sean,
O.k. Thanks for clarifying. By the way wha...Sean,<br /><br />O.k. Thanks for clarifying. By the way what you are describing in the second paragraph above is actually a centuries old design principle, going back even to Greek vases, and was referred to as <i>linee occulte</i> by Sebastiano Serlio in his architectural treatises.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-13397408270105256482014-05-13T20:19:06.763-04:002014-05-13T20:19:06.763-04:00sorry: but they are not readily noticeablesorry: but they are not readily noticeableSean Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-9142550521242704452014-05-13T20:15:34.209-04:002014-05-13T20:15:34.209-04:00etc. etc.
Form is on the surface of the picture as...etc. etc.<br />Form is on the surface of the picture as is subject matter. Subject matter is form on the surface, but form doesn't have to be subject matter, though to lend itself to believability it must be both. That is what was established.<br /><br />The work of Degas is teeming with form which isn't subject matter and is form only by invisible lines established between points. Something very similar is at work in the beautiful rhythmic lines in the Gannam watercolor advertisements for St. Mary's Blankets and earlier examples of Gannam's work on this site. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/leifpeng/259664756St." rel="nofollow"> Here is one from Inspiration for the Day. </a><br /><br />The invisible lines have a characteristic of being virtual which is quite different than the materials they flow over and the lines as established in the form of the blankets, etc. flow beyond their initial material boundaries and then through other materials. At certain times, the lines can share both virtual and material characteristics. <br /><br />So my answer is no, forms can be quite distinct from matter, even if as invisible lines they may be established by as little as two small dots, or short accents. Such are just examples. Formal devices may also be established in the form of the subject matter as they are in the folds of the Gannam, but they not readily noticeable to the viewer and extend beyond themselves across space, etc. Such formal devices can possess pictorial strength which exceeds the material strength of elements in the picture.Sean Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-85736141960885953892014-05-13T17:37:02.385-04:002014-05-13T17:37:02.385-04:00Sean, Kev, and Laurence,
Aren't all three of ...Sean, Kev, and Laurence,<br /><br />Aren't all three of you basically in agreement that form cannot be separated from matter to any meaningful degree?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-87879418336732994772014-05-13T17:33:52.988-04:002014-05-13T17:33:52.988-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-18858833835845465572014-05-13T16:48:56.678-04:002014-05-13T16:48:56.678-04:00Thank you Kev. I appreciate what you have written...Thank you Kev. I appreciate what you have written. Form and function, very nice and you have made your points increasingly clearer as you continue to write about them. Giving you a run for your money is part of what you get for introducing something new. But it strikes me that your audience is sincerely trying to understand you.<br /><br />The dog, the fire, the flying baby, the snake, our allowing ourselves to experience fear, were just props to distinguish in the end, form from subject matter and form as subject matter. A stretch of bumbling which would never have happened had the issue not been forced/stimulated by yourself. Every now and then some words land as a sentence that makes some sense.Sean Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-69981242194244026592014-05-13T15:42:20.829-04:002014-05-13T15:42:20.829-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-861847725037169842014-05-13T15:40:10.418-04:002014-05-13T15:40:10.418-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-5826752008936185522014-05-13T15:32:49.655-04:002014-05-13T15:32:49.655-04:00Thank you Laurence, but Kev deserves credit for dr...Thank you Laurence, but Kev deserves credit for driving the issue. I've learned plenty from him in this area.Sean Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-30819384897790129002014-05-13T15:07:50.510-04:002014-05-13T15:07:50.510-04:00Sean, you're the first person who seems to hav...Sean, you're the first person who seems to have comprehended the question i posed with regard to the Cornwell picture (and your conclusion is the same as mine). Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-86003191043064672862014-05-13T15:06:49.593-04:002014-05-13T15:06:49.593-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-46346848401183189102014-05-13T14:39:22.742-04:002014-05-13T14:39:22.742-04:00Kev, Everything in a picture is part of form, then...Kev, Everything in a picture is part of form, then what is subject matter? Since it is part of the picture it is also part of form. A dog looking at an image of its owner on the edge of a cliff won't bark to warn him because the dog senses the picture is not three dimensional, real, at least I don't suspect a dog would mistake the painting for its owner. <br /><br />The dog would warn his owner if his house was on fire though. A person though understands what the form represents and so they allow themselves to experience the man on a cliff as in danger, as in danger of consequence, though it is all artifice, forms on a flat surface. <br /><br />If the same image were reduced to linear shapes on a canvas with similar mood created by lighting, the same effect might be created, but as the shapes representing the person on the cliff broke down to something indiscernible, the drama would be greatly lessened, possibly to a yawn. <br /><br />So if a baby is floating around with wings. The viewer doesn't allow themselves to be traumatized by the prospect of circumstance, because there is acceptance that the baby is okay. But if the baby is resting in a bird's nest and a giant python is about to snatch it, the viewer might allow the danger of consequence to result as an experience of fear.<br />If we are looking at the tension of two forms of shape, which don't identically represent anything, the viewer is probably not going to allow themselves to experience the threat of consequence the same way, even though the setting is all present and we see the actual tension of and between the two shapes. <br /><br />Though expressed through forms, the willingness to experience the threat of consequence is allowed or disallowed by the viewer. Consequence then is external to the actual picture and in the mind of the viewer, it is not in the actual form, but the translation. Yes, I know you understand that.<br /><br />Okay, but the mind doesn't relate to pure formalism as real consequence, but only allows itself to experience or relate to consequence when the form becomes subject matter. Subject matter allows the viewer to experience the form and the consequence, but without the form as subject, the sense of consequence is lost. Really violent formal modern art may appear as a wall that needs a new coat of paint, but to experience it as form alone still requires an allowance to indulge in it as form.<br /><br />Believability then requires that form be subject matter as well as form. Sean Farrellnoreply@blogger.com