tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post8705267726475810025..comments2024-03-28T18:17:09.618-04:00Comments on ILLUSTRATION ART: MUSEUM OF ABSTRACT ART AND 1950s WOMEN'S HAIRDavid Apatoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-2762523235193351222019-04-17T10:20:24.433-04:002019-04-17T10:20:24.433-04:00Thanks for the clarification Kev, very much apprec...Thanks for the clarification Kev, very much appreciated.chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-33581519169686200402019-04-16T16:30:27.122-04:002019-04-16T16:30:27.122-04:00Yes, I think these are two different things.
Blu...Yes, I think these are two different things. <br /><br />Blur, I would say, is a kind of indiscriminate smearing applied with little, if any, thought. The result is vagueness. And aside from that vagueness, there is no other meaning to it. Often it is used to elide difficulties, to fudge. Sometimes it is used to try to bring photographic qualities to imaginative painted works as a fun kind of trick.<br /><br />A somewhat smooth transition on a face by Ingres is never fudging, nor applied randomly. The structural form in his work, while very subtle, is very strong and clear. The blending makes sense in the structural context, it is clear what he is trying to do and it works. Ingres, Degas, Dewing, Inness, DaVinci... are all using various methods of creating transitions areas to create feelings, which is why if you look at the transitions of each, all are different and identifiable. <br /><br />The discombobulation thing is very current. For the most part it is not smeary. I guess my take on it is something like; Anything that looks good but does not convey meaning is design. kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-55371247387859642362019-04-16T15:01:13.853-04:002019-04-16T15:01:13.853-04:00I ask this because although sfumato, blending and ...I ask this because although sfumato, blending and scumbling are used to simulate effects that occur in the natural world (for example; the side of a cheek or the value transitions in an evening sky) they are also used to wilfully summarize forms as well. This is employed to a large degree in the work of Dewing and to a varying extent in Degas. I consider both artists are successfully using it to serve very definite aesthetic aims. <br /><br />With regard to this I think the increasing adoption of a style of painting that art critics have coined the terms 'discombobulation', 'Kanevskyfication' or 'interrupted realism' is also serving the need to summarize areas of a painting. But like the 'out of focus' effects of sfumato, blending and scumbling it is also prone to the same sloppy misuse.chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-71137434670570547622019-04-16T13:49:03.872-04:002019-04-16T13:49:03.872-04:00Blur rightly is frowned upon in art (as a general ...<b>Blur rightly is frowned upon in art (as a general matter) because it is mostly slovenly in expression, rather than poetic, which makes it an aesthetic and artistic drag. Although now and again, when used in just the right place, it can be amazing.</b><br /><br />Are you making a distinction between straightforward 'blur' (as in, say, the blur tool in Photoshop) and effects like sfumato, blending and scumbling one finds in, for example; Leonardo, Igres and Inness?chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-79772489074663276792019-04-15T18:25:14.602-04:002019-04-15T18:25:14.602-04:00Seeing that the vast majority of the color cones a...Seeing that the vast majority of the color cones are centrally located, it's easy to think of the peripheral reduction in color like photoshop desaturation. Like; as elements move into peripheral vision they become gray. But it seems not to work like pigment being grayed down. There are still enough cones at 60° and further out to see any color just as it looks. The lesser feeling of color seems to be due to a reduction in the number of receptors, each of which sees fine on its own. So its an issue of signal strength, not a change in the signal. Similar to how a Db is a Db whether played softly or loudly, whether heard in one ear or two. Which seems to explain why, in the experiments, simply enlarging the color stimulus in the periphery results in the same ease of identification as the same color normal size in central vision. kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-12125335447915142952019-04-15T13:44:29.763-04:002019-04-15T13:44:29.763-04:00> Objects also become less colorful as they rea...> Objects also become less colorful as they reach our vision's periphery.<br /><br />Is this true? I've heard it said, but I can't perceive that effect.<br /><br />I've even heard that a number of opticians suggest that human vision is dichromatic at the edge of our field of vision. <br /><br />Yet, as I sit here dumbly holding brightly colored objects at the edge of my periphery, I seem to perceive a normal range of hues -- a tennis ball is still bright highlighter green-yellow, a red folder is still bright red, a blue matchbook is still blue.<br />Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-82581305730081735292019-04-14T14:19:27.104-04:002019-04-14T14:19:27.104-04:00... as well as aesthetic forms of abstraction, mus...... as well as aesthetic forms of abstraction, musical and suggestive in character.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-57198582651381668602019-04-14T13:00:32.516-04:002019-04-14T13:00:32.516-04:00We ignore and defocus that which we think we alrea...We ignore and defocus that which we think we already understand. We focus on tasks and then refocus on anomaly when and where it appears, because such might be important. <br /><br />What happens to elements out of our focal area in visual experience is they become blurry and mis-register stereographically in the horizontal direction; the more out of focal depth, the more the misregistration. Objects also become less colorful as they reach our vision's periphery.<br /><br />If artists only had in mind a kind of realistic depiction (mimesis) of experience the above mentioned methods of defocusing would be the kinds of rendering effects you would find in the zones outside the face.<br /><br />Blur rightly is frowned upon in art (as a general matter) because it is mostly slovenly in expression, rather than poetic, which makes it an aesthetic and artistic drag. Although now and again, when used in just the right place, it can be amazing. With clever brushwork, artists have come up with many kinds of blur that have some artistry to them. But such never replicates the kind of natural blur of vision. <br /><br />Nobody I've seen tries to obtain depth effects in paintings and drawings (in the manner of our stereoscopic vision) by horizontally misregistering two nearly identical images, misregistering them more in one direction to increase forwardness, and more in the other direction to increase distance from the focal depth. Although some pretentious book on Cezanne says he tried it. Reason is, because if the picture had any depth to it, most of the objects would look like a confused mess and the misregistration wouldn't work anyhow to produce depth (unless you are working with 3D glasses of some kind, either color lenses or polarized, and you render each of the two images so that it can only be seen through one lens). There's a reason Art is only built of only monoscopic ilusions. <br /><br />And while weakening the intensity of colors at the periphery of a canvas is common practice, the reverse is also a common practice. I can show a thousand landscapes where the two strongest colors are sky blue and grass green, with the bluest blue and greenest green touching the canvas edge at top and bottom respectively.<br /><br />So there are other factors causing these particular kinds of "abstract" treatments. Namely, here, decorative expressionism that causes graphic interest and reader attraction.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-9865939523402101362019-04-14T09:06:16.521-04:002019-04-14T09:06:16.521-04:00... my guess is they'd both been looking at th...... my guess is they'd both been looking at the king of abstract expressionism, the 'pot of paint flinger' himself, James Whistler, circa 1874:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Abbott_McNeill_Whistler#/media/File:Whistler-Nocturne_in_black_and_gold.jpgLaurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-59487729436038644912019-04-14T08:53:44.034-04:002019-04-14T08:53:44.034-04:00i wonder which abstract expressionist Sargent had ...i wonder which abstract expressionist Sargent had been influenced by when he did this in 1882 ?<br /><br />https://hyperallergic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Charles-Stuart-Forbes-300.jpg<br /><br />or this by William Merritt Chase in 1886 ? <br /><br />https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/mrs-chase-in-prospect-park/CQGPEdxvclDCQALaurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-1669017356797181642019-04-14T03:57:06.782-04:002019-04-14T03:57:06.782-04:00Comicstripplan:
I think you've made a very in...Comicstripplan:<br /><br />I think you've made a very interesting point there and I don't think you're wrong in saying it plays a part in why such subjects as hair in a picture are often treated so. By how much is an interesting thing to ponder. Thank you very much indeed for this.chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-16025455194000090522019-04-13T19:23:58.383-04:002019-04-13T19:23:58.383-04:00“The prevailing style, across a variety of illustr...“The prevailing style, across a variety of illustrators, was that skin and facial features remained sharply realistic but illustrators enjoyed an almost unlimited license for the treatment of hair.”<br /><br />It may be the case, if the theory of some psychologists is correct that it is not so much that we see with our eyes as rather that we “screen out” bombarding impressions which, if we did not, would overwhelm us, it could be that how we normally view the hair of a person in real life is more “abstract” than realistic (i.e., in the sense of being low-definition), and that illustrators reflect this in their art. In other words, we should differentiate how we would look at the “realistic”-appearing hair in a high-definition photograph, noting the almost innumerable threads and how they interweave with each other vs. the way our almost casual glancing eyes perceive someone’s hair in person we meet every day, limiting or screening out its full detail as being unnecessary. So some illustrators arguably render the hair more “realistically” in making how it looks appear “abstract” on close examination. I hope the foregoing adequately expresses the point I’m trying to make, as wrong as it may be.comicstripfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14830784804963989361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-16807307986897687222019-04-13T03:20:46.354-04:002019-04-13T03:20:46.354-04:00Maybe anon what you don't realize is that Roth...Maybe anon what you don't realize is that Rothko was just re-examining the trans-esclusionary nature of the Ying Yang, to find new gender harmonies, and all art is about finding harmony toot specifically between two opposing forces, good and evil, female and male.Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-33642741658158551522019-04-12T23:50:57.049-04:002019-04-12T23:50:57.049-04:00Carve that in stone and put my face on it, anonCarve that in stone and put my face on it, anonRichardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-72221270680804376282019-04-12T13:20:00.599-04:002019-04-12T13:20:00.599-04:00"often wrong, never in doubt""often wrong, never in doubt"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-20497139319778147432019-04-12T13:08:38.959-04:002019-04-12T13:08:38.959-04:00> "Why not zoom in on the images until the...> "Why not zoom in on the images until there is nothing there expect empty space?" <br /><br />Very good point. At a certain zoom level it becomes abundantly clear that the driving principle behind every painter is the same as that of Mark Rothko.Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-91117410875394500292019-04-12T12:52:37.534-04:002019-04-12T12:52:37.534-04:00Now Lawrence how can space be a dead end? It cont...Now Lawrence how can space be a dead end? It contains everything.;)Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-42135945509373326402019-04-12T12:46:18.361-04:002019-04-12T12:46:18.361-04:00Tom: "Why not zoom in on the images until the...Tom: "Why not zoom in on the images until there is nothing there expect empty space?" <br /><br />great idea !<br /><br />oh wait, modernism (in it's infinite depth) did that already.... black canvas, white canvas. <br /><br />talk about a dead end. Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-29136985344120208332019-04-12T11:54:11.139-04:002019-04-12T11:54:11.139-04:00Very good Kevin. You made it through four complet...Very good Kevin. You made it through four complete volleys. Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-8123108463702147332019-04-12T11:53:16.799-04:002019-04-12T11:53:16.799-04:00Nice painting Joss,
But for me it feels way to cl...Nice painting Joss,<br /><br />But for me it feels way to claustrophobic it intrudes instead of invites I immediately want to step back, in the same manner as a car alarm announces to an intruder'"step away from the car." I prefer a work of art that invites me in. Plus the paint feels like it's going to slide off the canvas to the floor. Not very agreeable feelings.<br /><br />"For me David is like a great deejay with his cropping and splicing and provocations." Exactly, and I'm just responding to his "provocation,":). But cutting and pasting is kinda of a superficial activity. Or like Sesame Street's "one things not like the other."<br /><br />But why not take his provocation to the next level and dive deeper. Why not zoom in on the images until there is nothing there expect empty space?Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-38660221877735196332019-04-12T11:24:52.814-04:002019-04-12T11:24:52.814-04:00...the real Platonic answer is that the only truly...<b>...the real Platonic answer is that the only truly pure thing about any art is that which is suggested by it, but is not actually present.</b><br /><br />A beautiful and profound insight so succinctly put Kev. My sincerest thanks.<br /><br />I believe it to be the reason that when we are 'in the zone' the painting seemingly paints itself, the brush capable of divining the intention of some unseen force. <br /><br />Evidence of this on the prosaic level would be the reason the cracks in the oil paint cutting across the forms of a Waterhouse do not matter one jot in terms of how it moves us. <br />It is reported that Michelangelo said that if a great sculpture were rolled down a mountainside it would not diminish it. chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-21144858332405202592019-04-12T11:22:30.748-04:002019-04-12T11:22:30.748-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-88801266845925206652019-04-12T10:00:53.022-04:002019-04-12T10:00:53.022-04:00Richard is Nathan Thurm.Richard is Nathan Thurm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-77950021084995060552019-04-12T00:33:44.983-04:002019-04-12T00:33:44.983-04:00That's exactly right. My argument is that such...<b>That's exactly right. My argument is that such supersets are absurd.</b><br /><br />Your superset was not absurd. It was subtly wrong. <br /><br />Regardless, it was a poor analogy for the reduction I was talking about. See Dan Adel's realistic paintings of abstract expressionist and modernist patterns/designs for proof of concept.<br /><br /><b>I suggest that lumping representational visual poetics and non-representational visual musicality falls into the same category of association fallacy.</b><br /><br />I deeply, deeply doubt you've done even a modicum of research to support this claim. <br /><br /><b>That's right.</b><br /><br />Amazing the things you know after I write them.<br /><br /><b>Music is not poetry, even if to define the edges of one or the other would give us headaches.</b><br /><br />All aesthetic suggestion is poetry. Visual Music is full of aesthetic suggestions. Poetry without musicality doesn't exist. In art you cannot disentangle the aesthetic tropes from the visual music without breaking the art. They synthesize. I've done the work to know this is true.<br /><br /><b>Representational visual poetics and non-representational visual musicality are similarly not platonic ideals, yet they're trending towards languages that are rather different from eachother.</b><br /><br />Dog ate your homework.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-17519571115747546362019-04-11T23:35:13.729-04:002019-04-11T23:35:13.729-04:00> if you want to get technical about the consti...> if you want to get technical about the constituent elements of both representation art and literature, respectively, you will find aspects in both that fall outside "comic books."<br /><br />That's exactly right. My argument is that such supersets are absurd. I suggest that lumping representational visual poetics and non-representational visual musicality falls into the same category of association fallacy.<br /><br />> All music is narrative, and all narrative is representational in some way, even if metaphorical or expressionistic.<br /><br />That's right. Neither music or poetry are platonic solids, I'm not arguing for metaphysical purity of that kind. I'm only making the observation that there's practicably definite art forms, of the earthly kind. Music is not poetry, even if to define the edges of one or the other would give us headaches.<br /><br />Representational visual poetics and non-representational visual musicality are similarly not platonic ideals, yet they're trending towards languages that are rather different from eachother.<br /><br />Put into practice, the experience of poetry in a poetic representational artwork is wholly unlike that of the musical in a musical non-representational one.<br /><br />I prefer the former, I think it's the higher art form. I also happen to think that poetry is a higher art form than pure music. But I'll happily put on some Scarlatti, as I hope my great great great great grandchildren will enjoy some non-representational visual Scarlatti some day.<br /><br />That's not to raise de Kooning up to Rembrandt, but to suggest that de Kooning et al are sounding out the Hot Cross Buns of an art form which will someday have a Mozart, and that deserves some respect, for the same reason that we owe cave men respect for having put their hand print on a wall.Richardnoreply@blogger.com