I just found this forum today and it is very interesting. I'm a young artist, 20 years old, and I am a graphic design major at a college in New England. People have considered me an artist since a young age and I consider myself an artist too, and I've been told by many that I have a gift, or talent. But recently I've been pondering certain ideas about what makes a "real" artist.
For example, my roommate at college is currently taking art classes, and she calls herself an artist and constantly tells me how her teachers say things like "I don't think you realize how good you really are" etc. She has showed me her work, and in my opinion, it is the worst I have ever seen. She says her specialty is faces, and all her faces look the same - like a 3 year old had drawn them, even if she looks at a reference and a face is looking downward, she still draws it in a straight on view and crooked. She makes excuses for her art, like that she had a bad day or that she thinks that learning proportions is for "6th graders."
I know some artists like to be abstract, like how Picasso could draw realistically but chose to make abstract paintings. But, you can see talent in his paintings, that there was some thought behind the abstractions. It's just something that I see in certain artists' works...I can't explain it.
My roommate only does art when she has to for a class. I think even without talent, the title of artist is understandable if the person loves what they are doing. For me, making art is a way of life...I guess what I am saying is that her calling herself an artist annoys me...because in my eyes, she has no talent or desire to better her work. Does it bother anyone else when people do this? Is there no such thing as a difference between a "real" artist and a talentless hack?

LC, this topic was approached in another thread I posted it bellow.
As for your friend, I've notice this type before, can't master the human form, also doesn''t really have a desire to learn art fundamentals, so she just calls her crap "abstract" . = HACK.
And yes, it annoys the hell out of every REAL artist.

http://www.glyphs.com/forums/load/cafe/msg0113524027492.html?20

http://www.artrenewal.org/
If you want to know what your inner mind and heart is telling you about what an artist is, read through this site and especially Fred Ross's speech at the Met.
I to was born an artist and I understand what you are going through. That is why some of us are trying to do something about it.
Christian

Here is a link that might be useful: The Evolution of Painting

when the artist declares it art- it becomes art.
so, if anyone declares it art- they are and artist.
loosen up people!

christian...have you actually read what Ross said in that speech? it's completely against any form of modern art...the guy thinks that every painting should be a milk-colored cow-faced fat woman with rosey-assed angels poking and prodding her, or of a languid gypsy or stoic muslim man. i looked through the paintings represented there and i thought "hey, some reubens i never saw before" or "great, more roccoco". the whole site is full of emaciated frillery, i couldn't find a single painter that was distinguishable one from the other, except some spanish guy who did pastel soccer matches.

that Ross guy really pissed me off with that speech, he's completely missed the point of modern art and began to rail against it with the conviction and mindset of the hitler youth. what jackass rhetoric, how can you even think of posting that crap, especially with the type of "art" you do? it's hypocritical to no end...i am quoting you here, christian: I don't look at art as the thing or style. To me, art is an act of putting things together like they have nver been put together before. this is in direct opposition to what Ross is saying.

i dunno, i had decided to step out and not say anything else to you, but i think you are just in search of some bovine student to dump your crap collection of sellout ideas about art into like your teachers did to you. how can you take yourself seriously? matricism is a glorified paintbrush, and you're making glorified blacklight posters. how in the world can you say that you are trying to "do something about it" when every post you've made has been a manifesto of a man whose every last shred of integrity has been sold alongside dip-n'-dot-looking "angels" and portraits bent to the will of the buyer? you are exactly about what real artists wish they could do something.

Ya, I have and Fred is talking to the choir there. Many of them my teachers in the late 70's. I was the son of a great modern artist and feel there are few paintings that can top Picasso's Gurnica. The real point is to master the rendering of form in space and if you can do his kind of art, you have a chance of mastering your brush and become a great technician that can do any style. Few could render a dream like Dali and he was trained the technical skills in the classical tradition. One should know both camps and take the best form both and for a young students, master the past first and then you will have the ability and knowledge to create the future.

As for being an artist, I live the life I want, I don't punch anyone's time clock and I'll kick anyone out of my studio I want. Sure I paint the ladies the way they want, why not? I don't have to live with it and earns me about 200 bucks an hour. What's your labor and knowledge worth on the labor market? People like you are talkers, and thankfully have no voice in the matters of art. You don't have one good criticism of the art Fred supports, just blabber about your personal taste. Waste of typing.
You learn to do a portrait at my level and you can work in any style there is and do it with knowledge. I wouldn't let my son ever be a portrait painter if I could help it, but that is not to say he should not be good enough to do it. What did you recommend to this students seeking answers, anything?
Every forum has to have one!

As for being an artist, I live the life I want, I don't punch anyone's time clock and I'll kick anyone out of my studio I want
well that certainly describes a real artist, doesn't it?

Sure I paint the ladies the way they want, why not? = sellout, trying to excuse himself. have a shred of dignity on your way out of rationality, please.

I don't have to live with it and earns me about 200 bucks an hour = sell out. it amazes me that you can't see it. compromising your convictions doesn't make you a sellout...completely disregarding the act of having convictions however does.

What's your labor and knowledge worth on the labor market? People like you are talkers, and thankfully have no voice in the matters of art. what's my labor worth? what's my knowledge worth? it's worth the connection people have with it, christian seidler. the money attached to it doesn't matter, or have you forgotten that? the fact that people buy your angels because they are interesting conversation pieces over the two-minutes it takes to stop by and smoke a cigarette, and that they go with the sofa, and then are forgotten forever...what worth does that have to you? once the money is gone, the work that's gone into your painting is gone. yes, thankfully i have no voice in the matters of art, if i did, people who sell whatever piece of crap they produce via their whorish talent would be obliterated from the face of the art market.

the art Ross supports doesn't deserve more than a glance. yes, Bouguereau is technically titilating, but beyond that his work is infinitely trite. the venuses and cherubs of yesterday no longer speak to anyone besides enamored schoolgirls or old women, and therefore have become obsolete. Bouguereau is the only example of the "art" Ross supports that is worth any attention...the rest is even purer crap with a lesser technical ability.

you talk about your level of portraiture. with what i've seen of your paintings, every tom dick & harry with the appropriate amount of schooling can do the same thing. it takes a thinker to develop a medium of communication with his viewers. i'm only a second semester painting student and i can create images in pencil, pen & ink, charcoal, oil, & acrylic which are photographically accurate (even from life). i could make paintings on the same level as Bouguereau all day long. i recognize that i have a talent that many covet, but that doesn't make me any more of a genius. only my treatment of the subject matter with which the world presents me makes me any more or less intelligent.

to let or not let your son be a portrait painter is missing the point of freedom. what if your son wants to be a portrait painter? you are intellectually tyrranical.

my answer to LC is that s/he merely ignore the stupidity of her/his roomate and that of those who praise his/her roomate.

you obviously don't understand, christian, that Ross is degrading even Picasso. by telling LC that you agree with Ross, you are aknowledging yourself as a hypocrite, especially with the statement that you like picasso. i am not going to touch the subject of your father any further than to say that i don't think that many of us have ever heard of the great modern artist "Seidler".

please respond when you are ready to think out your response.

Chris,

I was also a little non-plused by the site. My criticism is much in the line of C McVay's with the addition that Fred is harkening back to the archaic Euro-Western standard that the only important art ever created in the history of man was made by Caucasians.

No where on the site, that portends to be the collection of "the greatest painters and sculptors in human history" -cough- can one find even a sliver of info about say the Iron Masters of Benin, The Bronze Masters of Indian or even a passing mention of Egypt, unless of course it relates to Long, Renault or other Orientalists. This type of philosophy in this day and age is reprehensible. Beyond that fact, what about our modern masters living and breathing? Hello, Susan Lyon??? Dean Mitchell??? Phil Hale??? Scott Burdick???….People who visit this forum??? Fred needs to reign in his chest thumping Imperialism and rename the site for what it truly is, an ode to Non Living Western Realist Painters and Sculptors. He reminds me so much of the art teacher I had in college I’m having flashbacks.
As for the rest, McVay got to the point of the matter. Painting solely for cash = hack + whore. This type of artist is no better than the lawyer who will defend the most heinous criminal or a doctor who will turn away terminal ill patients, all based on the amount of cash in hand. Yes, plying your craft in accordence with your heart, mind and values will not make you rich in most cases, but your conscious (granted you have one) will be clear, and there is no price that can be put on that.

Chris, I say these things not to indict you, because on one hand, I admire your sense of inventiveness to go and construct something that is functional and that could lead to helping physically challenged individuals. If money is so much your concern, at least your pursuit would have an honorable air if your focus was more on this side of the issue. On the other hand, I think your ideas about what art "is" are a little jaded to say the least, and that is fine, but I think you would do a disservices to a lot of young artist to teach art from that crass point of view. Frankness, I agree with (yes, it is difficult to make money in this profession) but turning out a generation of hack artist to crowd the already polluted landscape of our McDonald's and $19.99 Sofa Paintings culture is not the solution.

...Where I do disagree with McVay is "the art Ross supports doesn't deserve more than a glance" remark..the technical mastery of the work can not be denied, and though I take umbrage with Fred Ross's pilosophies and exclusionary elitism, I can appreciate the merit of much of the work itself. Once I got past the more trite images which we have seen over and over again in art history books, there is a lot of art on there that I found myself sparing more than just a passing glance.

In addition, there was one point that I actually agreed with Ross on...mastering basic skills. I think this is necessary for every artist no matter what type of art they eventual mature into

...I swear this feels like art school again, up to the one point that I even concede to Ross one point of agreement. I wouldn't be surprise if Fred Ross was an internet pseudonym for John C-----.

I stumbled over the Artrenewal site a couple of weeks ago. The combination of pompous and saccharine images, bloated and paranoid rhetoric and the constant use of market-value as the ultimate yard-stick made me dizzy and I had to leave.

At Chris´s suggestion, I read Fred Ross´s speech. The cynic´s view might be that this is a collector / dealer trying to inflate the market-value of his stock, but Mr. Ross seems to be in earnest. That doesn´t make any difference concerning what he actually says, though. Trying to keep out of C´s and Ellkka´s way, here´s my 2 cents on the speech:

Mr. Ross obviously can´t even imagine that some people doesn´t get any emotional response from the works of his revered " masters ". That sensibility develops or changes over time ( and partly as a function of time passed ) seems to be beyond him. Should T.S Eliot have written " The Wasteland " in the metre of " The Iliad " ? Should Beethoven have written his sonatas in the form of Domenico Scarlatti ? Should Jimi Hendrix have played his guitar like Les Paul ? The fact that we play the same game using the same medium, doesn´t necessarily mean we play by the same rules or in the same arena. And as for the game: Don´t for a second believe that Bougereau´s game was the same as Rembrandt´s, no matter how may formal similarities some egg-head can point out.

That most of the doings of the art-world in the 20th century has been embarrasing to all parties involved, is right. But it was exactly the same in the 19th, the 18th, the 17th etc. century. Once and for all: What happens in the art-world usually has nothing to do with the artists. The art-world is the payground for the rich, the idle and the intrigant. Be they Huntington Hartford, Clement Greenberg, Charles Saatchi or Fred Ross... The Bougereaus, Barnett Newmans et. al. are merely the tools these individuals use in their private crusades.

What puzzles me most in mr. Ross´s one-man renaissance-show only consist in regurgitating the worst of the past. Bougereau, Gérome, the pre-raphs...it just doesn´t get any worse. Connect-the-dots, colour-by-number, subject-matter-by-the-book. These guys were NOT virtuosi; true virtuosi were people like Rembrandt, Velazquez, Manet and even Sargent. But mr. Ross´s guys: No way; never; anybody with basic co-ordination and perseverance is able to replicate their stuff.

I can´t even join mr. Ross in lamenting the demise of the tradition of passing on the craft of painting. Here in Denmark, any painter who wants to be able to paint a picture in which recognizable elements appear, have to teach themselves. So what ? We arrive at last with sufficient knowledge and skill to realize our intentions, if we keep up our work. What I miss in the education of artists is the years spent in fumbling around; traveling; experiencing life outside the studio and, more importantly, outside the art-biz.

There was a time when the likes of LC's teacher and his/her colleagues ruled the western art scene. That was about 20 years ago. I would be more specific - my point of discussion is not Art in general, but painting and sculpture in particular, and the intervening shades of human endeavor. There is not much wrong with music, or architecture. Even cuisine. These fields, albeit with a few esoteric pretensions still follow an inherent logic. Unlike today's avant garde, or yesterday's 'splotches and patches'. People, common people whom the pseudo-intellectuals amongst us exclude, have largely turned their backs to the galleries. They have become indifferent. Many of them buy (or used to!) because of power suggestions. Not out of love for a work of art. But that is so convenient, isn't it? Huge empty wall spaces, covered by inconsequential paintings that do not attract us, or evoke feelings, but simply comfort us with a sense of completeness - spatial or intellectual. A 'David' will disturb us, dominate the surrounding space. A Matisse will be much less threatening. Some scribes pen eulogies because dealers employ them to do so. Others, probably because they feel important eulogizing less talented 'painters' like themselves. There are a few so deeply prejudiced by a century of opacity in the name of 'art education' that they dare not utter a word of admiration when shown a supreme masterpiece like the 'Nymphs et satyr.' Its as if their whole system of self-belief, and what they stand for will crash irrevocably if such emotions are expressed. Paintings such as these un-nerve these people. It reminds them of their own frustrations and inabilities. And these insecure people seek shelter in the security of a 'brotherhoo

I have question for those of you who are against artist making money: What's your opinion of supposed "Modern Masters" that churn out limited editions of there work, thereby making far more revenue than could be expected if they didn't. Are they too sell outs????

(cont'd from previous posting)........in the security of a 'brotherhood'(just a figure of speech, ladies, no gender bias involved!). They are superior in number - of course, not everyone amongst us are rocket scientists, and they can devote more time to theorizing, and working the publicity machinery. Its easy to recreate what they do(well, we have judged Bougereau by how easily one can or cannot 'copy' his work, haven't we?) - doesn't take much time or talent(remember that popular gallery-going reaction -"Why, my three year old son can do better!" Well, its true.) So they turn their back, huddle together, exclude most of the rest as 'inelite' and unworthy of modern day art, and weave an art theory around their pitiful works(like say, a rotting carcass!)so as to sanctify their so-called uniqueness. A person with special abilities is considered a threat in this sea of mediocrity. But the truth is, special people always outlive the ordinary. And it is because of these special ones that life still has a vector. A Commune of equally 'qualified' artists busy slapping each others' back and exalting the novelty and uniqueness of their creations are about as time worthy as mutant forms. They are quickly weeded out through oblivion. Just what is happening to the likes of Pollock, Rothko or DeKooning.
Ross may have gone a bit overboard trying to promote a particular kind of art(Artrenewal.com still do not feature Lucien Freud or Andrew Wyeth - copyright reasons?), but he was brave enough to have called a spade a spade, and exposed a lot of falsehood going on in the name of contemporary western art. And a huge section of the silent population is with him, who trust what they feel is good, and chuckle inwardly at pompous scribes performing semantic sodomy in the name of intellectual criticism(and have a morbid fear of milky white nudes!)

Perhaps Duchamp(himself a capable painter when he chose to paint) had the greatest sense of humor. He presented these scribe painters with the perfect toy to match their collective wit.

I say, this forum has gone a bit silly with chest thumping artists(?)proclaiming the greatness of their art over others'!

Roy...did you actually say NOTHING was wrong with contemporary music? And that it still follows logic? Have you actually heard a Rap CD???? Ever hear of this blonde chick with the last name "Spears?" noooo Chopin and Bach are probably in constant rotation eh?

I think most people on this forum are living in their own little solitary bubble where their opinion apparently reeeeeealy matters. I guess I would qualify as one of those "common" people Roy mentions because your opinions appear over thought and pointless to me. Live and let live. If throwing up a website to dead painters only a few people still care about gives you your jollies, so be it, no need for an execution people. If a guy has managed to paint and pay his bills while doing it GOOD! Too few do. Let me guess, this is another art forum where Robert Kinkade is considered the Anichrist and Bob Ross was a meek "wanna be" painter.

Lot's of vocal diarreah, but if I go to the gallery not ONE of you geniuses has posted a piece of your own work for withering critigue. In my opinion, most of you are the "hacks" and "semantic sodomites". Hypocrites, every last one of you. If someone came to you and offered you 100 million dollars to paint De Kooning copies for the rest of your life, every last one of you would take it.

You’re really missing the point. I would never tell an artist what they should or should not paint. If they are born to be an artist, then their life is going to bring them to what is right for them. What I preach is that if you can draw and paint with the best of them, then you have more skills and tool to work with to innovate, or sell, or what ever you want to do and achieve. McVey, you say you're as good as the masters, post it! You have opinions and proclamations, lets see the proof of the brag. I put my ass out for all to see and I'm proud of it. My point about money is this. If you can sell what you create with your brush, then you get to paint all day every day of your life and you can only master that brush all the better for it. In doing so, you can use that skill to go where you want when your free to do so. Bills paid which is a real world issue. Your a school boy, who's paying your bills, still living off the fat of the old man are we? Let us talk when you’re 50 with kids in college and bills that just keep coming. We'll see what wisdom time brings to you. What you going do when you get out of school? Get a teaching job like all the others? Your criticisms of myself and my work are the same old academic crap I’ve heard my entire life and it lacks any foundation in the real world problems of being a full time “painter.”
Being a damn good capitalist and a damn good painter gave me the freedom to create Matricism and have a good life and a great family. Someone wants to suffer alone all their life for their art, have at it. To me it was a profession that would give me freedom, you do understand that don’t you? Or are you planning on living off mom and dad all your life? You got two choices in the world, paint what the galleries want or go get a job. That is reality!

Now when I step out of my prostitution suit and do my art, since it is created with very advanced algorithmic process using value, hue, and chroma. From every thing said, I cannot tell if any of you understand it beyond your visual perception and your subjective likes and dislikes. I hear it’s no good, but not one remark explains what hallmark of good or bad art exist in it. Not one technical remark as to why it’s good or bad. What do I care if you don’t like it. Every art invented found its audience and place in history. You consider Matricism was the key for Dr. Randall at Texas Instruments to match with a binary code, there must be something very unique in there. If since I understand it is just in it’s infancy, it just might hold some other keys to future expressions. Do any of you know how the elements of design are used and fused? What an algorithmic decision is. Can you explain it? If not, then you do not know the elements of design as used in Matricism. Hence all your negatives are mute, based on a lack of knowledge known as ignorance. They are all based on taste, and that is no way an art history major should evaluate art. Course Sargent did say that, “only another artist can critique another artist’s work.”
When I got on the forums at Wetcanvas where all kinds of painters who all call themselves artist hang out, I get these kind of comments because they understand the elements of design and the science of color. This from Stephen Kovac, one artist who took the time to really study my site, which means that he read the pages, not just looked at the pictures and skimmed things.

I think that the nay sayers and non-understanders will attempt to label matricism as derivative of pointillism, simply because one or two matrix paintings look sort of like seurat. but in my opinion, the doors matricism opens are vast. pointillism was sort of a theoretical dead end, with no real evolutionary possibilities.
I like you am interested the relationship of mathematics to the reality we perceive. I am interested in conveying the patterns and signatures of chaos superimposed or woven into representational art. I am also very interested in other wavelengths of light, adding a conceptual fourth dimension (say, cube to tesseract, only with natural forms). I can see these things in my head when I go to sleep, but I am not yet (by a long shot) skilled enough to convey them.
That is why I am so into what you do with Matricism. only I wish to depict the forces that are actually around objects, gravity, thermal, sound, kinetic. These forces, as I understand them, will tend to abstract the form( such as in a time lapse photo of the stars or the thermal distortion that creates a mirage. but not obliterate it. Matricism is the only thing I have seen that is akin to my vision.

Mark told me I’d have fun if I get in here and mixed it up.

If you want to really get your blood running young McVay, go look at the paper I wrote on how to reinvent art education in Texas and what secured me the task of building a new fine arts college here from the ground up. Fred Ross is coming down to take a seat on the board. : )
http://www.artpapa.com/forum/DCForumID29/6.html
And we’d like to see that great art you do McVey.

morrisk, that was pretty well said.
I put myself out there and let it fly.
http::/matricism.com says it all for me.

And we want a blow up of your signiture on that art too.

Stop assuming that a dislike of Artrenewal´s salon-smearers implies a glorification of the ab-ex smearers. If you browse this forum, you´ll find that it´s a pretty varied bunch of people that swings by.

Also, it might reduce the knicker-twisting if you could imagine that there exists people, who paint what they want, no matter how poorly it sells. Try to imagine that for some the realm of " art " is neither primarily a battleground or a marketplace.

And, Morrisk, when I exhibit, I don´t do it to receive withering critique or groveling adulation. Those reactions are only the almost inevitable by-products of exhibiting and especially so, if the exhibition takes places on the web. For that reason I won´t be asking for comments, if I ever post any pictures on the web.

Christian, I've never for a moment doubted the inventiveness of this tool. It is amazing, yes, I could never even have dreamed of creating something like that. That the grasp of the craft of painting and the grasp of mechanics and science required to create such an object is dumbfounding is an understatement. I have not been saying that it isn't, I have a lot of respect for what you and Dr. Randall are doing in that respect.

My issue is with you as an artist. You are a great craftsman, I admit that eagerly, I love your portraiture. However, what I do not love in the least bit are the pieces you have created via "Matricism," or the idea that just because you are financially comfortable you are then justified to "churn out" (a quote from Dr. Randall's profile on the Matricism webpage) pieces.

There is nothing wrong with the pieces as far as technique goes. What disturbs me is the fact that you consider the answers to the questions: Have you ever seen a painting of the wind? We've seen the effects of the wind: substances blowing, tree limbs bending, and dresses waving, but have you ever seen someone paint the wind flowing, changing direction, and being fluid in the pictorial environment? Have you ever seen the molecular substance of love flowing between two people? Have you ever seen light display the properties of liquid? Have you ever seen the air as it's ripped by a bullet cutting through the atmosphere? as significant. Yes, I have seen a bullet cutting through the atmosphere, and Keanu Reeves dodging it. I have seen the wind flowing, my 7 year~old cousin draws blue lines around a house or a tree or a person to symbolize the wind (how else could you do it, by distorting the object to show where the wind is? By showing the air molecules? I can do that right now). The molecular substance of love...isn't that a bit objective? If you mean fluids, we've all seen porn.

The painting of the little boy angel staring at a light with spiral radiation...very pretty. However, I've seen this type of thing on the cover of comic books (probably more like graphic novels, they do more lifelike work on their covers) a hundred times. Maybe I am just not understanding the novelty of it...is it the radiation of light from the orb? I'm sorry, every one of us could do that. The fact that it was created via robotic arm is really cool, but beyond that I really don't see the genius.

Sure, the concept behind the robotic arm is mind-boggling in its inception and execution. The images created with it are not...ok, so you can do exponentially more pointillism. Beyond that, what can you do? I understand that you work via a matrix which requires exact knowledge of the "why" of hue-value-intensity, but how is that cohesive with being able to paint non-visual forms of energy, unless you translate them into visual forms? And may I remind you that the robotic arm is not the one doing the translating?

I would like to hear point-by-point answers. I've read over the Matricism website and I still have these questions. I think this is a resonable request?

As far as posting my own work online, I have not yet accumulated a body of work that I would be proud to present to the public, nor do I have the time, money or photographic skill to competently exhibit it.
I am not attending college with my parents' money, they are missionaries who can't afford it. I am attending on loans and on the G.I. Bill.
Your paper on reinventing art in Texas is too long, I don't have time to read that type of thing. I don't really care if a government department asked you to do something...suffice it to throw out two abbreviations: IRS, DMV. Texas btw has never really been known for its sensibility about anything refined besides oil, especially not the fine arts.
By the way, what's this you're asking if I'm going to get a teaching job like all the others? What is wrong with teaching, if my values dictate that a moment of compromising my work equals moral suicide, and if there are still kids out there who need to be taught? (Don't pass out Frida).
I dunno, I am tired of writing. Get back to me on this, if you will.

The artist defines herself.

hey lc...
dont be so uptite..:) i dont mean to be a thorn..
but i just have to say this... "are you saying kids cant be artistic?" are you sure you are an artist? or you are just good at drawing and painting?
you can be a very good draughts-man..but are you an artist?
what makes you think so?
what is right and what is wrong? nay..nothing is right or wrong... and who are you to judge what she was doing is crap? or maybe your roomate is really a suckie person afterall...hard to listen and all that...
but if you are the artist...who i think you are...you should lighten up...dont be an elitist...
hey peace man...i'm not looking for a fight here... if i ever offended anyone here please forgive my rudeness..

Fascinating stuff in here as usual. I read the Fred Ross art renewal bit. Looked at all the Matricism images(again), read the text and still I can not find any vital inspiration. Right, what does that mean? Sure a human programmed the computer. I love Bruegel. Sure I know he was white and he is dead. His work often has information. Not his desire to paint just information about his time. I love distortion and stylization. The remark by C. McVay regarding comics and graphic novels is accurate. Most of this art fails to live up to its own mission statement. It is not original. The process may be, but I fear the creator can not or will not leave his prostitution suit at the office. Paying bills is vital, art devoid of human emotion is not.

Dear Morrisk, arent we all hypocrites? And so are you, since you claim to be common. In fact, my point was specifically against hypocrisy. You would have got that on a second read since you didnt in the first. But lets not call each other names, that is so silly.

A 100 million dollars for copying DeKoonings!!! Sure, even Vincent would've pounced on that offer. His brother did earnestly try to sell Vincent, didnt he? Selling pictures for money should never be an issue. We need money to buy paint, if not food. The point is, how far should the transaction proceed? What should be the price for happiness? How long would one continue to do that? Could one die happy in a million dollar mansion, famous for his Dekooning copies, having never been given an opportunity to express one's true self on the canvas? These queries are hypothetical, and irrelevant to the subject head - which sought to define an artist. Whether you like or dislike Eminem/Shakira/Norah Jones/Pavarotti/etc.. is purely subjective. The logic inherent in these fields is still WYSWYG -what you see(or hear, or taste, or wear, or live in..) is what you get. You decide your likes/dislikes(I could have elaborated on this, but in some other forum). Contemporary western art establishment, with its shrill lobbying for the ordinary has actively discouraged talent. A painter, to be called a painter, must be uncommonly gifted in his chosen medium. Not just masterful technique, not just a passionate intelligence. Either both, or not at all. A true mathematician is not just one with a degree in mathematics. Same applies to one with a doctorate in art theory. But this is how visual art has been promoted over the last century. Picasso didnt go against this trend, he was smart enough to have gone along with it. He openly embraced the hypocrisy of a market driven evaluation of quality. And it made him immensely rich.

As regards displaying our work, that shouldnt be an issue either. But just because i have strong opinions against gimmicks in art doesnt mean that I qualify as, or claim to be a painter. Sure, I aspire to be one. Someday. I am 32, painting for the last 3 years, was previously engaged in a clinical profession(which consumed 10 gruelling white-coated years of my life - and which i had to leave so that i could paint). Below is the "nun",(this, in no way intends to affect religious sensitivities. It has its personal narrative which is inconsequential in this context) painted in oil on canvas, measures 36"X30", which i painted in late '99. I do not have photographs of my recent work. Whether you shred it to tatters, or whither it down to the last critical bone, this is my work. I do not claim to be better or lesser than other painters. I only hope I could be sincere. Thanks

-I found this website to be very pragmatic in it's veiw of art, the art market, and defining art that is worthy of being collected: http://theartlady.com

Also, in regards to the website that spurred so much debate, no one stated the obvious, that representations of the human figure in art were vastly altered upon the invention of the camera. If a photo can capture the human form perfectly, a lot is lost in the persuit of a painter who seeks to do the same thing. Also, if a photo is readily available as reference, as apposed to a living model, you will have a lot of amatuer artist who will churn out photo-realistic paintings of people, further depleting the uniqueness of such work. Basically, the perfectly rendered human form has become a boring subject.

"Basically, the perfectly rendered human form has become a boring subject."

To that, i quote Miles-"The sage of the university says, "but there is nothing new under the sun." Not until we create it, Brother Ass. Refrain from breathing all the available air for a moment, refrain from blocking all the light, and see what lovely vines begin curling out of the earth!" . Nothing personal, of course. And thanks for providing us with that new link.

demelza: would you mind expanding on this statement: "the artist defines hersef"? there are several ways to interpret it. thanks

Well McVay, that was the best post from you yet. At least a little appreciation. The fact that they don't inspire you is ok with me. I've seen people transfixed by them but you would have to see one in person. Joe Wade out in Santa Fe on the square said he never seen anything like them. They pull people off the street. I've had two women in my studio that broke down crying over one of those angels. Hey, they were not sophisticated, but they were people like anyone else and they were moved. That is the power of a visual expression. Am I to paint for you and not them, they not as important?
As for portraits, just one more mug when you've been doing them for 30 years. But still it is fun to see the look on the faces of those involved when they get to see it. You take the fun out of it and it's a job like anything else. I'm have fun cause I'm doing something no one else is doing and computers, robots, and painting mix, and I'm in heaven. Am I supposed to meet someone's definition, I don't think so.
As for teaching, nothing wrong with it, I’m going to do a little myself. What is wrong is if your views stop you from getting to be one if that is what you desire.

On Ross, what you are missing is the artist’s performance, that is what he collects and praises, not the subjects. The subjects are from that era but the performance of the artists he collects is world class and deserves respect. This is the point he is always making.

On my matrix work, the color does come off very rich, almost with the saturation of a velvet painting, which says I’m pushing the limit on texture. The dots are so thick that the color is very intense and rich. I’m a texture freak. You put this down, but again, it’s just taste.

As for seeing things and painting unique subjects with Matricism, what maters is that you put the statement in oil paint. I saw the movie and it came out long after that painting of the bullet but does not mater.

And I too used the GI bill for college, Air Force.

Roy, you got skill.

One thing that all you non-painters have to understand, single or married with children, we all have to earn a living. Frankly no artists should get married unless it’s for many maybe. That’s why there are 10 times the number of women painters over men. Money is freedom to do what you want, to make things happen. My advice to Roy is to find a subject he enjoys and that will sell. If he finds it, he’ll get to paint every day and by doing so, he may become a really great painter if he wants to.

Everyone should be the artist they want to be and follow their own karma. In the end, there are two kinds, the amateur and the professional and I’m am not saying one is better. But if a professional you want to be, then that means sales, dealers, galleries, promotion, and a touch of selling out to pay for the freedom of being an artists.

Anyway, I’ve enjoyed it y’all. This dip into the forums on the net has been an interesting experience.

McVay, you’ve been an experience. From what I can tell, you got the ego to be an artist, hope you get the skills and find a future for yourself.

Later all!

Does that mean you are going Chris, that is a shame. You had some interesting points.

McVay he/she defines her/his own bounderies, expectations and aims. At the end of the day it is down to the individual to define themself.

...artist of the future who wish to paint and be profitable take heed:

Here is a link that might be useful: The King

Dear Christian, I accept your advice and critique with all humility. Thanks

thank you demelza. i agree, but some people have a distorted vision of themselves. for an example of this: www.hendeka.org

Are these people what you would consider "real artists"?

Here is a link that might be useful: You be the judge..

Roy, did you develop your design in Poser or studio max? looks like poser, a great program.

I may not like their vision but I will not set myself up as a censor.

Mc Vay, I'm fed up with your personal attacks, which happen to be totally false, as previously said, we believe in our ideals, full stop. Start creating, and stop annoying us, please.
Regards

Laurent Mialon (hendeka)

ps: I am really fed up with the idea according to which it would be forbiden to make Art out of september 11th, whilst others use this pretext...to declare a war.

People have traditionally made images of war, as in Picasso's Geurnica. I don't know what your ideals are, it has never been made clear so I cannot comment.

Chris, like i mentioned, i painted "Nun" in late 99. All i knew about a pc then(surprisingly)was how to operate MS Word. No, i did not use any software to paint it. Do you think it is too difficult to imagine perspectives? humbly expecting your comment.

...and since you appear interested, here is a link to another work. "Leap", oil on canvas, 30"x36". The photograph and the scan is very amateurish(I profusely apologise), but since the painting is not with me any more, i cant get a fresh photograph. I have placed it as a link, as this page is already TOO BLOATED with bytes.

The Leap

Funny, I always thought that the critic defines an artist.
Or tries to. A good portion of those that I have met that I consider artists have difficulty defining themselves as such...
Cheers

Wow a lot of people replied...I haven't checked back here in about a week. Things got a little off topic, haha.

There are some really interesting points though. I think I mostly agree with MarkZero's post though...it seems like most of the artists I admire don't walk around calling themselves an artist, instead they spend time doing instead of talking. My point was not that I think everyone should do the same kind of art that I like. I was just venting about my roommate...some people took it as me being uptight or elitist. To Sean: I wasn't saying I don't think kids can do great art. But, I do think that if a 20 year old is calling themselves an artist but refuses to advance their skill past what they did as a child, then I think it's foolish.(i'm referring to my roommate)
I'm not saying that it isn't art, but it seems like any art you make is better if you have the ability to "see." I drew like that at a young age, but once I learned to see things as they really are, I could draw anything. I was determined and taught myself through books and practice. Now that I've started painting, this skill applies as well. A lot of artists around me refuse to learn this concept and I don't understand why. Innate talent might make it a little easier for some to learn, but I think it's possible for anyone who's dedicated. Someone calling themselves an artist who doesn't love art baffles me, so that is why I can't understand my roommate's ideas about art.

Roy, I think you have great skill, and I like your style. I like Cristian's matricism as well.

I'll post my art here sometime soon. Right now I am working on portraits of people and animals which I am going to sell on ebay. Go ahead and call me a sellout, I have done portraiture in the past for my own personal art and it just happened that people bought it. I've seen lots of arguments about that subject here, my view is that if you need the money why not do something you like to make it, it it's possible?

When I have a few more paintings done I'll post them. The only art I have online is at my website and it is from my early highschool years. I will post if you're interested, but it's not as good as others' art here.

LC...as concerns your statement about how everyone can learn representation with enough dedication, i agree. people just need to learn to look...the biggest obstacle that i think most people have is that they have never stopped to think about how to draw, and then they say "oh, i can't draw"...of course not, you never tried. people see my drawings and they say they wish they could draw like that, i always tell them that if they give me their time i will teach them. i heard a quote by a ceramicist, i forget who she was: if you sincerely want to do something, then you owe it to yourself to learn how/gain the knowledge (i forget exactly how it went).

as for selling portraits on e-bay, i don't think that is selling out, if you say you like to do it.

Roy, i like "the leap"...i will have to send you a scan of some of my sketches, i think we have that weirdness in common, although i usually confine that type of image to my sketchbook. send your email to my email if you would like to see them.

Roy, not at all! I'm even more impressed! Just thought I recognized a filter effect. You were a head of your time.
With the skill displayed, get out the weird stuff and start painting the world around you. It's the only way to master your ability because you have a reference in front of you. After you master that, then return to your weirdness and you will attack it with the skills of Dali. He was arguably the greatest painting technician of the 20th century and he was weird.
Just my advice.

Everything's art!
everything CAN be art if you WANT it to be and you TRY to make it happen. Every effort counts, if it is sincere and truthful effort. Real ART is not to impress by technique, not to follow great artists, not a means to be better than anyone else, but it is means to express yourself. Art becomes art when you declare it, if you are truthful - others will see that also, if you are not, you are decieving yoursel.

Here is a link that might be useful: thisismonika

Hey guys, you people are being awfully awfully kind! These "wierd" ones are from my first(and only) solo exhibition.

I have started to read some of the statements above. Only to reply to the first one I would like to say the following:

I find that the artist defending modernism is hateing traditionel art as much as Hitler hated modernism.

When McVay says:
"thankfully i have no voice in the matters of art, if i did, people who sell whatever piece of crap they produce via their whorish talent would be obliterated from the face of the art market" he already speaks abou what artcolleges and the art market is about. Today - you are not welcome to most artcolleges if you prefer realism a la bougureau. Neither are you welcome to (in western Europe) to recieve state grants, etc.

Today is it very hard to make a living in many western European contries painting in the realist/classical tradition. So one is NOT selling out and a "whore" when doing such art. If anybody is a "whore" it it those doing "crap" and by the help of their "contacts" recieving funds from goverments,etc (as here in Sweden - when a "famous" artist reciev state funds for having sex with Lihuanian prostitute as "art")

In USA and in western Europe most Art colleges do NOT provide good education in more traditional realistic painting. Why? As a music student one may study clasiical music, popular music or whatever one wants (or rather one should be able to play ALL kinds of music) Why can't thisa be the case for art education.
Because I like Bougureau (as did Monet, Degas and van Gogh) I would not consider myself as "selling out".
The idea that art must be "genuine", "original" and totaly "new" is a modern idea. I think as an example that Chineese traditional art is greast and that those that produced this was great artist - even if the drawings and painting where made in the same fashion for hundreds of years.

I do not like when Modern artists say to me I am wrong/not an artist because I am found of the art of Bougureau and am painting in a more tradional way.
Then they talk about them self beig so "humble" and "humanistic".
Ofcourse skill doesn't mean you are an artist. But skill is a PREREQUISITE for good art. "Knowlege gives creativity" is a psychological proven fact

And yes - Bougereau, Gérome, the pre-raphs - they were virtuos and admired as such by Degas, Monet and van Gogh...

Hanken, i think that you are mistaken about the way most of us feel about art. i can only speak for myself, though. i like a lot of modern art, from klimt to hirst to rothko. that doesn't mean that i dislike traditional art...i love da vinci, rembrandt, caravaggio, velazquez, etc. etc.

the problem with bouguereau and co. is that they are technically good but intellectually empty. instead of painting a scene that communicates something truthful, they paint pre-set "allegory" ideas over and over again. this is a quote gleaned from the "Art Lady" site, i feel it applies: "The more you look the more you become aware of the cliche of using thrilling technique as the basis for artistic merit. An image must resonate beyond technique. There are also hundreds of competent artists who are good illustrators. The work is fine, but you cannot tell one from another and there is no true originality or unique way of viewing the world. Furthermore, this competent illustrative art becomes more obvious as a cliche the more you see it."

i think that the prevalent mood among those who make non-representational art is that they don't have to paint/draw rep. anymore, that "Real ART is not to impress by technique, not to follow great artists, not a means to be better than anyone else, but it is means to express yourself" (to quote Fania).

sounds nice...everything you make can be art! i know exactly where this comes from...i remember in grade school the teachers weren't supposed to criticize our "artistic endeavors" because it would damage our self-esteem. there is a forty year-old woman that takes art classes with me. she is talentless as far as drawing, painting, ceramics, graphic design, etc. her teachers sat her down one day and explained to her that she would not succeed if she pursued art. was she daunted? no, she was angry that they tried to be honest with her. the remote possibility that they could have been right never crossed her mind.

these people need to learn two concepts:

1. if enough people tell you that you are not good at something, you should probably stop to think - not about what that mean person's dad did to them to make them say that other people aren't good at things, but 'what is it about my stuff that people don't like, there is a possibility that they know what they are talking about.' yeah, it's hard to admit that you aren't good at something you like to do.

2. it's ok to NOT be an "artist" if all you have is a tiny creative vein...you can make your bad pieces, but don't be insulted and hire Johnny Cochran if nobody likes them.

i am not against modern art nor traditional art. what i am against is BAD art. i dunno, i feel that this post is incomplete somehow, but the points i wanted to raise are there.

Bravo!
I don't think that post is incomplete at all. A nicely phrased rebuttal, and one I must agree with. Just because someone enjoys Dali or Lichenstein doesn't mean they are incapable of appreciating and enjoying velasquez or rembrandt. it is tough to determine which pieces out there are "Outsider Art" and which ones are the visual equivalent of noise, however... I can't say I am against bad art, but I can say that "bad artists" shouldn't be surprised when people don't like their work.
Cheers

~~~Oh, I almost forgot:
Just because you like "good art", it doesn't automatically make you a "good person". Or vice versa. Of course, the concept of "Good" is an abstraction...
Cheers again

I dont call myself an artist due to the fact that i think all of my art work is crap, people tell me no you really are a good artist but i can see faults in all of my paintings and it agrovates me. im constantly changing paintings ill take a painting that i did 6 months ago and start trying to fix what i think the problem is. im 19 and i have always thought of myself as a wannabe and to be honest i dont think i will ever refer to myself as an artist.

Here is a link that might be useful: List of Belgian Artists

Here is a link that might be useful: List of Belgian Artists

Here is a link that might be useful: GOoperz