About self portraits. If you did one, how hard did you find it to do .
I think it is such an introspective painting to do that it's just wired .

I presume that by 'wired' you mean 'weird'.

Personally I have found self protraiture to be fairly easy - there is no subject easier to direct. The inherent introspectivity enightened me. I found that I understood the composition of my own face more than ever because I was forced to really look. This understanding nourished a greater level of confidence when painting portraits of others,

marcus

A funny thing about artists that makes lots of self-portraits is that when they then depicture other people these faces often resemble themselves, another aspect of the same phenomena is when tourists are depicted by local artists in for instance Greece and then are given somewhat Greek features.

thought this was a good post, figured i would ressurect it. my last & current assignments in my painting class have been/are self-portraits, the first a series of 4 small (9"-12") paintings & the latter a large "imaginary self-portrait", in which we must paint ourselves in some contrived situation based on things/places/etc. that describe our personality. after the first assignment i was so sick of looking at my own face i could hardly stand it! i am still working on the second assignment, i have a hard time when given free reign with subject matter.

anon, i know what you mean...when i was tired of drawing myself over & over again i took a break by drawing my girlfriend. without intending to, i tried to implement some of the shortcuts i had learned with my own face in drawing hers, and it turned out REALLY weird because she is chinese! i think our facial features are exact opposites: i have a kind of hawkish nose, the top of her nose kind of dissolves into her eyelids; my eyes are deep-set and small, hers are large and almost buggish, also i have heavy lids & hers are stretched across the eyeball; the outline of my face is sharp and angled, hers is round and smooth...i could go on for a while. it is amazing how many differences there are between the facial features & skin textures of the different races...i struggled not too long ago when i attempted to draw a black friend of mine from a photograph. since i had never drawn a black person before, it was really odd to overcome the lazy visual generalizations i had stored in my head.

i wonder how doing self-portraits affects your view or opinion of yourself...i discovered things about myself, physically and otherwise, that i didn't know before.

what I meant was, the self-introspection as doing a self portrait....a bit more metaphysical then the stupid and brainless reproduction of what is in front of you.

Here is a link that might be useful: post september 11th avant-garde

how can you do a self-portrait without introspection (asking how can you do introspection without the self is a whole other taco)? there is something unnerving about staring at yourself in the mirror, be it looking yourself in the eyes or through mirror tricks at different sides of yourself (it is really creepy to look at the side of your own head, btw).

why do you think reproducing what is in front of you is stupid & brainless? it takes skill & talent to do it effectively, and it takes a lot of thought and intuition to communicate the soul of the person.

i think by tossing around the word metaphysical you are just trying to sound sophisticated.

C, you´re not the first to have had that feeling...try clicking the link.
Kim

Aurelia, I love doing self portraits I find the whole process enjoyable and almost meditational. I know what you mean about it being metaphysical, it goes beyond the simple and sometimes repetative act of drawing. I find the idea of trying to communicate aspects of your personality in brushstrokes as important as drawing/painting it well.

I am a portrait artist, and yet, I have never drawn myself (except a baby picture)... I wonder what why?

Well, in fact, this was an old post, from last march, when I was doing a self portrait for fun..It was realistic at the end..but I thought again that reality was not a proper end. So I wanted to make my nose look like a greek nose, realisticaly..so I did a beautiful real greek nose, it was great to look at myself with a greek nose..
And you know what, I've just realised that this old self portrait has been covered two months ago by some black mat painting, and again tonigh by another strange mixture of mine. But my self portraits don't finish always like this, I kept another one from last year..this was funny

Here is a link that might be useful: post september 11th avant-garde

by the way I went to see Malevitch's painting/drawings exhibition with some of his works today, suprematists self portraits of him are quiete unusuals.

kim...i've missed hearing from you, what's up with that?

anyway, what link do you mean, aurelia's page?

Well, C, I´ve been kind of busy doing nothing...you know, family styff and so.

Yeah, I mean Aurelia´s link. So many big words to attract attention to so little artwork. The title of the link itself " post september 11th avant-garde "; jeez, that´s not only hype, it´s hype in shallow, bad taste IMO. WTF; 9/11, avantgarde; and then some rather bland paintings, isn´t that trying to cash in some attention on other people´s tragedy ?

Maybe I wouldn´t have been so pissed off, if the paintings and the site in general had been really great or if this statement hadn´t been part of Hendeka.org, when it was first posted: " The master of conceptual art is Mohamed Atta ". It was nice to see that sentence removed.

Back to the topic, I´ve done a lot of self-portraits and it seems to me that the urge to do self-portraits coincides with periods of transition in my life in general. Maybe that´s why self-portraits becomes so emotionally charged ( at least to the painter himself / herself ).

Kim

Kim, no kidding - did the site say that? I've tried going a couple of times to aurelia links but they are so bandwidth heavy they were too time consuming...

Now I feel less guilty about my remark on needing to distinguish between conceptual art and acts of terrorism. Here I thought I was over the top!

Self-portraits are very hard to do, one of the hardest thing to peel away our conception of self to see what is really there. To face it directly and expose it without filters. Of course, in each act an artist, or any individual, reveals herself to world. The question, "What kind of mind would think of a thing like that?" is a constant reminder of this fact. So self-portrait is more exposing ourselves to ourselves and our willingness to face naked truth.

kim...i really hate to repeatedly point out one person (several & at random, now that's different...) but i just got through exploring aurelia's page.

the paintings & "music" (regurgitated sound effects?) are not as revolutionary as they are presented to be. i at least thought that some of the paintings were ok (i think you have to have more than 4 paintings to call it a style or whatever they call it). it seems like they were done with an aloofness that makes them inhuman and calloused. people died in those buildings and in those airplanes, and you are right, that deserves a lot more respect than "hendeka"'s patting themselves on the back for doing what so many other people are doing: reacting to september 11th through art.

it's as bad as an exhibit that is going on at my college. this guy, i forget his name, has done these textile pieces about terrorism: andy-warhol-looking prints of a masked figure or atomic explosions or the WTC towers. everyone here thinks it is so freaky and meaningful and whatever because they were actually done before september 11th (they were done in like '96). i think it is just icon-izing a horrible facet of our human experience...campbell soup cans are one thing, but the obliteration of thousands of lives just seems a bit too much to me. btw the WTC was a target of terrorist action years ago, the basement was bombed, so it's not all that freaky.

Dear Prometheus, what are your musical and (more widely) artistic references ?
Did you know that paintings have focused on war facts for ages ? From Lascaux to Persepolis or Guernica... What is wrong in taking sept 11th as a subject ? (and in our case it's more a departure point).

Hi Laurent

What I respond to is how it is done, not that it is done per se. To be honest, I find the contents of Hendeka.org downright boring. Even if I try to convince myself that the big words are an integral part of the artwork and not just an attempt to add some much-needed depth to your audio/visual work, it still doesn´t work for me.

Pictures like Picasso´s " Guernica " and Manet´s " Execution of Maximillian " were, by a lot of people, denounced as ugly, anti-artistic etc. when they were first exhibited. The pictures survived this critiscism because they were good pictures, plain and simple. The artists had put all their energy into the artworks themselves and not into a publicity-campaign or an explanatory defence of their productions.

Since one of you actually responds here, I have to tell you that the Mohammed Atta - crap really pissed me off and it´s a good thing you decided to remove it.

SY,
Kim

"Dear Prometheus, what are your musical and (more widely) artistic references?"

As with most other posts from a 'hendeka' member, i am confused as to what you mean.

"Did you know that paintings have focused on war facts for ages?"

The attacks on Sept. 11th were terrorist attacks, let's make that clear.

"From Lascaux"

War paintings at Lascaux? What are you talking about? I've been to Lascaux as well as to Santillana del Mar and the paintings are about hunting & big game.

"to Persepolis or Guernica"

I cannot contest the fact that the Greeks had war-related art. What I can contest is comparing it to what you are doing. Their war art was a claim to greatness...to commemorate their victories and struggles. You are capitalizing on an act of supreme idiocy and prejudice and senseless violence. It is a hard distinction to make, when you consider the fact that all acts of war are those of idiocy, prejudice and senseless violence, but as the saying goes, two wrongs (the ancient Greeks' and yours) don't make a right.

'Gernika' however is a totally different story. Picasso painted 'Gernika' as a response to the atrocities of war, to the indescriminate massacre that accompanies war. It was a direct reaction to Hitler's bombing of a small Basque town, and it denounces the stupidity and the brutality of it. How in the hell can you compare your stuff to 'Gernika'?? The two of you are treating the deaths of those people with irreverence, and you are treating the disgusting and shameful mentality of those who caused the deaths as if it were intended to be art, instead of the violent, narrow-minded, racist mass-murder that it was.

I just found out who Atta was (I don't keep up with all the names). Are you a complete jackass? I sincerely wish for the both of you that you may wind up on the receiving end of such an attack, maybe you will appreciate how the sky is blue before you are erased from the face of the earth.

"What is wrong in taking sept 11th as a subject ? (and in our case it's more a departure point)."

What's wrong is not the subject, but the infantile mindset with which it was treated. You two are like children watching someone get beat up on the playground. Grow up, realize what the f*ck happened on that day and get rid of that retarded website.

What is Hendeka?

demelza, are you asking what the word hendeka means? If so, it is eleven - one + ten in Greek. In Christian biblical studies it refers to the remaining 11 apostles.

aurelia, from your imagery in hendeka, you don't appear to be an artist who eschews representative reference. They are very minimalistic rendering of many photo images from that day.

I am not sure, when McVay refers to being confused by posts from other hendeka members. Is it a group?

Delmeza, may I suggest you to go to the site to get a better idea about our work:
http://www.hendeka.org

Hendeka is the title of an installation by Laurent Mialon and Aurélia D. Derungs which contains many different aspects in different mediums ( acousmatic and concrete music/abstract painting/video/multimedia/mixed media ).

To get a better information about hendeka paintings you can go there

http://www.absolutearts.com/portfolios/d/derungs

or if you want to see some details on hendeka paintings

http://www.angelfire.com/fl5/hendeka

hopefully then, you'll be able to see what is hendeka.

djehan

I wonder if most of the famous artists waited until their later years to pursue self portraits... Maybe as we grow older, we can finally and honestly portray ourselves. Perhaps it is a part of the growth process. Illusive in youth and obtainable with age. Thoughts?

gnat, cannot answer for most artists but most famous artists seem to address self-portraiture all their lives. In representative art, this can be overt presentation or by painting images of themselves into a multiple-person composition. Of course, one can argue the conceptual point that each piece of art is a self-portrait.

CMcV, your point way above about difficulty seeing a person as they are and not as lazy visual generalizations summed up for me the problems experienced looking at that one person's gallery. (Here http://www.wgeorge.com/FA/ - George Ward). In his rendering of the black woman, I do not see a love of the image until after he had done several.

"the conceptual point that each piece of art is a self-portrait", let's not make a generalization of the self portrait..even if it's true that some people could say this.

ps : " They are very minimalistic rendering of many photo images from that day."
My paintings are not minimal....I do not work with bright colors for this special serie (even though I did a bright blue one). My first preoccupation on those paintings is the texture, and the reflection of the lights on it. It took me 2 months to make Beta as for my other paintings.
I love to receive good or bad criticism anyway, but I have to say that due to the fact that you haven't seen this paintings for real, you are wrong in your judgements as you don't know what you are talking about.

Hendeka is an installation, we don't put all our artwork on the internet...

Here is a link that might be useful: hendeka

A few years ago I had the good fortune to see the exhibition of Rembrandt´s self-portraits at the National Gallery in London. 66 pics in all, from very small etchings to half-lenght oils and spanning his whole adult life. Especially the one´s he painted as he grew old were facinating. Incredibly alive is the best way I can describe them.

Rembrandt´s development from a self-assured young hot-head to an old man, who´d had his share of adversity, was were moving to follow. One of the best exhibitions, I´ve ever seen.

aurelia, there is no "us" in my statement about self-portraiture, so there is no "let's" about it. That there is a conceptualist theory that every action by any person is self-relevatory and therefore self-portraiture is not my invention. I introduce for consideration.

True, for your work I only have the images you provide online. But if you don't want evaluations based on those, maybe you shouldn't hawk them. Until I have other opportunity, this is what I know. Compositionally, I see the references to representation I mentioned. Texturally, it is a pixel. I talk about what I know. Good luck to you.

Kim, you make me envious talking about this exhibit. Rembrandt's self-portraits, even in reproductions, reveal so much of his sensibility. To see them in progression like that must have been awesome.

Awesome is the word...unfortunately National Gallery has pulled their web-page about that exhibition, but I found another interesting page.

Here is a link that might be useful: Rembrandt´s selfportraits

Kim, I see a bit of disrespect in your posts in the threads here on this forum. I have been posting here off and on for many years, so I am not a newbie. I don't think this board is centered around what you like or how much things "piss" you off here. You choice of words like the above in quotations shows how immature you are. Please grow up and act adult when posting in forums where other mature people are. Thank you, and please watch your language in the future. I think me as well as other posters would appreciate it.

Sincerely,
aura

The titmouse accosting the cockatoo:
"Sir, you're a birdbrain!"
Came the response: "Well, so are you..."

Auraj, I´ve read your post, pinched myself, read it again and I still don´t know what to make of it.

Honestly, I fail to see where I post disrespectfully towards anybody.

SY,
Kim

this is the hardest subject one can ever paint or pull it off... well thats for me...:)
well drawing and painting the physical shapes and forms are not a problem at all... but painting whats within is the hardest thing to do... tell me what color is a feel? what form is an up-lifting form? infact we have many personality; which sometimes we've never seen b4. how is it to portray something that you yourself cannot understand or express... yes we can do self portrait. but its not as easy as it is... you have fears, imperfections, ugly sides, even feminine sides *if you are male & vice versa*, some things that you cannot be honest to yourself... and if you hide these qualities about yourself...then the self portrait is just another painting of another person. we have so much to learn from ourselves, our mental ability, physical limitations, and all that.. seems to be the hardest.... to be expressed..
for me this is the ultimate test for oneself as an artist. the final stage... oh parsons N.Y love this subject.. even for entry portfolio woohoo..
really its really mind busting and hard to do a "self portrait".
cheers ppl. have a happy day.
sean

If you approach a self portrait in the Impressionistic Realistic style such as Sargent, what you paint is "color patterns of light and shade hitting the retina of the eye." If so, it's just a paintings of light bouncing off a bunch of surfaces. Then you don't have to think about it.
You can see my portraits under the Founders tab at the link below.

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

>"color patterns of light and shade hitting the retina of the eye."

um, that's all anything that we see is.

>If so, it's just a paintings of light bouncing off a bunch of surfaces.

please take a few seconds to think about what this says.

There is a letter by Sargent describing the visual process of Monet and he draws it back to Valasquez about not thinking about what you are painting. May be a simple conclusion now, but the process of thinking like that then was new. We stop cutting up bodies in art school after that, who cared what gave the skin shape. By thinking that way, it help me "see" the foundation and get beyond the superficial stuff. I found once when I broke my glasses and couldn't them fixed, my painting quality increased over night. Just my experience! And I've thought about it for 30 plus years my friend.

let me clarify:

"color patterns of light and shade hitting the retina of the eye" - this is merely a description of the biological act of seeing, over which act we do not have control...if what Sargent is attempting to describe is a new way of looking at things, the manner in which he described it is flawed.

since you have been thinking about the statement "If so, it's just a paintings of light bouncing off a bunch of surfaces" for 30 plus years, let me offer some "new" insight on it: the previous statement about color patterns of light etc. is describing biological seeing; "light bouncing off a bunch of surfaces" is what we are biologically seeing, ie the "color patterns of light and shade" that "hit the retina of the eye."

i know what you are trying to say, you are trying to talk about focusing on light and color, but you and sargent are trying to make it sound more complex than it is by misusing words, obviously without actually knowing that you only think you know what you are writing. it's like the sicilian guy on "Princess Bride" using the word "inconceivable!"

It is definitely about seeing. Of course it is simple biology but for a students learning to paint, it is very hard to get beyond what you are painting. It's about a way of thinking and not thinking, it's about what is important and what is not. When the students looks at a subject it can seem overwhelming with details and it's about seeing through those details to what is important in getting the subject on the canvas.

what? the previous statement had nothing to do with students learning to paint. don't try to hide under new explanations. you are not understanding the difference between seeing and looking. seeing is involuntary, it is going to happen the same way every time...your retina responds to the way light bounces off of things, no matter what you do. when you wear colored glasses, your eyes are still doing the exact same thing. when you close your eyelids over your eyes, the eyes are still seeing, though they are only seeing darkness or the red of light glowing through the skin.

what you are talking about is looking at things differently, ie taking the seen images and rearranging them in your mind.

normally i wouldn't be insistent upon this type of thing except for the Sargent quote: to build a strong building, you must start with a solid foundation, and that quote is a horrid foundation.