Bernadette

I paid a visit to your webpage and I believe I would've been the loser if I hadn't. I thoroughly enjoyed your saturated use of color, your unusual way of looking at things, and that lovingly sincere way of putting your skills to good use. I noticed how in that pondscape, in between those circular leaves, you managed to bring out the reflection of the sky on that tranquil water - at the same time not overlooking the greenish-brown roots submerged just underneath the surface. The blood red sky in that other landscape reminded me of Vincent and some of the latter day expressionists, and of course I do acknowledge your expected protest that it is a sky entirely of your own creation. Bottomline is that, I loved the work. Also in the 'tree' painting, that silvery grey spread of branches against a deep blue sky would make anyone want to lift their mundane daily gaze from their feet and look around and up, at least for a few days after they have seen the work.

I was taught in the same school of art that you went to, that is we do not have the privilege or misfortune (whichever way one looks at it) of having an official art degree against our names. I learnt from the observable world around me, from the works of giants that came before me, and from tutorials on the net or books that teach you about the technical aspects of handling paint. Using these as my tools, I expressed my thoughts on the canvas (true paintings, as Tolstoy used to say, is after all nothing but "expression" at its core) - thoughts inspired by and assimilated through life's experiences.

I totally agree with you. Paintings need not be painted after a premeditated "style" or "-ism" if that is the word we are looking at. "-isms" are nothing but products of semantic exercise, a necessary cataloging of chunks of art history, nothing to do with us artists, and essentially a task for critics and art historians. We create, they analyze and catalogue. An artist true to his or her art always begins on a white canvas (metaphorically speaking, of course!), on which the assimilation of ideas, as unique as we all are, pour out in form and color.

But there is one essential point to note - as regards paintings, they must stand on their own. A theory can be supplemental, but if a theory is all there is to a painting, then to my mind, it is wrong to call it a painting. An exhibition of theories must never be billed an exhibition of paintings. A fertile mind can perhaps write a thousand pages of theory on that red sky you painted, but it would stand as good as it does today without a single word written in its name. Because it is purely a painting, and its your own creation. If I can detect shades of Vincent in it, that is because I have been exposed to the same works of (and influenced by) that red-haired mad Dutchman as you. What we see, what we like, seeps into our subconscious, like little mannerisms and affectations of speech that we inevitably pick up from our closest elders. But what we ultimately express is spawned out of our independent thought.

Regards

Roy

"Artist on a mend" - My works

Anyway I don't consider myself a great artist, but I know my theory and for someone like me, that helps me pull together a painting into something that pleases me.

When I did my degree I thought I wasn't too bad, but what I learned very quickly was that there are so many things to learn about symmetry, perspective, measuring, composition that I was thinking 'wow I could really use that' on a daily basis.

Devaluing someone's work based on their formal education in art is very short-sighted, but that education really can help. I can draw what I see now instead of what my brain tells me. I can measure things so they are in proportion. I have a much richer appreciation of other artists because I was shown and had them explained to me.

I guess some people get caught up in that theory. They look at a picture and they see a tree not particularly on the .618 line, or an edge that doesn't quite join the others at the vanishing point. While this is pedantic, you have to forgive them to a degree because, like me, they see the genius in what people like Giotto through to Leonardo did for us in these fields.

It looks like you aren't losing out by not looking for a course or something. You obviously love your work and you're good at it! But I would suggest that being in that learning environment can be an enriching experience.

Yes there seems to be a big bugaboo about being self-taught. Everyone wants to categorize, label, contain, explain. So you get labeled as SELF TAUGHT. Yes it seems like a big red "A"..! If you have a show, that will be a major point, but by then, well it's not a red A, it's a label--obviously you are good enough to have a show, so what's the problem?

If you want to explore on your own and can solve and get through the difficulties of what you want to produce on your own, go for it! Good for you. Lots of teachers can actually mess up your direction -- they're not all looking at how you tick, it's just that they can only offer you their solution, and it's not necessarily in your best interest. I have been turned off by teachers and have to get away from them from time to time.

I think being influenced by other artists is OK, but my dearly departed friend -- who is the one who encouraged me to paint -- would purposely not like to even look at other people's work -- it all gets impressed in the brain in the subconscious and she knew it and wanted to be as original as she could be. The truth is that we can't HELP but NOT be ourselves... personality oozes through whether we want it or not. i think the notion of an artist is one who does march to their own drum.... if you want help in your direction then that is time for a class. if you don't need help, definitely don't go.. if you want community, then meet with other artists... there is nothing wrong with cocooning and incubating your ideas...

It is of course perfectly okay to remain self-taught; however, you then have to accept that you operate on a different level. Very few great artists acquired their greatness completely outside the art schools. There is a definitive difference of quality between the work of amateur artists and those who attended art-school.

I agree that some teachers have a negative effect - however, there are also teachers that will open up doors that did not even exist before.

What you do acquire is method (e.g. techniques, mark-making, developing ideas, researching and resourcing your work) and discipline. Art can indeed be about expressing something from within, but good teachers can help you find the best means and ways of doing so.

Talking of snobbism, I have been struck by how many amateur artists act superior because of their lack of training - this is not something you would find in any other profession, creative or otherwise! They talk as if tuition would taint their gift. If art school stops you from marching to your own drum, the beat couldn't have been very distinctive to start with.

By the way, it doesn't hurt to be pleasant to people - you don't have to flatter but perhaps you've heard of the saying "if you haven't got anything positive to say, that don't say anything at all".

I will now take your advice and not say anything further at all on this topic, since it is not likely to be what you want to hear.

I have just stumbled upon this forum. I think your works are wonderful. I love how you interpret what you see, the reflective technique, and the angles you use and very creative.

I am self taught....at the momment I am learning all I can about drawing techniques. I am loving it, but I am still a bit frustrated trying to get depth to my drawings, and make them look 3 dimensional. But I persist.

The thing I like about it, is I can leave all my pencils, and sketchings up one end of the dining table and come and go at it during the day. It is like my own place of paradise, and relaxation, its wonderful.

My mother was a painter, and I am only beginning to realize that creative passion is in me...I wish I could tell her, but she is painting in heaven now.

I agree with you it is good being able to teacher yourself, and go at your own pace.

All the best
Popi

I, too, consider myself self-taught, although I did have a good basis from Mother and Grandmother while growing up and the above mentioned HS art course in theory. It has helped me tremendously in my lifetime after of self-study,
but all of that was done as a child and took me nowhere near where I am today.

I think an artist can only become really good with self study and practice. Years of practice and work to develop your skills is what it takes. Lots and lots of time and practice. No one is born able to produce fine art and it's not something you can learn at school, either. Even after a lifetime of painting/drawing I still have a lot to learn and a long way to go. It's not a goal, its a journey. Artists who are further along the road will always be able to see a path in your work that you have not taken yet. The question is whether or not to point it out now or wait for you to learn it when you are further along. (Get a book on design theory, especially perspective. It'll help you a lot with your depth problem. Perspective, in itself, is a huge study that takes time and understanding to develop.)

I have a large objection to people who call themselves artists because they have a degree in art. That does not make an artist make. Anybody can go to school. The ability to swirl paint together on a canvas does not an artist make, either. Anyone who picks up a brush can call themselves an "artist".

I think the only criteria for judging whether or not you are a "successful" artist is the public response - they're the ones who buy it - paintings sold and/or public competitions won.