--------------------------------------------------------
mromano
« Reply #3 on: 13. Jun 2002 at 15:58 »
Alexei,

First of all, I want to say thanks.. Because you and the 1art.com site got me back into drawing (after about a 24 year absence) and inspired me enough to get into oil painting..

Second, I want to say "keep up the good work" with the site.. When people come up to my desk at work, look at my drawings and say "Wow, I didn't know you were an artist" I always say "I try, but I'm not.. really.. you should see 1art.com (and now artpapa.com) now here is a guy who REALLY is an artist.. " and we oooh and ahh at the still lifes, and portraits, etc.. that you, Lita Dawn, and J.D. Hillberry and others have put up.. Simply amazing.. I knew that "you can do THAT with paint (pencil, charcoal)?" because of some of the works that I studied in an Art history course waaayyy back in college.. but I didn't know that anyone was doing this kind of work today..

So thanks.. my life (and others) are a good bit richer because of your efforts with this site..

Mark
--------------------------------------------------------
Be of good cheer!
Douglas_W
« on: 21. Apr 2002 at 23:49 »
Oh how we see our culture in a state of decay. Almost everything has become a product of our fast food mentally, and sadly that has to apply 99% of the so-called "Visual Arts" of today.
Does a student to music just sit down and bang on keys randomly and expect to produce harmony? Can the novice poet pen out beautiful sonnets without the governing prose of language. Are we able to see young disciples of dance free from the countless hours of rehearsal grace the stage with their rhythmic movements? To most logical people the answer to all of the above questions would be NO! Then why is it that a majority of visual art students and teachers alike feel that they are excluded from the rules that were vehemently honored, valued, tested and proven in the past? They pick up a brush as if it were something owed to them and they proceed to spill their sinful pride into whatever medium the can without a stitch of formal training or reverence for the past. I think that Mr.Antonov was correct in stating in his first video workshop that this is due to the rise of the ?Avant-garde?, and ?Individualism?. Unfortunately these destructive attitudes have become very prevalent in our society today. Subjective, relative, and irrational thinking has undermined the beauty of our visual arts.
Forgive me if I sound angry in my evaluation of the modern, post-modern arts but I (as well as many others)have been cheated out of thousands of dollars in University tuition fees with the pretense that we might actually learn something. But alas I learned more in Mr.Antonov?s two and a half hour video than the four years of pointless bantering from overpaid, uneducated professors. Can there be a hope for the forgotten laws of the ?Old Masters? in the conceptual quote unquote ?Art World?, I would absolutely say YES! Is there hope for the modern, and post-modern art? I have to chuckle and say, NO, for they have no foundation. They are like weeds that spring up for a season but since they have no root, they wither away with the test of time. This is a fundemental truth with every aspect of life ?the foundation is essential?. From my experience in art, more emphasis was put on talking about ?art? than doing it. But craftsmanship is a much more fertile soil for creativity to grow than fine theories about aesthetics.
This is why we must pay great respect to men and women like Mr.Antonov that are dedicated to classical reform in our society. These people do not hide their creative process as some selfish personal glorification, but rather they go to great lengths to share and encourage people in the process of their craft. For they are conscience of the source of which they have drawn, and that source is for everyone, not just for the so-called ?cultural elite?.
The video (and soon video?s) have been such a blessing to me in my lonely quest for rock solid techniques, and this web page will be a wonderful spring of knowledge for artists to "help" one another in their struggles. For Old Masters never begun their artistic practice alone, why should we?

God Bless

Douglas Williamson
--------------------------------------------------------
BluedemonX
« Reply #2 on: 13. May 2002 at 11:43 »
RE: Does a student to music just sit down and bang on keys randomly and expect to produce harmony?

No, what they expect to do is "paint" some random beats into a synthesiser and make a fortune talking dirty about their cars, their money, and their women, etc. over said metronome.

RE: Forgive me if I sound angry in my evaluation of the modern, post-modern arts but I (as well as many others)have been cheated out of thousands of dollars in University tuition fees with the pretense that we might actually learn something.

Doug - I think given that photography gives us the technology to reproduce reality far better than any artist of any age and at any skill (sorry, but if you think about it, no artist could be that precise) art has to take on a different function.

I think we're going to end up with the Classicist vs. Romantic debate all over again. For those not familiar with art history, for a while art was dictated to by conventions gleaned from excavations of treasures from Rome, and art HAD to be done to the golden mean, with certain precise components, elements, colors, etc. Whereas the Romantic period (which immediately followed it) stressed feelings, intuition, etc. etc. etc.

So the upcoming question is now three-part: given that art really doesn't HAVE to be representational, is what art is FOR best expressed in abstract, in a sort of heritage-art classical redoing of various forms, or somewhere in between - a realist, Romantic, "paint what you think of this as well as what you see."

I've pretty much put forth my position, but I respect the other two.

--------------------------------------------------------
Douglas_W
« Reply #3 on: 16. May 2002 at 19:37 »
Thank you for your comments bluedemonX, but what you fail to understand is that the camera in no way replaces the craft of a classical painter. There is no way a camera can catch the tonal depth of the old master painting technique, or the richness that oil color itself can produce (when used correctly). Also during the 17th and following centuries many artists used a interesting piece of equip called the "camera obscura" this allowed many artist to reach that camera-like precision. But I think I would rather have a Vermeer painting than a picture of one
Also Romantic, Classicist painters painted for the most part with the same technique; it was there subject matter that varried. I also have to disagree In your evaluation of Classicism as being stoic and without emotion; I feel that Jacques Louis David's "Death of Marat" has just as much sublime emotion, as any romantic painter.
The big downfall came with impressionists, they were the ones who really disregarded the laws of painting (no offense to those big impressionist fan out there)

I liked what David Leffel said about representational art:

All "realistic" painting is actually abstract. The painter uses paint configurations, squiggles, pigments, and these purport to be flesh, apples, grass, air, space, and so forth. The so-called abstract painter actually is very concrete. Drippings are actually drippings! Paint shot on the canvas or splashed is just that. Rents, holes, sawn pieces are, likewise, exactly that.

Hope this opens some more doors for you in your artistic studies

God Bless

Doug

--------------------------------------------------------
BluedemonX
« Reply #4 on: 17. May 2002 at 09:46 »
RE: Thank you for your comments bluedemonX, but what you fail to understand is that the camera in no way replaces the craft of a classical painter.

No, I did not fail to understand this. What I'm saying is, the craft of painter as someone able to take a really really really good likeness has taken a bit of a back seat because there are other tools to achieve the same result. Back in the day, only way to take an image of a loved one was to have it painted, and a great deal of skill was required to get it right. Now that we have photos, portraits take on a different meaning, is all.

RE: There is no way a camera can catch the tonal depth of the old master painting technique,

High-end cameras certainly can. Light is light.

RE: or the richness that oil color itself can produce (when used correctly).

There are films that can capture wavelengths of light you can't even see. I'm not arguing for painting being inferior to photography, I'm saying that given that a camera can take a better likeness than an artist (excepting some members of the photorealist school) the meaning of art has somewhat changed.

RE: Also during the 17th and following centuries many artists used a interesting piece of equip called the "camera obscura" this allowed many artist to reach that camera-like precision. But I think I would rather have a Vermeer painting than a picture of one

Problem is, you have the distortions inherent in such techniques, which is why Vermeer has been found out in terms of using such. Listen, people used to paint outlines of people through glass, sketch people through grids, anything to make the draftsmanship 100% perfect. It isn't cheating, it's always been part of the technology.

RE: Also Romantic, Classicist painters painted for the most part with the same technique; it was there subject matter that varried. I also have to disagree In your evaluation of Classicism as being stoic and without emotion;

I misspoke here - I'm talking from the Romantic's standpoint. The Classicist (neoclassic, I mean) was more interested in preserving certain Roman/Greek ideas about form, subject matter, and proportion than emotion.

RE: I feel that Jacques Louis David's "Death of Marat" has just as much sublime emotion, as any romantic painter.

Correct. However, David ensured that certain means were followed, and his painting was planned out far more than say, a Turner.

RE: The big downfall came with impressionists, they were the ones who really disregarded the laws of painting (no offense to those big impressionist fan out there)

Well, yes and no. I can appreciate what they were trying to achieve. The fact that it destroyed painting as we knew it, that's another matter. My real bone to pick is with the Cubists, Futurists, Klee, etc.

RE: All "realistic" painting is actually abstract. The painter uses paint configurations, squiggles, pigments, and these purport to be flesh, apples, grass, air, space, and so forth. The so-called abstract painter actually is very concrete. Drippings are actually drippings! Paint shot on the canvas or splashed is just that. Rents, holes, sawn pieces are, likewise, exactly that.

Well, I'm referring to "Square of Grey #24", acrylic on canvas, 44 x 64, $2,244,367

--------------------------------------------------------
Saida
« Reply #5 on: 10. Jun 2002 at 23:06 »
I agree about the subject you touched on and I am so proud to declare that Alexei was always the best student in our group and was very serious about studying arts.
When I was young I thought that I could paint like Picasso, it looked so easy... and only years after I realized how much professionalism was hidden behind his works. Although Alexei's lessons seem easy, behind them lie years of hard work and talent, thanks to Alexei we get a taste of the Old Masters' techniques
--------------------------------------------------------
Thank you
J.D. Hillberry
« on: 18. May 2002 at 09:22 »
Mr. Antonov,
Although I work only with charcoal and pencil, I am very interested in classical realism. I have learned much from your techniques and uncompromising artistic vision. I truely appreciate your dedication to educating others about "real art".
Allowing other artists to post their work for comment and critique is a wonderful addition to this site. Hopefully, www.artpapa.com will become as popular as www.1art.com.
Thank you for your talent and sharing it.
J. D. Hillberry
--------------------------------------------------------