Art is artifice. It may be an expression of what someone aspires to be, at best. Picasso, no doubt a great artist, was an extremely nasty little man who set his women upon each other and beat them himself. My novels, if you read them straight through, will tell you nothing about me except that I'm like a chameleon, colorful but very difficult to pin down definitively, impenetrably strange except about what I choose to represent to you as art.Alitogata wrote:Have you ever thought that art shows the character of each individual?
It's impertinent of people to want to get close to one just because you're an artist.
Hah! I'm a retired racer. I used to drive sunflower yellow Porsche so that people could see me coming from far away and get the hell out of my way, and when I grew too old for Porsche I moved on to Turbo Bentley and Volvo estates to which I fitted big, brutal American engines, both good for clearing the road. In 1992 I gave up the car altogether because driving was just boring. Now, if people want me, they can come to me or send a plane.Alitogata wrote:Something like the thing that they say about driving.
Perhaps some wannabes who randomly splash paint on canvas in the hope that someone will call the resulting mess a work of genius. (Of course the idiots who think anything they don't understand must have meaning beyond them are the truly insecure, not the artists, if they have any talent and sense). My experience of those "abstractionists" is that they're anything but confused: they're closely focused on the money. Real artists, who create meaningful images in whatever form of art, are often abstracted to an extent that you wouldn't believe. Novelists are engaged with the voices in their heads, artists with the images, some people (film people especially) with both. There is zero correlation between being organized in life and the ability to assemble a meaningful work of art; they're different, possibly even opposed, organizational talents. Nobody even knows whether the ability to look laterally at what is before us isn't in the case of the artist the necessary filtering of an abstracted or otherwise weird mind.Alitogata wrote:Do you think i.e that someone who is abstractive in his life will be same abstractive in his paintings
You haven't understood The Cornerists, though of course that is par for the course. We're used to being misunderstood. (Oh, woe, pity us! Duh!) When we're dead, the prices of our art will skyrocket... The point about selecting the most significant part of the image is to discard the irrelevant parts and details, as Rob explained earlier, and to show only the most significant (to the artist, that is, not necessarily to the viewer -- art isn't a democratic voting process). It's not about "sticking with the details" in any sense of the word, but about discarding irrelevant details before even considering what to do with what remains, which may be a gestalt or even merely something suggested by the remainder, regardless of whether the remaining details are specifically incorporated. Look at the various versions, including your own, of the photo I posted of the pink and yellow flowers and the driftwood: Jan did two whole sketches of only the driftwood, very detailed, Rob just left out the driftwood as irrelevant to his hazy-air version of the flowers (and you can bet your house, his explanation will be different from mine), I left out the flagstones, you put them in.Alitogata wrote:... or a cornerist ( as Andre says) if in his/her life sticks with the details?
Does putting in the regular flagstone lines in beautiful dual-perspective suggest that Marialena has a railroad mind? Of course it doesn't! It's a ludicrous idea. (That won't stop some cheap critic, desperate to say something hurtful and controversial, from saying it, but that's a different aspect of the arts.)