Re: if you want to paint like nerdrum,rembrandt or whoever

In Reply to: Re: if you want to paint like nerdrum,rembrandt or whoever posted by Baron C. Maltais on 08/16/00 at 9:56 AM:

hehe. jesus.
1- never seen a nerdrum in person?
2- have u seen a rembrandt? in person?
3- how is it that i could show you a student of rembrandt's work, then show you his, and
you would have to use a microscope to decide which is which. Ever heard of "rembrandt not rembrandt"?
It was a show at the Met. ( the students' colors were a little muddier.)
No artist has the copyright on darkness and presence. hehe. The
main reason Rembrandt is famous is due to his up-close skill. That is what i am talking
about mainly, which was derived from medieval art. Anyone can create "presence" and "mood",
Historians have beefed up
Rembrandt so bad that people don't even know what the F** they are talking about, and
since Rembrandt is famous they think it must be his special mood and presence. bwaha.
crock of sh**. (his main compositional tool was to darken unimportant areas).
There are a many other painters out there that were as good as rembrandt, but they were just
a little less daring and too anal. The name Rembrandt has become so big that people dont
even remember where and when he came from, hehe. They ignore all other past artists other
than the big names, and the unknowns are the ones who give me the best technique info,
since there are many more unfinished.
4- suffering, ethos/pathos whatever, individual, light/darkness,
that is 1 ounce of what rembrandt was after despite whatever viewers think.
. all the theme/presence bullshit is for the
historians to buff up for sales, to the point that you think you know everything and know nothing.
. what you see up close is what rembrandt and titian/late, were
after, and about mostly, despite all the suffering and fall from grace bs. hehe. the "up close" stuff is what gives
you the emotion, from a distance, yet you may not even know it in the age of the screen.
. they were like scientists of their time. it is easy to depict an emotion and a dramatic
image. that photography can do. just because rembrandt didnt depict only kings and decided
to do some "real" people in dark settings and anglular compositions doesnt make him that special.
funny how only novice people don't even mention nature. They just mention "mood" and "tone,
and "composition", thats like basic stuff they should have mastered in drawing class, and compostion
is a matter of taste anyway, not to be defined by a western proportion, hehe. Example:
take a sponge with ink and throw it on the wall, da vinci even knew that one hehe.
centralized/static compostion versus moving composition is taste.
drawing is painting btw.

nature is what they were after. photography does show it to a degree. the joy comes in imitating
nature, and playing with it. If you want to see suffering, look at the texture of a rock. See? suffering is there.
yet ironically this came along with scientific interests of rembrandt and titian. and even
medieval art. Pollack was wrong when he said "i am nature" "cezanne paints nature". He forgot that
when you go up close, you will see the same thing, it is on 2 levels. This second up close level
is horribly underemphasized. Look at nature and you can see the suffering of rembrandt, even
if the composition, light and all that stuff is different than his. (although suffering in high key
is a little tougher hehe). ever notice how all the major artists were always talking about nature?
hehe. Viewers and art sellers talk about composition and and mood. People who don't look at nature are doomed
to repeat some artist's style. i am still trying to break away from work i have learned from.
its a pain and it can brainwash u. funny thing is a lot of the technique stuff out there talks about things like measuring
eyes and noses ROFL and composition. that should be a quick and automatic measurement, to the point that
you almost dont have to do it. drawing mistakes will not be so visible if the painting is unified
in every other way.
Part of what makes the painting more interesting in the figure are the mistakes, but
they should be only slight, not like the top of the head is cut off, hehe. So someone could
paint a painting that looks nothing like Rembrandt, and still paint with the same idea/technique.
it doesnt belong to rembrandt anyway,( no more than a minor chord belongs to anyone)
but that's the guy who uses it most obviously,
well i guess jackson pollack and chuck close are more obvious, hehe. Anyone
who calls Odd Nerdrum a clown or a crumby painter doesn't know anything about painting,
or is just jealous. Nerdrum is a dick in my opinion, but he is a great painter. Also people have
to stop saying "talent" and stuff as if it is a god given gift to paint as Nerdrum called it.The application part is just
a skill and thats it. When people bust their ass, and become good, all the bystanding couch potatoes
say what a talented person they are and how they wish they had that "talent", and blame some
god for not having it.
derek

 
A. A. Art. This Site designed and maintained by Alexei Antonov
Translation from Russian Copyright (c) 1999 Vladimir Pavlov.
Copyright (c) 1999 Alexei Antonov. All rights reserved.