|
|||||||||
>>>are the "archival" qualities of the artwork more important than the "artistic" qualities , are these mutually exclusive or can they coincide<<<
Seeing as museums seldom exhibit paint samples that have been produced to the most exacting standards, yet give wall space to creations which, while not nearly as perfect as the precise samples, do offer a glimpse into humanity's soul, the answer will become self-evident.
From all definitions of art (except for a few very daffy oddities) we can easily assume that everything we do -- perfection of technique, mastery of method have, as an overarching goal the singular expression of a human being. The absolute perfection of an automotive paint job is technically superior to the paint film in most paintings, yet it does not warrant a place in many museums. The unchanging clarity of a diamond, whilst beautiful, just ain't art. And as we have been told, a diamond is forever. How's that for archival?
There's nothing "touchy feely" about knowing that every effort is directed toward one end alone...the individual expression of a person who is very different from the mainstream (yes, the artist has to be aside from the hoi polloi). When that person can stand outside the mainstream yet observe its universal verities and turn around to express them in a way that draws emotion from the viewer, we have witnessed the very essence of what it is to be an artist.
I see so many young artists treat art as if it was an athletic contest with a published set of rules...The Marquis of Queensbury's Rules of Artistic Conduct -- thou shalt not use any tools other than those used by Northern Eurpean painters in the 17th century. 18th and 19th century tools are frowned upon, as are 15th century tools looked down upon as merely quaint. To be avoided at all costs are tools of the 20th century. A drawing done with a pencil that has been sharpened with a knife (preferably in the style of an antique knife with history) has to be vastly superior to a drawing done with a pencil sharpened in an electric pencil sharpener. Projectors? Photos? Verboten! The only pure art can be done with a model sitting in front of the painter, striking an uncomfortable and stiff pose...at least that's what I see issuing from the easels of those purists. Of course the issuing is infrequent because it appears that it takes a great deal of time to produce a portrait of a truly constipated sitter with glazed eyes. It also appears that those artists have, perhaps, one or two ideas per annum. Hardly volcanoes of creativity!
That's what I see -- lots of joyless painting that appears as if the artist
was strugging to impress an unseen panel of experts, many of whom have yet to
be born and reside in the future of the artist's mind. That lack of joy translates
very clearly to the viewer...and they wonder why the stuff doesn't sell!
Re:
PVA vs RB Glue jack Posted at: 08/24/00 (1)
Re:
PVA vs RB Glue rob howard Posted at: 08/25/00 (0)
Re:
PVA vs RB Glue rhoward Posted at: 08/23/00 (1)
Re:
PVA vs RB Glue James Morton Posted at: 08/24
Teaching
Zone | Paintings | Still
lifes | Portraits |
Drawings | Giclee
| Library of
images | Slide Show
| Digital | Lesson 1st
| Downloads | Screensaver
| Forums| Internet | Site
Map | Home | |
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. |