This relates specifically to when you're studying the work of another artist. How do you know which elements of a composition are intentionally designed, and which are happy accidents? I notice in a lot of modern day production work, artists often incorporate conventions which save time or make clients happy on a deadline. You could also look back to the old masters and assume to some degree that those works weren't created under as much pressure and therefore all their decisions of what to put in the piece, what to leave out, what shapes they chose, etc. Were carefully controlled, vs a fast and production line style of design.
Did the artist choose to break the rule of thirds and the golden ratio? Why is this figure placed in this specific spot? Why is he looking out of the picture instead of inside? Did this artist choose a gamut of shapes or did they just draw whatever needed to be in there for narrative reasons? That's my thought process when analyzing a piece, and often I can't find answers to those questions, which means there's either a gap in my knowledge or there is no answer.
How do you guys study to understand the artist's thought process?
- JB
I think you are right in the end that there is no answer.
Peoples nature is to search for meaning in everything, but that meaning is only valid
for the observer, so what ever you are ready to believe about certain painting, you
will make it real.
You can only analyze WHAT is in the painting, not WHY its there.
And I dont think its relevant to your life what some person
who lived 400 hundred years ago thought when painting.
Ian McCaig said that early on he would look for his favorite artists
to how they would draw a blade of grass or hands or whatever,
untill he discovered that he has all those things in nature in
the perfect form and he never looked another artists for
solutions again.
Give it a test, look at how your favorite master painted portrait
then look at your self in the mirror and think of it as a painting.
You realize now how inferior painting is.
So I think best thing is to learn from practice and drawing
from the best quality source of life that we have.
You can compare it to music, when analog music gets converted
to digital it looses quality, and for learning you dont want to
learn from lesser quality.
As for expression thats I suppose best for everybody to
learn for themselves.
(11-16-2013, 02:09 PM)Beeston Wrote: [ -> ]You could also look back to the old masters and assume to some degree that those works weren't created under as much pressure and therefore all their decisions of what to put in the piece, what to leave out, what shapes they chose, etc. Were carefully controlled, vs a fast and production line style of design.
You sure about that? Where's that coming from?
(11-17-2013, 12:16 AM)Psychotime Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2013, 02:09 PM)Beeston Wrote: [ -> ]You could also look back to the old masters and assume to some degree that those works weren't created under as much pressure and therefore all their decisions of what to put in the piece, what to leave out, what shapes they chose, etc. Were carefully controlled, vs a fast and production line style of design.
You sure about that? Where's that coming from?
Feng Zhu videos for example? Well, old masters definitely did client job but they didn't have to make concept art for example in 2-4 hours.
As mentioned before, I think old masters were great nature obsevers. Very precise and accurate. Did a lot of studies. This is where all the design came from probably. We tend to think of many things as an issue and solve problems by searching for ready-made solutions. It may sound funny but for me, most knowledge about color and light came from... painting fruits, cuttlery, etc. from nature. I tried to cope with those things by searching for tutorials, coping colors from other people work but I never got the essence in this way. I kind of got around, never understood why the things are the way they are.
analyzing art to that degree is pointless. It's like interpretation of poems, all is correct, the number of syllables is right all rhymes sound great, but why he used this word not other it's not only matter of happy accident but also of individual thinking, emotions and life experience. We have basic rules like golden ratio etc. but the ultimate question is "is it appealing or not?" is the change in rules make it look better? Or he/she just screw it up because there where no Photoshop yet! xD