.
.
that's what my sis says to me.Originally Posted by discojoe
i know the difference between using Ne or Ni or whatever to alter or change the physical representation vs. copying what i see. there is a difference.
Yeah, I agree. All of my art is photorealism, and I don't consider other types to be any more of a "creation" than mine. Sometimes it's a lot more difficult to draw what you see than to draw what you think. Most people don't notice half of the things that make up a picture. They may be more "creative," but I couldn't care less. At least I know how to use my eyes and see what's actually there.
Here's the last piece I finished: click.
It's not complete in that photo, but I never got the chance to take one of it finished. Anyway, I think being able to notice all of the things that make up reality is a lot more work than "creating" or whatever. You can strain yourself to think of how to make a strange-looking creature, etc. Or a mystical scene or abstract art. But tbh, it's just kind of pointless to me. You can make yourself think, but you can't really train yourself to see.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
thats how i was at your age. my mom expected me to be the next "great" artist. and considering how competitive i can be, i cared because i wasnt the "kind" of creative that got the accolades, etc. only her "owning" my pride. no thx. no one owns my anything. so i went out of my way to figure out how to be that kind of creative while disowning my own way of being.
thank you allie. this has helped me in more ways than you know.
My exact sentiments, which is what essentially sparked my recent interest in photorealism. I now believe that it is better to just 'see' things as they are instead of imposing your own limiting interpretations on them. Obviously, we all have to analyze things, but as far as moment-to-moment cognition goes, immediacy rules me. Like, when I used to look at art, I would try to analyze the artist's perspective, mind state, etc. and try to think of the symbolism and shit in the piece. But eventually I realized that I am hampering the quality of the piece by doing so, and that any idea behind it exists implicitly and doesn't need to be defined, explained, etc. You just see it and know it. The pure reality of it is superior to any "creation." And I don't think people who come up with shit out of their imaginations are any more "creative" than people who draw realism or whatever. They're both images, both conveying something; I just prefer pure, sentient reality in all of its detail than some random bullshit someone conjured and thinks is some universal symbol. yeah...how did I ever like surrealism before...lol
Yeah, a lot of times it's pretty limiting to draw what you think, because the person will miss out on significant nuances of the actuality of something, instead tying together their own limited viewpoints. I've come to harbor the disposition of wanting the art to be what it is, regardless of what someone *thinks* it is, thus the implicit connection: I don't care how it feels to a person, because I expect that thing to vary, and remain internal. But what it is should not change IMO.
4w3-5w6-8w7
I think it's a lot more complicated than you make it sound. An apparent "copy" of something can be made and yet possess varying levels of "creation" without being a mere copy.
Yeah, I forget the names of the two types of painting.
yayI was hoping someone would say something like this. And it doesn't just apply to art; it's about your intrinsic disposition towards things.
It's why people go to prestigious schools and are still idiots...
4w3-5w6-8w7
Agreed. "Creative" has a bunch of bullshit connotations, that rest on a few faulty assumptions.
Impressionism vs. Realism?Yeah, I forget the names of the two types of painting.
4w3-5w6-8w7
lol
It's just a matter of how deeply you feel like thinking about this kind of shit, lol.Agreed. "Creative" has a bunch of bullshit connotations, that rest on a few faulty assumptions.
Shrug. That's probably it.Impressionism vs. Realism?
Wow. That would be a pretty handy skill. I have some snapshots in my head, but I generally have to consciously study the image, go over every detail, in order for it to be stored in my head. I can be around a person all day and not be able to tell you what they were wearing at the end of it - unless I consciously focused on their clothes at some point or something about them struck me for some reason. But once I've focused on something, I don't forget it.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Image/ideal reflection of the week?
I do the same kind of thing. I'm very visual this way - a lot of my memories/conclusions about things are chunked and stored within this visual experiential catalog. Like even now I remember a visual snapshot of a frame of the video you once posted of yourself where I think you were wearing glasses, and may or may not have been sitting on a bed, I can't remember the bed specifically. I remember thinking you reminded me of Gwenyth Paltrow.
ive seen that book too. i think people CAN learn it but its different when something comes so natural you just do it. im sure thats what your kind is like. ive tried for years to come up with things that you probably just do naturally, but it takes A LOT of work.
the old adage "the grass is always greener." i need to appreciate my own strengths more than i have been doing.
I don't consciously study the detail when I first see something, it sort of gets recorded unconsciously under the general experience. When I recall the experience in my mind, the scenes surface automatically and it becomes integrated and I can start to see the details as they emerge. It's like an emotion, when you begin to explore it, it starts illuminating it's different manifestations.
.
Isn't she INFj? Just saying, lol.
4w3-5w6-8w7
.
Yeah maybe I did combine them.
And would you still be ISFj if Expat was ESTj instead of ENTj?
.
That's interesting. I try to do that ... but it takes intense concentration and there's not much illuminating involved. lol And if I try too hard, my mind can fill in the blanks with false information which then becomes confused with what really happened. It works best when I let my subconscious do the work. lol
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Yeah, the less effort the better. Just let it make itself known to you.
Oh, you're welcome. I didn't realize it would help anyone. How so?
Impressionism and Realism are not two types of painting. They're art movements (though argued by some to be styles). They can be represented by various media, not necessarily painting. I don't think there are simply "two types of painting."Impressionism vs. Realism?
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
Haha, you didn't like photorealism when I was showing you Kent Bellows, Chuck Close, etc. When did you develop this sudden change of interest?
Woah. This is eerily similar to my sentiments on art... haven't I said all of this to you before?
I hate symbolism. If something is important enough to be portrayed in art, why does it need a symbol to represent it? Anything worth being seen should be seen in its raw form. Bleh. When did you stop loving Surrealism so much? I've always hated that shit.
Texture. We forget texture. Notice a shape and you've got a silhouette. Notice an angle and you've got a cartoon. Notice value and you've got dimension. But people forget texture. They'll shade all of the shadows and assume that it looks "pretty real" at that point. But nothing is alive without its texture. Texture marks age, pain, depth, and life. It tells others what we've been through, how we feel about ourselves, what the world has done to us. Dolls, cartoons, animation, etc.... these things never portray texture. These things don't really feel alive to us either. Not truly alive, anyway. They don't carry everything they are and everything they've been through on their bodies, so any degree of "realness" in them is of no interest to me. But wow... to any artist who can convey a person's texture on something as contrary to it as a two-dimensional sheet of paper... that's real art to me. Understanding how to see someone's texture doesn't require abstract symbols or an art degree. It's about communicating something in reality through its native language.
Don't paint someone red to represent their passion. If the person is truly passionate it will show through their skin in its most raw and beautiful form. This is photorealism to me. If one lacks the technical ability to draw something "as it is," then they'll never be able to capture the truth about a person to the full extent. At this point the passion they so desperately wanted to convey is dulled down to something as general and clichéd the color red. But for some, it'll have to do.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
paint or die
this is very moving, passionate.
im one of those that the color red has to do. thats what i like about your avatar, the red.
you're the artist i wished i was.
I didn't dislike those people; I was just fairly indifferent to it, in the face of surrealism. At the time surrealism felt more internally saturated to me or something. But actually, I hadn't really been browsing art since that time. It sort of stemmed from a more general life outlook/ideology, and about a week ago I just found myself browsing realism art and suddenly appreciating the simplistic beauty in it much more than any other style. I didn't have to interpret, focus on abstracting things, etc. I could just appreciate its reality. It was sort of a widdling out in a way, getting rid of superfluous abstraction tendencies and going back to the simple aesthetics of things, I think. The attitude has manifested in other ways recently as well.
I remember what you said before. But this is more of an overriding perspective for me than solely focused on a style of art. I don't necessarily want to expound on personal shit, but that's essentially where it stems from. As for the bolded part, that's essentially how it feels when I try to think about a painting or whatever. Like with surrealism, you can sort of explore all the abstract ideas in it, but to me now, that's tiring and unfulfilling. When I look at a realism painting or whatever, I can feel it and see it, and that is enough for me, at least for the time being. I don't know how long this phase will last, lol. Hopefully something significant will be gleaned from it.Woah. This is eerily similar to my sentiments on art... haven't I said all of this to you before?
I don't hate symbolism. I mean, in movies and books it can be quite elegant and illustrative of poignant ideas. After all, archetypes do exist, and typically find their manifestation through (complex) symbols that underpin the fabric of experience. But in the realm of capturing pure reality, yeah, it's not really necessary. As for surrealism, I sort of harbor the same indifferent disposition that I previously had towards realism. Weird. But I just look at surrealism shit now and don't feel it like that. I just don't care or something. It feels too complex, and I want simple reality.I hate symbolism. If something is important enough to be portrayed in art, why does it need a symbol to represent it? Anything worth being seen should be seen in its raw form. Bleh. When did you stop loving Surrealism so much? I've always hated that shit.
Very interesting. I think this somewhat pertains to a discussion I had with ritella and joy earlier about how the authenticity of something dies when it is externalized.Texture. We forget texture. Notice a shape and you've got a silhouette. Notice an angle and you've got a cartoon. Notice value and you've got dimension. But people forget texture. They'll shade all of the shadows and assume that it looks "pretty real" at that point. But nothing is alive without its texture. Texture marks age, pain, depth, and life. It tells others what we've been through, how we feel about ourselves, what the world has done to us. Dolls, cartoons, animation, etc.... these things never portray texture. These things don't really feel alive to us either. Not truly alive, anyway. They don't carry everything they are and everything they've been through on their bodies, so any degree of "realness" in them is of no interest to me. But wow... to any artist who can convey a person's texture on something as contrary to it as a two-dimensional sheet of paper... that's real art to me. Understanding how to see someone's texture doesn't require abstract symbols or an art degree. It's about communicating something in reality through its native language.
Don't paint someone red to represent their passion. If the person is truly passionate it will show through their skin in its most raw and beautiful form. This is photorealism to me. If one lacks the technical ability to draw something "as it is," then they'll never be able to capture the truth about a person to the full extent. At this point the passion they so desperately wanted to convey is dulled down to something as general and clichéd the color red. But for some, it'll have to do.
4w3-5w6-8w7
i'm more likely to remember their words views and actions and such things, how forum members look, and many people in real life, is irrelevant to me. I can also find what would be regarded as an ugly person attractive depending on who they are as a person.
When I try to do this I'm never able to remember a proper "snapshot", rather I remember an abstract image that I suppose would resemble an "outline" of the person's actual appearance. I very quickly lose any sense of objectivity though as, depending on my attitude towards said person, my mind will automatically hide or inflate different traits/characteristics.
In terms of physical attraction it would be difficult for me to confidently list specific 'little' characteristics in women that I'm inherently attracted to (i.e. hair colour, facial dimensions etc.) but I can confidently state "general" characteristics that initially attract me i.e. women that appear exotic (due to foreign accent/culture/appearance etc.). I don't know why. Even minor variations of English accents (i.e. girls with a maritime/newfoundland accent)
INFp-Ni
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote