expromanticism.com
Art Articles
Realism vs. Modern Art
My art history professor used to say that the first artwork ever created was done in Realism. During our cave days, the early men needed images of animals to evoke a sense of successful hunt, so the very first artists had to paint recognizable animals. Apparently, the closer the similarity to the real thing, the stronger the sense of the work's magical power.
However, during the Renaissance, the function of painting changed. Especially in Holland, during the 17th century, successful middle class families got interested in owning a painting either a landscape or perhaps a portrait. Therefore, it is safe to say that for hundreds of years later up to the middle of the 19th century, art and painting in particular served as a means to keep records. Like in the coronation of Napoleon, it was used as a documentation of the event.
Record keeping eventually changed place with artists' self-expression. This was, in large part, due to the advent of photography. No longer it was deemed necessary to paint an event or even a portrait realistically. Some began to paint from photographs, an easier and cheaper way to the alternative which was to hire a model. I guess it took them some time to realize that photography was not the ultimate tool to capture realism, and neither was painting. This competition went on for a while with each side trying to emulate the other. The early poses in photography were all reminiscence of time-honored ones in painting.
It is safe to assume that eventually artists revolted against this notion, and realized that nothing could capture reality, and essentially both forms capture an impression of a subject. This gave rise to the advent of Modern Art and the definition of stereotypical artist. One who has a lot of integrity, and does not compromise on his principles. He only expresses himself. Copyright, Ali
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More ideas on quality of artwork and objective viewing
By having shows, artists communicate and interact with the public. This communication is never ending, continuing after the artist passes away. His work will serve as a bridge between his feelings and the future generations. It's this connection and link that I'm interested in. Everyone has an inherent energy. When we work, this energy is dissipated, but works of art serve as a sort of capacitors, holding this energy.
This energy is self-evident, but not to everyone! In order to feel it, an audience must be sensitive enough to pick it up. The analogy of it would be like a radio receiving different waves. The visitor's station must be tuned to that wave length to receive it. If not, there's no other way to perceive and feel the full impact of an artwork.
Price ≠ Quality, Time taken to do a work ≠ Quality, Difficulty ≠ Quality, Fame of an artist ≠ Quality.
I am showing above that quality of an artwork is not necessarily related to those factors listed.
However, you could say: Quality = Arousal of your senses = Personal significance for the artist or the audience.
Arousal of senses is based on your personal experiences, and your life experiences have minor or major differences with another person's. How much you can relate to a work of art based on your experience is equal to the quality of work.
Objective Vs. Subjective viewing
To say that you're looking at an artwork objectively is not quite right. Basically the moment you see it, it establishes a personal relationship with you. There's no way you could say that you're judging it objectively. Especially, looking at modern art, this term (objective) does not make any sense, therefore it should not be used.
Looking at a work of art, a viewer may see or feel something that reminds him/her of a pleasant past experience. By saying that you like it, you're acknowledging this fact. Most people say that I know what I like, but it is more like we like what we know. If we stay open to the new ideas we encounter and keep studying different art styles, we begin to see that we are capable of liking what previously was unknown to us. Next time please say I like what I know! Copyright, Ali
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern Art
What a modern artist does is to give the world his interpretation of what he sees. This may be in the form of a site or a thing. He paints after a subject not trying to copy it. He could modify the composition, the colors, or perhaps introduce new elements into it. The bottom line is this: Since the advent of photography, artists have been freed to paint just for the sake of painting, and to express themselves. Their paintings are rather a portrayal of who they are and of their characters, and they are not so much duplications of objects. Record keeping which was one of the main goals of artists has now been bestowed upon photography. Let a camera click and capture an image. An artist now has a bigger job.
What I am trying to do is to get to another dimension, or at least to catch a glimpse of it through the use of colors. Every color has a certain depth to it. Colors themselves don’t need to be made three dimensional as they are three dimensional already. I mean in a traditional work, an artist tries to duplicate the effect, but you could just apply colors with new techniques, and your work will have a 3-D effect. Even an abstract work is not flat though the colors were perhaps applied flatly.
I have always said that I’m into innovation and not into duplication, or perhaps into creation and not into duplication. The term creation should be reserved only for God. A better term is manipulation as we manipulate paints and other materials to make a painting.
In terms of importance, I value colors first, then the technique and composition, and finally the meaning. Number one impact of a work, I believe, is due to its colors. No colors, no life! Why? Cause no light, no colors. No sunshine, no natural light, period! Having said that, I have painted landscapes and other subjects in a rather traditional manner, and I will continue to do so. Just because I paint in a new style does not cut me off of my realism. Now that word “my” is important, meaning my interpretation. I think it’s a mistake to ignore the established styles for the sake of the new ones and vice versa. However, I’m always searching and trying new ideas, may it be a new technique or a new material. Copyright, Ali
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding an artwork
To understand a work means establishing a personal connection with it. The viewer must pick up on something that evokes his past experiences. Now that might have been a pleasant or an unpleasant one. Regardless of that, this link is very significant. Most people that pass by a work of art quickly are examples of the ones who do not establish this personal link. To make this point more clearly, I’ve illustrated this below:
B B, C, L, K, V, Q
Artwork Audience’s experiences
Of these 6 people, only the first one on the right will appreciate the work. One of his personal past experiences is the matching key to understanding (feeling), and therefore unlocking the hidden communication. Whether it’s a mere pictorial effect (colors, etc.) or a message is not the point.
Copyright, Ali
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of painting
Painting is all about color. The word “ paint ” itself implies color. If you say to your friend, “ I want to paint my room”. His logical question is immediately “ What color? ”
So when I see so many paintings void of intense colors ( with very limited colors ), I am surprised. Maybe they are trying to say something with their dull colors. Anyhow, a painting should have colors and in my case, many of my work does have a lot of different colors. My friend’s mother called my work an explosion of colors. I have done some with a limited range of colors. They could be considered conceptual works, but overall, I feel that a work of art, “ painting “ should be colorful.
Colors bring us joy and sorrow, change our mood, and I think, are therapeutic. Without the light, there is no visible colors. Our life revolves in and out of this colorful world. What’s visible in this world is due to the Sunlight, and in turn due to the range of its colors. My advice to modern or traditional painters is this: “ Use plenty of different colors”. Use them intensely, and make sure they part a full impact.
Years ago when I started painting, I thought about changing the traditional composition of flowers. In the past, almost every painter, modern or traditional one painted this subject from the frontal view ( perspective ), and usually in a vase. Some of the ones I admire the most were painted by Manet, a great painter and perhaps a genius. As wonderful as these works are, the compositions are still traditional.
I thought about what was the most important thing about flowers. I mean their impact and our universal admiration of them is, without a doubt, due to their vast range of colors and not due to their shapes. I also thought about looking at them from different perspectives. Then gradually, I expanded the composition to cover every square inch of my canvas, and for most parts, I dispensed with their stems. If I ever showed them, I used them as another colorful addition to the whole composition.
In my most successful works, you have ( see ) many patches of colors that look like flowers or remind the audience of them. The stems may be present or absent. What’s important here is the lack of vases. No container is needed. You got a full impact of a great range of colors. Of course, the colors which at the time of painting were at my disposal.
The other innovation is that their colors may not be contained in a particular shape, and in many cases, has spread out (bled). Later on, I used the same theory for my figure works. I think that they are truly new works of art in the latter part of the 20th century. I started painting my figurative works, using and experimenting with these techniques and theories, in the early 1980’s. Nowhere have I seen a similar work since then.
Although many modern painters experimented with the use of intense colors, like the expressionists, their compositions remained traditional. In a sense, they still held firm to the use of a background or a foreground and perhaps to both.
Copyright, Ali
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideas on Art
It is interesting to see the reactions of the different people who come to see my work. Some take their time to look. Some go by quickly. The strangest ones were those people who were looking at the decorations! One lady came and asked me about some pillows that the City Hall' s people had put there as decoration. She asked me if I sold them!
Of these people there were some who I though truly understood my work. At least that's the expression I got from them. Art is such a difficult work, and showing it is more so. Since I've always painted for myself, it is difficult to explain a picture to someone who, for example, enjoys realism. They want to know why I used certain colors or how I came to choose a particular design.
Of course, not everything can and should be explained. Not everything can be understood by mere logic. What about just the sheer visual impact of colors? That's what I am focusing on, and to a lesser degree, on composition. Ideas are important to me. Some works I have done carry a deeper meaning beyond their superficial surface, but I have always thought of colors as the number one element. Number two would be the technique. Number three, the composition.
What I've painted has always been for myself with almost total disregard for the spectators' wishes. Never painted for money, never will though may sell some. My paintings are a part of me, and it's difficult to part with them. If your livelihood depends on the sale of your artwork, then you're obliged to sell. However, I've always held other positions providing me with enough salary to ease my mind. This way I can focus on pleasing my artistic self, and fulfilling my goals.
Of course, the public has a right to see my work. Regarding that, I am now interested in their reactions. There was a time, in the beginning, that I thought I would never show. I just painted and piled them up. If your art is deeply rooted in your soul, therefore its being an extension of you, painting alone is enough to satisfy your artistic needs.
Painting is a form of communication. A painter speaks to his audience, in present and in future. When a work is new and never been seen before, it may arouse negative reactions. This is because of our psychological built. We take in every image we see on a daily basis.
To feel something new or let's say to accept it requires a comparison. We compare it with what we've already stored in our brain, and somehow they were accepted before, either because of the length of exposure or our conformity to the social norms. Most people will not accept a new trend so easily. They need to see it accepted by others, then they may assimilate it. To bypass this process, we need to be open to new ideas and not pass judgment on a work of art hastily.
Repeated exposure to a work may lead to our acceptance of it. This is a normal process, and happens every day. New fashion designs come into our lives, and gain acceptance
because we trust and respect the source. It comes down to us from a source of authority so we think it must be good. However, good or bad have no meaning in the realm of art.
I hear people say: '' I know what I like'', but it is more like: " I like what I know." Copyright, Ali
