On Jun 25, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Saul Ostrow wrote:
This notion of modeling - I think is tied to the practice of modeling
something after an existent example or template - in which it can
never be
good - just accomplished (or not) in that good (or bad) can only be
applied
the source - to make to make what others model themselves (or their
ideas,
concepts or vision) after is what is of issue here - Mondo thinks this
arises in the making - in the ability to see certain decisions
(intuitively)
as necessity - that is to engage in creation without a model - the
paradox
here is that even this has its models - it is a learned paradigm in
which
spontaneity and intuition are privileged - the problem is that they
lead to
habit
Several observations:
1. Very few individuals can produce a satisfying and complete image of
a "real" thing entirely from memory and imagination, without looking
at a model of some kind (photos, a living person, flowers in a vase,
etc.). Very few. Most--the overwhelmingly large majority of--artists
produce their images by looking at a model. The artist's act of
creating that final image consists of him actively and consciously
supervising how he makes the image, how his hand moves, what effects
he employs, what colors he chooses, etc.
2. You are right, Saul, that it's all learned, but the problem is not
that intuition and spontaneity lead to habit--all of the handwork must
surely be ingrained as habits--but that the artist settles for rote
habit and formula, rather than continually interjecting a critical
appraisal as he works. Note that "intuition" signifies a kind of
unmediated knowledge, unreasoned cognition; from the Latin roots
meaning to look into. Intuition signifies knowing by looking, grasping
immediately.
3. Everybody seems to be using "model" to refer both to the object
that the artist looks at and refers to, and also to the act of
mimicking or reproducing the shape or form of the object. (Similarly,
in the printing and publishing industry, the term "copy" designates
the manuscript that the typesetter refers to--what he "copies"--and
not the typeset result.) AND ALSO to some mental state that precedes
the work.
4. I think it's not very fruitful to parse the ways people exploit or
get seduced by models. You either know what you're doing and why
you're looking at the model, or you don't, and your work will exhibit
the fruitfulness of your purpose. Likewise, "models of models": but
bear in mind that, regardless of what you're looking at, you only have
one model, the one in front of you. IF that model is itself a copy or
derivative of another source, what you are copying is, ta da, the
model in front of you, not the referred source. (One of the reasons
students are discouraged from painting from photographs is that the
photograph is flat, so that the student will [may] reproduce the
distortions of the flattened likeness, and not incorporated the
experience of the fully rounded model in his effort.)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
