I am with William on this. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "Again and again experience has proved that the more deeply versed an artist is in drawing, the less he is able to paint portraits." (Giovanni Battista Armenini) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
I'll agree with you if you can convince me that drawing may be trivial to art. Give examples. I am equating drawing with form and form does not require actual notational marks being made. So I'm probably stretching the definition of drawing, making it more conceptual than physical. The perception of of form is a gestalt, based on a conception of imagined outline or boundary. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, June 12, 2010 10:27:19 PM Subject: Re: "Again and again experience has proved that the more deeply versed an artist is in drawing, the less he is able to paint portraits." (Giovanni Battista Armenini) The idea of drawing as discipline by which to develop a tacit knowledge and the a very complex actions of the cognitive processes is one thing - (back to the K-12 experience) and arguing it is a base technical skill of the artist is two different things - in relation to art it may be trivial - but it is not trivial in terms of cognitive development On 6/12/10 10:39 PM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: Yes, that's very true. To call drawing a form of notation is to trivialize a very complex action. That is a pattern of thinking today, I mean to trivialize complex cognitive processes in order to excuse a lack of ability with them. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, June 12, 2010 7:58:53 PM Subject: Re: "Again and again experience has proved that the more deeply versed an artist is in drawing, the less he is able to paint portraits." (Giovanni Battista Armenini) Many artist today do not draw nor are concerned with this form of notation On 6/12/10 8:54 PM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: Not in my view but I do regard drawing quality as the most obvious indicator of an artist's overall capabilities because it is the chief mode of making visual form. The ability to do portraits well or poorly do depends on the artist's eyes, brain, art supplies and the sympathy and magnanimity of the subject/patron. Berg should stop coming up with quotations that are supposedly expressing universal rules of art. Even some games that do have rules, like chess, enable more possibilities than can be described in any form at all short of infinitude. Portraiture has no rules so how can one even begin to say what is and isn't necessary to it? Can we get past these dumb issues, please? wc ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, June 12, 2010 5:48:19 PM Subject: "Again and again experience has proved that the more deeply versed an artist is in drawing, the less he is able to paint portraits." (Giovanni Battista Armenini) Is that true? -- --
