Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn to draw
Edward;
Of course I agree with you here.
A healthy culture has many critics who have different viewpoints of a piece of
literary or visual work.
The important thing, I suggest, is to develop knowledgeable, thoughtful, and
courageous critics, and also media that will publish (and pay!) them.
-Joel
- Original Message -
From: Edward Picot
To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 11:22 AM
Subject: [NetBehaviour] Learn to draw
A very interesting discussion this has been! But I have to say, with
regard to Simon Biggs' comments, that I find it difficult to embrace any
philosophy of art which won't let me measure one thing against another -
"Wallace Stevens is a better poet than Patience Strong", for example; or
"The Mighty Boosh is a better comedy programme than Bread". Such
value-judgements may be open to challenge, in fact they must be open to
challenge, but it's important to be able to make them. I used to belong
to a poetry-society where every poem that was produced by anybody was
greeted, not just with a chorus of approval, but with remarks like
"That's a great poem, that is". Supportive, encouraging, but ultimately
not very helpful. A lot of really dire amateur poetry gets produced
under such circumstances. As an artist you have to be able to make
distinctions about your own work - "This line is weak if I write it like
this, but if I write it like that then it's much stronger" - "This bit's
dragging", "I could do with some more jokes in here", or whatever -
otherwise you can't develop, and these distinctions extend outwards to
the work of other people - "The way he does this is really effective: I
could borrow that technique", or "I don't want to produce something like
that - it's really trite". ("A Hard Day's Night" is better than "Summer
Holiday", by the way.)
Where it gets dangerous is if the value-judgements are supposed to be
beyond question: as in the F R Leavis sort of idea that there's
something called "culture" consisting of things like Shakespeare's plays
which are unquestionably "great", and this "culture" has to be defended
by academics and critics from erosion by mass media and the degradation
of modern society. As soon as we write our judgements in stone it's
dangerous; but it's also dangerous not to make any judgements at all.
If that makes me bourgeois, then sign me up to the WI.
- Edward
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
Hello Netbehaviourists, I know, I never write. But I read, and today you all are touching on a subject close to my heart. I've found that drawing is something that one can learn, with time and practise, much like coding. But it does take time... lots and lots of not wasting time and drawing drawing drawing. One way to go about it is the instinctual way that manik describes. Where one gives oneself up to the inner torrent channels and uses that energy to create for good or ill. Drawing is mostly about that obssession and looking. But my frustration after a lifetime of obsessive drawing and looking has been precisely with that attitude I had about the "art affliction." I decided about a year ago to switch it around, use drawing as a manner of seeking order and beauty instead of emotion and chaos. Sorry to use such broad and subjective terms, but there it is. I discovered that there are many older schools of thought on the "everyone can draw" idea. Mainly academic school techniques involving learning HOW to see. I've taken the human figure as my subject, So I am talking mainly about figure drawing and portraiture here. I have been teaching myself with the aid of a local life drawing sessions and loads of books and internet searches, HOW exactly one can construct the human figure in what was in the 19th century considered the proper way to go about learning to draw. You can find such techniques as the 'Sight-Size method' and the use of devices like 'plumb lines' to decode exactly what one is seeing and to aid interpreting what ones sees. I recommend the following books to anyone who would like to try a systematic way of learning to draw. Chales Bargue: Drawing Course http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chales-Bargue-Gerald-M-Ackerman/dp/2867702038/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326794201&sr=8-1 The Artist's Complete Guide to Figure Drawing http://www.amazon.co.uk/Artists-Complete-Guide-Figure-Drawing/dp/0823003035/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326794243&sr=1-1 Lessons in Classical Drawing http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lessons-Classical-Drawing-Juliette-Aristides/dp/082300659X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326794273&sr=1-1 not to mention old freeware drawing manuals that can be found on archive.org, project gutenburg and google books! if you are into being taught there are more and more of these ateliers popping up all over the world. LARA (London) http://www.drawpaintsculpt.com/ Grand Central Academy (NYC) http://grandcentralacademy.classicist.org/index.html Florence Academy of Art http://www.florenceacademyofart.com/ Studio Escalier (Paris) http://www.studioescalier.com/ (i hope to attend Studio Escallier for a workshop one day.) I do recall there being a feature in the New York Times a year or so ago. A serialized Intro To Drawing... http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/line-by-line/ but anyway, Drawing is an endless topic and the beauty of being alive and an artist today is that there is no one way to go about it, no one dominant school of thought. all best, Auriea. -- http://Tale-of-Tales.com http://auriea.org On 2012/01/17, at 8:52, Simon Biggs wrote: > Manik > > I agree, the level of commitment to something you describe is what is > sometimes required to get where you want to go - and that art often gets > interesting when it is dangerous, especially for the person or persons doing > it. I don't think the condition of being an artists needs to be equated with > being ill but I do agree that the art academy (and the art world, of which it > is part) is somewhere between a prison and an asylum. Mind you, asylums have > their role. They can be regarded as safe places where people can experiment > in ways that would not be possible outside the asylum. But you are right, > mostly it is their Foucauldian function that dominates (literally). > > best > > Simon > > > On 16 Jan 2012, at 19:57, manik wrote: > >> ...there's no such thing like 'learn to draw'...my learn to draw was long >> treatment because I was ill because of drawing...I invented my own treatment >> and I succeed to became man who draw...only way to draw is to be sick >> because of drawing...to fell sick when you even think on drawing...you are >> in panic...pencil is your drug and needle...you became dependent and same >> time you wish to be free...same as faith...you are in faith or you are >> out...it's good to know about God,Buddha or Allah...but difference between >> one who believe and one who not is essential and there's no such thing >> like:''I must go on training course for believers and I'll be believer same >> as you are now after I finished.''...but man is creature disposed to >> illusion and short cut and he want to believe that he's believer because one >> who believe have no way to ask his essence about how truth,deep and >> frankness is his believe...Avram was believer...he was so deep in faith,he >> was ready to cut his soon Isac throat...Gauguin left his family bec
Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
Manik I agree, the level of commitment to something you describe is what is sometimes required to get where you want to go - and that art often gets interesting when it is dangerous, especially for the person or persons doing it. I don't think the condition of being an artists needs to be equated with being ill but I do agree that the art academy (and the art world, of which it is part) is somewhere between a prison and an asylum. Mind you, asylums have their role. They can be regarded as safe places where people can experiment in ways that would not be possible outside the asylum. But you are right, mostly it is their Foucauldian function that dominates (literally). best Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 19:57, manik wrote: > ...there's no such thing like 'learn to draw'...my learn to draw was long > treatment because I was ill because of drawing...I invented my own treatment > and I succeed to became man who draw...only way to draw is to be sick because > of drawing...to fell sick when you even think on drawing...you are in > panic...pencil is your drug and needle...you became dependent and same time > you wish to be free...same as faith...you are in faith or you are out...it's > good to know about God,Buddha or Allah...but difference between one who > believe and one who not is essential and there's no such thing like:''I must > go on training course for believers and I'll be believer same as you are now > after I finished.''...but man is creature disposed to illusion and short cut > and he want to believe that he's believer because one who believe have no way > to ask his essence about how truth,deep and frankness is his believe...Avram > was believer...he was so deep in faith,he was ready to cut his soon Isac > throat...Gauguin left his family because he was sick of drawing...those are > significant examples how's that with faith,love and art...there's no link for > those stuff...for me art academy was something between prison and mental > hospital...who think other way about drawing/art-techne/he is ready to join > to ''Occupy Wall St...''or something politic correct which support > system.../as we could see not so bad system for 99% as it was on > pleasantness of sumer temperature.../drawing's too old...man make drawings > and loose tail,fin,surplus of bone...drawing is old and mysterious process of > getting ill and joy to be free/at same time/... to fly trough emptiness of > paper like swallow double tail...one is line,the other is your > life...MANIK...JANUARY...2012... > ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Simon Biggs si...@littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk s.bi...@ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/ ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn to draw
It's the obsession with measuring things, especially unstable and subjective
things like art, that I am arguing against.
best
Simon
On 16 Jan 2012, at 19:22, Edward Picot wrote:
> A very interesting discussion this has been! But I have to say, with
> regard to Simon Biggs' comments, that I find it difficult to embrace any
> philosophy of art which won't let me measure one thing against another -
> "Wallace Stevens is a better poet than Patience Strong", for example; or
> "The Mighty Boosh is a better comedy programme than Bread". Such
> value-judgements may be open to challenge, in fact they must be open to
> challenge, but it's important to be able to make them. I used to belong
> to a poetry-society where every poem that was produced by anybody was
> greeted, not just with a chorus of approval, but with remarks like
> "That's a great poem, that is". Supportive, encouraging, but ultimately
> not very helpful. A lot of really dire amateur poetry gets produced
> under such circumstances. As an artist you have to be able to make
> distinctions about your own work - "This line is weak if I write it like
> this, but if I write it like that then it's much stronger" - "This bit's
> dragging", "I could do with some more jokes in here", or whatever -
> otherwise you can't develop, and these distinctions extend outwards to
> the work of other people - "The way he does this is really effective: I
> could borrow that technique", or "I don't want to produce something like
> that - it's really trite". ("A Hard Day's Night" is better than "Summer
> Holiday", by the way.)
>
> Where it gets dangerous is if the value-judgements are supposed to be
> beyond question: as in the F R Leavis sort of idea that there's
> something called "culture" consisting of things like Shakespeare's plays
> which are unquestionably "great", and this "culture" has to be defended
> by academics and critics from erosion by mass media and the degradation
> of modern society. As soon as we write our judgements in stone it's
> dangerous; but it's also dangerous not to make any judgements at all.
>
> If that makes me bourgeois, then sign me up to the WI.
>
> - Edward
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
Simon Biggs
si...@littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype:
simonbiggsuk
s.bi...@ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/
http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
My point, exactly. Read Autopoeisis: novelty, meaning and value, by myself and James Leach. It examines the role of the novel and rare in the arts and sciences within an expanded transcultural framework. Best. Simon Sent from a mobile device, thus the brevity. Simon Biggs si...@littlepig.org.uk s.bi...@ed.ac.uk http://www.littelpig.org.uk On 16 Jan 2012, at 19:59, Simon Mclennan wrote: > Simon, > People value rarity- > Bartok, Beethoven and Atsushi Takenouchi - all rare - but All people can do > Butoh and can be like pole flexing in wind or crackling dry leaf on ground - > fox stretching in sun silver shadow of leaf blades in forest glade- > > to argue about value is pointless - however > we live in societies where people lack connection with earth and wind - real > life - they value mediated experience above smell of bush and light on water > - fire flickering > > the structures and systems of mediation are a con to get money off mass of > people > > So I agree with you > > warm wishes > > Simon > > On 16 Jan 2012, at 18:57, Simon Biggs wrote: > >> Ummm, yes - but I am not arguing that everyone is the same (which isn't the >> same as equal). We are all different. I am arguing that the problem is with >> our perception of value. >> >> best >> >> Simon >> >> >> On 16 Jan 2012, at 18:41, Simon Mclennan wrote: >> >>> I like a lot of this stuff you say Simon, >>> However, have you ever read the short story by Kurt Vonnegut entitled >>> "Harrison Bergeron", from his collection - Welcome To The Monkey House. >>> I recommend it hugely. A dystopian satyrical story that made me laugh when >>> I first read it, and still does. It also made me think a bit. >>> >>> http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> >>> On 16 Jan 2012, at 17:08, Simon Biggs wrote: >>> >>>> Joel >>>> >>>> My partner discusses this a lot. She is what you would call a "gifted" >>>> dancer, by any definition, having danced with the Royal Ballet, Merce >>>> Cunningham, Rambert and many famous companies and choreographers. If she >>>> wished she could present herself as a prima ballerina, but she hates the >>>> way dancers are expected to be athletic and able to jump twice as high as >>>> other people, whilst also appearing waif-like (although she can do that >>>> and is size 0). She argues that dance is dance and we should not be >>>> addicted to this idea of the highly trained dancer. Her own choreography >>>> post-modern, denying the athletic and highly aesthetic, making works where >>>> repetition of every day activities (like standing up and sitting down or >>>> opening a door) make up a lot of the material. The point of such work is >>>> to critique traditional dance values and propose that anything can be >>>> dance (and by extension, anybody can be a dancer) and that such practices >>>> are just as valuable as any other. In this outlook, which I agree with >>>> 100%, the notion of "gifted" simply doesn't exist. Indeed, the idea of >>>> "gifted" is critiqued as part of a process of fetishisation and Fordist >>>> professionalisation of creative activities that are currently the preserve >>>> of an elite but should be in the daily life of everyone. >>>> >>>> So, in short, my response to your statement about "gifted" artists is that >>>> you are allowing your bourgeois attitudes to show (no insult intended). >>>> >>>> Read Tim Ingold on creativity as a shared social activity. He totally >>>> destroys the dominant logic of the art world and its hierarchical >>>> structures without needing to invoke political diatribe. Ingold simply >>>> writes about people and their activities after having watched them, as an >>>> anthropologist, for the last 50 years. He studies societies where >>>> professional artists or sports people do not exist and he is thus able to >>>> evidence what art and sport can be about when they haven't been corrupted, >>>> as they have in our competitive and cruel society. >>>> >>>> best >>>> >>>> Simon >>>> >>>> >>>> On 16 Jan 2012, at 15:35, Joel Weishaus wrote: >>>> >>>>> Simon; >>>>> >>>>> I agree that ev
Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
Simon, People value rarity- Bartok, Beethoven and Atsushi Takenouchi - all rare - but All people can do Butoh and can be like pole flexing in wind or crackling dry leaf on ground - fox stretching in sun silver shadow of leaf blades in forest glade- to argue about value is pointless - however we live in societies where people lack connection with earth and wind - real life - they value mediated experience above smell of bush and light on water - fire flickering the structures and systems of mediation are a con to get money off mass of people So I agree with you warm wishes Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 18:57, Simon Biggs wrote: Ummm, yes - but I am not arguing that everyone is the same (which isn't the same as equal). We are all different. I am arguing that the problem is with our perception of value. best Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 18:41, Simon Mclennan wrote: I like a lot of this stuff you say Simon, However, have you ever read the short story by Kurt Vonnegut entitled "Harrison Bergeron", from his collection - Welcome To The Monkey House. I recommend it hugely. A dystopian satyrical story that made me laugh when I first read it, and still does. It also made me think a bit. http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 17:08, Simon Biggs wrote: Joel My partner discusses this a lot. She is what you would call a "gifted" dancer, by any definition, having danced with the Royal Ballet, Merce Cunningham, Rambert and many famous companies and choreographers. If she wished she could present herself as a prima ballerina, but she hates the way dancers are expected to be athletic and able to jump twice as high as other people, whilst also appearing waif-like (although she can do that and is size 0). She argues that dance is dance and we should not be addicted to this idea of the highly trained dancer. Her own choreography post-modern, denying the athletic and highly aesthetic, making works where repetition of every day activities (like standing up and sitting down or opening a door) make up a lot of the material. The point of such work is to critique traditional dance values and propose that anything can be dance (and by extension, anybody can be a dancer) and that such practices are just as valuable as any other. In this outlook, which I agree with 100%, the notion of "gifted" simply doesn't exist. Indeed, the idea of "gifted" is critiqued as part of a process of fetishisation and Fordist professionalisation of creative activities that are currently the preserve of an elite but should be in the daily life of everyone. So, in short, my response to your statement about "gifted" artists is that you are allowing your bourgeois attitudes to show (no insult intended). Read Tim Ingold on creativity as a shared social activity. He totally destroys the dominant logic of the art world and its hierarchical structures without needing to invoke political diatribe. Ingold simply writes about people and their activities after having watched them, as an anthropologist, for the last 50 years. He studies societies where professional artists or sports people do not exist and he is thus able to evidence what art and sport can be about when they haven't been corrupted, as they have in our competitive and cruel society. best Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 15:35, Joel Weishaus wrote: Simon; I agree that everyone can do something--I think that's what Beuys meant---, but I am talking about the "gifted" artist. Just like everyone with a "normal" body can run, but very few can reach the Olympics, no matter how hard they train. -Joel - Original Message - From: Simon Biggs To: Joel Weishaus ; NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:03 AM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw I don't agree with the "natural talent" argument. I'm a nurture, not nature, person. Having taught art for almost as long as I've professionally made it (over 30 years) I've observed the variations in ability of students. I've also observed how much that ability is measured against fixed definitions of what is good or bad art. Most of the time it has been those definitions that caused the issues for the student, not their ability. Everybody has what it takes to be an artist (Beuys was right on that) because it is a simple twist of the human condition to become one - and we are all human. The question is whether you are willing to make that twist and for others to be generous enough to recognise what you have done. That doesn't make you a good artist - but the good vs bad argument is a separate matter. best Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 00:31, Joel Weishaus wrote: Hi Simon; I agree with you, up to a point. And that is,
[NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
...there's no such thing like 'learn to draw'...my learn to draw was long treatment because I was ill because of drawing...I invented my own treatment and I succeed to became man who draw...only way to draw is to be sick because of drawing...to fell sick when you even think on drawing...you are in panic...pencil is your drug and needle...you became dependent and same time you wish to be free...same as faith...you are in faith or you are out...it's good to know about God,Buddha or Allah...but difference between one who believe and one who not is essential and there's no such thing like:''I must go on training course for believers and I'll be believer same as you are now after I finished.''...but man is creature disposed to illusion and short cut and he want to believe that he's believer because one who believe have no way to ask his essence about how truth,deep and frankness is his believe...Avram was believer...he was so deep in faith,he was ready to cut his soon Isac throat...Gauguin left his family because he was sick of drawing...those are significant examples how's that with faith,love and art...there's no link for those stuff...for me art academy was something between prison and mental hospital...who think other way about drawing/art-techne/he is ready to join to ''Occupy Wall St...''or something politic correct which support system.../as we could see not so bad system for 99% as it was on pleasantness of sumer temperature.../drawing's too old...man make drawings and loose tail,fin,surplus of bone...drawing is old and mysterious process of getting ill and joy to be free/at same time/... to fly trough emptiness of paper like swallow double tail...one is line,the other is your life...MANIK...JANUARY...2012... ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
Of course this is an argument that's been going on for a long time. Stating it the way you do here, I agree that everyone, and everyone's work, should be valued. What turns us on, what excites us, what broadens and deepens our perception of reality, what makes us consider why we believe in this and not in that---that, I suggest, is valuable. -Joel - Original Message - From: Simon Biggs To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 10:57 AM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw Ummm, yes - but I am not arguing that everyone is the same (which isn't the same as equal). We are all different. I am arguing that the problem is with our perception of value. best Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 18:41, Simon Mclennan wrote: I like a lot of this stuff you say Simon, However, have you ever read the short story by Kurt Vonnegut entitled "Harrison Bergeron", from his collection - Welcome To The Monkey House. I recommend it hugely. A dystopian satyrical story that made me laugh when I first read it, and still does. It also made me think a bit. http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 17:08, Simon Biggs wrote: Joel My partner discusses this a lot. She is what you would call a "gifted" dancer, by any definition, having danced with the Royal Ballet, Merce Cunningham, Rambert and many famous companies and choreographers. If she wished she could present herself as a prima ballerina, but she hates the way dancers are expected to be athletic and able to jump twice as high as other people, whilst also appearing waif-like (although she can do that and is size 0). She argues that dance is dance and we should not be addicted to this idea of the highly trained dancer. Her own choreography post-modern, denying the athletic and highly aesthetic, making works where repetition of every day activities (like standing up and sitting down or opening a door) make up a lot of the material. The point of such work is to critique traditional dance values and propose that anything can be dance (and by extension, anybody can be a dancer) and that such practices are just as valuable as any other. In this outlook, which I agree with 100%, the notion of "gifted" simply doesn't exist. Indeed, the idea of "gifted" is critiqued as part of a process of fetishisation and Fordist professionalisation of creative activities that are currently the preserve of an elite but should be in the daily life of everyone. So, in short, my response to your statement about "gifted" artists is that you are allowing your bourgeois attitudes to show (no insult intended). Read Tim Ingold on creativity as a shared social activity. He totally destroys the dominant logic of the art world and its hierarchical structures without needing to invoke political diatribe. Ingold simply writes about people and their activities after having watched them, as an anthropologist, for the last 50 years. He studies societies where professional artists or sports people do not exist and he is thus able to evidence what art and sport can be about when they haven't been corrupted, as they have in our competitive and cruel society. best Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 15:35, Joel Weishaus wrote: Simon; I agree that everyone can do something--I think that's what Beuys meant---, but I am talking about the "gifted" artist. Just like everyone with a "normal" body can run, but very few can reach the Olympics, no matter how hard they train. -Joel - Original Message - From: Simon Biggs To: Joel Weishaus ; NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:03 AM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw I don't agree with the "natural talent" argument. I'm a nurture, not nature, person. Having taught art for almost as long as I've professionally made it (over 30 years) I've observed the variations in ability of students. I've also observed how much that ability is measured against fixed definitions of what is good or bad art. Most of the time it has been those definitions that caused the issues for the student, not their ability. Everybody has what it takes to be an artist (Beuys was right on that) because it is a simple twist of the human condition to become one - and we are all human. The question is whether you are willing to make that twist and for others to be generous enough to recognise what you have done. That doesn't make you a good artist - but the good vs bad argument is a separate matter. best Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 00:31, Joel Weishaus wr
[NetBehaviour] Learn to draw
A very interesting discussion this has been! But I have to say, with
regard to Simon Biggs' comments, that I find it difficult to embrace any
philosophy of art which won't let me measure one thing against another -
"Wallace Stevens is a better poet than Patience Strong", for example; or
"The Mighty Boosh is a better comedy programme than Bread". Such
value-judgements may be open to challenge, in fact they must be open to
challenge, but it's important to be able to make them. I used to belong
to a poetry-society where every poem that was produced by anybody was
greeted, not just with a chorus of approval, but with remarks like
"That's a great poem, that is". Supportive, encouraging, but ultimately
not very helpful. A lot of really dire amateur poetry gets produced
under such circumstances. As an artist you have to be able to make
distinctions about your own work - "This line is weak if I write it like
this, but if I write it like that then it's much stronger" - "This bit's
dragging", "I could do with some more jokes in here", or whatever -
otherwise you can't develop, and these distinctions extend outwards to
the work of other people - "The way he does this is really effective: I
could borrow that technique", or "I don't want to produce something like
that - it's really trite". ("A Hard Day's Night" is better than "Summer
Holiday", by the way.)
Where it gets dangerous is if the value-judgements are supposed to be
beyond question: as in the F R Leavis sort of idea that there's
something called "culture" consisting of things like Shakespeare's plays
which are unquestionably "great", and this "culture" has to be defended
by academics and critics from erosion by mass media and the degradation
of modern society. As soon as we write our judgements in stone it's
dangerous; but it's also dangerous not to make any judgements at all.
If that makes me bourgeois, then sign me up to the WI.
- Edward
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
Ummm, yes - but I am not arguing that everyone is the same (which isn't the same as equal). We are all different. I am arguing that the problem is with our perception of value. best Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 18:41, Simon Mclennan wrote: > I like a lot of this stuff you say Simon, > However, have you ever read the short story by Kurt Vonnegut entitled > "Harrison Bergeron", from his collection - Welcome To The Monkey House. > I recommend it hugely. A dystopian satyrical story that made me laugh when I > first read it, and still does. It also made me think a bit. > > http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html > > Simon > > > On 16 Jan 2012, at 17:08, Simon Biggs wrote: > >> Joel >> >> My partner discusses this a lot. She is what you would call a "gifted" >> dancer, by any definition, having danced with the Royal Ballet, Merce >> Cunningham, Rambert and many famous companies and choreographers. If she >> wished she could present herself as a prima ballerina, but she hates the way >> dancers are expected to be athletic and able to jump twice as high as other >> people, whilst also appearing waif-like (although she can do that and is >> size 0). She argues that dance is dance and we should not be addicted to >> this idea of the highly trained dancer. Her own choreography post-modern, >> denying the athletic and highly aesthetic, making works where repetition of >> every day activities (like standing up and sitting down or opening a door) >> make up a lot of the material. The point of such work is to critique >> traditional dance values and propose that anything can be dance (and by >> extension, anybody can be a dancer) and that such practices are just as >> valuable as any other. In this outlook, which I agree with 100%, the notion >> of "gifted" simply doesn't exist. Indeed, the idea of "gifted" is critiqued >> as part of a process of fetishisation and Fordist professionalisation of >> creative activities that are currently the preserve of an elite but should >> be in the daily life of everyone. >> >> So, in short, my response to your statement about "gifted" artists is that >> you are allowing your bourgeois attitudes to show (no insult intended). >> >> Read Tim Ingold on creativity as a shared social activity. He totally >> destroys the dominant logic of the art world and its hierarchical structures >> without needing to invoke political diatribe. Ingold simply writes about >> people and their activities after having watched them, as an anthropologist, >> for the last 50 years. He studies societies where professional artists or >> sports people do not exist and he is thus able to evidence what art and >> sport can be about when they haven't been corrupted, as they have in our >> competitive and cruel society. >> >> best >> >> Simon >> >> >> On 16 Jan 2012, at 15:35, Joel Weishaus wrote: >> >>> Simon; >>> >>> I agree that everyone can do something--I think that's what Beuys meant---, >>> but I am talking about the "gifted" artist. >>> Just like everyone with a "normal" body can run, but very few can reach the >>> Olympics, no matter how hard they train. >>> -Joel >>> - Original Message - >>> From: Simon Biggs >>> To: Joel Weishaus ; NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity >>> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:03 AM >>> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw >>> >>> I don't agree with the "natural talent" argument. I'm a nurture, not >>> nature, person. Having taught art for almost as long as I've professionally >>> made it (over 30 years) I've observed the variations in ability of >>> students. I've also observed how much that ability is measured against >>> fixed definitions of what is good or bad art. Most of the time it has been >>> those definitions that caused the issues for the student, not their >>> ability. Everybody has what it takes to be an artist (Beuys was right on >>> that) because it is a simple twist of the human condition to become one - >>> and we are all human. The question is whether you are willing to make that >>> twist and for others to be generous enough to recognise what you have done. >>> That doesn't make you a good artist - but the good vs bad argument is a >>> separate matter. >>> >>> best >>> >>> Simon >>>
Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
I like a lot of this stuff you say Simon, However, have you ever read the short story by Kurt Vonnegut entitled "Harrison Bergeron", from his collection - Welcome To The Monkey House. I recommend it hugely. A dystopian satyrical story that made me laugh when I first read it, and still does. It also made me think a bit. http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 17:08, Simon Biggs wrote: Joel My partner discusses this a lot. She is what you would call a "gifted" dancer, by any definition, having danced with the Royal Ballet, Merce Cunningham, Rambert and many famous companies and choreographers. If she wished she could present herself as a prima ballerina, but she hates the way dancers are expected to be athletic and able to jump twice as high as other people, whilst also appearing waif-like (although she can do that and is size 0). She argues that dance is dance and we should not be addicted to this idea of the highly trained dancer. Her own choreography post- modern, denying the athletic and highly aesthetic, making works where repetition of every day activities (like standing up and sitting down or opening a door) make up a lot of the material. The point of such work is to critique traditional dance values and propose that anything can be dance (and by extension, anybody can be a dancer) and that such practices are just as valuable as any other. In this outlook, which I agree with 100%, the notion of "gifted" simply doesn't exist. Indeed, the idea of "gifted" is critiqued as part of a process of fetishisation and Fordist professionalisation of creative activities that are currently the preserve of an elite but should be in the daily life of everyone. So, in short, my response to your statement about "gifted" artists is that you are allowing your bourgeois attitudes to show (no insult intended). Read Tim Ingold on creativity as a shared social activity. He totally destroys the dominant logic of the art world and its hierarchical structures without needing to invoke political diatribe. Ingold simply writes about people and their activities after having watched them, as an anthropologist, for the last 50 years. He studies societies where professional artists or sports people do not exist and he is thus able to evidence what art and sport can be about when they haven't been corrupted, as they have in our competitive and cruel society. best Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 15:35, Joel Weishaus wrote: Simon; I agree that everyone can do something--I think that's what Beuys meant---, but I am talking about the "gifted" artist. Just like everyone with a "normal" body can run, but very few can reach the Olympics, no matter how hard they train. -Joel - Original Message - From: Simon Biggs To: Joel Weishaus ; NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:03 AM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw I don't agree with the "natural talent" argument. I'm a nurture, not nature, person. Having taught art for almost as long as I've professionally made it (over 30 years) I've observed the variations in ability of students. I've also observed how much that ability is measured against fixed definitions of what is good or bad art. Most of the time it has been those definitions that caused the issues for the student, not their ability. Everybody has what it takes to be an artist (Beuys was right on that) because it is a simple twist of the human condition to become one - and we are all human. The question is whether you are willing to make that twist and for others to be generous enough to recognise what you have done. That doesn't make you a good artist - but the good vs bad argument is a separate matter. best Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 00:31, Joel Weishaus wrote: Hi Simon; I agree with you, up to a point. And that is, in every art, there is always the mystery of talent. Some have it; others, no matter how hard they work, never will be "gifted." -Joel - Original Message - From: Simon Biggs To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw LOL. Learning to draw is not a technical skill, although some people want you to believe it is. Learning to draw, in the first instance, requires learning how to look at things very intensely and carefully, understanding line, shade, volume, atmospherics, etc. You can't learn that from a book. You have to immerse yourself in looking at things - flowers, bodies, trees, hills, clouds, etc. Go and look at hundreds, even thousands, of artists pictures, preferably for real (books rarely do them justice and the web is n extremely poor simulation). Get a
Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
Joel My partner discusses this a lot. She is what you would call a "gifted" dancer, by any definition, having danced with the Royal Ballet, Merce Cunningham, Rambert and many famous companies and choreographers. If she wished she could present herself as a prima ballerina, but she hates the way dancers are expected to be athletic and able to jump twice as high as other people, whilst also appearing waif-like (although she can do that and is size 0). She argues that dance is dance and we should not be addicted to this idea of the highly trained dancer. Her own choreography post-modern, denying the athletic and highly aesthetic, making works where repetition of every day activities (like standing up and sitting down or opening a door) make up a lot of the material. The point of such work is to critique traditional dance values and propose that anything can be dance (and by extension, anybody can be a dancer) and that such practices are just as valuable as any other. In this outlook, which I agree with 100%, the notion of "gifted" simply doesn't exist. Indeed, the idea of "gifted" is critiqued as part of a process of fetishisation and Fordist professionalisation of creative activities that are currently the preserve of an elite but should be in the daily life of everyone. So, in short, my response to your statement about "gifted" artists is that you are allowing your bourgeois attitudes to show (no insult intended). Read Tim Ingold on creativity as a shared social activity. He totally destroys the dominant logic of the art world and its hierarchical structures without needing to invoke political diatribe. Ingold simply writes about people and their activities after having watched them, as an anthropologist, for the last 50 years. He studies societies where professional artists or sports people do not exist and he is thus able to evidence what art and sport can be about when they haven't been corrupted, as they have in our competitive and cruel society. best Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 15:35, Joel Weishaus wrote: > Simon; > > I agree that everyone can do something--I think that's what Beuys meant---, > but I am talking about the "gifted" artist. > Just like everyone with a "normal" body can run, but very few can reach the > Olympics, no matter how hard they train. > -Joel > - Original Message - > From: Simon Biggs > To: Joel Weishaus ; NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:03 AM > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw > > I don't agree with the "natural talent" argument. I'm a nurture, not nature, > person. Having taught art for almost as long as I've professionally made it > (over 30 years) I've observed the variations in ability of students. I've > also observed how much that ability is measured against fixed definitions of > what is good or bad art. Most of the time it has been those definitions that > caused the issues for the student, not their ability. Everybody has what it > takes to be an artist (Beuys was right on that) because it is a simple twist > of the human condition to become one - and we are all human. The question is > whether you are willing to make that twist and for others to be generous > enough to recognise what you have done. That doesn't make you a good artist - > but the good vs bad argument is a separate matter. > > best > > Simon > > > On 16 Jan 2012, at 00:31, Joel Weishaus wrote: > >> Hi Simon; >> >> I agree with you, up to a point. And that is, in every art, there is always >> the mystery of talent. Some have it; others, no matter how hard they work, >> never will be "gifted." >> >> -Joel >> - Original Message - >> From: Simon Biggs >> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity >> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 10:17 AM >> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw >> >> LOL. >> >> Learning to draw is not a technical skill, although some people want you to >> believe it is. Learning to draw, in the first instance, requires learning >> how to look at things very intensely and carefully, understanding line, >> shade, volume, atmospherics, etc. You can't learn that from a book. You have >> to immerse yourself in looking at things - flowers, bodies, trees, hills, >> clouds, etc. Go and look at hundreds, even thousands, of artists pictures, >> preferably for real (books rarely do them justice and the web is n extremely >> poor simulation). Get a sense of the relationship between what the artist >> was seeing, in their mind's eye, and their method of execution. Place
Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
I draw a lot. I mean everyday (especially at the moment). I thank god for the 2 year art foundation course that put me through life drawing boot camp. It was the best educational experience I've ever had. I do believe that some people have more drawing ability than others, but it can be taught as a skill of observation and mark-making. Anyone can learn to draw proficiently and it used to be a commonplace skill taught at school. Best book on the subject if you want to start drawing is:The Complete Drawing Course by John Raynes. It's better than "Drawing on the Left Side of the Brain" IMHO in terms of direct project work to get you going, but it doesn't cover the theoretical aspects of drawing as perceptual process. The 2 together would be an ideal starting point but be warned that Drawing on the left side is actually 2 separate books with book 2 being a series of exercises. Not a learning to draw site but a very nice community:http://www.urbansketchers.org/ all the best tom --- On Sun, 15/1/12, Rob Myers wrote: From: Rob Myers Subject: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw To: "netBehaviour for networked distributed creativity" Date: Sunday, 15 January, 2012, 17:30 Are there any sites or projects for learning to draw like the learning to code resources we were discussing recently? - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
I don't agree with the "natural talent" argument. I'm a nurture, not nature, person. Having taught art for almost as long as I've professionally made it (over 30 years) I've observed the variations in ability of students. I've also observed how much that ability is measured against fixed definitions of what is good or bad art. Most of the time it has been those definitions that caused the issues for the student, not their ability. Everybody has what it takes to be an artist (Beuys was right on that) because it is a simple twist of the human condition to become one - and we are all human. The question is whether you are willing to make that twist and for others to be generous enough to recognise what you have done. That doesn't make you a good artist - but the good vs bad argument is a separate matter. best Simon On 16 Jan 2012, at 00:31, Joel Weishaus wrote: > Hi Simon; > > I agree with you, up to a point. And that is, in every art, there is always > the mystery of talent. Some have it; others, no matter how hard they work, > never will be "gifted." > > -Joel > - Original Message - > From: Simon Biggs > To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 10:17 AM > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw > > LOL. > > Learning to draw is not a technical skill, although some people want you to > believe it is. Learning to draw, in the first instance, requires learning how > to look at things very intensely and carefully, understanding line, shade, > volume, atmospherics, etc. You can't learn that from a book. You have to > immerse yourself in looking at things - flowers, bodies, trees, hills, > clouds, etc. Go and look at hundreds, even thousands, of artists pictures, > preferably for real (books rarely do them justice and the web is n extremely > poor simulation). Get a sense of the relationship between what the artist was > seeing, in their mind's eye, and their method of execution. Place the work in > its historical and cultural context. Seek to understand drawing as a > discursive activity, between the artist and the context they are working in. > This is also very important to understanding why a drawing is what it is - > why a Japanese line drawing is so different to a Medieval illustration or a > Pollock. Then hang out with your peers who are also developing these > capabilities, sharing ideas, methods, philosophies, etc. Practicing as an > artist, as this list proves, is about being with others, engaged in > discourse. Drawing is just another form of that - often enmeshed with other > media and forms of communication, from arguing to books, to playing music > together. It is rarely something you can do alone or in isolation. Expect the > learning process to be long and slow. Many people never learn, I think mainly > because they lack the patience to look at things long and hard enough to > break the inertia of our normal ways of seeing things. > > BTW, here's a drawing my son did when he was about 8. It is qualitatively > different to anything he had done till then. We were on holiday staying in a > remote cottage. It rained very heavily all day so we couldn't go out. I asked > him to look at the flowers for a few hours before starting the drawing and to > then take his time with it when he did. I gave him no other advice or aid. It > took him the whole day but evidences how he looked at something and > translated that to paper. The main thing was that it looked like nothing he > had done before. By looking long and hard he transcended himself. That's what > drawing is about and why you can't learn it from a manual. > > best > > Simon > > > On 15 Jan 2012, at 17:30, Rob Myers wrote: > > > Are there any sites or projects for learning to draw like the learning > > to code resources we were discussing recently? > > > > - Rob. > > ___ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > > Simon Biggs > si...@littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: > simonbiggsuk > > s.bi...@ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ > http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/ > > > > > > > > > ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > ___ > Ne
Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
Hi Simon; I agree with you, up to a point. And that is, in every art, there is always the mystery of talent. Some have it; others, no matter how hard they work, never will be "gifted." -Joel - Original Message - From: Simon Biggs To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw LOL. Learning to draw is not a technical skill, although some people want you to believe it is. Learning to draw, in the first instance, requires learning how to look at things very intensely and carefully, understanding line, shade, volume, atmospherics, etc. You can't learn that from a book. You have to immerse yourself in looking at things - flowers, bodies, trees, hills, clouds, etc. Go and look at hundreds, even thousands, of artists pictures, preferably for real (books rarely do them justice and the web is n extremely poor simulation). Get a sense of the relationship between what the artist was seeing, in their mind's eye, and their method of execution. Place the work in its historical and cultural context. Seek to understand drawing as a discursive activity, between the artist and the context they are working in. This is also very important to understanding why a drawing is what it is - why a Japanese line drawing is so different to a Medieval illustration or a Pollock. Then hang out with your peers who are also developing these capabilities, sharing ideas, methods, philosophies, etc. Practicing as an artist, as this list proves, is about being with others, engaged in discourse. Drawing is just another form of that - often enmeshed with other media and forms of communication, from arguing to books, to playing music together. It is rarely something you can do alone or in isolation. Expect the learning process to be long and slow. Many people never learn, I think mainly because they lack the patience to look at things long and hard enough to break the inertia of our normal ways of seeing things. BTW, here's a drawing my son did when he was about 8. It is qualitatively different to anything he had done till then. We were on holiday staying in a remote cottage. It rained very heavily all day so we couldn't go out. I asked him to look at the flowers for a few hours before starting the drawing and to then take his time with it when he did. I gave him no other advice or aid. It took him the whole day but evidences how he looked at something and translated that to paper. The main thing was that it looked like nothing he had done before. By looking long and hard he transcended himself. That's what drawing is about and why you can't learn it from a manual. best Simon On 15 Jan 2012, at 17:30, Rob Myers wrote: > Are there any sites or projects for learning to draw like the learning > to code resources we were discussing recently? > > - Rob. > ___ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > Simon Biggs si...@littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk s.bi...@ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/ -- -- ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
On 15/01/12 18:17, Simon Biggs wrote: > LOL. ಠ_ಠ > Learning to draw is not a technical skill, although some people want > you to believe it is. Dubious neoroscience aside, I found "Drawing On The Right Side Of The Brain" imparted useful technical concepts for drawing. A good life drawing tutor can also be good in my experience. > Expect the learning process to be long and slow. Many people > never learn, I think mainly because they lack the patience to look at > things long and hard enough to break the inertia of our normal ways of > seeing things. Yes I think you're right there. Dammit. ;-) - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
http://jacksonpollock.org/ Bob > > From: Rob Myers >To: netBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > >Sent: Sunday, 15 January 2012, 18:30 >Subject: [NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw > >Are there any sites or projects for learning to draw like the learning >to code resources we were discussing recently? > >- Rob. >___ >NetBehaviour mailing list >NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > >___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
[NetBehaviour] Learn To Draw
Are there any sites or projects for learning to draw like the learning to code resources we were discussing recently? - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
