PDA

View Full Version : Which way home now?



hypotaxis
12-27-2012, 05:19 PM
Watercolours again.

Brett

71852

D Akey
12-27-2012, 05:30 PM
Very rich with ambiance. Sort of iconic and a focus for meditation.

Mairzie Dotes
12-29-2012, 01:12 AM
hypotaxis,
A moving, reflective piece. :D

GRSArts
12-29-2012, 03:45 AM
i love the simplicity. So little, yet it says a lot.

limey-g
12-29-2012, 04:34 AM
Very nice, a lone figure looking out to sea, maybe waiting for a friend.
Love the subtleness of the colours.
Geoff

screenpainter
12-29-2012, 12:10 PM
love the watercolor in this and the illustration style.

hypotaxis
12-29-2012, 03:19 PM
Thank you everyone for the kind comments. Glad you like it.

Can someone tell me please, what is the difference between a painting and an illustration? I hear them used but I can't get clear what the difference is. I think maybe I am "naturally" an illustrator, but I really don't know!:o

Brett

coops
12-30-2012, 02:23 AM
This is very good and I can see a fine story to go along with it, well done:)

gxhpainter2
12-30-2012, 06:52 AM
Brett..wow this is so rich in watercolor like texture and handling of color.. I like the softness of the sky vs the spiky textures of the grasses.. You bring up an interesting question about illustration vs painting.. In my opinion illustrations seem to have clean lines , crisp accurate drawing and flat areas of colors although not always ( Norman Rockwell ) and seem to show ( illustrate ) a story point. In this painting one can imagine it showing a particular point in a story. As a great fan of your work to me it is painting at a very sophisticated level, spare yet rich in texture and color and concept.

I found this which is a definition with which I tend to agree: http://www.nola.com/homegarden/index.ssf/2011/02/illustrations_are_considered_a.html (http://www.nola.com/homegarden/index.ssf/2011/02/illustrations_are_considered_a.html)
" ILLUSTRATION VS. FINE ART: Although both types of work -- illustration and fine art -- can rival one another in style and artistic skill, it is generally held that illustrations are somewhat "less than" fine art in that they are produced to complement textual information, while fine art is created as a complete expression of the artist for its own sake.Except in the cases of such notable illustrators as Norman Rockwell, the drawings and paintings by known artists that have been designed to be printed in books or magazines do not carry the same regard by the art community -- or price tag -- as those that were produced to stand alone."

D Akey
12-30-2012, 08:36 AM
Brett..wow this is so rich in watercolor like texture and handling of color.. I like the softness of the sky vs the spiky textures of the grasses.. You bring up an interesting question about illustration vs painting.. In my opinion illustrations seem to have clean lines , crisp accurate drawing and flat areas of colors although not always ( Norman Rockwell ) and seem to show ( illustrate ) a story point. In this painting one can imagine it showing a particular point in a story. As a great fan of your work to me it is painting at a very sophisticated level, spare yet rich in texture and color and concept.

I found this which is a definition with which I tend to agree: http://www.nola.com/homegarden/index.ssf/2011/02/illustrations_are_considered_a.html (http://www.nola.com/homegarden/index.ssf/2011/02/illustrations_are_considered_a.html)
" ILLUSTRATION VS. FINE ART: Although both types of work -- illustration and fine art -- can rival one another in style and artistic skill, it is generally held that illustrations are somewhat "less than" fine art in that they are produced to complement textual information, while fine art is created as a complete expression of the artist for its own sake.Except in the cases of such notable illustrators as Norman Rockwell, the drawings and paintings by known artists that have been designed to be printed in books or magazines do not carry the same regard by the art community -- or price tag -- as those that were produced to stand alone."

Howdy. I will keep this brief because it's someone else's thread, but in a way I see every artist is an illustrator because they are creating images to explain or assist or evoke a mood, reveal the less tangible, show a concept of one kind or another. Fine artists are themselves the product as much as their painting. Illustrators are hired guns. And as they say, there's lots of potential for overlap between.

hypotaxis
12-30-2012, 10:01 AM
Thank you Katie.

Thank you GXHPainter. It is flattering to think that I have a "fan." Yikes!!

Very interesting about the difference between art and illustration. It seems that it boils down to end use then? The same image if framed in a gallery is "art" but in a book is an "illustration."? How strange we are ;)

D Akey, if you have the time I would be also very interested to hear what you think.

Brett

D Akey
12-30-2012, 05:11 PM
What I've found from my standpoint about my long journey is that Art is an externalization, a distillation of a whole lot of contributing factors. And cross-discipline cross-pollenization can open a whole lot from the inside because as one really digs into the various disciplines, (ie. music, art, writing, personal interactions, philosophy, spirituality, economics etc), one sees similarities where one's personal voice stays fairly constant. It's often quite clarifying.

But if one regularly dives deep in any or all of those, it is a different experience than knocking out a commercial job (illustration). However the kicker is that sometimes a fine artist ends up as an illustrator and visa versa and that can get dodgy.

This process of making Art is not only a great surface mirror, but it's potentially on occasion flat out revealing like trawling the depths sometimes so deep that it bypasses the individuation of the ego and gets to that which is more universal (archetypes for some, soul for some, original concepts for some, new looks for some, depending on the artist). And there's a whole lot of untapped, sometimes unwieldy power there. And the trick is to pull it up to the surface and learn from it and fashion that 'stuff' into a tool for the next dive.

There are artists and there are artists in both fine art and commercial art. Aside from the nature of one's personal truth determining what they seek and the depths to which they go, I think that essence stuff is more in the working realm of the fine artist because it's unpredictable and can potentially change you and your direction, suddenly and completely sometimes. And that's hard to manage for commercial artists, when one's client base is expecting the same stuff over and over as a component part in a creative team thing like putting together a publication or advertizing campaign. An illustrator will lose clients with unpredictability and creativity outside a narrow framework. Although so can fine artists.

Being a commercial artist drove me nuts frankly. And that may be why I sought out different forms for my art that didn't always include painting. On the other hand, I can use commercial art for what it is, not least of which is putting hamburgers on the table. When I want manna, I do fine arts.

I'm only talking about my perspective and I think part of that is what GXH was speaking of. And I didn't want to leave my first comment sounding so cut and dried. And I dare say that all the commercialism around fine arts has left me feeling like they tend to miss what's really going on. It's like what happens to the essence of the Divine when it is passed through many generations of man and their organizations. It loses a lot in the translation.

D Akey
12-30-2012, 05:31 PM
PS. I have nothing at all against commercial art. I did it and loved doing it for years. But for me it was just one facet. And there were people way better than me at it, probably because it suited them better. I really love beauty where I can find it and there's an abundance of it in commercial art. It's why I was first attracted to it. It lit my fires at the time.

hypotaxis
12-31-2012, 11:59 AM
D Akey thank you for your very interesting and thoughtful reply.

Yes, art digs deep and cuts deep when I let it, and I think it is usually the better or it. It can be dangerous though, which is exciting!

Unlike you I have never earned or tried to earn my living as an artist (unless you include working with abused children an art). I write as well and I find it easier "dive deep" when I'm writing, but I think that is because I am not yet at all comfortable with the technique of painting and so it still requires a great deal of "left brain" which inhibits, I think, deep diving!

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply, I appreciate it.

Brett

D Akey
12-31-2012, 12:31 PM
Ever since I have been a parent I know that parenting is an Art. And if that is, fixing bad parenting when you have many little souls intermittently is the more challenging, and the masterpieces in the Louvre pale by comparison because your Art requires extreme sensitivity, a great heart with some careful discipline, careful observation and interpretation, and 'the works' grow out into the world where your color mixing continues merged with them and what they do in their lives.

Those in your field are artists making marks, and some practitioners are more artistic than others. Yeah, I get your analogy. And thank you for your service. In a way Art can be just like that, where it reaches into us if the artist is going into that inner space, just that we're using different materials. The outcome from an endeavor isn't nearly the same.

But I must tell you that you can do some distinct things owing to your life being about unique things. Art can also work like a journaling process and do what you described that does for you. But Art by nature allows for a symbolic short hand that has a component of changing as time goes on. It potentially as a result can surprise and enlighten you when you see things you perhaps were not conscious of when doing the painting.

Your painting at the top of this thread has expanded out and dimensionalized based on what you just shared about your professional work. And all you wrote was a brief little bit (and sometimes a little goes a long way, as you are well aware). Imagine what a symbolic image can reveal as the viewer changes as we do. And therein lies some of the areas of 'uncharted' artistry that the artist gets to participate in.

Go man go! :):):):):)

screenpainter
12-31-2012, 05:24 PM
Thank you everyone for the kind comments. Glad you like it.

Can someone tell me please, what is the difference between a painting and an illustration? I hear them used but I can't get clear what the difference is. I think maybe I am "naturally" an illustrator, but I really don't know!:o

Brett

To me it looks like an illustration to accompany maybe a children's book. That is usually what I mean by saying illustrator style. There are some pretty famous people in that group. Like the Howard Pyle school of illustrators for instance. ;)

hypotaxis
12-31-2012, 09:17 PM
And thank you for your service.
Thank you. Although I no longer work with children, at least in a formal professional sense, and haven't for years, you are the first person ever to say thank-you to me for the work I did. Cool!

Brett

hypotaxis
12-31-2012, 09:20 PM
To me it looks like an illustration to accompany maybe a children's book. That is usually what I mean by saying illustrator style. There are some pretty famous people in that group. Like the Howard Pyle school of illustrators for instance. ;)
Ah, you see though me Screenpainter. It is, in a way, an illustration for a scene from Kazuo Ishiguro's book - "Never Let Me Go." A truly wonderful and heartbreaking book. Bad movie - don't watch it! :D

Brett