PDA

View Full Version : first try



juergen
11-08-2007, 07:33 AM
Hello, this is my first try with Artrage 2.5.18. Please give me a hint, how to get the face more expressive. I spend much time for the eyes but they don´t look natural. Wrong size?

I´m 59 and no artist but very interrested to learn.

Thank You
Juergen

RobertSWade
11-08-2007, 09:01 AM
The eyes are a little larger than "life size" but that doesn't make them wrong. Personally I think they're very compelling. It's up to you as the artist to make that call though. I think this is excellent. :)

Welcome to the forum Juergen.

screenpainter
11-08-2007, 09:50 AM
I would disagree and definitely say you are an artist. Good work. Grab a reference pic for the eyes and you got it. There is a lot of good stuff going on in your painting. I like the way you used the washes. It is really a good first dance to the ArtRage music. :D

D Akey
11-08-2007, 10:10 AM
Wow. Got that Shroud of Turin thing happening.

Nice job. :D :D :D

barnburner
11-08-2007, 01:04 PM
I think it's great, whether it's your first time, or your 100th..

juergen
11-08-2007, 01:20 PM
Thanx very much for your warm "welcome" and your encouragement.:)

Though Artrage is a very nice and simple to use program, I ask myself
if its in your experience a "good" substituion for "real" painting (with oil,
acryl ore whatever). I mean, what happens when you paint with Artrage
on an tablet (I use Wacom Intuos3 A5 wide on an 22" screen) for a while.
e.g. half year, every day one picture?

Will it generaly increase your ability to paint?
Or is it an own, special kind of painting not to compare?

sorry for my 40-year old school english
and thank you once more
Juergen

smartdog22
11-08-2007, 06:25 PM
juergen,

I really like the intensity of the eyes. And, I like the use of the fine line in the hair and beard.It gives your picture a 3-D effect.

You have some great shading going on the right sided nose. I wonder what it would look like if you use the same technique on cheeks.

Great subject matter and I can see you have a lot of passion in your painting style.

I am just starting digital painting myself, so I cannot and your questions about Artrage vs. real-life.

11-08-2007, 07:54 PM
Which is better? Depends on what you like. There's room for both. And you can't beat digital for creating a digital end product. If you want to sell a painting, then you need a painting. . . unless you sell a print.

Digital is way more flexible. not a lot of 'undo' features and layers that you can manipulate in the real world.

But there's something visceral about painting and drawing in the real world. It can be really large, you're not staring into a light for hours, and so on.

Logic would tell you what the characteristics are of each. Then it comes down to what you're looking to do. That should tell you which is better for that end.

:D :D :D

juergen
11-09-2007, 04:51 AM
smartdog22: Thank You a lot! We are learning.

Concerning my question:
Yes, I agree that electronic painting has its own quality and opportunities.
I compare it with an electronicaly simulated violin on a musical keyboard.
It may sound simliar (when the dsps function perfect and the samples
are good quality) but the sound production process and goal is quite
different. To play on a violin a clean "e" or to press a key on the
keyboard is a year difference. :lol:

But electronic music has its own quality and friends. So we can say:
electronic paintings may have a very high quality (some are to admire
in this forum) or not. And thats the same in oil. The production process
is easier, and this is possibly an advantage for art newcomers.
There are many more aspects. - Psychologie, Philosophie?

At the moment I like the (dry) electronic painting very much
(does somebody know an oil painting robot???)

But I expect more in the sense, that it will be (or is?) only the
beginning of .... I dont know ... a new conciousness of mans
awareness of pictures? Maybe: No picture is real. Its "only"
in your mind.

What do you think is: douartDOTru ? - amazing or not?

Juergen

smartdog22
11-09-2007, 03:38 PM
Juergen,

Think is best to just experiment with the technology know that you have in front of you ...paint my friend! See what you mind puts on the paper. and let yourself be free and non judgmental about do.

Then you will see if digital painting is satisfying for you or not.

For me, I think I like the idea that you can stack layers. I really like stacking layers and I like that I can just make a crazy mark on the screen and not worry about "wasting valuable paper". It seems to me that digital could free you to take chances that could be useful in digital art as well as physical art outside the computer.

juergen
11-10-2007, 12:52 PM
... tried to improve it.
... I´m not shure about the shades ... the eyes ... the mouth ...

Please ... take the picture and overpaint it in Your manner You think its better.

Thanks

RobertSWade
11-10-2007, 02:48 PM
To my eye, the first is better. It has more of an ephemeral quality as befitting the subject matter. Just my opinion though. :)

juergen
11-11-2007, 01:11 AM
Yes, I agree, its also my impression when finished "the improvement".

"ephemeral" is an interesting observation; the second is "more solid"
(the obsession "to improve" produces lower frequences?)

Often I experience, when painting, that "first try" is better.

Thank You.

D Akey
11-11-2007, 08:27 AM
Yes, I agree, its also my impression when finished "the improvement".

"ephemeral" is an interesting observation; the second is "more solid"
(the obsession "to improve" produces lower frequences?)

Often I experience, when painting, that "first try" is better.


Hi Juergen,

Be careful that the conclusions you reach are relevant.

When you are learning a craft, then evolution and refinement and practice and experimentation are often a very useful part of the process of creativity.

I would assess the work based on what is working, not so much based on a truism. That way you can walk away from the experience with something you can use later in future paintings.

I agree that the quality in the first one has a good quality. And what you did to arrive at it could be used again.

I think the second one is very important to your evolution as an artist.

While it may be true that your consciousness may have shifted to a "lower frequency" for the second, that may be more a matter of thinking more. But thinking is a necessary part of learning how to paint.

Later, when you are more practiced, and your painting becomes more intuitive, then you will have a better chance of holding that higher frequency as you paint skillfully.

If you are using painting as a prayer, like the Buddhist monks when they are sand painting, or you are doodling to keep the hand and mind occupied when you are opening to your inner self, then that's another thing and very legitimate. But then your art is a by product of something else and would be judged for the inner work more so that the art.

I applaud your experience and your intention.

My opinion only. What works for you works for you and that's what you should to.

juergen
11-11-2007, 10:28 AM
While it may be true that your consciousness may have shifted to a "lower frequency" for the second, that may be more a matter of thinking more. But thinking is a necessary part of learning how to paint.

Later, when you are more practiced, and your painting becomes more intuitive, then you will have a better chance of holding that higher frequency as you paint skillfully.

If you are using painting as a prayer, like the Buddhist monks when they are sand painting, or you are doodling to keep the hand and mind occupied when you are opening to your inner self, then that's another thing and very legitimate. But then your art is a by product of something else and would be judged for the inner work more so that the art.



Dear D Akey,

thank You very much that you pick up the spirtual aspect
of painting, without neglecting the practical. I take Your words to
my heart. I´m thankfull that I can speak with someone
about these subtle views. For me is painting at first a "spiritual act" of
observation, considering and then formulation (the picture).

The formulation is, as a kind of "(re-) creation of reality in the
view of the artist", in my opinion the assence of every art
(in opposite to "design" where product functionality
is the first goal).

Open is, what "reality" is (in the view of the observer) and the
skill of the artist to express it in a (his) new reality.

The last can be trained but, for me is the more impotant act
the conscious observation and consideration. That changes things
in your (my) mind and at least me myself and. in last consequence,
the world (responsibility of artists?)

What does painting really mean for You?

------

Today I saw in a coffeshop a young tired lady. At home again,
I tried to paint her by mind. This is the result:

juergen
11-12-2007, 11:41 PM
Sorry for my last comment. I dramatised and realise that
its not subject of this forum.
Juergen

RobertSWade
11-13-2007, 01:56 AM
No need to apologize. It was an interesting dialogue and quite insightful.

D Akey
11-13-2007, 09:06 AM
Really. Who are you apologizing to?

No need for it. This is all very informal and anything you want to discuss that has to do with your process is more than valid.

I find what you said very interesting. Not that many people are going to relate to art that way. So don't feel surprised when you don't get lots of response.

It's also that many people don't read long posts, and don't want to put that much energy into it. No reflection on your process.

For me, art has a lot of ways to go, and I think you will find that there is a group for every direction.

I think art is a wonderful vehicle for everything from very grounded and immediate joy for the senses, to wish fulfillment, to appreciating the mechanical skill of painting, to a focal point for pondering beyond the painting. If one is inclined in any of those directions they will likely be seeking those works that fit what they're after (any or all of the above and more).

Personally, I have many eclectic interests. And in forums like these, I will try to get in touch with where the artist is coming from, and relate to them from that space.

For me personally, I'm a seeker. And so I'll look at everything in that context. Whether I will share that openly is another thing. Sometimes yes and sometimes no.

Regarding your notions about the secondary reality of art, I find that very fascinating. I also have found for me personally that words, art and anything else does not ever get it exactly right. It is impossible. So I agree with you in that.

So the solution for me, in trying to go deeper with painting, has been in knowing the inherent conundrum of limitations. Thus that frees me up to create a personal experience in the act of painting. And then, when I'm done, what anyone viewing the work will get from it is largely what they personally bring to the viewing experience.

If you are familiar with koans, it's all like that. They are Buddhist teaching questions that seem imponderable. But when they are struggled with, they present potentially an infinite number of truths because the person trying to figure one out will try thinking of everything to make sense of it.

Few viewers would approach a painting in that way, but if the painting points in a direction, it may set the gears to turning.

So painting can be an impetus, a trigger, as it were, to much. And it all depends on the viewer's nature which direction it will impel them.

Very good conversation for me. Thanks!


:D :D :D

juergen
11-13-2007, 02:46 PM
Dear Sirs,

highly surprised while reading, i´m glad to find open minds and hearts
just here, at a virtual place, in Aucklnad, New Zealand, 18.000 km away
from me. This is globalization with a human face. Thank You both.

( I´m so “bold” not to stop the discussion at this exciting point,
but please take into account that english is not my native language,
and that, as a former computer scientist, now retired, some
odd or funny english words may coming up. )

Yes, D Akey, I appriciate (and enjoy) your open ended eclectic kind
of understanding (not only seeking) of art. Maybe were paintings on
the walls of caves mans (humans) “first try” of realizing and relive
what live brought to them. --- I think it’s a regular question to
ask, if we are very far from that state, today,
in our so called modern times.

Is painting (art in the widest form) still, a “magical” act?

I have an idea to that and would like to hear your opinion.
While trying to stick on the subject of painting itself,
some strange thougts may come up on this strange matter.
I would be glad, if you follow them.

First, the physical act: When we look at an physical object, we can see it
because of the special molecule structure of its surface,
which absorbes special light rays but reflects other rays which
come into our for that reason specialised eyes, and are, transformed
in an unknown electrical way, the “input” for changes in our
specialised brain areas, which gives us the impression, that we “see”
something. The brain activities are very complicate but in the
sum, when the brain is healthy and all elements fit together,
we think, that we know “the visual reality” of the thing we saw.
These are the “very low frequencies” of pictures in the mind.
Last not least we can operate with it, though there must be more.

Because:

Second, the mental act: When You say: “This flower is red”, how
can you know that I also experience “red” in my mind? In the brain,
you don´t find a red flower (structure) or something with the label “red”
(information carrier) or a picture of a red flower.
No equivalent object to a flower to find there, only cells, molecules etc.
The Brain Specialist call this a problem named “Qualia” (please
Look it up in Wikipedia). It’s the subjective content of experience;
quality of feeling.This is the aspect of “low frequency” in pictures.

Is there more?

Mahayana-Buddhist (and meanwhile nuclear physics) say:
We are victims of illusions. Why?
They observed, that, behind the things are “only” concepts, ideas,
words without solid content. They call it emptiness.
Look wikipedia, its interesting.

But nevertheless: It exists (we have a name for it) and it creates
the forms and as a computer scientist I would say: Its information,
that means for me “sense”. It’s the reason for all what exists.
Spirit monitors matter.

Now we come back to painting.

I think, painting (in the widest sense you can think) is the
(re-) creation of what we call reality. It must be a fundamental
desire to recreate our solid reality over and over again in our mind
with SIMILAR pictures. So reality gets solidity!!!

If we could create a picture that is identical with the reality,
reality would disappear, because nothing can exist in the
same space in the same time. That is true. :wink:

Look at the pictures in this forum. The most applaus get the
painters with the skill to create a “nearly realistic” picture. But this
is not necesserily a perfect facsimile, like a photo. It contains
more, and these are the “higher frequencies” of the “idea of
the painting”. The idea creates the form, but not the original
forms (they are in neverending alteration) but in a diffent form,
so they can exist further on and on and on. That’s a secret
of LIVE itself. I think.

Does that make sense?

Juergen

P.S. It’s half past 2 in the morning in Munich/Germany.
I´m still not empty. Its so exciting ! :P

juergen
11-13-2007, 03:16 PM
I forgot to say:

... and we praise (applaud) us for doing that
because painting (doing every art) supports live.

... sometimes not, but thats a different subject.

Why are no paintings of (not from) handicaped
people to find in the www ?
I know some very intelligent, creative people
in germany who have no arm or legs and no one
dares to paint them. Why?