-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Art or wildlife art? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
nickderry
C'est pas ma faute, je suis anglais.
I always thought that the photo-realists couldn't afford a good camera, I never doubted the technical brilliancy of what they do, but sometimes questioned the artistic merit. I suppose I'm a big fan of the unreal and the surreal. I was having a look at the Wildlife Art Gallery's website yesterday, there's a painting by Trevor Boyer of some mallards, it's excellent as a painting, technically brilliant with real moving birds, but then I imagined it as a photo and thought, it's a rather bad photo.
Love the yellow wag Arthur, I think it should be me in the straight jacket.
Love the yellow wag Arthur, I think it should be me in the straight jacket.
Vectis Birder
Itchy feet
Wildlife art is art -the best art, in my biased opinion.
timwootton
Well-known member
Hmmm. I wonder exactly what reference material Brenders and the photorealists use (could they be photographs, perhaps? - in which case the 'search for the truth' has already been lost).
Jomo makes very valid and extremely well-considered discussion points (no surprise there!
) but am I the only one who gets concerned about artists who do their bit for conservation (plaudable though the concept may be). I have the rather more cynical view that a field trip, associated high-profile exhibition and subsequent lavishly illustrated book focuses the contributing artists' efforts slightly more than if the 'job' was just to go do some hard graft on a struggling inner-city nature reserve - er, with no photo-call). Don't get me wrong, I'm as two-faced as the next pushme-pullme - if asked to go and do some hard sketching on some South Atlantic island -I'd be first in line and I'd feel good about helping the environment (as the sale of the book raises awareness of the issues. Or does it? - Doesn't a really timely, well narrated piece of news-documentary hit home just a little bit harder - Bob Geldof and his "Give me your f*cking money - NOW!!!" I think highlighted the DESPERATE situation Ethiopia faced (faces) then (now) far more than a watercolourist dabbing some raw umber around.) I'd be far more impressed by an artist who, so appalled by the way we treat the envionment, packed their brushes away and became a recycling officer at the local council. Robert Bateman has some very interesting views on all this (sorry Woody - they may be in the article you linked, I didn't have time to scan it) and I think Darren Rees makes similar points.
Jomo makes very valid and extremely well-considered discussion points (no surprise there!
) but am I the only one who gets concerned about artists who do their bit for conservation (plaudable though the concept may be). I have the rather more cynical view that a field trip, associated high-profile exhibition and subsequent lavishly illustrated book focuses the contributing artists' efforts slightly more than if the 'job' was just to go do some hard graft on a struggling inner-city nature reserve - er, with no photo-call). Don't get me wrong, I'm as two-faced as the next pushme-pullme - if asked to go and do some hard sketching on some South Atlantic island -I'd be first in line and I'd feel good about helping the environment (as the sale of the book raises awareness of the issues. Or does it? - Doesn't a really timely, well narrated piece of news-documentary hit home just a little bit harder - Bob Geldof and his "Give me your f*cking money - NOW!!!" I think highlighted the DESPERATE situation Ethiopia faced (faces) then (now) far more than a watercolourist dabbing some raw umber around.) I'd be far more impressed by an artist who, so appalled by the way we treat the envionment, packed their brushes away and became a recycling officer at the local council. Robert Bateman has some very interesting views on all this (sorry Woody - they may be in the article you linked, I didn't have time to scan it) and I think Darren Rees makes similar points.
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
Art changes the way you look at and perceive the world. It may include wildlife as a subject matter, or it may not. Most "wildlife art" as we've come to experience it is fine illustration of birds and mammals, etc - but does little to alter our way of thinking about the nature of humanity, our lives, or even offer great insight to understanding our communion with the natural world. Fine art is a process, hopefully leading to satisfying realizations concerning our place in the scheme of things. The subject matter, wildlife or any other, is incidental.
Last edited:
Phil Davis
Well-known member
Quote from Nick "I'm lucky in a way, nobody buys my work so I do what I want,"
Nick, why does nobody buy your work? do you put it up for sale ? I can't believe "art" of the quality you produce can't find a market although I will admit that "bird " paintings seem to have a limited appeal. Maybe you should paint birds set in aspic or lying on your unmade bed, I believe thats "real art"
Keep the faith,
Phil.
Nick, why does nobody buy your work? do you put it up for sale ? I can't believe "art" of the quality you produce can't find a market although I will admit that "bird " paintings seem to have a limited appeal. Maybe you should paint birds set in aspic or lying on your unmade bed, I believe thats "real art"
Keep the faith,
Phil.
Last edited:
Woody
Well-known member
So are you saying that 'wildlife art' isn't real 'Art' because it doesn't challenge the viewer or alter their way of thinking? This would mean that Robert Bateman isn't an artist, he's a mere illustrator of the natural world. This is what he argues against in the article that I linked to and he argues the case far better than I ever could.
Woody
Phil Davis
Well-known member
Robert,
I have been painting , selling paintings and looking at other peoples paintings for over 20 years, at no time have I consciously tried to change the way people view the world, does this mean I don't produce "art". While I admit some wildlife art falls into the category of illustration, there are many artists out there including those on this forum that raise the level of their work to "art". There is too much gobble de gook spouted about art , mainly by critics trying to justify there being, lets face it "art is in the eye of the beholder"
Phil.
Woody
Well-known member
Tim, I don't know how much effect wildlife art can have on peoples' perceptions or opinions. I think the type of project that you refer to is preaching to the converted really so its impact has to be limited. I would hope that something could be made of the launch of the exhibition and book so that the press coverage could be used as some type of platform to 'raise awareness'. But then, personally, I think peoples' awareness is already raised to the point of 'Yeah, yeah, save the patagonian flea mite, blah blah, yakety schmakety....'
Jomo, I'm not a big fan of Brenders' work either, I totally agree that it's technically superb draughtsmanship but it always ends up looking a little stiff and lifeless to me, rather like looking at stuffed animals. The artistic motivation behind it however is, I think, the same as mine; I love the beauty of the natural world and I want to try to share that and have viewers simply appreciate it. An artist painting a landscape is doing the same thing, saying 'look at this piece of the countryside, town etc. See how beautiful it is'. I don't think anyone will ever change the world through art whether they paint wildlife, exhibit sharks in formaldehyde, or anything else for that matter. Look at the world we live in, despite Piccasso's 'Guernica'.
Woody
Jomo, I'm not a big fan of Brenders' work either, I totally agree that it's technically superb draughtsmanship but it always ends up looking a little stiff and lifeless to me, rather like looking at stuffed animals. The artistic motivation behind it however is, I think, the same as mine; I love the beauty of the natural world and I want to try to share that and have viewers simply appreciate it. An artist painting a landscape is doing the same thing, saying 'look at this piece of the countryside, town etc. See how beautiful it is'. I don't think anyone will ever change the world through art whether they paint wildlife, exhibit sharks in formaldehyde, or anything else for that matter. Look at the world we live in, despite Piccasso's 'Guernica'.
Woody
Vectis Birder
Itchy feet
To me wildlife art is more genuine art - and requiring a lot more talent - than the 'Emperor's new clothes' of so-called modern art such as unmade beds, piles of bricks, remotely controlled light switches and dead sharks pickled in aspic. The 'modern art' of Damien Hurst, Tracey Emin and the like only makes me think 'what a load of utter shite'.
ARTHUR BISHOP
Well-known member
Vectis I wish you would get to the point here.don't mince your words but I totaly agree with you.
I think it illustrates the point when the cleaner threw away one that they had paid thousands for an untidy room or something like that .that brought out all the so called art critics to justify itall over again.
I think it illustrates the point when the cleaner threw away one that they had paid thousands for an untidy room or something like that .that brought out all the so called art critics to justify itall over again.
nickderry
C'est pas ma faute, je suis anglais.
Nobody buys at the moment, though I have sold quite a few in the past. I suppose I'm just too shy about getting the work into galleries (and quite reluctant to do so as a gallery that's got some of my work here in France has had my pictures since March without them being put on display!) Also in France, there is less of a birding scene, if I painted woodcock and thrushes with lead shot and blood then I'd sell like wildfire - certainly NOT going to take this route! Maybe the unmade bed is the way forward!
Vectis Birder
Itchy feet
Wildlife Art Radio 4 link
Hey Arthur, I never mince my words! I tell it as I see it.
There is an interesting BBC Radio 4 programme on the subject of wildlife illustration and it's relevance in the 21st Century, here's the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/pip/t804c/ . The jist of the programme is that wildlife illustration/art still has a valuable role to play in today's world.
As for me, I paint and draw to please myself and if people want to tell me it's irrelevant, then that's up to them. They're wrong of course.
Hey Arthur, I never mince my words! I tell it as I see it.
There is an interesting BBC Radio 4 programme on the subject of wildlife illustration and it's relevance in the 21st Century, here's the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/pip/t804c/ . The jist of the programme is that wildlife illustration/art still has a valuable role to play in today's world.
As for me, I paint and draw to please myself and if people want to tell me it's irrelevant, then that's up to them. They're wrong of course.
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
Please read again. I said "it MAY include wildlife as a subject matter or it may not" ... in the end, when defining fine art, "the subject matter ... is incidental". The treatment of the subject will define the difference between art and illustration - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with fine illustration, either.
Last edited:
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
Hi Phil,
Consciously or not, you still may be changing the way people see the world. For all I know you're a fine artist. And believe me, I abhor snooty art critics as much as the next person. And though I agree with most of what you said, art is not always in the eye of the beholder - some people like crap.
Cheers,
Robert
Last edited:
Phil Davis
Well-known member
Hi Robert,
This is where it gets difficult...who decides what is crap? Surely the fact that some people like crap means its not crap. Art is a very personal thing so I think you're wrong... art is in the eye of the beholder. Some years ago I went to the Tate Modern to see a Hopper exhibition,which was brilliant, while there I went to an exhibition of another artist who's name escapes me, the blurb described him as "at the cutting edge of contemporary art". I thought he was crap! Who's right ?
Phil.
nickderry
C'est pas ma faute, je suis anglais.
what's crap and what's not is I suppose personal opinion and is based upon different criteria depending on the viewer. I think it's possible however to come up with a definition of art and I've been playing around with my thoughts, at he moment, I'm thinking it's the translation of non-tangible events and ideas into tangible things, or something like that.
dryslwyn
Well-known member
This thread has certainly got everyone thinking. I'd like to make a contribution. I went to Wikipediia for a bit of help and really go along with the concept that art is made with the intention of transmitting emotions and ideas - its imputus is called human creativity. It's my opinion that with this in mind that anything can be called art. We may not all like all forms of art but that is personal taste and should be respected. What gets my back up is the fact that the art establishment and 'elite' do not at the present time show a respect for the traditional representational work that the majority of people love and appreciate and alot of us struggle to master.
So yes wildlife, landscape, portrait,flowers,and all the rest we are not too keen on to is all in my opinion art and I agree that beauty is ain the eye of the beholder.
So yes wildlife, landscape, portrait,flowers,and all the rest we are not too keen on to is all in my opinion art and I agree that beauty is ain the eye of the beholder.
Mouldy
skywatcher, dragonhunter
So Woody, it looks like this fascinating thread has run its course, with some very interesting viewpoints raised. Not wanting to put you on the spot but as the 'firestarter' so to speak, it would be interesting to know if your views on the subject have been reinforced or have the boundaries become even more blurred?
Similar threads
