• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

The Devil is in the . . . . . (1 Viewer)

I ran across this quote a year ago from the Don Eckleberry Foundation, which offers two fellowships a year, located right here in Philadelphia. It seems pertinent to this thread:

"Nature is an endless source of inspiration: There is simply no substitute for watching a subject behave in its native surroundings. Yet it is surprising how few artists today actually work in the field. Many prefer the safe, controllable environment of the studio. The heavy reliance on photos as primary source material by today's artists has, in many cases, resulted in not only a homogeneity of style and a slavishness to detail, but in a finished product devoid of the feeling or emotion that characterizes the best artwork.

Couple this with the market-driven force of only painting subjects that will sell, i.e. wolves, bears, cats, raptors, all politely posed, and what you end up with is an uninspired body of work that conveys none of the excitement of encounter, no sense of individual personality or style, neither of the artist, nor of the animal."

The full quote, and information about the fellowship, is available http://www.ansp.org/library/eckelberry/endowment.php. One of last year's winners was Debbie Kaspari who many of you may know from her Drawing the Motmot blog.
 
Perfect Ken, and thanks for the mention of Kaspari, went to her site and had a wonderful time.

Just to add a bit of mischief to the WC thread, I went over and did a lot of typing, in it I briefly mentioned Tim's work, and added that a exactly detailed work can sometimes be lifeless and one barely sketched in brimming over. Then I ducked:king:
 
I can totally understand the constraint of the sale, I'd say that what I do has met with success, I'm SWLA, and won awards - but I sell very little of what I do! My new job is phoning Dutch people and hoping they speak enough English to answer a questionnaire! Necessary to make ends meet. But I don't think I'd have it any other way, sure I'd love to be able to make a living painting birds, but on the condition that what I want to do makes money - not the other way round where making the money dictates what I do. If I ever start painting a lot of elephants, peregrines and barn owls, you'll know that the rent is overdue!
 
nickderry said:
I can totally understand the constraint of the sale, I'd say that what I do has met with success, I'm SWLA, and won awards - but I sell very little of what I do! My new job is phoning Dutch people and hoping they speak enough English to answer a questionnaire! Necessary to make ends meet. But I don't think I'd have it any other way, sure I'd love to be able to make a living painting birds, but on the condition that what I want to do makes money - not the other way round where making the money dictates what I do. If I ever start painting a lot of elephants, peregrines and barn owls, you'll know that the rent is overdue!
Click to expand...

This reminds me a bit of when I consciously dropped out of the contemporary art scene about 20 years ago. I had had most of the major galleries in Philadelphia come to my studio. They were interested enough to come look at the work but not so interested as to give me a show, where I had a chance of making some money. I was also very disillusioned with what was being shown at museums and the better known galleries and decided that at that time there just wasn't a place for me in the contemporarly art world.

But that seemed preferable to continuing to badger gallery owners to show my work, hang out in an art scene I found boring, etc., etc. As a consequence I made my living doing something else and just returned to art 3-4 years ago.

But the reason I mention this is that when I did come back I no longer needed to impress anyone or badger anyone. I'd made enough money working in a non-art field to feel somewhat financially secure. So I was free to do just what I wanted with my art. It's a tremendous feeling. I'm still working so I can't devote the time to it that I'd like but that will probably stop fairly soon. In any case I just wanted to mention it because there's such a feeling of freedom when you don't have to please someone with your art.

But I'm older than probably most people here and it's a lof easier for me to paint for pleasure not for income. It's sad to hear Nick that an artist as talented as yourself can't sell many paintings. Not only sad, it's criminal! But I think you're right to stick to your guns and just hope that you start selling.

Every artist does it differently and no one way is right for everyone. But I think when someone sees the quality of your work they know you've chosen the right path. Now if that publisher would just publish your book and people would start buying your paintings.

As I've mentioned here before one other crime I think is the real bias against showing 'wildlife art' in art museums. I think part of that probably comes as a reaction against the 'paint every feather' wildlife artists but it just seems so foolish. So much wildlife art is of such high quality and is just as deserving of being seen there as what is currently on exhibit. But it looks like it will take some sort of revolution in taste before that happens. In the meantime i don't envy the honest bird and wildife artists who are trying to make a living. I'm sure it's hard.
 
Many prefer the safe, controllable environment of the studio. The heavy reliance on photos as primary source material by today's artists has, in many cases, resulted in not only a homogeneity of style and a slavishness to detail, but in a finished product devoid of the feeling or emotion that characterizes the best artwork.
Click to expand...

To be honest whoever wrote that sounds as narrow minded as some of the teachers I mentioned in an earlier or friends who say wildlife art is not as proper as “high art”. Perhaps I’m missing a point somewhere?

It is interesting to see the background of some artists here too as it gives a broader scope of thought processes.
My own was of a very contemporary approach to modern art with a few successful exhibitions, shows and sales and whathaveyou.

Anyway the point I want to make is this. I have recently been trying to draw realistic pictures with pencils using photographs (and some field work too). As I had such a “modern” art background I very rarely had the chance to do realist-ish drawings before. It is quite liberating being restricted in this way. I do not intend my pencil drawings to demonstrate the life, character, essence or breath of the bird. I am playing around with pencils seeing if I can describe the textures and colours using just graphite and paper. There is no devoid of feeling or emotion as non was intended (does that make sense? :D). I enjoy wildlife and so am drawing what I like (and why not?) while trying to learn a new area of art.

I can see the argument that wildlife art is not high art, working from photos is not field work, painting is dead modern art has moved on etcetera. But I thought Duchamp put an end to this type of thinking with his urinal?

To me there is room for all types of facets of art. Tim said
It also shows that the term 'artist' is such an all-encompassing one that it almost becomes redundant.
Click to expand...
I think this is great as it lets us get on with doing what we do regardless. To me it is about the quality of the work not the style and there is plenty of room for all.
 
mosca said:
I do not intend my pencil drawings to demonstrate the life, character, essence or breath of the bird. I am playing around with pencils seeing if I can describe the textures and colours using just graphite and paper. There is no devoid of feeling or emotion as non was intended (does that make sense? :D). .
Click to expand...

I follow that exactly, but I would admit to a birder bias when I look at work done that way: if I see two identical and beautiful graphite drawings of a drake Pintail

- pic #1 by someone who has never heard of a Pintail but saw one at the zoo and thought it looked visually interesting

- pic #2 by someone who has watched and adored Pintail all their life, looks forward to them returning each autumn and finally draws one

then I get not so much from pic #1 and lot more from pic #2.
 
mosca said:
To be honest whoever wrote that sounds as narrow minded as some of the teachers I mentioned in an earlier or friends who say wildlife art is not as proper as “high art”. Perhaps I’m missing a point somewhere?
Click to expand...

Mosca, not to start an argument, but I don't see why this should bother you. The people who set up the endowment are saying that they find much of contemporary wildlife art devoid of life. That is their opinion and one I found that I completely agreed with, which is why I posted it. They offer an endowment to two wildlife artists each year and my guess is that they will favor artists whose work shows some familiarity with nature and with working from life. They aren't saying that all other types of wildlife art has to stop. They're just trying to set the balance back toward a wildlife art that both understands the tradition of art and appreciates the experience with wildlife in the wild. This is all sponsored by the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. So I found it particularly surprising that they didn't look at wildlife art as something strictly scientific but also understood and appreciated the excitement of being in nature and also of the artistic traditions.

As far as Duchamp, again not to start an argument, but to me he was clever but nothing more. His interest was intellectual not artistic. But I find it odd that anyone thinks one artist can have such impact. Do people say that after Michelangelo art could never be the same, or after Rembrandt, or Velazquez, or Constable? Art goes on regardless, because it is too vital to have one person say what it should or should not be. Art is diverse not because of Duchamp but because of art itself.
 
solitaryVSong
I don't think this thread will turn into an argument but it is interesting to hear what people think and feel about the subject and I'm pleased it has cropped up.

I would say I was more disappointed than bothered with the quote I used. clearly they are doing good work and offer a great opportunity. I just feel there is no need to put down one style of art work for the sake of explaining why another is good. They are different and not like for like styles. Also to have a good understanding of wildlife artwork I would have thought a person would have to understand all styles, even the ones they might not personally like very much to get a more panoramic understanding in that area of work?

I chose the *Duchamp example not because I particularly like his work but to try and explain (and probably badly) the "is it art question". I thought that was relevant here as realistic type/photo/ drawing was getting a bit of a hard time from being compared to field/sketch/ type work. The working process, philosophy and finished piece are not really comparable. Sort of chalk and cheese.

ed, Out of curiosity do you feel the same way about a human portrait, for example, or is it specifically bird and wildlife art?


*
His (Duchamp) interest was intellectual not artistic
Click to expand...
I think we will have to disagree on that one though. |:d|
 
All good stuff, guys - opinion is valid and worthwhile when supported by well-thought points of view, which this thread has in commensurate measure.
Quite correct Philip - there is no need to put down a particular style, but I suppose sometimes we use examples to throw different approaches into a more sharply defined relief. I concur with Ed's analogy in general terms in that I feel that I get much more from a particular piece (art, illustration, poetry or prose) if I feel the 'artist' has a connection with the subject matter. Not only does the work 'speak with more authority' (there's a discussion to be had ;) ) but I think the depth of understanding is conveyed as part of the piece.
Of course, I could be talking utter cr@ . . . . . ;)
 
mosca said:
ed, Out of curiosity do you feel the same way about a human portrait, for example, or is it specifically bird and wildlife art?
Click to expand...

Neat question - no I don't feel quite the same way in relation to human portraits. I think my logic for the difference is that:

-where painting is done by a specialist in a subject (birds, mammals, even trains ye gods) and done for people who appreciate that subject, then part of the impact of the painting comes from the authenticity and authority of the painter in that subject (what Tim just said in fact)

- the specialist painting may also have wider artistic qualities which transcend the subject or which are subject-neutral - it might be a fantastic piece on all artistic levels

- but oftentimes a big part of its appeal can be the artist saying to the subject enthusiast in question:

I know what subject you dream of and I can render it before your eyes

[so a degree of kinship here with cave painters...shamans...pornographers...chocolatiers]

That's probably enough from me for now..
 
mmmm, got the wine, but am seriously lacking in chocolate. I do however have an enormous plate of homemade onion bhajis that are going to somehow bring peace to the world!
 
which way was the breeze blowin...?,
Ill stick with the wine please.......although unlike Nick and a few others, havnt tried to combine it with painting at the same time....
 
Andrew H said:
which way was the breeze blowin...?,
Ill stick with the wine please.......although unlike Nick and a few others, havnt tried to combine it with painting at the same time....
Click to expand...

if mixing alcohol and painting, gin gives the best results. Malibu makes me see purple snipe.
 
nickderry said:
if mixing alcohol and painting, gin gives the best results. Malibu makes me see purple snipe.[/QUOTE

Does yer medication still do that to you then 8-P
I hear stories of woodie accidently cleaning his brushes in the wrong glass.....
cant be too good for you, cept numb the pain
Click to expand...
 
My my...the debate continues eh...?

It is interesting to hear everyone's comments...and it just goes to show how different we all are...regards tastes and what we like to see verses what we don't particularly like to see...

I used to do tons of pencil work...some from photos...some just real life drawings...[it was interesting...to me...just to see what i could do]...at the time....

I attach two pencil images o mine....[one related to Duchamps urinal and another of a famous actor bloke now deceased].....B :)

ps...yes...i even consider lavatories works of art....!
 

Attachments

  • 001.jpg
    001.jpg
    51 KB · Views: 45
  • 002.jpg
    002.jpg
    54.1 KB · Views: 45
ps...yes...i even consider lavatories works of art....!
Click to expand...

just goes to show that anything can be decided as art, - actually I quite like it,
The acid test for me is - 'Can I see what it is without asking'
 
Andrew H said:
just goes to show that anything can be decided as art, - actually I quite like it,
The acid test for me is - 'Can I see what it is without asking'
Click to expand...

good grief- this thread is in danger of bouncing off the rails and then landing full square back on the tracks

speaking of trains and artists reminds me of what old Ernie Gombrich used to say

-the thing about these mainstream artists is all they can do is make you happy, sad, a bit moody or whatever

- but that David Shepherd, he can put a train in your living room and not just any old train either
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

jmorlan
Unusual Murre in California
Replies
5
Views
468
jmorlan
jmorlan
MaxesTaxes
Prairie Falcon? Devil's Tower, WY
Replies
8
Views
762
birdmeister
B
I
Hello
Replies
6
Views
156
Fritz73
Fritz73
Z
Hi to all
Replies
5
Views
363
Fritz73
Fritz73
S
Hello from New Zealand
Replies
5
Views
205
Kits
Kits

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top