request for opinions on my art please

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Sorry, couldn't resist!

That was my second choice.

Sorry, couldn't resist!

:funn:

I'm going to be honest with you.....
I think you need to expand your concepts and consider taking some art classes in your free time.
Keep drawing and most of all keep an inspired attitude.

Good luck

I looked at your myspace site and my impression of your art is anger.

I looked at your myspace site and my impression of your art is anger.

wow... I didn't observe anger at all.

Tie dyed hoo hahs?

wow... I didn't observe anger at all.

I saw it in the black and white abstract faces. Anger was my first response. Not on the paintings posted here, but on the myspace site.

I saw it in the black and white abstract faces. Anger was my first response. Not on the paintings posted here, but on the myspace site.

I wonder why you are angry

to be honest, sorry in advance.

when I look at these, I think you should slow down. "art" doesn't happen in a hurry. oh, and look up Cy Twombly.

I think it is odd when people reject training in the arts, as though it somehow will corrupt you or make you a beret-wearing navel-gazer. you mentioned something akin to this on your site.

I wonder why you are angry

I am not angry. I saw the artists anger and frustration in the drawings. Just like Van Gogh. At the Van Gogh museum, the paintings are displayed for each period of his life. You can see the frustation, peacefulness and anger in his style.

The black and white drawings appear as if the artist is angry.

I am not angry. I saw the artists anger and frustration in the drawings. Just like Van Gogh. At the Van Gogh museum, the paintings are displayed for each period of his life. You can see the frustation, peacefulness and anger in his style.

The black and white drawings appear as if the artist is angry.

I was just pulling your chain a little. Art is so subjective. I think most people reflect on something in their own life when looking at art, searching for association.

Rice2715, I'm not sure why you are looking for feedback on your art, but just remember that no one liked Andy Warhol's work for a long time, and some still dislike it. Was it VanGogh who never sold a painting in his lifetime, yet now his works sell for million$? If you are looking for pats on the back, look in the mirror, because our opinions of your art really don't amount to anything, anyway. Sure, we can tell you whether or not we like your art, but what does that mean? Please yourself.

to be honest, sorry in advance.

when I look at these, I think you should slow down. "art" doesn't happen in a hurry. oh, and look up Cy Twombly.

I think it is odd when people reject training in the arts, as though it somehow will corrupt you or make you a beret-wearing navel-gazer. you mentioned something akin to this on your site.

Training is a GREAT thing. Color theory, composition, subject matter- all play very important parts. I would also suggest taking a class. Keep working at it!

Hi
just wanted to add my 2cents worth....I see potential in your work. also the advice to get additional instruction is good but you can also gain a lot of progress by just perseverving on your own....which means you have to do quite a lot of painting ( stay with small sizes at first) .The point is to let the natural progress of your painting style surface by just painting everyday. and find someone else's work you admire as a point of beginning and dont copy but use this as a meaningful gauge from which to work from and then let your own "voice" surface.
also....see the currant issue of Art in America- Dan Christensen article.
and http://www.danchristensen.com/

The reason I say take a class is because you need to go through the process of having a critique- which is just basically other artists ripping you a new one in a 'positive' manner. It works. Very well. You learn the difference between art and crap.You learn how to improve yourself amd your art. People will flame me for this and say "art is subjective" but seriously- there is a difference and it shows.

Being a trained artist myself, I can tell you I had talent, but nothing compared to how I am now. It helps you grow as an artist. Most self-taught artists don't survive. I can only think of one that did- Howard Finster- and it only worked because it was folk art.

Van Gogh, Gauguin, Monet, ( I could go on for forever) etc.- all took classes...

Tie dyed hoo hahs?

:funn: :funn:

Most self-taught artists don't survive. I can only think of one that did- Howard Finster- and it only worked because it was folk art.

Van Gogh, Gauguin, Monet, ( I could go on for forever) etc.- all took classes...

Am I right that Van Gogh never sold a painting while he was alive? If so, I'm not sure that I would say that he "survived."

Thinking locally, I can name Gordie Hinds and Woody Long as two artists, who were self taught, and both seem to be doing very well, "surviving." Woody's work is sold all over the world, and he has work hanging in the Smithsonian. I know you said that "most" don't survive, but for that matter, most people change careers at least three times in their lifetime, so while what you say may be true, it really doesn't matter whether or not an artist "survives." Even if they don't, they aren't much different from the rest of Americans.

Natural talent plays a LARGE part. You can't teach that.

I just don't like to give false hope to others...

Am I right that Van Gogh never sold a painting while he was alive? If so, I'm not sure that I would say that he "survived."

Yes, you are correct. He committed suicide.

Yes, you are correct. He committed suicide.

He tried to kill himself- shot himself in the chest- but he survived the incident only to die from the injuries 2 days later. He had many problems just like most major artists from back then. Everyone was crazy with syphillis (like his brother). But not Van Gogh, he was just mental- literally. The last 2 years were insane- and that's when he created his most memorable pieces- and also when he cut off his ear.

Am I right that Van Gogh never sold a painting while he was alive? If so, I'm not sure that I would say that he "survived."

False statement. His family was a bunch of art brokers- and he was too for a long time. He couldn't take it anymore and then studied at The Royal Academy of Arts. He then did commissioned work- he didn't make much though. Because of his mental disorder and addiction to absinthe it was hard for him to hold any job. His brother supported him so he could continue to paint. Many say he was bi-polar or that he did have syphillis. My personal guess is lead poisoning. Most artists used to lick their brushes to get the 'perfect point' on the tip of the brush and well, oil paints will kill you.

P.S. His 'art career' lasted all of 8 years- but he created over 2,000 pieces- he def. had exhibitions while he was still alive. When you work with the likes of Gauguin, C?zanne, Toulouse-Lautrec, Rousseau, Pissarro and Seurat you're bound to get discovered at some point.

He tried to kill himself- shot himself in the chest- but he survived the incident only to die from the injuries 2 days later. He had many problems just like most major artists from back then. Everyone was crazy with syphillis (like his brother). But not Van Gogh, he was just mental- literally. The last 2 years were insane- and that's when he created his most memorable pieces- and also when he cut off his ear.




False statement. His family was a bunch of art brokers- and he was too for a long time. He couldn't take it anymore and then studied at The Royal Academy of Arts. He then did commissioned work- he didn't make much though. Because of his mental disorder and addiction to absinthe it was hard for him to hold any job. His brother supported him so he could continue to paint. Many say he was bi-polar or that he did have syphillis. My personal guess is lead poisoning. Most artists used to lick their brushes to get the 'perfect point' on the tip of the brush and well, oil paints will kill you.

P.S. His 'art career' lasted all of 8 years- but he created over 2,000 pieces- he def. had exhibitions while he was still alive. When you work with the likes of Gauguin, C?zanne, Toulouse-Lautrec, Rousseau, Pissarro and Seurat you're bound to get discovered at some point.

Van Gogh's art is quite impressive. I was in Amsterdam and went to the Van Gogh museum. It was quite extrodinary to see how his work drastically changed with his emotions. From the colors he used, to the style. Anything from angry slashing strokes to delicate touches with the brush.

Am I right that Van Gogh never sold a painting while he was alive? If so, I'm not sure that I would say that he "survived."

False statement. His family was a bunch of art brokers- and he was too for a long time. He couldn't take it anymore and then studied at The Royal Academy of Arts. He then did commissioned work- he didn't make much though. Because of his mental disorder and addiction to absinthe it was hard for him to hold any job. His brother supported him so he could continue to paint.

Having distinctly recall reading that he never sold one of his own paintings, I decided to do a bit of reading about Van Gogh. I never studied art or art history, so I was a bit curious to learn if I misread what I thougt I read. I'm not sure who you are quoting in your above statements. Perhaps you can cite the source. It reads much like Wikipedia's version.

I found the following:

from www.montana.edu

Vincent never sold a painting in his entire life. It is commonly agreed (although has never been proven) that one painting was traded to pay off a bar tab for the equivalent of about forty American dollars in today's currency value. This is very interesting in light of the fact that his paintings now sell in the tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars at auction. The world was "abuzz" when his painting "The Iris" sold for $40,000,000.00 US in the mid 1980's to a Japanese buyer at auction. The reason for the commotion was that no painting by any artist had ever sold for nearly that much in the history of art auctions. A wave of outrageous bidding ensued and does not seem to have stopped even today, and Van Gogh's painting started it. Of course, the fact that he never sold a painting during his natural life was the topic of many an editorial and magazine article for a long time to come.


Never having sold a painting, you may wonder how Vincent made a living. His brother Theo, who lived and worked in the family business in Amsterdam, regularly sent Vincent money for his living expenses and his paint. Vincent was very close to his brother Theo. Their relationship is one of the most well-documented in history because of their devotion to each other through letter-writing.
******************
From emptyeasel.com

"We all know his name, and he might even be the most famous historical painter today?Van Gogh?s paintings are instantly recognized by people everywhere, but during his life he never knew fame at all. Supposedly, he only sold one painting out of the hundreds that he created."

******************
From www.gardenofpraise.com/art19.htm

"Some say that during his lifetime he only sold one painting. It is a fact though that he would trade paintings for art supplies, and the dealers sold some of those paintings. He had no idea that he would become so famous, but after his death people began to appreciate his work. One of his paintings sold for $82.5 million. That's the most anyone has ever paid for a painting."

Reading Van Gogh's Wikipedia version, I'm not sure that I would say that he
"survived" as an artist. His art has survived, but it sounds like he struggled at best, as an artist. His brother was displeased with both commissioned works which he gave Vincent.

"His father and uncle sent him (Vincent) to Paris, where he became resentful at how art was treated as a commodity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1 (this was while he was working as an art broker), and he manifested this to the customers. On April 1, 1876, it was agreed that his employment should be terminated."

School or no school, as T. Cline said, draw, and draw everyday. Draw to please yourself, and you are sure to capture some audience. Art isn't supposed to be about the viewer. It is about the art.

why are you trying to start an arguement? You just contridicted yourself!

You say he never sold one, and then you say he sold exactly one. Well, I said it wasn't many, but he did do some commisions in the beginning- which you stated as well. But apparently with contidicting sources you have, we'll never know.

I didn't need a reference to look at- I studied him in school and took a personal interest in his story and read a book that was comprised of letters between the two brothers. 'Letters from Theo' (?) I believe...

NOT trying to argue here- I just don't believe in false hope- I believe in working your tail off for everything. Art isn't an exemption. You should take all advice (critical and non) and all the classes you can if you want to try and sell/improve your work.

As my professor said when I was at Pratt on first day of classes in my LCD (light, color, design) class-
"An 'A' is for masters of the subject, you are no where near that. Good luck keeping your scholarships." I have never learned more in a year than I did my freshman year. I think it's a never-ending battle... and everyone needs to be pushed creatively.

School or no school, as T. Cline said, draw, and draw everyday. Draw to please yourself, and you are sure to capture some audience. Art isn't supposed to be about the viewer. It is about the art.

While I agree about art being about the art- in this case- it is about the viewer- if they don't like it- it won't sell or make it into stores- which is the goal in this situation.