Painted with Jordan's custom sumi brush, which he was kind enough to lend.

A wild and flowing brush... hard to handle!

Cheryl

Apparently not attractive!

Maybe not "paint" it and apply some filters?

Jordan

What?

Orange, the fiery color of life... not attractive?


Perhaps you are right; filters would be more acceptable.

But where is the blood, the passion, in that?

Cheryl

In this Forum there is tender treading.

"Accomplished" is a major attraction certified by comments
regarding the big $ "pros." This, even if they don't present
themselves as such. I think.

Carrying on with paintings (irrespective of the big $ pros) I suppose is
the only way to go (rhetorical)?

Jordan

Ah, Pablo, you will never get anywhere with this smearing of the colors. Look at all the great masters like Leonardo and Michel and Raphael. You and Vincent will never get anywhere.

My dearest Pandacat,
Haven't you heard? We are already there.

"I shan't enter into generalities concerning technique, but I certainly foresee that as I gain
more of what I shall call expressive force, people will say not less but even more than they
do now that I have no technique."

Kind regards,
V & P

I like the picture. I am not sure of the conversation though. I would agree that just applying filters is not very artistic if the "artist" is really not involved.

Dave

Ah, yes. The attainment of no technique. I had forgotten the quest for that lofty goal.

I've never believed in God, but I believe in Picasso.
::: Diego Rivera :::

A painter does not strive to be without technique,
but to express his own vision, regardless of popular vote.

It is the market that forces the mores of admired technique.

Cheryl

Oh, so now you are into following the lead of Andy Wahol .....

"Milk"



I see.

DCRobinson wrote:
I like the picture. I am not sure of the conversation though. I would agree that just applying filters is not very artistic if the "artist" is really not involved.

Thank you, Dave.

the conversation:
Digital painters and out of the "mainstream" paintings are not well received in this forum.
The focus is on marketable filtered photos... Photo Illustration aplenty but little Digital Art.

the question:
Where is the art that speaks of social issues or of the very heart, the guts of the artist?
Beyond technique and cool filters... where is the attempt toward meaning and content?

Cheryl

Pandacat wrote:
Oh, so now you are into following the lead of Andy Wahol .....

"Milk"



I see.



No... quite the contrary.

Only illustrating the results of painting with no technique.

Cheryl

Cheryl

Perhaps you can give some pointers to this photographer. Her name is Erin Krause. She doesn't have it quite right yet. Maybe someone can tell her which are the best filters to use.

Dave, as to the conversation between Cheryl and I .... it is being said with all due Tongue-in-Cheek. Some think that the only way to accomplish a vision is to follow all of the "Rules" and if you don't follow the "Rules", then you will never become "Recognized" by the established community.

My reference to Picasso and van Gogh were simple pokes at those folks that insist on only "one way" to accomplish something. Obviously those guys didn't follow the rules. They probably heard the same things I heard when I was growing up in the mountains of the Carolina's... "You ain't never gonna amount to nothin', boy!"

I think Cheryl's work is really good. But, then, I don't follow the rules, so what the hell do I know!?!

cbliss wrote:
DCRobinson wrote:
I like the picture. I am not sure of the conversation though. I would agree that just applying filters is not very artistic if the "artist" is really not involved.

Thank you, Dave.

the conversation:
Digital painters and out of the "mainstream" paintings are not well received in this forum.
The focus is on marketable filtered photos... Photo Illustration aplenty but little Digital Art.

the question:
Where is the art that speaks of social issues or of the very heart, the guts of the artist?
Beyond technique and cool filters... where is the attempt toward meaning and content?

Cheryl



Hi Cheryl,

"What is art?" That question has been around, unanswered a very long time. My opinion would be that at a minimum the "artist" must be trying to communicate a story or an emotion. The posting of an automated altered image must (to me) say something to be artistic. You and I are on the same page about that.

Dave

Pandacat wrote:
Perhaps you can give some pointers to this photographer. Her name is Erin Krause. She doesn't have it quite right yet. Maybe someone can tell her which are the best filters to use.


Pandacat, I can offer no pointers as I am consumed with sailing my own course.

Cheryl


"Sports and gallantries, the stage, the arts, the antics of dancers,
"The exuberant voices of music,
"Have charm for children but lack nobility; it is bitter earnestness
"That makes beauty; the mind
"Knows, grown adult."

I looked this poem up "Boats In a Fog" by Robinson Jeffers.

Having grown up on the Atlantic, I'm a sucker for all such things. Nice works, the poem and the picture.

Here is one of mine from a couple weeks ago. "Shelter Island"

Dave

Image Removed.

Like it

Pandacat wrote:
I see.


You "see?"

Where is your work...so as to underline the seeing? In your own thread - not here - of course!

Jordan

Folks...too...to post an image in a thread that does
not belong to you (w/o permission) is extraordinarily
presumptive/disrespectful.

Got an image? Start your own thread versus intruding
image-wise in someone elses!

Jordan

jsdill wrote:
Folks...too...to post an image in a thread that does
not belong to you (w/o permission) is extraordinarily
presumptive/disrespectful.

Got an image? Start your own thread versus intruding
image-wise in someone elses!

Jordan

No disrespect intended to Cheryl (she did not indicate any). Just sharing a love of the sea.

Dave

Yes...still, inserting images in someone elses thread w/o asking is presumptive.

Intentions aside. A thread started by another is not common/public ground image-wise ( I think!).

Jordan

cbliss wrote:
DCRobinson wrote:
I like the picture. I am not sure of the conversation though. I would agree that just applying filters is not very artistic if the "artist" is really not involved.

Thank you, Dave.

the conversation:
Digital painters and out of the "mainstream" paintings are not well received in this forum.
The focus is on marketable filtered photos... Photo Illustration aplenty but little Digital Art.

the question:
Where is the art that speaks of social issues or of the very heart, the guts of the artist?
Beyond technique and cool filters... where is the attempt toward meaning and content?

Cheryl




Cheryl,

I would like to here more about what you think and see more of your art. I would agree, some people take themselves too seriously. The tone around here seems less than supportive.

Regards,

Dave

DCRobinson wrote:
Cheryl,

I would like to here more about what you think and see more of your art. I would agree, some people take themselves too seriously.
The tone around here seems less than supportive.

Regards,

Dave

Oh, boy.

My comments are not in any way about how some people take themselves too seriously,
so there is no agreement between us here. Again, quite the contrary.

In fact, Jordan is being supportive of me and this forum by suggesting that you start your own thread!


jsdill wrote:
Yes...still, inserting images in someone elses thread w/o asking is presumptive.

Intentions aside. A thread started by another is not common/public ground image-wise ( I think!).

Jordan, I agree with you. Thanks. I have always considered the posting of images in someone elses thread
to be bad manners... especially the reworking of an image with the words "I hope you don' t mind."



Dave, there is an unspoken etiquette here that I appreciate, one you seemingly are not aware of.
Other forums encourage community threads; some folks here, too, perhaps.
I do not. It diminishes the impact of the original work and turns the thread into a Wild West free for all.

ledriver wrote:
Like it

And now, ledriver has commented. About what? Your painting or mine?
Shall I thank him... or should you?

Seriously,

Cheryl

Cheryl,

I am sorry for offending you. I do not as a matter of record post over others work. If you look at the thread prior to my transgression, it had previously diverged from your original line. Starting with Jordan's post which was more about others perceptions (filters etc.) than the image.

Your posting on the 24th added to the change of the discussion. Then came the terse reaction to pandacat. I took this as a turn from talking about your original image to one about what is art and artistic expression. This is not all that uncommon here or other forums on this site. My posting was given to show how two people can interpret a similar scene (independently) in differing ways.

It is good that Jordan is a supporter of yours, as am I. I still enjoy your work. It is a shame we have seemingly lost some civility and tolerance over this. It is interesting since the undertone is one of angst and anger over not being accepted as main stream.

Regards,

Dave