Where has the art gone

Ian Smith · 20 Jun 2006, 17:26 (Ref:1637870)

where has all the art gone - while the photographs are excellent there does not appear to have been any actual art for quite some time.
Please all you talented people lets see some ART

Alan Raine · 20 Jun 2006, 17:41 (Ref:1637876)

You asked for it!

http://www.alanraine-graphicillustration.co.uk/MAN.jpg

Not a new one as I have not done much for a while - too busy on these computery things.

Andrew Kitson seems to be the main 10 Tenths artist but he has not been posting for a while.

Jaxs · 28 Jun 2006, 21:34 (Ref:1643765)

If you would care to define ART

Tee hee

**Snapper Baz** · 4 Jul 2006, 22:37 (Ref:1648485)

Ok then, heres one of the Brands DTM winner...and it wasn't set up!

Andrew Kitson · 7 Jul 2006, 11:15 (Ref:1650197)

Nice Baz!

Here are some:
Painted for Peter Connew on his 60th, a gift from his cousin.The Connew GP car in the Austrian GP 1972.

An Aston painted for Derek Warwick. He gave it to his friend, the owner of car and house as a birthday gift.

Painted for our own John Turner. Brundle in the Aston P212 at the Goodwood revival in '99. Soon to be a print.

**Snapper Baz** · 7 Jul 2006, 18:28 (Ref:1650444)

Hi yer Andrew!

Some nice stuff there as well!!

**Snapper Baz** · 7 Jul 2006, 18:40 (Ref:1650455)

Here's a couple more...Jeremy Mayfield leaves the pitlane at Homestead at night whilst later I asked Greg Biffle where he ranked me amongst race photograhers he knew!!

andy_b · 8 Jul 2006, 21:05 (Ref:1651001)

OK, here are a few of mine from recent months

An adobe illustrator image of AJ in the Forsthye car, but with extra Red Bull livery

The creation coupe which you might have seen in a couple of the comics

Prior to that the Creation 06 Artist Impression (yes, yes I know I didnt have the stepped floor on the side)

and lastly, a small image (I cant remember seeing any online) of the Protran

All bar the Champ car was marker, pen and then logos, highlights etc added in Photoshop. I'm now trying to go all digital, but thats taking some time.

I'm doing a '55 Chevy in a few weeks for a friend, so IF it comes out ok, I'll post it here

Ian Smith · 8 Jul 2006, 22:14 (Ref:1651044)

Thank you Alan, Andrew & Andy B. well Jaxs thats what I call art, I am not decrying the wonderful photos by people like Baz, I am jelouse of their talant as well,But real artists Like Andrew and co, really float my boat. I just wish I had the Money and wall space to honour their talent.
I just noticed all these artists have names that start with 'A'

Ian Sowman · 9 Jul 2006, 08:59 (Ref:1651188)

Photographs are no less 'art' than other media such as drawings, paintings or sculpture though, are they?

Many photographs have far greater artistic content than paintings.

**Snapper Baz** · 9 Jul 2006, 09:24 (Ref:1651203)

Ian, you are such a fine chap...no matter what others say I've always known you know what your always talking about!

PS: I'll send you a pm later today after I've been to Colchester zoo of all places!

**John Turner** · 9 Jul 2006, 09:29 (Ref:1651206)

Yes, photography can most definitely be an art form. Certainly Snapper Baz Brands DTM picture is a stunning example!

Andrew Kitson · 9 Jul 2006, 12:56 (Ref:1651285)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Sowman

Photographs are no less 'art' than other media such as drawings, paintings or sculpture though, are they?

Art has many forms. Photography is definitely art, music is art, dance is art...whatever floats your boat.

Art is apparantly sometimes an unmade bed, stuffed hedgehog, a few spots placed at random on a piece of card, a chicked shed that was once a boat or even a pile of bricks, although I'd guess Turner if alive today would wonder at some of it that has won the prize given out in his name.

Jaxs · 9 Jul 2006, 15:05 (Ref:1651327)

Many photographs have far greater artistic content than paintings.

What a crock full of smelly stuff....

Snapper Baz, may be you would like to elucidate on the artistic content, the elemts of composition and the meaning to a new comer without any knowledge of the photograph and their impression and understanding of the photograph.

The photograph whilst containing a variety of colours, the red bull sign in the back ground in up side dowwn. The significance of this to the ' new ' viewer would possible indicate a sport of pastime where physical acrobatics is common place,

Perhaps you could explain the rules of composition that dictated the placing and position of the pictorial elements. ( helmet, gloves, etc)

The photograph is a mechanically captured picture and without a studio setting to allow and comply with the very basic rules of composition cannot compete with the most amateur of painters with a modicom of compositional teaching.

Technical, the photo meets the requirements of the modern digital print but complies more with the defintion of a snap shot than a 'work of Art'

Alan Raine · 9 Jul 2006, 15:22 (Ref:1651342)

Sorry Jaxs, I have to disagree with you. I have been an Illustrator for over 30 years, but feel there is as much art in photography as there is painting.

Anybody make a picture, be it with a paint brush or camera, but it takes skill and creativity to make really good ones!

IMHO both or artists.

Alan Raine · 9 Jul 2006, 19:26 (Ref:1651637)

[Edit Mode]

Sorry Jaxs, I have to disagree with you. I have been an Illustrator for over 30 years, but feel there is as much art in photography as there is painting.

Anybody can make a picture, be it with a paint brush or camera, but it takes skill and creativity to make really good ones!

IMHO both are artists.

My spelling is sometimes awful! [Edit Mode]

**Snapper Baz** · 9 Jul 2006, 19:45 (Ref:1651651)

Alan_B, some great stuff there-any more?

**John Turner** · 10 Jul 2006, 07:33 (Ref:1651933)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Kitson

....... although I'd guess Turner if alive today ........

I'm still here!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxs

The photograph whilst containing a variety of colours, the red bull sign in the back ground in up side dowwn. The significance of this to the ' new ' viewer would possible indicate a sport of pastime where physical acrobatics is common place,

Frankly, I'm not sure a work of art in any media should have to be explained if it is truly intending to convey a message or meaning to the viewer. That is why I'm dismissive of much modern art that needs the artist to explain what he is trying to convey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaxs

Perhaps you could explain the rules of composition that dictated the placing and position of the pictorial elements. ( helmet, gloves, etc)

The photograph is a mechanically captured picture and without a studio setting to allow and comply with the very basic rules of composition cannot compete with the most amateur of painters with a modicom of compositional teaching.

Technical, the photo meets the requirements of the modern digital print but complies more with the defintion of a snap shot than a 'work of Art'

Anyone can point a camera and take a picture, but it is at what angle you take it, what you wish to include in it, the light and shade of it; the background etc; in effect you are composing your picture and placing the objects in it, just as a painter does, only you have less time to do it, unless you are indeed in a studio. It thus becomes much more of a work of art than simply a snapshot! Yours, is a very selective one dimensional approach to this issue and your description of Ian's post carries more merit, frankly, when applied to your own.

andy_b · 10 Jul 2006, 09:54 (Ref:1652064)

Snapper Baz's photographic example shows exactly that Photography is an art form. I'm just getting into actually, but none of my good piccys are motorsport related

Jaxs · 10 Jul 2006, 18:34 (Ref:1652704)

But, why is it no one has answered the questions?

Andy B, no, what you are looking at is know as a pack shot, nothing magical, nothing out of the ordinary, any first year art of photography student would be expected to produce this. But, it is not original.... a criteria for true appreciation...

Mr Turner,

What a excuse for not answering the question, the basis rules of composition apply, One dimensional, Oh, ask a question about the composition and possible style,.... decried as one dimensional.. smelly stuff .. rules...

Mr Raine, as you have been an illustrator for such a long time you might consider to answer my question... you obviously have the life experience so I would expect a detailed and far reaching discussion of the elements of pictorial apppeal, well, you are an Illustrator.

gentleman I can only refer you to a famous photographer called, Ansel Adams,

To the complaint, 'There are no people in these photographs,' I respond, 'There are always two people: the photographer and the viewer.'"

and

I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -- meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching -- there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster.

It always surprises me that people will expound on the word ART but very few will indulge in a little discussion as to what they percieve as art, the hackied phrase, 'Well. I knw what i like does little to convey an understanding of exactly what you are looking at.

The reasons for liking any pictorial image have almost defined rules and rely on the individuals perception of the compositional elements.

Whilst peolpe will decry painters, the almost basic instruction, not on how to apply the paint but where to place the various objects within the painting....

Now, if you guys want to have another look and tell me what you see....

Discuss:

Jaxs · 10 Jul 2006, 19:29 (Ref:1652759)

To make it easier, pick your favourite painting or photograph and the reason why.

andy_b · 10 Jul 2006, 21:04 (Ref:1652878)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxs

But, why is it no one has answered the questions?

Andy B, no, what you are looking at is know as a pack shot, nothing magical, nothing out of the ordinary, any first year art of photography student would be expected to produce this. But, it is not original.... a criteria for true appreciation...

I think its a nice simple composition. Personally, I like clean uncluttered compositions. It was very much an opportunity taken but how is that not art. Different form to illustrations, but still art.

Myself, Alan and Andrew have all produced compositions from real race cars for clients. OK, we've drawn and painted (well marker for me!) the cars, but often the views and track exist,,,so would you say thats not original.

Different people have different tastes, thats why Art is such a wide genre. You can't please all the people all of the time.

Ian Smith · 10 Jul 2006, 21:50 (Ref:1652944)

Oh Dear I opened a can of worms didn't I. Of course there is art in photography, and i don't deny it but I meant 'Art' as in pictures created using canvas-paint -Brushes and a great amount of hand & Eye co-ordination which I am totally incapable of. There is Art in many things but the context I wanted was paintings. Well I hope thats cleared up my question. Thank you Baz I will look forward to you PM and also some Zoo shots

Alan Raine · 11 Jul 2006, 06:21 (Ref:1653131)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxs

But, why is it no one has answered the questions?

Because there is no answer to your question.

Everyone has their own point of view. What I like, someone else might hate. A piece of Modern Art that I think is pretentiuos rubbish could sell for thousands.

Art is what each person perceives it to be. I still use a pencil, brush and computer, a photographer uses a camera and the hoodie down the road uses a can of spray paint and the bus shelter as a canvas!

**John Turner** · 11 Jul 2006, 15:28 (Ref:1653583)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxs

Mr Turner, What a excuse for not answering the question, the basis rules of composition apply, One dimensional, Oh, ask a question about the composition and possible style,.... decried as one dimensional.. smelly stuff .. rules...

As far as I'm concerned I did answer it but I'm sorry if I am speaking a different language. Frankly, if you continue to describe other posters posts as ''smelly stuff', I don't consider you warrant too much intellectuality in response.

The fact that Ansel Adams has an opinion, is just that; an opinion. He seems to think that time is a fundamental factor in establishing whether something is a piece of art and that because taking a photograph takes so little time it, per se, cannot be a work of art. And as for 'creative disasters', I cannot think of a better description for some paintings that according to the connoisseurs are masterpieces. As Alan says, everybody has their own view of what constitutes art. The first definition in my dictionary states 'art .... the concious use of skill and creative imagination'. That's good enough for me; I don't feel the need to redefine it or debate it; it allows me very comfortably to take the view that some photographs and many paintings are works of art. On that level, I don't feel the need to differentiate between the two.