|
|
mulder.patrick@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> I've cross posted this. In my experience a good artist can adopt
>> several different styles of painting. If they use a certain style
>> or explore a different technique will this mean that they are
>> ' psychologically disturbed' ?
>I think this question only make sense, if you give better concepts for
>"artist" and "the methods or style of the artists".
We know Van Gogh was an 'artist' penniless, destitute, but
dedicated to this creative pursuit. Can anyone be an artist?,
and what makes one famous for his art?
I think a reasonabley good artist is one who's work shows
a flexibility and confidence in their work which is brought
about by keen observation of their interests and practical
knowledge of the materials they used. Stylistic variations
are essentially studied through history & in fashion.
Van Goghs starry night
http://www.geocities.com/nickielson/VG/sn.jpg
same view using artistic licence
http://www.geocities.com/nickielson/VG/z.JPG
>Now, the question
>looks like you are assuming a Cartesian theater where "the artist"
>controls some part of his mind that then give a certain style to his
>work.
Some artists and writers can...they arrange a composition
and then 'stylize' it....the question is, if you copy the
style from someone else, are you original?
>The dualist view is misleading in questions related to the mind.
>Once you adopt a multiple-agent-viewpoint of the mind, you could argue
>that a good artist must be very sensitive to certain experiences, and
>in turn, must be able to amplify these certain mental states
sometimes inspiration seems to come as an idea that
requires labourous reflection working the idea through
thoroughly until you have what you want & at other times
they seem to come already shrink-wrapped ...
>(that are
>caused by the experiences directly in combinations with impressions
>from his long-term memories). Of course, we not always like to have
>certain mental states amplified, and in turn, our culture provides ways
>of thinking to avoid confrontation with them. On the other hand, good
>art often originates from the confrontation with average ways of
>thinking. That is where your paradox comes from: On the one hand, it
>can be dangerous to leave safe cultural waters, on the other hand, it
>can be safe, no to stay in average cultural waters.
certainly would agree,
I spent a little time wondering about Starry Night and
exploring the composition...texture aside, I was wondering
why theres so much colour and light radiating around the
points of light, it reminded me of rain in a cars headlamps
- - some atmospheric interference between the viewer and
the viewed, and trying to work out what the picture would
like like without the stars, and also if I could isolate
some quality in the atmosphere, so I modified a couple
more sketches,
http://www.geocities.com/nickielson/VG/y.JPG
http://www.geocities.com/nickielson/VG/atb.JPG
I briefly read that this style was new for him(?)and his
painting was done in hospital. He was a drinker, probably
in physical pain, I would have thought if there was any
blurriness of sight and expressiveness it should be more
evident before he was hospitalised...
Amongst the available drugs at that time were morphine
potassium bromide,chloral hydrate, and a couple of
others...they were hypnotics and others caused drowsiness.
could they have affected his sight I wonder?
Blurred vision, opthamology
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=475324
effects of drugs on vision
http://www.cs.wright.edu/bie/rehabengr/vision/visiondrugs.htm
just an idea, dunno, ...but I'd really like to fluff those
little clouds up some more...
:)
N.
|
|
