On Artistic Series II

Seems we reached the maximum of replies allowed by ning on that original thread, so am adding this new one as its continuation. John Dalton said: Wow, i'm amazed that the process of erasing when drawing would be considered controversial in an Art School. So much of our education is selling "control," or "power," and much of that is rooted in the belief that we know what "reality" is, and looks like. Countless times, I have entered a life-drawing situation (I have been chair of drawing departments and director of an art school) to witness a teacher talk about "how the figure is made," totally by-passing/ignoring/avoiding the real issue of "this perception, this time." I have seen hundreds, if not thousands of students, drawing a figure as if they were very close to her/him, while they were at least15 or 20 feet away, drawing details they could not see, ignoring what the distance between them and their subject could teach them, if they would only pay attention to their own experience. There are some great passages in a book that used to be compulsory reading in my classes (not "just" drawing classes), "A Hidden Dimension," by Edward T. Hall. He makes it very clear that what happens in our perception of a figure (but this applies to any "thing") is most often totally overlooked and yet, the differences between what we "really" see and what we "think" we see are, to say it mildly, astronomical. John also said: I think this is less true for someone who actual know how to draw or has some traditional drawing training and works with the program in that kind of way, i'm more thinking about those of us who don't do a lot of manual drawing and are heavy users of the action button. I am a fan of the action button too! Years ago, when I was still using natural media, I used huge quantities of turpentine, washing down my sometimes large canvases until the image that had gelled, and which was far from being satisfactory, would almost dissolve, forcing me to build it up again. I have had weeks during which I used a gallon of the stuff, I had to cover my studio floor with large, taped plastic sheets, curling them up the walls a few inches so that the turpentine would not escape and drip through the floor. Given I often slept in my studio, it is little wonder I am now totally allergic to painting materials (and much more). After natural media, I started using computers, thanks to the Mac OS, and Painter (version 4, the one that came in a paint can smelling of, well, paint!;-). I felt at home in Painter, but also deplored how slow it took to build a living surface with it. I quickly resorted to using filters, not to create "groovy effects," but literally, to pull the rug from under my feet as soon as an image would gel and yet, not be satisfactory. Filters were then used in a way that was almost identical to how I used turpentine before. Then came the Metacreation mess, forcing me to look for a Painter alternative. That's when I found Studio Artist (version 1.1) with a downloadable demo. Within 5 minutes of using the demo, I wrote to Synthetik (I( knew I had found gold). Now, the action button is an integral part of my work processes, at once a way to pull the rug and build more, a really fabulous tool. I think I know why iti s so good for my purpose: SA's intelligent painting engine is at work while I am undoing, so it contributes to also moving upward, not only down, while never the less "undoing" some of my unsatisfactory structure(s). The only thing I am missing in that is a way by which the build-up would be more obvious: often I have a piece that has undergone hundreds, if not thousands of steps, and it looks as "flat"as one that was done with merely a dozen steps (that's where natural media still hold an edge, but that edge is vanishing when it comes to working "in/with/on" time, as with creating/processing movies in a PASeq with sequential keyframing).

You need to be a member of Studio Artist to add comments!

Join Studio Artist

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • I'll reply to my own post in order to add a bit more to this new thread.

    John Dalton also said: For some reason the first time you used the "What saved me was that I became more interested in what I found than in what I was looking for" quote i missed it or it didn't register.

    But this quote in many ways hits the nail on the head when it comes to using Studio Artist. My experience is that the happiest or most satisfied users tend to be those that are willing to go or explore where the program takes them.


    Students who were comfortable with that were (often, not always) happy students indeed.
    But it is a difficult step to arrive at the realization that control is not the goal, or that which can be accomplished by way of control is a lot less far-reaching than what can be touched by way of "accident."
    Here again, a key is in "how much," and "how often:" it takes serious dedication to be able to fail so many times, doing one's best, to finally realize that "the failure is the measure of success" (as Camus almost said;-), and that there is a definite, trustworthy pattern in one's way of "failing."
    Nobody fails like "me."
    ;-)
    Just like students could not intentionally do a "bad" drawing, their intentions having little impact on what they were doing (anyway), "failing" is a very relative term. When we draw sincerely and "fail," we are "merely" making visible another facet of what we are capable of doing, and it is up to us to do something with that, or not, to integrate as much as we are capable of, or not.
    Quite frankly, I don't know if I would be using computers if I had not developed deadly allergies to paint materials, but I sure am grateful that happened (I love working in time), and even more grateful I "stumbled" into Studio Artist!
    • More often than not each step along the way to my approach to using Studio Artist is an experiment and perhaps a vision driven by expectations that lead me to the great unknown. If I was afraid to"fail" I could not use Studio Artist (or continue with the drawing and painting classes that I have been taking.) Usually many of the steps in my creative process lead to either incomplete or "ugly" images. The first step, however, in the process begins with the feeling, determination and the trust that I will in fact "discover" or create a piece that reveals the beauty I desire to express. So I usually continue through the tedium and disappointments.

      Quite often the final form the image takes may either be quite different than my intention or as with the case of the alphabet I started with no particular vision or image in mind other than to create one beautiful piece that became a series after I realized the the possibilities from that first letter. What is important is a willingness to let go and trust in the unknown. Some have called that Faith.

      Awareness of the process (real time) becomes a timeless meditation that leads to a transcendental experience. Then one is a vessel both guided by the program and interacting with it by making choices that often seem to lead to art created by "blind luck". To my way of looking at this it is one's willingness to let go, be in the moment and trust in the unknown in an intuitive manner (the third eye) that results in art of a higher caliber and comes not from blindness, but sight of a different nature. The focus is on the inner, not the outer. The final form the piece takes is a manifestation that comes from deep within the heart and soul of the artist.
      • When I started practicing visual arts, I was just having fun, and it was great. Then little by little I started meeting well-intentioned people, online and IRL, who convinced me that to create art I had to be in control of the process from beginning to end, and that I needed to strive for perfection. I was never quite convinced by the "vision" thing (that I was supposed to have a "vision", or worse, a "message", and that my job was to express that through my art), but I really thought that I was supposed to be critical of my art and judge it, and only be satisfied when I judged it to be perfect. I even started giving "constructive criticism" to other poor deluded souls like myself :-)

        The result was that I almost stopped creating. My sculptures were becoming bland and annoying, I was stuck in a cmd-z loop (do, undo, do something else, undo...) in the digital field, and I don't think I had ever finished a single painting (traditional, that is).

        Then I met a painter who gave lessons in Paris (he is still my teacher). I told him I'd like to do abstract art but didn't know how, and he said: "It's easy: just pick up a brush and make a mark, and take it from there". I picked up a brush and a whole new world appeared. I haven't stopped since.

        What I learned from this teacher is not to make plans. That wasn't hard for me, I was never any good at making plans. What was harder, and is probably still an ongoing battle, was to stop judging what I did but rather to accept it. When you're creating, there is no such thing as good or bad, as a failure or a success. There is only this thing that you just created. If you try to hide it, it will just keep coming back and you will keep fighting it, instead of working with it (because it's the only thing that you have, the only reality) and taking it to the next level, whatever that may be. Whether you like it or not, frankly, doesn't matter in the least. What matters is what you will do with it.

        Creation is a bit little a video game with infinite levels. You can never know what the next level will be like. Sometimes it will be scary, sometimes exciting, often it will be both. You can, however, get stuck on one level, if you try to take control, either because you like that level and don't want to leave it, or because you don't and are trying to escape. Change is the only constant. It will happen, whether you like it or not. If you let go of the plans and try to keep an open mind, you will just enjoy the trip better ;-)

        I hope that made some king of sense...
        Florence
      • It is not all that hard to create a situation in which a student will make a great painting/drawing.
        Not "great"as a student piece, but great by any standard.
        Yet, it is almost utterly impossible for the student to acknowledge the worth of that piece because "it was not done on purpose."
        Much of my work as a teacher was/is to have the student realize that what is done "not on purpose" is simply coming from another level/facet of the artist, and instead of working to increase the "on purpose" angle, it is our job to widen our frame of reference and gain a bit of that humility needed in front of all that we are that exceeds our comprehension.

        Nobody else can do work "not on purpose" the way "I" do: "Each one of us is a brand new point of view on the world" (Merleau-Ponty).

        Also, it's been said many times by many artists, creative work is like a conversation between the doer and the piece, and a conversation implies communication, from both parties.
        Too often one can attempt to impose one's will on the piece, no wonder the piece is not cooperating then.
  • I am going to pitch in - as an illustrator - where every aspect of the art I create is wedded to intent to communicate... All very marketable and destined (hopefully) for mass reproduction
    It is interesting to read the material you all are putting up.
    There is a lot of mixing the idea of validation into "process" or "artistic intent" and commercial valuations that leaves my head spinning.
    My perspective is not from a "fine artists" point of view. My work is validated in a very different market.

    Eraser!
    I used to work beside an artist who used an electric eraser as an art tool - equal to his pencils.
    I would hear his eraser buzzing away and I would tease him that "REAL Artists" don't use erasers...

    That "REAL Artists" crack had a complicated significance.
    I felt he did too much of his thinking with the eraser (removing) rather than thinking ahead and leaving white where light should be while in the process of building up... His work looked retouched. Messy and unclear. I suspected his work reflected his effort...
    I felt that he could dig more into the "character" of what he was drawing if he did not rely on removing things from an unfocused image.

    I generally use a technique that goes from raw gestural sketch to a second pass with more control - bringing my image into focus (picking and choosing my "vocabulary of elements to use to communicate)
    Then I take that work to the light board or computer application and render a clean "print" (or multimedia) ready final piece.

    I built up and left white to represent white - so to speak.
    My friend built up with massive coverage and erased to white... I was prodding (teasing) him to make more effort to be clear from the start. To clarify his intentions before letting his tools guide his imagery.

    In a job a few years later I took my own advice and went a step further.
    The demands of the job - create many designs fast!! - forced me to think ahead... and change the way I used my tools as well.
    If my sketches and painting went bad - with lines getting off track and not saying what they needed... I drew harder!
    I began to use tools that did not allow for erasure. I used a china marker, grease pencil for my lines. Nothing short of house paint would cover the grease pencil... I HAD to marry my intent to the line I laid down. I had to mean it. I had to bulldoze my intent into the image.

    Erasing would allow me to get lazy and not really dig into the subject I was trying to illustrate. But china marker forced me to see and feel the "personality" before I laid a line down... My "erasure" happens before I ever lay line to paper... I disallow things - while bringing others up in volume for emphasis (typical caricature) before executing...

    Tho the computer and UNDO have turned erasing into a whole new and greater thing. I probably erase (undo) zillions of times thru a project. Allowing laziness - and allowing some accidents that serve the intent better than some intentional efforts could have... And occasionally cursing my slide into a less certain effort.

    I do find it difficult to make SA work for me - to NOT put things in (using the Action button)
    Mostly the tools presets etc in SA - cover - they seldom disallow coverage (tho its possible)
    It takes a lot to define a process that treats some things as unimportant and others as vital.
    "Artists" do this all the time... Picking and choosing.. Each with a personal preference for what is important.
    I find it tremendously hard to work with SAs automated tools to break down, then build up an image with just what I consider important.
    I tend to give up hoping there is a button that will do what I want - and just take the burden of doing it onto myself. What I would do anyway - with non digital media.. Assemble and prepare my materials. Mentally edit my sources(images) and prepare things so I would not have to do over something that needs to be done right the first and last time...
    I dont think there is an "EASY" button in SA for what I want! Yet ; )
    I am not sure I would want one. "HARD" has its own rewards. SA may be hard to control... But that is the real advantage of "digital" and SA's real power.

    Clearly I am espousing deliberate action when it comes to creating art - but this is in reference to illustration.
    And with a process worked out I know SA can do a lot of work for me - hugely reducing my burden. And making it fun to boot.
    I dont think SA can think and execute an illustration thru FOR me (tho it can create something that might match my market!!) - but I do think I can use the tools SA provides to build towards my goal and gather up happy accidents along the way to stretch my visual vocabulary.

    ----

    This thread started with the idea of SA facilitating series of works.
    This it definitely does. The options are literally infinite... So many ways an image can be processed or generated....

    I tend to look at a series of images (like the set of apples in my postings here in this forum) -as experiments in visualizing. Part of the process...
    My intent would be - like in the case of the apple - to hit on something that really rang with "appleness"...
    I am not very satisfied with the examples(posted) as representations of my ideal apple - but do consider them good examples of what SA can do. They communicate "apple" very successfully and very commercially - that aspect of the images works great.

    I make series all the time...
    Thru my process of building from rough to final version upon version - to working as an illustrator and character animator making large numbers of images that share something thru out... A character for instance that needs to remain recognizable thru the whole set - creating a series opens an opportunity to show the richness of a subject, approaching it in its many guises. A person for instance is far richer than a single face-front photo can tell us. Many images of that person can start to create a greater overall picture and communicate personality(what we are really interested in - when looking at people)

    Because "series" are pretty much all I do - I look for those aspects of personality as the number one way to communicate interest. I want to transmit the "personality" of things (that I am trying to recreate) to others.

    I highly recommend making many versions. Experimenting with them along the way. Looking to bring out with them - some of the things that make the subject (or no subject) interesting and good to share!

    Craig
    • Craig brings up a fascinating point i've been thinking about quite a bit, which has to do with seeing an image and then breaking that down into some form or representation that could be executed via direct action. And his comments about many of Studio Artist's action tools working to pile on more stuff (as supposed to being more selectively focused in some directed visual way), mirrors what i was saying about many PASeq's i see (including many of my own) as piling on additional paint effects until the piece is finished (whatever that means).

      And remember, Craig does commercial illustration for a living so what he needs to do in his job has a very different focus than just creating visual art for pure creativity or breaking through to some new transient level of expression. I would imagine some of that means needing to utilize certain types of line generation or shading conventions when creating illustrations. I would imagine a big part of it means coming up with something that will satisfy the purchaser or intended user of the final piece.

      My take on his comments about going through a phase where he forced himself to not even be able to use an eraser is that he was trying to force himself to make initial design decisions and then be forced to stick with them at that point to finish the piece. So he was using it as a focusing device in his initial visual analysis of an image and how he was going to break that down into marking elements to create a representation of that image.

      So we're kind of entering a technical realm here with the topic i'm going to start discussing. Which is that people who i would consider very good commercial illustrators are very good at looking at a visual image and being able to express the essence of it in a relatively few strokes of the pen. That piece of the puzzle is i think what Craig is expressing frustration that the Studio Artist Action presets are lacking. The trained illustrator is able to convey the emotion or the shape representation or whatever else they are trying to convey off the original source image using a relatively small amount of information, much smaller than the raw pixels in the original image, we're talking about a few carefully drawn pain strokes here.

      So i look at this with my science and engineering background and say, these illustrators are very good at compressing an image. A brilliant sketch is often a form of extreme compression, where the extremely large amount of raw pixel information in the original image has been compressed so that a relatively small amount of information can convey that original image. may in fact even convey the emotional essence of what composed the original image even better in many cases because of what it's leaving out.

      For example, Joe Ciardiello's work always blows me away. He does a lot of commercial illustration for the New York Times book review. I really do want Studio Artist to be able to look at a source image and have the ability to abstract it as well as he does using action button style commands. I'm not going to fool myself into thinking we've arrived there yet. So getting into the technical analysis of what is going through an illustrator's mind when they create an image like this is something i really want to understand.

      I think we might want to move the replies to this particular topic to a new forum post focused on elements of technical illustration, because in some sense it's the dichotomy of what a lot of the other discussion is about, which is the need to move beyond analysis or obsession with of raw technique and dive into true visceral expression in the moment.

      So as i said direct your replies to my comments on elements of technical illustration to this new forum rather than here. I say that because this new discussion i want to start is really all about specific technical details of drawing, and the discussion here is really more about trying to break free of technique or technical analysis.
    • Craig,
      There's a famous dialog between André Breton and Alberto Gicometti which deals a bit with the issue occupying us: Giacometti, then a prominent member of the Surrealists, had wanted to do a head (in sculpture). He quickly realized that, without a model, he was not getting anywhere. So he hired a model. Even quicker, he came to realize that "nothing was like I imagined," and he embarked on a search for the visible that became his mainstay for the rest of his life. Breton came into his studio and saw those heads, and heard Giacometti's explanations. Breton walked out of the studio, furious, mumbling: "A head! A head! Everybody knows what a head looks like!"

      Well, some do, maybe, but Giacometti did not (and god knows that he looked!), and I have to say that I don't know either.
      And I have looked for a very long time as well.

      One issue that is so often overlooked, including in illustration, is that there is a tremendous difference between a generic head, and "this" head, "this" time, from "this" point of view.

      As for using tools that prevent erasing, I did thousands (literally) of drawings using markers (40 years ago), and hundreds using ball-point pens (30+ years ago). I have no drawings made with markers on line, but here is a ball-point pen (a "Bic") drawing.

      If one looks carefully at anything, isn't it clear that one can't tell where one thing really ends, and something else really begins? That sincere looking reveals that edges are far from stable, certain, and that the ambiguity one opens up to is best served by marks that "cater to the appearing as it appears."

      Drawing exactly "that" ambiguity, not another.

      There is a certain form of ambiguous drawing/painting that is far more accurate, in and by its very ambiguity, than shortcuts that gloss over what makes our experience so unique.

      For the record, Giacometti admired those billboards painters who could whip a gigantic actor head (billboards were painted on site in his days). He was amazed by what they did, he wished he could have done away with his doubt (the other side of faith by the way).

      I see the same difference between "fine art" and "illustration" as exists between "pure" and "applied" science.

      It is not fair to look at one with norms that apply to the other, and I mean that "both ways."

      Let us be aware however of the fact that, without "pure science," "applied science" would "dry up."
      • Here is an enjoyable extension to some of the things discussed in this and related threads:
        http://raggedclothcafe.com/2008/04/20/aesthetic-appeal-is-it-in-our...

        The paper here:
        http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffpiu049.pdf

        Is also interesting.

        I am afraid I dropped out of the fray a while back - (too much work)
        But didnt stop thinking about the subject matter.
        In fact part of the work that detoured me was self observation - in response to Johns request for more information about what happens in the head - the process leading up to and during the act of caricaturing.
        Hopefully I will be able to pick up the thread - so to speak - again. Artists should hear artists talking...

        Craig
        • Ramachandran's paper is pretty interesting. The discussion on peak shift relates to the discussion on caricature here.
          • "Obviously, without culture there would be no different artistic styles--but neither does it follow that art is completely idiosyncratic and arbitrary, or that there are no universal laws."
            There are so many "qualitative leaps" in this paper, it may (appear to) hold its own in the world of neuroscience when it deals with"(pseudo) philosophical extrapolations," but in the world of Philosophy, especially that of Phenomenology, oh boy!
            Ontologizing all the way, once again, without end (nor awareness of that).
            If one follows the"logic" of his position, art needs the artist's conscious decisions and intentions in order to exist, sort of "art as nature plus man."
            It's akin to saying that "if I did not intend/will my fingerprints, I would have blank finger tips."
            Once again, I posit that the universal in art is that which precedes culture (and language), not that which is created by it/them.
            The idiosyncratic as a privileged entry point into the universal, or the way by which the universal reveals itself through us, more precisely, through "me."
            I don't have the time right now to pick at that paper (nor the energy to be honest), but it really once again shows how little (much of) science "understands" Art.
            Think of that incredibly sophisticated music of the Forest People (the "Pygmies"), it all comes from the "pre-cultural" (in the sense of the "pre-doxic"), it is that which we are and share across time and cultures, made manifest, like all "good" Art does.
            Yes, caricature is an exaggeration of the "normal," but isn't it strange that, the minute we really look at it, we don't really know what that "normal" looks like, is?
            So, may I ask: it is an exaggeration of what?
            Ramachandran's thesis is all predicated on the assumption that he (we) knows what "reality" looks like ("Ontologizing"), thus he dismisses, knowingly or not, the (strong) possibility that our better artists (across time) are, and have been, "painting" their "real-as-unknown," in an attempt to get a glimpse of it and thus, "make the visible visible."
            Back to John Cage again, in a conversation with Philip Guston: "When you are in your studio, your are there with all your thoughts, with your friends' and your enemies'. As you work, and if you are lucky, they start leaving, one by one. As you keep on working, and if you are very lucky, even you leave."

            "Things are not what they appear to be, nor are they otherwise."
This reply was deleted.

Whats going on with this site?

Has anyone else gotten a warning about this site disappearing? An email form just popped up, asking me to contract the owner and leave a message to let them know that they may loose their "network"Did Synthetik forget to pay it's bills, or is something else going on?I think 8 months is more than enough vacation time. Is anyone at Synthetik doing any development work at all? 

Read more…
3 Replies · Reply by Tony Bouttell Mar 12

Having difficulty exporting canvas as image

I'd like to export a canvas as a .tiff/.tif image file to a folder I made on my desktop.I select that from a dropdown menu, I can name the exported file, change the extension, etc, and I press save but nothing happens.It's always worked until now. It seems like a simple task. Any ideas?I'm on Mac OSX 12.6, if that matters, and my system hasn't changed since the last time I was able to export successfully.Thanks  

Read more…
2 Replies · Reply by Tony Bouttell Mar 5

To Datamosh and beyond?

I expect most of you know what i'm refering to wit this effect. It's a glitching with codecs like h264 where the the last frame of a previous clip gets frozen and used as a colur pallete for the next. It's been exploited numerous times in edgy rap videos etc.StudioArtist seems ideal for making similar effects, given it's high levels of pixel manipulation controls.Expt 1What i'm trying out for a start is using two layers - Layer 1 (topmost) has a still image. Layer 2 has a video.On Canvas/Layer…

Read more…
10 Replies · Reply by Thor Johnson Mar 8