Minimalist landscapes

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

John Paul can get away with bending the rules because he's mastered them. People like to say that rules are meant to be broken, but I say that rules are meant to keep the clueless from looking like idiots. Only break a rule when you're good enough to know what you're doing.

Very true.

[Rob C]

Problem is, by the time you start to hear about rules, find out what somebody else says that they are, begin to subscribe to them, you might well find that you have thrown your chance of being you and not a rule-addicted clone of whichever master whose rule you have decided is the shining path to wisdom and serenity.

I wonder if Haskins followed rules, Avedon, Stern, Bailey, French, Sieff, Horvat, Moon, Watson, Demarchelier, Kane, Turner etc. etc.  - you get the photo...

;-)

Rob C

[Phil Indeblanc]

Problem is, by the time you start to hear about rules, find out what somebody else says that they are, begin to subscribe to them, you might well find that you have thrown your chance of being you and not a rule-addicted clone of whichever master whose rule you have decided is the shining path to wisdom and serenity.

I wonder if Haskins followed rules, Avedon, Stern, Bailey, French, Sieff, Horvat, Moon, Watson, Demarchelier, Kane, Turner etc. etc.  - you get the photo...

;-)

Rob C

.....and thats what seperates a an istructor that teaches how to do things his/her way, vs an instructor that teaches you how to see.

[popnfresh]

I wonder if Haskins followed rules, Avedon, Stern, Bailey, French, Sieff, Horvat, Moon, Watson, Demarchelier, Kane, Turner etc. etc.  - you get the photo...

Look at how the great artists came up. They all began by learning and applying the rules. Picasso, Warhol, Matisse--they all began by making competent and fairly traditional art. Only after they had mastered the rules did they move beyond them into new territory, and generally they were heavily criticized for doing so. We live in a time where artistic rules are misunderstood and tend to be regarded as creative strait jackets--beneath anyone who wants to pursue art seriously. As a result we're swimming in mediocre, stupidly derivative and just plain bad art by egotistical dilettantes who are smugly convinced of their own genius.

[Thomas Achermann]

I think that the natural truth lies in the fact that it is almost impossible to make a picture that does not follow the rules because there is an instinctive need to balance things out

I'm usually composing pictures so they are visually pleasing to my eye and not following any rules - but then it could easily be that my eyes are, unknowingly, searching for exactly those proportions  

This is one example: composing was done unless visually pleasing - but oops...it turned out to follow the 1/3-rule...
[attachment=23568:20100803...and_0039.jpg]

[Rob C]

Look at how the great artists came up. They all began by learning and applying the rules. Picasso, Warhol, Matisse--they all began by making competent and fairly traditional art. Only after they had mastered the rules did they move beyond them into new territory, and generally they were heavily criticized for doing so. We live in a time where artistic rules are misunderstood and tend to be regarded as creative strait jackets--beneath anyone who wants to pursue art seriously. As a result we're swimming in mediocre, stupidly derivative and just plain bad art by egotistical dilettantes who are smugly convinced of their own genius.

You may have a point, but it would be hard to show that those guys did actually follow anybody at all. It would also be fairly difficult to show that people  such as Picasso, having mastered tradition, really went on to contribute anything worthwhile rather than just personally rewarding in the financial sense of reward.

If you watch enough art shows, you have to be very fair indeed not to come to the conclusion that the entire thing is an edifice built for the generation of wealth for 'artist', dealer, critic, magazine, TV company as well as every other Tom, Dick and Harry whose fingers touch the subject. The raw truth is that taking away the monetary value associated with most of this stuff from the 'masters' I wouldn't give it space on my walls over the stuff I have up of my own. At least mine means something to me. I agree: we do indeed swim, if not drown, in crap. If I have to swim in any, might as well be my own - at least I'd know where it came from and how good it might have been before it turned into art.

To be blunt: the art world functions on the mutual suspension of disbelief.

Rob C

[popnfresh]

You may have a point, but it would be hard to show that those guys did actually follow anybody at all. It would also be fairly difficult to show that people  such as Picasso, having mastered tradition, really went on to contribute anything worthwhile rather than just personally rewarding in the financial sense of reward.

If you watch enough art shows, you have to be very fair indeed not to come to the conclusion that the entire thing is an edifice built for the generation of wealth for 'artist', dealer, critic, magazine, TV company as well as every other Tom, Dick and Harry whose fingers touch the subject. The raw truth is that taking away the monetary value associated with most of this stuff from the 'masters' I wouldn't give it space on my walls over the stuff I have up of my own. At least mine means something to me. I agree: we do indeed swim, if not drown, in crap. If I have to swim in any, might as well be my own - at least I'd know where it came from and how good it might have been before it turned into art.

To be blunt: the art world functions on the mutual suspension of disbelief.

To each his own. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the value of art. Personally, I regard Picasso as one of the greatest visual artists of all time. Coincidentally, so do many others. That's neither here nor there, really. It's only called great because a lot of people have judged it so over time. And notions of what's great art change all the time. Today's master is tomorrow's fool, and visa-versa. Picasso's reputation has been amongst the most durable. But in the end it all comes down to whether you yourself like the art in question. We must all agree to disagree on the relative merits of art and artists.

Your condemnation of the way art is marketed is understandable up to a point, IMO, however the high-end art market as we know it today didn't exist prior to WWII. But in my mind, it doesn't matter. I have no problem with artists making money, or even getting filthy rich, off their art. If the buying public loves their art so much that they're willing to buy it, more power to them. An artist doesn't need to take a vow of poverty to earn my respect, nor do I think that a serious artist need be uninvolved in the marketing of their art.

[feppe]

Here three additions from last weekend on my trip to Ireland. Taken around Glenmacnass Waterfall in Wicklow County south of Dublin.


Glenmacnass Waterfall Topside


Wicklow (Minimalist Landscape V)


Wicklow (Minimalist Landscape IV)