*

[Nyke]

Rulers in art are one of those "your call" areas. I only do it for panels, as my drawings already look fake enough, thank you very much. I'd only suggest it for people who can't draw a faintly straight line to save their life, but whatever you want to do...

But rulers in drafting are a given for final products. You can get by with a rough sketch sometimes, though.

[Ideal Comics]

I say fuck the art student.

Hmm... I don't see how that'd help. Did the Art student seem extra tense, or something? And even then, there's the emotional and psychological repercussions, and what if her kids walked in.... Just too risky if you ask me. I wouldn't do it.

But seriously::

On Forces, Chris will at times use a straight edge for perspective, but I never ink with one (which is pretty obvious, I think). I ink w/ dip pens, and if I use a ruler, it just leaves a gloppy, India ink mess that inevitably ends up smeared on the board. We do use the PC (chris uses the GIMP) for borders, though.

And McDuffies: I do think that technical drawings <i>can</i> be considered art. Not all, certainly, but look at rigging diagrams for ships. They evoke so much, from the majesty of the sea to the ingenuity of craftsmen and shipwrights.

Its kind of like the way things were built in the past. Even hinges and lids and waste-paper baskets had such an aesthetic sensibility to them. Art balanced with function. But I suppose, art is in the eye of the beholder, for on the beholder can truly ascertain whether the piece has touch them on a deep, questioning level or not.

Rhys

[McDuffies]

And McDuffies: I do think that technical drawings <i>can</i> be considered art. Not all, certainly, but look at rigging diagrams for ships. They evoke so much, from the majesty of the sea to the ingenuity of craftsmen and shipwrights.

Its kind of like the way things were built in the past. Even hinges and lids and waste-paper baskets had such an aesthetic sensibility to them. Art balanced with function. But I suppose, art is in the eye of the beholder, for on the beholder can truly ascertain whether the piece has touch them on a deep, questioning level or not.

Rhys

Duchamp would say, it is if an artist takes it and displays it in museum. But the while purpose of technical drawing is to be a half step to the finished product, like ship. Some would consider a finished ship a piece of art, but that's another discussion alltogether.

That's taking art in the widest possible terms, some people will consider good cooks artists, or good craftsman of any kind - but in my opinion that's such stretching of the term "art" that leads nowhere (or rather everywhere - as in chaos). Aesthetic beauty isn't enough for art, and neither is accidental symbolism. Lion statues on a gate can evoke power and bravery, but that doesn't lift them above purely decorative level.

[Ideal Comics]

Certainly, a valid arguement can be made to seperate craftmanship from art, artists from artisans; but I'm just saying, is all. (I actually have drawn a rigging diagram for a ship I envisioned for a character I was writing for a comic script, so I am probably biased!!)

And while it can be said aesthic beauty itself is not enough for art, that really comes down to the motives of the artist/artisan. Are they just trying to make something pretty, or are they indeed trying to embrace the spirit of a place, people, or idea. And how much of that motive can we assume. It is this conundrum that I think leads to the view that it is not only the artist, but the observer that can make something 'art', for the viewer might see depths in a piece that the artist/whatever never imagined.

Rhys

[McDuffies]

And while it can be said aesthic beauty itself is not enough for art, that really comes down to the motives of the artist/artisan. Are they just trying to make something pretty, or are they indeed trying to embrace the spirit of a place, people, or idea.

Hm, making art with aesthetic beauty produces decorative art which, though it has 'art' in name, isn't what we usually use the term 'art' for. Somebody said that art should be engaging both emotionally and intelectually, and decorative art, of course, fails on the intelectual part.

And how much of that motive can we assume. It is this conundrum that I think leads to the view that it is not only the artist, but the observer that can make something 'art', for the viewer might see depths in a piece that the artist/whatever never imagined.

That's certianly one way to look at that.

[Smight]

But the while purpose of technical drawing is to be a half step to the finished product, like ship. Some would consider a finished ship a piece of art, but that's another discussion alltogether.

Somebody said that art should be engaging both emotionally and intelectually, and decorative art, of course, fails on the intelectual part.

Some technical drawings are finished pieces, and can be quite beautiful while teaching you a few things.
Technically Art

[Ideal Comics]

Hm, making art with aesthetic beauty produces decorative art which, though it has 'art' in name, isn't what we usually use the term 'art' for. Somebody said that art should be engaging both emotionally and intelectually, and decorative art, of course, fails on the intelectual part.

That does mean the work of Monet, or Van Gogh, or countless other landscape painters not count as art? A rendered landscape only has the meaning we read into it. Of course with impressionism and esxpressionism, you have the view if vision of the artist on display, but my point is who are we to limit what might engage a person intellectually. I for one do not tend to find Dada very artistic, and think more emotion and intellect are conveyed in old plumbing and fittings and door knobs than in some "art" pieces. By that I mean that In the small touches of mundane items, we can see a culture of thoughtfulness and aesthetic sense that does not appear in post-modern America. The Art Deco movement was, to me, a high point in western art.

Rhys

PS: I think we've hijacked this thread!

Sorry guys...um...straight edges rule!

[ShardZ]

What hijacking? It's all about the art... and using blood instead of ink was brought up in the fourth post... I'm sure anyone can argue the intellectual merits of any work of art if they look deep enough... it's just a matter of convincing others (got some good grades in school that way).

As for the initial "argument," it seems like straight edges in architecture ought to be pretty danged important. Otherwise, I suppose it's up to the artist and what they feel best suits their style and/or standards. Straight edges can be handy when creating effects such as rain and speed lines, but of course are not always used or needed.

[McDuffies]

That does mean the work of Monet, or Van Gogh, or countless other landscape painters not count as art? A rendered landscape only has the meaning we read into it. Of course with impressionism and esxpressionism, you have the view if vision of the artist on display, but my point is who are we to limit what might engage a person intellectually.

But there's the difference between artist's and constructor's approach. Artist is aware that he cannot represent nature 100% realistically, so he has to bend what he seen to make the image that is, to him, the closest to reality; They always did it, from stylisations of cave drawings, to perspective of rennaisance, to cubism of 20th century. And those decisions he makes in order to do so, are trigger for intelectual engagement.
Constructor, on the other hand, has to abandon any personal vision of reality and try to present objects as they are. He does so by showing them in different angles, by libeling measures on them, etc. But his intention is actually to make his target audience (builders) be less intelectually engaged - and more physically.
I am aware, of course, that Pop art accepts objects with other purpose than artistic and proclaims them the work of art. In fact, I'd be surprised that there isn't a pop artsts who hasn't already made paintings in form of construction plans.

I for one do not tend to find Dada very artistic, and think more emotion and intellect are conveyed in old plumbing and fittings and door knobs than in some "art" pieces.

Dada is actually ment not to engage you intelectually, but to kill your desire to be intelectually or aesthetically engaged in art. Their ideology and proclamations might be intelectually engaging, but their art is not ment to be.

Edit: And this thread should've been hijacked earlier. So we all agree, straight edge is not cheating. There is only so many ways you can say that.

[Mr Ekshin]

Sorry I didn't see this sooner, so as to at least get my shit over with...

"Use of a straight-edge is cheating"...

I turn you toward the works of KEN STEACY.

His work in Epic Illustated, and others is monumental. Especially "Sleeping dogs", and "The Sacred and the Profane".

His style is like graphic depiction of character in black and white, done with a straight - edge.

The farthest I can point to the type is a comic called "Triangle and Robert", a comic drawn with strictly straight lines, as the pro-ponants are a triangle and a Lozenge.

Ok, I'll fucking bite. I'm only answering cause I did this also. One of my characters that is viewed: "Spiro", is done with nothing but straight lines. It's maybe worth a look only if you wish to see what has been done.

But ignore it and do your own things.

Anywho, the "Straight line" thing has room to grow. I champion it, and won't let it die. Stuart Packrell's "Straight Lines are the Shit" T-shirt still rings true. We happy few. We happy malcontents.

Just make it your own. make it as good as you can. Make yourself happy.

And don't fuck around. Others will NEVER give you an iota of acceptance, unless you try hard and make it good. You don't need to have "Penny Arcade" hits for that, just make quality and you got it.

So I wish you well. I wish you everything.

But don't think you started the whole "straight line" thing, cause you didn't.

You just are going to do it better.

[Mr Ekshin]

Jesus-fu**ing....

Leave it to McDuffies to respond before me, and better.

"You bastage!"

Well, I agree with everything he said. But I'd feel alot happier if I could have said it first, so agreeing with it was more like just saying "I'm right".

Anywho. McDuffies has my vote, cause he's a sport, and isn't a pompous ass. Regardless, he's also right and stuff.

Sheesh. You... - - "McDuffies" Achim Syrjan thingy YOU!!!!!


Don't you ever wish that drunken slobs like us can sound smart? MUST you always steal the lime-light that might show our wisdom!

Then again, I really don't have anything. Given the stage, I'd just have had a monkey on a rope and an organ-grinder. (Grinding organs like spleens and livers to Michael Sembello's "Maniac", I presume.)

But where was I?

Oh, right. I got a porsche! Yay me! I got it this weekend! It don't go, but I'm happy as shjit anywho! Yaaaaaaaaaay!

Oh, and my parrot can now say, "Ass-hole". OK. Such is my life.

Oh, and straight-edge?

"Everyone who is not YOU sucks, swallows, and smiles"...

Draw-on, bro. Draw-ON.



Ek

[Ideal Comics]

Certainly, McDuffies, You speak your point well and we have reached a sizable impasse, as I refuse to quit my position that the tactile craftmanship can (in the proper place and time, and circumstance) be art. I think this large has to do with my personal and philisophical cringing at the all too commonlyaccepted division of the human self. I think it is artificial to draw such stiff lines between the emotional, intelectual, physical, and spiritual aspects of our human condition. All are connected and intricately so. The emotional connection with something wholly aesthetic feeds into our spirit in the same manner that the physical connection to an environment can stir memories and thoughts and ponderings of times past, bring up again all the emotion there in. Bad health is a detriment not only to our bodies, but to every part of us! We are not broken, schismatic things, but entire entities, all but complete (which leads us into a whole other debate, but I shall stop here).

Rhys

[McDuffies]

Leave it to McDuffies to respond before me, and better.

See, Yeahduff does that to me frequently.

Certainly, McDuffies, You speak your point well and we have reached a sizable impasse, as I refuse to quit my position that the tactile craftmanship can (in the proper place and time, and circumstance) be art. I think this large has to do with my personal and philisophical cringing at the all too commonlyaccepted division of the human self. I think it is artificial to draw such stiff lines between the emotional, intelectual, physical, and spiritual aspects of our human condition. All are connected and intricately so. The emotional connection with something wholly aesthetic feeds into our spirit in the same manner that the physical connection to an environment can stir memories and thoughts and ponderings of times past, bring up again all the emotion there in. Bad health is a detriment not only to our bodies, but to every part of us! We are not broken, schismatic things, but entire entities, all but complete (which leads us into a whole other debate, but I shall stop here).

Well, there are two points I can make.

First, there is a subtext written into art, and then there is subtext that viewer reads into art. Of course, art is partly in the eye of the beholder, but not completely. What art evokes, must be evoked in a bit larger number of viewers, otherwise you can safely say that what it evokes is strictly a product of viewer's earlier experience, and not of the art itself. Art is partly in the eye of beholder, but not completely.
Let me give an example that is familiar to me. "No man's land", film that somehow got an Oscar for foreign film, talks about war in Bosnia. Nearly everyone who's experienced war in Bosnia thinks that it is a genuine testimony of the war. Nearly everyone who never experienced it, is left cold by the film. Because film never really managed to capture the war, and people who think it's genuine, and actually draining it from their own personal experience, not from the film.
I'm saying this because I don't think that things that a technical drawing can evoke are that universal, and depend too much on viewer's previous experience/

Second, after all I think I'm a believer of the idea of context. That art has significance only when it's but in front of some context that gives it significance. If someone produces a technical drawing, he most likely doesn't have any context in mind, but of finished product. If an artist takes and puts it in context of art, he is basically signaling us to look further, deeper into the drawing than we otherwise would, and if we look further, we can find expressions that you were talking of. But with just a technical drawing, we simply aren't invited to look for any expression because of awareness that the drawing fulfulls it's entire purpose by having an object built by it.

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

I draw a lot of technical machinery at work, so I use a ruler to make sure the pencils are straight and accurate. But since these are just meant to be illustrations that accompany articles, I ink them free handed so that they have a natural wavyness to them. No one's using these to build anything so they don't have to 100% perfect, and I think they more intersting this way. Ryclaude thinks they're sexy too for some reason.

[ScrumYummy]

Saying that using a straight-edge is cheating is like saying that using the straight line tool in photoshop is cheating (or any tool in photoshop, for that matter). It's just a tool. It's the same as a paintbrush. It is the means to an end, Whatever that end may be (technical drawing, comic book page, diagram, masterpiece, etc).

It sounds to me like the art student just wants a reason to be "holier than thou."

[Yeahduff]

So to recap:

1 Anyone who doesn't use a straight-edge is a cultureless twit who probably lacks opposable thumbs.

2 All artists are insufferable blowhards who have nothing of use to say.

Having established these truths and amended the Keenspace constitution to include them, let's discuss art.

I for one do not tend to find Dada very artistic, and think more emotion and intellect are conveyed in old plumbing and fittings and door knobs than in some "art" pieces.

You need to remember the context that gave birth to Dada. They all thought the world was gonna end, and that civilization was crumbling. When everything ceases to make sense and the whole world goes to war for no comprehendable reason, the only response is to make as little sence as possible. Made for some cool stuff, and the spirit is still alive today in almost anything you see on television.

In fact, I'd be surprised that there isn't a pop artsts who hasn't already made paintings in form of construction plans.

I believe Sol leWitt has done something like this, where he writes down a series of instructions for a viewer to perform, and the result of following these instructions would be art.

That does mean the work of Monet, or Van Gogh, or countless other landscape painters not count as art? A rendered landscape only has the meaning we read into it. Of course with impressionism and esxpressionism, you have the view if vision of the artist on display, but my point is who are we to limit what might engage a person intellectually.

Well, the Impressionists' real subject was light and color. The subject matter wasn't the important, it was how they painted. Which was incredibly radical at the time. The Salon was still judging art on how perfectly painted a work was, and how "important" the subject matter was. And the Impressionists rejected that. Of course there are tools like Thomas Kincade who are still painting like that over a century later, and yeah, that's lame. But Impressionism was quite an intellectually engaging.

But your larger point seems to be that it's pointless for us to decide what's art and what's not, and that we should just judge everything by whether we, individually, find beauty in it. Which is interesting, because it places you in full agreement with Marcel Duchamp, one of the Dadaists you don't appreciate so much.

[Mr Ekshin]

I always saw different, Yeahduff...

I always saw the impressionists to be be simply messing with LINE.

Yes, MONET liked the color blue.

Yes, Picasso, liked some blacks, and fucked with albedo.

Yes, Cezanne showed us some sweeping flow....

But fuckit all. Saenze showed me grit. Steacy showed me hubris decended to begging for cans, and "Alias" Lacroix showed me that all things human ultimately are NOT.

What do we learn? And where do we get it from?

We get it where it reaches us. I get Wallace Wood, and Jack Kirby. I also get it from John Singer Sergeant, or however you spell it. Whatever. I take my impressions from the best in the world that I know I can never compare to.

What is the fucking line?

I say: The line is where you draw it. The line is where it is percieved, assented to, and conversed about to your neighbor. That line does not ever have to be greatness...

It just has to make an impression.

That's all we try. Make an impression. Get a sponsor. Someone PLEASE buy my next pencil, god-dammit! I'm a fucking student, and I could USE some help!

Are we artists? No. Not in what the world will remember. Get used to that and you will be able to get to the next question.

Next question: Are we artists? Yes. Keep the fuck at it, and you'll get a note in the grand scheme somewhere before you die. That's at least something.

Is the line a "line"? We draw shit. It's cool. We bleed into it and no-one will ever see what we put in. No one will ever realize how hard it is. There are cameras now. "Why didn't you just take a picture instead?"

Being an artist these days simply makes no sense, and I feel baffled.

I own a good camera. I never felt that it could properly display the dopey shit I posted on the forums. So there. You get off light cause I just answered one of the questions myself.

but will the next generation of artists have a venue? I wonder. I fret, and think it's a bad horse to bet. It doesn't look good.

Oh, I'm drunk, and I will not allow myself held accountable for anything... cause I'm drunk...

But I'm not wrong.

[Ideal Comics]

To a certain extent we can only jugde things by our perceptions, for that is how we know things (I also hold that our perceptions are subject our wills, but, again, another kettle of fish) There is also something to be said for strecthing our minds and encouraging ourselves to learn, and I think that may be a large point. I am certainly not trying to say folk should not be able to say what is and isn't art, but rather that we should not say what can and can't be [which is to say media]. I think Mcduffies really hit the nail when he mentioned context. That does make for a huge difference, from the context oif the artist to the context of the viewer. That is a big big piece in this whole thing.

The real question is why the Fuck and up this late? I've got to get up early and transplant tomatoes and peppers.

Rhys

[McDuffies]

I believe Sol leWitt has done something like this, where he writes down a series of instructions for a viewer to perform, and the result of following these instructions would be art.

Yeah, Sol leWitt's instructions on how to create opArt on big city wall surfaces. The idea was that anyone can execute the art, without neccesary presence of the artist. It's definitely a step further to where Warhol's "factory" was going, and an interesting direction.

Well, the Impressionists' real subject was light and color. The subject matter wasn't the important, it was how they painted. Which was incredibly radical at the time. The Salon was still judging art on how perfectly painted a work was, and how "important" the subject matter was. And the Impressionists rejected that. Of course there are tools like Thomas Kincade who are still painting like that over a century later, and yeah, that's lame. But Impressionism was quite an intellectually engaging.

Ideal's earlier post actually made me think, what's the difference between great landscape or still life painters we remember, and those other painters who get forgotten as insignificant. My impression is that, with first ones, no matter how mundane some painting of theirs seems to be, there is always a lot to be said about it; a lot of subtext, intelectual chewing gum. Sometimes it's as obvious as hiding a giant scull into a painting of two young, healthy men; Sometimes, the subtext is in the construction of painting, or in colours used (impressionists), or in used techniques (Klee), but there is something; Velasques gets hired to paint a portrait of royal family, and now, to this day, people are arguing why he painted them grotesqly ugly; Was it a political statement? Is it because standards of beauty changed? Was it the result of inbreed royal marriages? Great painting is always more than just a painting, and more than just a representation of some object from nature.

Which is interesting, because it places you in full agreement with Marcel Duchamp, one of the Dadaists you don't appreciate so much.

Uh, that's the point that I always have to make at risk of being repetitive, that Duchamp is occasionally put in with dadaists, surrealists, cubists, futurists, etc, etc... If I consider the philosophy behind his art, I would most likely put him in Pop art (well, actually, he inspired Pop art, so that's logical) in that he tried to find potential art in everyday objects. He's often placed with Dadaists, apparently because dadaists tended to glorify him because they thought that taking art to everyday world = negating the meaning of art. Which is actually quite different.

[Yeahduff]

I always saw different, Yeahduff...

I always saw the impressionists to be be simply messing with LINE.

Yes, MONET liked the color blue.

Yes, Picasso, liked some blacks, and fucked with albedo.

Yes, Cezanne showed us some sweeping flow....

But fuckit all. Saenze showed me grit. Steacy showed me hubris decended to begging for cans, and "Alias" Lacroix showed me that all things human ultimately are NOT.

What do we learn? And where do we get it from?

We get it where it reaches us. I get Wallace Wood, and Jack Kirby. I also get it from John Singer Sergeant, or however you spell it. Whatever. I take my impressions from the best in the world that I know I can never compare to.

What is the fucking line?

I say: The line is where you draw it. The line is where it is percieved, assented to, and conversed about to your neighbor. That line does not ever have to be greatness...

It just has to make an impression.

That's all we try. Make an impression. Get a sponsor. Someone PLEASE buy my next pencil, god-dammit! I'm a fucking student, and I could USE some help!

Are we artists? No. Not in what the world will remember. Get used to that and you will be able to get to the next question.

Next question: Are we artists? Yes. Keep the fuck at it, and you'll get a note in the grand scheme somewhere before you die. That's at least something.

Is the line a "line"? We draw shit. It's cool. We bleed into it and no-one will ever see what we put in. No one will ever realize how hard it is. There are cameras now. "Why didn't you just take a picture instead?"

Being an artist these days simply makes no sense, and I feel baffled.

I own a good camera. I never felt that it could properly display the dopey shit I posted on the forums. So there. You get off light cause I just answered one of the questions myself.

but will the next generation of artists have a venue? I wonder. I fret, and think it's a bad horse to bet. It doesn't look good.

Oh, I'm drunk, and I will not allow myself held accountable for anything... cause I'm drunk...

But I'm not wrong.

You sound a little like Oldenberg there. Cool.

And you're right. Ask Monet or Renoir what they were doing and they'll tell you something about light, but what actually made them matter was the mark-making. Dead on, sir.

Uh, that's the point that I always have to make at risk of being repetitive, that Duchamp is occasionally put in with dadaists, surrealists, cubists, futurists, etc, etc... If I consider the philosophy behind his art, I would most likely put him in Pop art (well, actually, he inspired Pop art, so that's logical) in that he tried to find potential art in everyday objects. He's often placed with Dadaists, apparently because dadaists tended to glorify him because they thought that taking art to everyday world = negating the meaning of art. Which is actually quite different.

Hm. You know, as I thought about that, I tried to remember Duchamp's connection with the Dadaists, and I assumed I just forgot what it was, but I think you're right. He had nothing to do with them but some people just loop him up with them. So yeah, I think his most important work could be called proto-Pop.

I miss talking about this boring crap with people.