51–60 of 83 posts
What is this due to? Cezanne's skill with color? Or something else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No it's not." Yes it is. Because that's what it says, as opposed to what you'd like to believe it said. In fact you quoted its fundamental point right there - "Of all the different types of people I've known, hackers and painters are among the most alike. What hackers and painters have in common is that they're both makers." How is this not equating hackers and painters? How is the rest of the verbiage not 'a thesis…
"X and Y are both instances of Z, so let's use Y and Z as a source of ideas about X." This pattern is basically repeated in every single paragraph, e.g. * The reputations of hackers probably have a large random component introduced by fashion, as happens with artists. * In hacking as with painting, it’s best to start by sketching * Both software and paintings are intended for a human audience, so both hackers must ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed." Art has progressed so much in the last 500 years that this comparison is utterly absurd. Francis Bacon comes to mind as a painter whose works simply cannot be compared to earlier pieces.
I am always amazed when people fall in love with an artist I consider a talentless hack. PS: In the tradition of things you can't say. Science killed philosophy as a meaningful activity. And the camera killed painting as meaningful activity. They have become the refuge of talented youths and over-educated idiots.
Second point: Define meaningful. Philosophy, science, photography, painting, all are essentially ways of passing time before death, if we want to use the cosmic scale; on the personal level each activity has different meanings to different people. I'm not a big philosopher, but I enjoy that much more than science. Science bores me.
Where is it written that philosophy can't evolve based on scientific findings? And what makes you think painting's not useful? Perhaps portraits aren't as meaningful, but even there, designing a web site for a musician I commissioned a painting of him rather than a photo. With paintings you can specify colors ahead of time and make something that fits for the design. So there's an example of an archaic medium being used for modern purposes.
I don't like very much your us-versus-them mentality here. I don't like your suggestion that there's such a thing as too much education. My policy is, to each their own. I'll continue to be fascinated by those over-educated idiots I call my friends, and you can continue to do whatever you choose with your own time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give an example of something I said that you think is false? Or is this just a sort of reverse argument from authority?
False statements you have made about art: "The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed." (easy refutation - go to sistine chapel, look up). "What made oil paint so exciting, when it first became popular in the fifteenth century, was that you could actually make the finished work from the prototype." This is not how people painted with oil until the 19th century. It was a very expensive medium requi…
1. easy refutation - go to sistine chapel, look up
You're claiming that the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is better (not just as good, but better) than everything Leonardo and Bellini ever painted. The number of art historians who'd agree with that statement is zero.
2. This is not how people painted with oil until the 19th century.
http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/draft_len...
3. completely unsupported.
Your counterclaim is likewise completely unsupported. But anyone who wants to settle the matter can choose any "how to paint" type book published in the 20th century, and they'll see that was considered the default technique.
4. carving marble is much easier
Carving marble requires more specialized training, but the kind of difficulty I was talking about was how critically viewers judge the result. They are tough on sculpture too, but I think they are as tough on line drawing. The less there is, the more closely it's examined.
5. At the time it was painted in thin, transparent layers that did not allow the kind of reworking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentimento
http://www.escholarship.org/editions/data/13030/d9/ft1d5nb0d...
6. If you want to offer any actual counterargument about Cezanne's drawing, feel free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
False statements you have made about art: "The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed." (easy refutation - go to sistine chapel, look up). "What made oil paint so exciting, when it first became popular in the fifteenth century, was that you could actually make the finished work from the prototype." This is not how people painted with oil until the 19th century. It was a very expensive medium requi…
Actually you're mistaken in all 6 cases: 1. easy refutation - go to sistine chapel, look up You're claiming that the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is better (not just as good, but better) than everything Leonardo and Bellini ever painted. The number of art historians who'd agree with that statement is zero. 2. This is not how people painted with oil until the 19th century. http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_ima…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fields I know something about (unlike art, which I don't), "interesting" and "well-done" are not very correlated.
So people who do good work are never interesting? Or people with fascinating ideas never learn to polish them? I'm confused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am always amazed when people fall in love with an artist I consider a talentless hack. PS: In the tradition of things you can't say. Science killed philosophy as a meaningful activity. And the camera killed painting as meaningful activity. They have become the refuge of talented youths and over-educated idiots.
First point: Just to clarify, you're calling Bacon a talentless hack? Bacon, the master of nightmarish imagery? Second point: Define meaningful . Philosophy, science, photography, painting, all are essentially ways of passing time before death, if we want to use the cosmic scale; on the personal level each activity has different meanings to different people. I'm not a big philosopher, but I enjoy that much more than…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am always amazed when people fall in love with an artist I consider a talentless hack. PS: In the tradition of things you can't say. Science killed philosophy as a meaningful activity. And the camera killed painting as meaningful activity. They have become the refuge of talented youths and over-educated idiots.
First point: Just to clarify, you're calling Bacon a talentless hack? Bacon, the master of nightmarish imagery? Second point: Define meaningful . Philosophy, science, photography, painting, all are essentially ways of passing time before death, if we want to use the cosmic scale; on the personal level each activity has different meanings to different people. I'm not a big philosopher, but I enjoy that much more than…
I expect some refinement of an artist's craft over time. Just look at his faces. As a point of comparison my sister is a long way from mastery but he presents a reasonable progression for a HS student.
14 years old: http://geomexia.deviantart.com/art/Wired-Mother-Earth-273474...
15 years old: http://geomexia.deviantart.com/art/Deep-Sea-Gold-34634785
17 years old: http://geomexia.deviantart.com/art/Looking-Up-37173397
18 years old: http://geomexia.deviantart.com/art/Turn-Around-Turn-Around-1...
Bacon had some interesting ideas, but he lacked the skills to really explore them. IMO, that is forgivable for a dabbler or young person, but it's just not acceptable for a serious artist.
Second when looking for truth, philosophy is a dead end. You can still use a horse and buggy to get around New York but there is a reason it's become far less popular over time. Painting as a means to convey meaning from an artist to his audience has been similarly demoted because there are better ways to capture what you have seen. Leaving panting with abstract ideas better conveyed though words and meaningless garbage.
Maciej Ceglowski, who is posting in this thread but evidently too modest to blow his own trumpet, wrote what seems like the definitive response to Paul Graham On Painting back in 2005: http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm .
It's a strange situation. If someone writes an essay attacking you, you either have to respond, in which case you're letting someone else pick your topics, or you have to ignore it, in which case people who don't know any better may be convinced by it.
Though I'm not willing to use up an essay to refute someone, I will in a comment thread:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=984217
One thing I still wonder about is whether this guy actually believes what's he's saying, or whether he's deliberately trolling. He seems reasonably smart. How could he not have heard of Franz Hals? On the other hand, who would try to keep a troll going for 4 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously in this context I'm talking about drawing in the sense of rendering.
That doesn't make your statement any less false. It might suit your metaphor for that to be the case, but facts are stubborn things dude. Pretty good rendering here http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg What about this one? Look like someone making mistakes in introductory drawing class to you? http://www.art-wallpaper.com/4056/C%C3%A9zanne+Paul/Sketch+a... How about this? Beginner rendering perhaps?…
Remember, we're talking about rendering here. Do you really think the woman's upper arm was that long compared to her head?
