Where has the art gone

Ian Smith · 20 Jun 2006, 17:26 (Ref:1637870)

where has all the art gone - while the photographs are excellent there does not appear to have been any actual art for quite some time.
Please all you talented people lets see some ART

Alan Raine · 20 Jun 2006, 17:41 (Ref:1637876)

You asked for it!

http://www.alanraine-graphicillustration.co.uk/MAN.jpg

Not a new one as I have not done much for a while - too busy on these computery things.

Andrew Kitson seems to be the main 10 Tenths artist but he has not been posting for a while.

Jaxs · 28 Jun 2006, 21:34 (Ref:1643765)

If you would care to define ART

Tee hee

**Snapper Baz** · 4 Jul 2006, 22:37 (Ref:1648485)

Ok then, heres one of the Brands DTM winner...and it wasn't set up!

Andrew Kitson · 7 Jul 2006, 11:15 (Ref:1650197)

Nice Baz!

Here are some:
Painted for Peter Connew on his 60th, a gift from his cousin.The Connew GP car in the Austrian GP 1972.

An Aston painted for Derek Warwick. He gave it to his friend, the owner of car and house as a birthday gift.

Painted for our own John Turner. Brundle in the Aston P212 at the Goodwood revival in '99. Soon to be a print.

**Snapper Baz** · 7 Jul 2006, 18:28 (Ref:1650444)

Hi yer Andrew!

Some nice stuff there as well!!

**Snapper Baz** · 7 Jul 2006, 18:40 (Ref:1650455)

Here's a couple more...Jeremy Mayfield leaves the pitlane at Homestead at night whilst later I asked Greg Biffle where he ranked me amongst race photograhers he knew!!

andy_b · 8 Jul 2006, 21:05 (Ref:1651001)

OK, here are a few of mine from recent months

An adobe illustrator image of AJ in the Forsthye car, but with extra Red Bull livery

The creation coupe which you might have seen in a couple of the comics

Prior to that the Creation 06 Artist Impression (yes, yes I know I didnt have the stepped floor on the side)

and lastly, a small image (I cant remember seeing any online) of the Protran

All bar the Champ car was marker, pen and then logos, highlights etc added in Photoshop. I'm now trying to go all digital, but thats taking some time.

I'm doing a '55 Chevy in a few weeks for a friend, so IF it comes out ok, I'll post it here

Ian Smith · 8 Jul 2006, 22:14 (Ref:1651044)

Thank you Alan, Andrew & Andy B. well Jaxs thats what I call art, I am not decrying the wonderful photos by people like Baz, I am jelouse of their talant as well,But real artists Like Andrew and co, really float my boat. I just wish I had the Money and wall space to honour their talent.
I just noticed all these artists have names that start with 'A'

Ian Sowman · 9 Jul 2006, 08:59 (Ref:1651188)

Photographs are no less 'art' than other media such as drawings, paintings or sculpture though, are they?

Many photographs have far greater artistic content than paintings.

**Snapper Baz** · 9 Jul 2006, 09:24 (Ref:1651203)

Ian, you are such a fine chap...no matter what others say I've always known you know what your always talking about!

PS: I'll send you a pm later today after I've been to Colchester zoo of all places!

Andrew Kitson · 9 Jul 2006, 12:56 (Ref:1651285)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Sowman

Photographs are no less 'art' than other media such as drawings, paintings or sculpture though, are they?

Art has many forms. Photography is definitely art, music is art, dance is art...whatever floats your boat.

Art is apparantly sometimes an unmade bed, stuffed hedgehog, a few spots placed at random on a piece of card, a chicked shed that was once a boat or even a pile of bricks, although I'd guess Turner if alive today would wonder at some of it that has won the prize given out in his name.

Jaxs · 9 Jul 2006, 15:05 (Ref:1651327)

Many photographs have far greater artistic content than paintings.

What a crock full of smelly stuff....

Snapper Baz, may be you would like to elucidate on the artistic content, the elemts of composition and the meaning to a new comer without any knowledge of the photograph and their impression and understanding of the photograph.

The photograph whilst containing a variety of colours, the red bull sign in the back ground in up side dowwn. The significance of this to the ' new ' viewer would possible indicate a sport of pastime where physical acrobatics is common place,

Perhaps you could explain the rules of composition that dictated the placing and position of the pictorial elements. ( helmet, gloves, etc)

The photograph is a mechanically captured picture and without a studio setting to allow and comply with the very basic rules of composition cannot compete with the most amateur of painters with a modicom of compositional teaching.

Technical, the photo meets the requirements of the modern digital print but complies more with the defintion of a snap shot than a 'work of Art'

Alan Raine · 9 Jul 2006, 15:22 (Ref:1651342)

Sorry Jaxs, I have to disagree with you. I have been an Illustrator for over 30 years, but feel there is as much art in photography as there is painting.

Anybody make a picture, be it with a paint brush or camera, but it takes skill and creativity to make really good ones!

IMHO both or artists.

Alan Raine · 9 Jul 2006, 19:26 (Ref:1651637)

[Edit Mode]

Sorry Jaxs, I have to disagree with you. I have been an Illustrator for over 30 years, but feel there is as much art in photography as there is painting.

Anybody can make a picture, be it with a paint brush or camera, but it takes skill and creativity to make really good ones!

IMHO both are artists.

My spelling is sometimes awful! [Edit Mode]

**John Turner** · 10 Jul 2006, 07:33 (Ref:1651933)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Kitson

....... although I'd guess Turner if alive today ........

I'm still here!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxs

The photograph whilst containing a variety of colours, the red bull sign in the back ground in up side dowwn. The significance of this to the ' new ' viewer would possible indicate a sport of pastime where physical acrobatics is common place,

Frankly, I'm not sure a work of art in any media should have to be explained if it is truly intending to convey a message or meaning to the viewer. That is why I'm dismissive of much modern art that needs the artist to explain what he is trying to convey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaxs

Perhaps you could explain the rules of composition that dictated the placing and position of the pictorial elements. ( helmet, gloves, etc)

The photograph is a mechanically captured picture and without a studio setting to allow and comply with the very basic rules of composition cannot compete with the most amateur of painters with a modicom of compositional teaching.

Technical, the photo meets the requirements of the modern digital print but complies more with the defintion of a snap shot than a 'work of Art'

Anyone can point a camera and take a picture, but it is at what angle you take it, what you wish to include in it, the light and shade of it; the background etc; in effect you are composing your picture and placing the objects in it, just as a painter does, only you have less time to do it, unless you are indeed in a studio. It thus becomes much more of a work of art than simply a snapshot! Yours, is a very selective one dimensional approach to this issue and your description of Ian's post carries more merit, frankly, when applied to your own.

**John Turner** · 9 Jul 2006, 09:29 (Ref:1651206)

Yes, photography can most definitely be an art form. Certainly Snapper Baz Brands DTM picture is a stunning example!

andy_b · 10 Jul 2006, 09:54 (Ref:1652064)

Snapper Baz's photographic example shows exactly that Photography is an art form. I'm just getting into actually, but none of my good piccys are motorsport related

Jaxs · 10 Jul 2006, 18:34 (Ref:1652704)

But, why is it no one has answered the questions?

Andy B, no, what you are looking at is know as a pack shot, nothing magical, nothing out of the ordinary, any first year art of photography student would be expected to produce this. But, it is not original.... a criteria for true appreciation...

Mr Turner,

What a excuse for not answering the question, the basis rules of composition apply, One dimensional, Oh, ask a question about the composition and possible style,.... decried as one dimensional.. smelly stuff .. rules...

Mr Raine, as you have been an illustrator for such a long time you might consider to answer my question... you obviously have the life experience so I would expect a detailed and far reaching discussion of the elements of pictorial apppeal, well, you are an Illustrator.

gentleman I can only refer you to a famous photographer called, Ansel Adams,

To the complaint, 'There are no people in these photographs,' I respond, 'There are always two people: the photographer and the viewer.'"

and

I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -- meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching -- there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster.

It always surprises me that people will expound on the word ART but very few will indulge in a little discussion as to what they percieve as art, the hackied phrase, 'Well. I knw what i like does little to convey an understanding of exactly what you are looking at.

The reasons for liking any pictorial image have almost defined rules and rely on the individuals perception of the compositional elements.

Whilst peolpe will decry painters, the almost basic instruction, not on how to apply the paint but where to place the various objects within the painting....

Now, if you guys want to have another look and tell me what you see....

Discuss:

Jaxs · 10 Jul 2006, 19:29 (Ref:1652759)

To make it easier, pick your favourite painting or photograph and the reason why.

andy_b · 10 Jul 2006, 21:04 (Ref:1652878)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxs

But, why is it no one has answered the questions?

Andy B, no, what you are looking at is know as a pack shot, nothing magical, nothing out of the ordinary, any first year art of photography student would be expected to produce this. But, it is not original.... a criteria for true appreciation...

I think its a nice simple composition. Personally, I like clean uncluttered compositions. It was very much an opportunity taken but how is that not art. Different form to illustrations, but still art.

Myself, Alan and Andrew have all produced compositions from real race cars for clients. OK, we've drawn and painted (well marker for me!) the cars, but often the views and track exist,,,so would you say thats not original.

Different people have different tastes, thats why Art is such a wide genre. You can't please all the people all of the time.

Alan Raine · 11 Jul 2006, 06:21 (Ref:1653131)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxs

But, why is it no one has answered the questions?

Because there is no answer to your question.

Everyone has their own point of view. What I like, someone else might hate. A piece of Modern Art that I think is pretentiuos rubbish could sell for thousands.

Art is what each person perceives it to be. I still use a pencil, brush and computer, a photographer uses a camera and the hoodie down the road uses a can of spray paint and the bus shelter as a canvas!

**John Turner** · 11 Jul 2006, 15:28 (Ref:1653583)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxs

Mr Turner, What a excuse for not answering the question, the basis rules of composition apply, One dimensional, Oh, ask a question about the composition and possible style,.... decried as one dimensional.. smelly stuff .. rules...

As far as I'm concerned I did answer it but I'm sorry if I am speaking a different language. Frankly, if you continue to describe other posters posts as ''smelly stuff', I don't consider you warrant too much intellectuality in response.

The fact that Ansel Adams has an opinion, is just that; an opinion. He seems to think that time is a fundamental factor in establishing whether something is a piece of art and that because taking a photograph takes so little time it, per se, cannot be a work of art. And as for 'creative disasters', I cannot think of a better description for some paintings that according to the connoisseurs are masterpieces. As Alan says, everybody has their own view of what constitutes art. The first definition in my dictionary states 'art .... the concious use of skill and creative imagination'. That's good enough for me; I don't feel the need to redefine it or debate it; it allows me very comfortably to take the view that some photographs and many paintings are works of art. On that level, I don't feel the need to differentiate between the two.

**dtype38** · 11 Jul 2006, 15:33 (Ref:1653592)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxs

I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -- meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching -- there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster.

Discuss:

So does that meant the street artist who produced an excellent watercolour of my daughter in about 12minutes wasn't talented and wasn't producing art?

Or perhaps it means that a photographer who spent hours wedged between some tyres and armco, in sweltering temperatures, manipulating lots of highly complex photography equipment, through changing lighting conditions, taking dozens of pics. Who then spent yet more time later on a computer screen rejecting the imperfect ones, and manipulating the best to produce a beautiful photo of a racing car in full flight..... was just taking a snapshot??

Dont think so

Jaxs · 11 Jul 2006, 20:53 (Ref:1653870)

Tee hee, who mention pretentiousness, wow…..

Does any one know who Ansel Adams is?

The fact a person lugs armfuls of equipment and sits behinds the Armco does nothing to qualify their work as art. The modern day digital camera takes away the necessary skills, reduces photography to its mean level. Point and shot, oh just set the camera to action and .. Wait, just adjust the colour sensitivity and let the chip do the work, quick inspection, no delete it…. The skill level is almost a minus factor. Self-focus, auto exposure set to sport mode… The huge number of photographs of racing cars that comply with the prerequisite tree quarter front view defies belief in originality. Art. Fart, shart..

Then upload to computer… skill, yer right… The reliance on somebody writing a program and allowing you the use of it does not qualify that work as art.

The photographer does not mix each individual colour before application, work endlessly to achieve a vision or comply with the basic rules of composition, and attend Art College to learn the basis of their profession. Just buy a digital camera and copy everyone else.

The repetition of images, the total lack of style or hallmark of the individual photographer completely undermines your argument of art, the originality, the freshness, the new and stunning image has been lost in a plethora of digital images trying to capture the technically perfect image…

It is a widely accepted fact that with the advent of digital cameras photographic art is dead. The value of ‘photographs’ by Avedon, Rodchenko, Karsh, Steichen etc have soared because the skill that’s now required to present a completed image requires the permission of the anonymous programmer without whom the camera operator is lost.

The street artist, look carefully at the next and the previous caricatures of other people, they will use a similar line for the cheeks, the shape of the lips, the lines around the eyes, even the ears conform… a cherished portrait, yes.. but art… Ohh No, The street artist is churning out portraits all day long and it requires very little thought to produce, if you get the chance, just stand and watch, the people and the drawings, look for the repetition of lines and the use of hair shape and colouring to quickly identify with the sitter. That’s almost like saying the photo booth print is a work of art

Now, you might not like modern art, you can call it any name you care to think of but as an individual your opinion as based on your ability to put forward a reasoned argument as to why you feel that does not meet the required elements to qualify as art.

The’ well, I don’t like it’ and ‘ I know what I like’ brigade, well, consider, this is a motor racing board, if you put forward the opinion that such and such is a terrible driver you are expected to qualify that remark. Why is it any different addressed to any other subject?

You may condemn the opinion of the ‘experts’ because you disagree with them, but does that make you right and them wrong, the education and level of expertise gives each individual a greater credibility but most of all a visual understanding and an open mind as to the intentions and ability of the artist creates a valued judgement.

I am beginning to believe that I stepped into a mutual appreciation society and the argument of art is just an ego polishing exercise amongst the clique.

Continue with the back slapping and hip hip hoorays but it’s not art.

The famous Star Trek saying, it’s Art, Jim, but not as we know it. Just about covers it.