When I first started painting seriously during the mid-80s I started doing, for some weird reason, surreal works. I suppose I was borrowing from artists who had come before and hadn’t found my own real creative ‘voice.’ You'll see obvious influences from other artists here.
The photos are of rather poor quality because they are scanned from faded photos of long gone paintings. But I thought you might like to see how this old fart started his painting career.
In the last photo that is me (and a girlfriend at the time). It is actually a pen and ink drawn on canvas. Pick on these all you want. I’ve got a healthy ego and realize they are somewhat amateur.
http://pics.livejournal.com/unmired/gallery/0002wrfz
2007-08-05 15:09:52 · 9 answers · asked by Doc Watson 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
The orbs in many of the paintings represent ‘auras’ because I was sort of into New Age spirituality at the time. That, plus the fact that I wasn’t quite comfortable enough yet with my ability yet to do human figures. My excuse being that I was self-taught.
2007-08-05 15:14:04 · update #1
Tin-Foil Hat Girl, I would take more seriously what you say if it weren't for the fact that you are a buddy of PopArf and you first appeared when he did to both promote and defend his comical dog paintings. As to these eariler paintings of mine, I've already mentioned that they are somewhat lacking. But I do have friends here who I thought would love to see how this humble artist got from point A to point B.
2007-08-07 06:03:39 · update #2
There are TOO MANY really nice, sincere, thoughtful replies here for me to pick a 'best' reply. You guys will have to choose one yourself.
And THANK YOU ALL again.
2007-08-12 05:22:56 · update #3
It's a process: this love of art.... parlaying what's safe and what's learned - however painful - to the level of risk. Your design sense is powerful... Perplexing the Pious... and Removing the Cold are stunning. Your black and white work is amazing... Higher Music.. Quagmire.. Untold Truths... the Rube Goldberg-esque quality of Ain't No Cure For Love.. It's about how you think... and Unfinished Business says it all... just love it.. (it should be your logo!). It's your stretch and your reach. Like Henri said. .. "the object isn't to make art, but to be in that wonderful state which makes art inevitable," ...and you're there. It's all about heart. Once again.. thank you.
2007-08-09 05:28:15 · answer #1 · answered by guess who at large 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Tin Foil Hat Girl is An Art Critic who can not read english very well. lol
Watson stated that this was " Some Early Paintings Before I Was Finding Own Style"
Where are your paintings for us to critique???
Stop bothering the real working artists here and go back to your befuddled and misconstrued political views.
Watson to you: I really like some of your early work. It shows
your natural talent.
Almost every new artist is influenzed by someone elses work.
Think of Vasari and Raphael Sanzio whose painting style was influenced by Michelangelo.
The influenze of Pietro Perugino on Raphael's early work is most obvious. Paolo Uccello and Luca Signorelli also influenzed his stlye.
When Raphael Moved to Florence he was exposed to both Leonardo da Vinci and to Michelangelo Raphael learned from both men, but while he made use of their exploration of human anatomy, he added sentiment to his paintings.
The influences of Leonardo and Michelangelo (who were working on the Mona Lisa and David, respectively, at the time) is unmistakeable.
At the time, Raphael's paintings bore "a strong Da Vinci influence with its pyramidal composition, contour, balance and interplay of light and dark (chiaroscuro) and sfumato (extremely fine, soft shading instead of line to delineate forms and features)," while others reveal a Michelangelic inspiration.
My Point is: Perhaps we can see some influence of Salvador Dalí and Gustav Klimt in your early work, who cares, this is more than natural. Some of the greatest artists that have ever existed were influenced by another artist's work.
Cheers! B.
2007-08-07 18:53:34 · answer #2 · answered by Soundproof 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I like many of your early works. The surreal images are interesting. The style of a couple is similar to Fanch Ledan while others are reminiscent of Dali. Keep up the efforts!!
2007-08-08 20:25:35 · answer #3 · answered by US_DR_JD 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Indeed compared to what you make now they are shallow. Note: compared to. Your painting skills are not the issue but the inspiration in your early work was pretty darn close to plagiarism.... no that is to harsh... it wasn't original enough to be called 'your own work' if you catch my drift.
I view it as painting exercises and as such they are pretty good but they fade in comparison to what you do now. Though I definitely recognize your hand they simply lack the raw power that emanates from your current work.
Nice to see where you are coming from.
2007-08-05 20:30:52 · answer #4 · answered by Puppy Zwolle 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
they're not bad, even for an ameuter..i like them, specially "second time around" but you know, self-taught, just started painting seriously a year ago...but good..
got any more?
2007-08-05 19:12:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It it just me or is this spam? Free advertising?
If you want my opinion, I would say your art is very ametuerish and lacking skill like a lot of artist I've seen on here.
People do not purposely make "bad" art without thinking that by doing so they are making something good within a system that accommodates , justifies and elevates the so-called "bad".
Bad art is being made because people think it is good.
2007-08-07 01:04:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
They are not as bad as you make them sound. I like your ideas and lot of your work. And still waiting for some of your new work.
2007-08-05 15:47:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Not bad, really!
2007-08-06 00:34:25 · answer #8 · answered by Artist 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
seen mine at
gia-oni.deviantart.com
titus.myartplot.com
2007-08-05 19:09:23 · answer #9 · answered by Ω 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋