#art theory

[drchucktingle]

in betweens

i have been fortunate enough to live a life in the arts, creating things and following hallowed footsteps. its something many buckaroos dream of, and as someone who has done it, THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS i received are the moments in between. if you generate with AI, THAT is what you rob yourself of

anyone who has done theater will know this, because it lives in the energy backstage. anyone who has played in a band will know this, because it lives in the late night diner afterwards. anyone who has written a book will know this, because it lives the coffee shop where your plot point locked in

in other words IT IS NOT THE PRODUCT. yes, it is cool to see your name on a marquee or your book in a store or your face on a poster, but the REASON this is cool is because it tethers you to the BETWEEN TIMES. the between times are everything. the PROCESS of creation is a gift to yourself

i think this is REALLY difficult for these ai goofballs to understand, and why the things they make dont resonate. anything you create without the in between is just a hollow shell, a movie poster without small talk at crafty or an album without eating burritos on the studio rooftop

we have ALWAYS had the ability to NOT make something and pretend that we did. the difference now is theres an algorithm built for convincing people whove never stepped outside the theater door for a smoke break on opening night that they actually have. they have not. there is no ai for that.

because the only way to conjure the unfathomable magic of those in between moments is to live them, and when you get a hit of excitement from a prompted movie or book or song without a journey of creation, you rob yourself. you curse yourself to exist as a cardboard cutout who thinks they are whole

[bal-bullier]

Wassily Kandinsky

Ascent (1924)

[funeral]

Rosalind Krauss, “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”

[skullchicken]

I just had a small epiphany why you might like other people's art more than your own:

It's the lack of suspension of disbelief.

When you see something someone else has drawn or painted, you take in the content faster than you take in the technical aspects. You experience it as pseudo-real, the same way you stop perceiving animated characters as drawn or book characters as written as you get into the story.

On the other hand, when you yourself have made something, all you see is the machine behind the theater, so to speak. You're probably thinking about lines, shading, coloring in a "does this make sense? Is this the best decision I could have made?"-kind of way.

I think that's also why sometimes, pictures you haven't looked at for a long time starts looking nice to you again, à la: "Hey past-me was unto something! Why can't I replicate it nowadays?". It's probably specifically because you've forgotten the process of making it that you are now seeing it with fresh eyes.

Art is an illusion, but a magician has a hard time tricking themself. So don't be so hard on yourself: it's probably just that you can't see the magic right now, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

[noosphe-re]

The work of art is born of the artist in a mysterious and secret way. From him it gains life and being. Nor is its existence casual and inconsequent, but it has a definite and purposeful strength, alike in its material and spiritual life. It exists and has power to create spiritual atmosphere; and from this inner standpoint one judges whether it is a good work of art or a bad one. If its "form" is bad it means that the form is too feeble in meaning to call forth corresponding vibrations of the soul. Therefore a picture is not necessarily "well painted" if it possesses the "values" of which the French so constantly speak. It is only well painted if its spiritual value is complete and satisfying. "Good drawing" is drawing that cannot be altered without destruction of this inner value, quite irrespective of its correctness as anatomy, botany, or any other science. There is no question of a violation of natural form, but only of the need of the artist for such form. Similarly colours are used not because they are true to nature, but because they are necessary to the particular picture. In fact, the artist is not only justified in using, but it is his duty to use only those forms which fulfil his own need. Absolute freedom, whether from anatomy or anything of the kind, must be given the artist in his choice of material. Such spiritual freedom is as necessary in art as it is in life.

Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning the Spiritual in Art (translated by M.T.H. Sadler)

[no-129]

Thoughts from my graphic novel drawing process:

“Correct” lighting is not always the best lighting.

Do you agree? 🤔 Maybe every artist cheats lighting in their art? 🎨

[2ljan]

ive noticed something while studying for my exams and looking up paintings from world renowned artists such as Munch or Ingres, for example, that some of their works that showcase nudity are heavily censored and very hard to find in a decent resolution via simple google search . ive had this issue today with Munchs "Puberty" which i had to analyse for this specific exam . the masses have regressed to such a profound conservative mindset, where even the natural, nude body is seen as something disgusting and immoral .

this is what you people who are "pro-censorship" advocate . its unnecessary to argue with any one of you, because you are so heavily uneducated on art, as well as ignorant when somebody who is actually in the field of art theory and history tries to educate you .

what you stand behind will not only censor the weird drawn pornography you dislike, the ships you deem immoral, but rather all art, no matter the period it's from, no matter the status of the artist who created it .

where do we draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not ? who makes such a decision ? who gives them the right to speak for us all ? what if its somebody who views homosexuality as immoral, they will censor any queer media . what about showcases of abuse ? or murder ? the censorship of those will heavily impact the horror genre . this does not only impact the things you dislike .

i always say: all artists should have the freedom to depict whatever they wish . you have the right to be critical of it . nobody has the right to censor it .

to be pro-censorship is to be against art . advocate for artistic freedom .