madcapa Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 shit yea - the cut fish is something i'd def pay for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Clothesoff Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 i like the fish with the red background maybe seeking can answer this or any of u im not familiar with painting with brush i only ever used spraypaint so my question is when i look at the fish is that texture or different color brush strokes or what.. mainly the one with red background, like around the eye and the circle close to the tail is that texture or all brush and on the fins did he use like a brush to make the lines thin or what? i really like them and the one with the dude walkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 raw fish, the problem with newman is that his stuff is so 'specific' that if you do anything remotely like it, you feel like a biter. or atleast i do. clifford still is another one who painted similar stuff. his work is a little more busy and is real hit or miss with me. the ones that are on though, are banging. im surprised more people don't know about newman, dude was pretty much the mouthpiece for the minimalist movement in the 50's. i only came across him totally by chance...one day i was at borders and his book had just come out...i saw the cover and nearly shit. opened it up and it was all over. dude is incredible to me. googles selection is incredibly limited. i highly suggest going to the book store and atleast thumbing through his book. theres so much good shit in there that you cant find online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw fish Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 seeks... definately planning on looking further into it, I just did the google search real quick out of curiosity this morning... a mutual friend of ours got me interested in mark rothko a few years ago, and I totally fell in love with his stuff... I know exactly what you mean about feeling like a biter... the struggle now is how do I take inspiration and turn it into something new, something that doesnt seem so much like a bite... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullet Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Yeah I'm glad you like em as much as I do. I bought a couple of him and just waiting for the cargo to arrive. My Mum buys a shitload of him when she goes to Indo to sell back here in Aus. I'll try and get more flicks if i notice any new ones in the cargo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 i dont care a whole lot for rothko. dude just kind of painted the same shit over and over again. im sure there are a couple id like, but for the most part 'seen one, you seen em all'. you probably already know of rauschenberg, but if not, take a look at his stuff. he has work in just about every medium. kinda hit or miss, but the stuff that's on, is bangin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest willy.wonka Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 fish are tight.. seekom's is cool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AW Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Originally posted by seeking@Apr 11 2005, 05:53 AM i dont care a whole lot for rothko. dude just kind of painted the same shit over and over again. im sure there are a couple id like, but for the most part 'seen one, you seen em all'. Quoted post That's funny because when I saw your top 2 pieces, I said to myself "that looks just like someone trying to do what Rothko was doing 40 years ago." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 i've never seen anything by rothko other than his 'boxes' work. if he did similar stuff, i'd love to see it, since as i said, the boxes do little for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 just did a google search...anyone that does any minimalist color field work is going to have similarities to every other artists that works in the 'genre', it's unavoidable. there are only so many ways to work with large textured blocks of color. i'll be (and was) the first to admit i'm not in jeopardy of turning the art world on it's ear, but to simply pass off what i do as biting rothko is completely missing the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AW Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Originally posted by seeking@Apr 11 2005, 02:51 PM just did a google search...anyone that does any minimalist color field work is going to have similarities to every other artists that works in the 'genre', it's unavoidable. there are only so many ways to work with large textured blocks of color. i'll be (and was) the first to admit i'm not in jeopardy of turning the art world on it's ear, but to simply pass off what i do as biting rothko is completely missing the point. Quoted post I don't pass it off as a Rothko bite, but I feel that 'Abstract Expressionism' is a beaten horse that should have died in the late 70's. It's an easy way out for a lot of artists today. Like splattering spray paint or making drips. I have to say that color field painters like Rothko, Barnett Newman and William Turnbull had some amazing works, so did Pollock and his contemporaries, but I think what they did was reactionary for it's time, but it isn't relevant for today. As for your 2 paintings, why were they made? What inspired them? Why are they relevant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrIot Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 yoo cheggit that shit is rediculously fresh keep em comin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw fish Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 abstract expressionism is far from a beaten horse... and what seeking is doing is very very far from a rothko bite... I have to disagree with that style, that genre being an easy way out... its probably one of the hardest styles to do right... people can look at it and say "hey, that shit is really simple, any idiot can do that"... however, that is far from the case... to pull of that style and to really do it right, there are a lot of things you need to know and understand... im far from an expert on this, and im only adding my comments to hopefully inspire further conversation on the subject... im also going to disagree with that style being not relevent today... I think its the exact opposite... I understand the importance and the reaction at the beginning of that movement, and how it shook up the art world, and I will agree that its no longer having the same effect in that way... however, the study and experimentation with that style, with color field and with abstract expresionism will never go out of style and it will never be unimportant to sum it all up, and to quote words someone once said to me, its like kung fu, the simplest moves are the hardest to master. Originally posted by AW+Apr 11 2005, 07:58 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AW - Apr 11 2005, 07:58 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-seeking@Apr 11 2005, 02:51 PM just did a google search...anyone that does any minimalist color field work is going to have similarities to every other artists that works in the 'genre', it's unavoidable. there are only so many ways to work with large textured blocks of color. i'll be (and was) the first to admit i'm not in jeopardy of turning the art world on it's ear, but to simply pass off what i do as biting rothko is completely missing the point. Quoted post I don't pass it off as a Rothko bite, but I feel that 'Abstract Expressionism' is a beaten horse that should have died in the late 70's. It's an easy way out for a lot of artists today. Like splattering spray paint or making drips. I have to say that color field painters like Rothko, Barnett Newman and William Turnbull had some amazing works, so did Pollock and his contemporaries, but I think what they did was reactionary for it's time, but it isn't relevant for today. As for your 2 paintings, why were they made? What inspired them? Why are they relevant? Quoted post [/b] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw fish Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 p.s. seeking, I dont know if you've had the chance to see a rothko painting in person, but seeing one changes everything... I cant speak from experience on this, but ill try to relate with a story... when I first was exposed to his work, it was tiny pictures in a book... yeah, boxes, great... whatever... eventually I started to like it more and more... then, I happened to see a half size print... it blew my mind... unreal... yeah, it was just a couple of boxes of color, but it kept my attention for at least half an hour... ive been trying to hunt down real life paintings so I can see one up close and personal, im sure I could look at one for several hours and still feel like i hadnt seen it all... after much research and reading, apparently rothkos intent with his work was to have it be huge and somewhat imposing... they are also supposed to be viewed in low light situations... I doubt that makes any sense at all, I feel like im rambling... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
be_hiphop Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 seeking... i noticed your into textured painting.. i think.. right? have you ever tried ummm. calcium something.. i forget what its called exactly.. put its in a powder .. stuff is dope.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 be hiphop, hmm, calcium something...ha. can't say i have any clue what you're talking about. i really don't know dick about painting. of all the random art classes ive had over the years, ive never had a single painting class. not even in highschool. i know about design and principle, but not about technique. AW, raw fish pretty much summed up my feelings on it. if it's really that easy to do the stuff, then theres something i'm missing out on, cause it's an endless struggle for me. also, if it's dead and irrelivent, why are there countless examples of it in every painting/art magazine you pick up? if anything, i'd say it's almost becoming more relevant in that it's a complete afront to the tendencies of society. everything is bigger, brighter, busier and more technologically advanced, meanwhile stuff like this insists that you sit down and stare at it until you can make sense of it. it doesn't tell a story, it paints an emotion and requires you to attach it to whatever you have inside you. if you don't feel this stuff is relevant at all though, what do you think is relevant? is your illustrator stuff relevant? is that what's important now a days? bold, cartoonish urban graphic advertisements? don't be mistaken, i'm not at all being defensive or accusatory, i'm enjoying the discussion. i'm just trying to understand how you can write off an entire genre of art with one stroke. raw fish, after aw referenced rothko, i did a google search and saw a few things i'd never seen before that i really liked. i still don't care his famous 'boxes' style, to me it tells me too much, which kind of backs me into a corner. the vauger something is, the more room it allows me to freely associate with it, his stuff alot of the time doesn't allow me that movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niseNSF Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 heres a collection of my limited edition MS paint art, all are actually being designed as toys now by a local company, should be available for purchase around 12/05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatalist Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 Originally posted by The Leader@Apr 10 2005, 06:22 PM The last set are all amazing. Quoted post those fishes are Hott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heavyLox Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 if it's really that easy to do the stuff, then theres something i'm missing out on if it's dead and irrelivent, why are there countless examples of it in every painting/art magazine you pick up? In some ways these two statements answer too each other. In the modern world of art there are so many areas of divergent interest and worth. A problem with this is that 'some' artists latch on to a style that is easy for them to emulate. I see this problem in graffiti. Younger writers latch on to trends that are easy to do. Sloppy styles are trendy 'good' style; the problem is that the pioneers of that already had a career that centered around the fundamentals, which they mastered. SO in some ways its the old adage once you know the rules you can break the rules. However its not that simple; breaking a rule for the sake that you feel like you know the rule is a shit reason to do it. Drips/ splatter; just because you cant go clean is no excuse. Graffiti is a form of graphic design, graphic design is a form of artistic expression; in as far as both are interested in some type of communication. Design to me puts the interest of clearly communicating an idea before the art there in( so how does the message rely on the use of the drip or the splatter?); that is to say design is more concerned with you getting the message then it is in creating a timeless piece of 'artwork'; The economics of the design machine drives much of what it takes as 'artfull' design. I don’t think that because your getting paid makes what you do NOT art, but being a designer doesn’t make you an artist. The two are not entirely mutually exclusive. The same can be said for fine art work, slopping paint on a canvas doesn't make you an artist. What makes an artist and artist to me is a combination of some or all of many things. The first is that you are sort of manically compelled to create shit ( the dude that would rather stay home and do shit then always get drunk and kick it with the peeps). You don’t arrive at one thing that makes you comfortable and stick with it. Art as much as it may sooth the artist to create it; it relies on being put in an uncomfortable place and the act of getting it out can be soothing. Getting your soul onto a canvas is not a easy thing; there's a struggle. I drives me up that wall and makes me laugh when I hear people say they just "banged this canvas out"; Art is a struggle; it takes time, energy thought. As much of an ego you may hear when you hear artist talk about there shit, the majority of them worth there weight in salt are really hiding their severe insecurities. So artists that always want to make the next thing better, have the advantage. Artists that arrive at something and them stop learning new things are destined to fade into irrelevancy. I think that artists need to remain OPEN. Open to new things, technologies, inspirations, routes to the pose the question. But realize the question changes and needs to change; the world changes; keep the same question and the world will leave you behind mumbling to yourself. I don't pass it off as a Rothko bite, but I feel that 'Abstract Expressionism' is a beaten horse that should have died in the late 70's. I think that in the limited but diverse works seeks has shared its not really fair to pigeonhole him into the area of 'abstract expressionism', or color field painting or any of those labels of movements. I feel (and am not speaking for him), that what separates him form just another biter is that hes on a search (like REAL artists are), in the search you are taken into many realms that have happened before us. Why is this important, cause doing is one of the best ways of gaining knowledge and understanding. I don think that if I were ask seeking if he wanted to do color field paintings for the rest of his life hed say yes,nor would he say he want to paint on rusted paint cans; but what's really important (to me) is that he's trying a lot of shit and trying to understand what its worth and why its done and what about it he sees in himself. May be this is true for many of you, and the mistake your making is thinking that because this is a graffiti forum that’s all we (viewers) may want to see. Now compare this to folks that are just slapping drips and splatter on shit cause they’ve seen it 100 times before. IF those people were to show work that gets out of the comfort zone, IE doing figurative work or anything that is a real struggle for them to create. The formula for painting a wall or train is completely different from that of working on a canvas. The energy of graffiti can be transferred to canvas but not by just doing graffiti on canvas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 hahahaha. the dude on the bike with the snake....ha. so fucking detroit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 i've been doing 'color field' shit, in some form, since i was 13 or 14. i had no idea what i was doing, i knew absolutely nothing about art, but the very first thing i remember painting (as opposed to drawing batman and shit like that) was a swirling void of dark, depressing colors. since then my technique has gotten better but it's all really just an effort to express the same thing i always have. no matter what medium i use, be it metal, photography, writing or painting, everything has to do with asymetrical balance the tearing, disintigration and crumbling of 'bodies'. that probably sounds kind of pretentious and all, but it's the truth. all my metal work deals with surfaces and slashes, my paintings deal with bruises, wounds and decay. with that idea in mind, i assume the paintings above will make alot more sense. i do what i do, because once i start thinking, i get enveloped and freeze up. the only way i can do shit is to just 'feel'. i have tons of ideas for photo-realistic illustration stuff i'd like to try, but i lack the patience and know as soon as i head down that path, i'll get all fucking ADD and lose focus. it's something i'm working on, but it's difficult and slow going. i'm not trying to be all self centered and talk about myself by the way, just trying to sort of 'lead by example' and be open and honest about shit. hopefully others will follow (joker and KOH, i'm talking about you) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heavyLox Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 Originally posted by seeking@Apr 12 2005, 11:16 AM (joker and KOH, i'm talking about you) Quoted post well i guess ill walk away in shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 oh hush, it goes without saying that i'd like you to post your stuff and tell stories. i just kind of assumed you would sine you jumped into this thing. i singled them out because they've both tried to stay out of it. heavster, will you please post some work and talk about yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushbuttonWarfare Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 rothko in books or prints didn't do anything for me other than, "woop, thats nice, its a square and shit". But seeing his work in the Tate Modern in the proper setting he wanted it to be viewed in compelled me to have to stand there and stare at just 1 of the few in the room for a good 20 minutes. Seriously amazing stuff. Aint no art like art in front of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heavyLox Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 SO this isnt canvas, its on paper. I like paper better than canvas; i think papers more absorbent and i like that. i like paper that will eat what you put on it. I also am very interested in the process of creating pictures. Much of the time i enjoy unfinished works more than finished; the unfinished gives me insight into the artist process and i feel like i get a better idea about who or what the artist is. So in the vein I started documenting the stages of drawing and paintings i do ( graff too when i can get away with it, [read legal eagle shit]). This particular set of drawings was done after i had the displeasure of hear DJ spooky give a talk (last fall). What i took from that talk was that there was still a lot of power in the remix (a really broad definition, Duchamp to HIP-hop) and that DJ spooky is an IDIOT; which i wont get into here. Suffice it to say I tried to combine the elements of a drawing and continue to reuse and change them with in the same drawing. The final version of this was an interactive Macromedia Director file, that in the end had sound and allowed the viewer/user to remix the final state of the drawing with all of the other states of the drawing so they could make there own composition form mine. In the end there were 144(changeable bits)*38 (stages of the drawing). So what you see here is more of just a build test animating the drawings process and changes over time. _________________________________________________________________________________ <embed src="http://www.heavylox.com/webshow/TEST.swf" quality="high" bgcolor="#636656" width="657" height="545" name="TEST" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /> _________________________________________________________________________________ I added, play pause, and stop buttons to aid in viewing. If you can't see it in the forum you can see it.here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niseNSF Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 rothko schmothko look at the old navy bag on the stroller im 100 yrs ahead of you fools Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 heav, that thing goes real fast. there should be a step by step option. i really want to bite that 'bleeding all to fuck' look that you have in alot of your sketches. it gives it a really cool 'lifelike' sort of feel. building and destroying and shit. real fresh. what are you using for that? watercolor, acrylic and markers? cheerleader, the old navy bag is good, but the crust punks dog is where it's at. mange is hard to capture but you did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momentum Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 ''abstract expressionism'' is art thats made for yuppies... nah i dunno it does seem like an easy way out,to me anyway. it seems some people that wanna get into art and dont really know in which form yet could look at the works of i dunno lets just say michelangelo,el greco,n.c. wyeth,and frazetta and see everything going on in them and dont have any knowledge of painting yet could be intimidated pretty easy.then they see the works of lets just say picasso,mondrian,and pollack and they seem pretty confident that they could make art like that and since its accepted even embraced that it would be the perfect way of expressing themselves.now there might not seem like theres much wrong with this way of evaluating which way you wanna take your art but i think its a shame that people just bypass the ''genres'' of art that seem more difficult for whatever reasons (being in a rush to create,following a trend,or lack of dedication to discipline)and that if they would just take the time to learn they would see its not as impossible as it seems.it just seems like theres alot more art out there that doesnt seem to have alot of effort or forthought in it. im not accusing anyone on here of anything. as i stated before that im no expert and i myself have a ton to learn, you can never stop learning.i dont know if this rant means anything take it how you will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamouscraze Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 seeking.... you got a livejournal or is someguy postin all ya shit... and it says seen... but all the s canvas' are on there.... just woundering... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 infamouscraze, i sent you a PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.