Wanna check out my paintings?

Cafe Society
1

I’ve been painting for about a year and a half now, mainly acrylic on canvas. Pretty much all of my stuff is posted on my flickr page if anyone is interested in seeing them.

This is somewhat an update on my thread a few months ago where I was looking for critiques. Feel free to offer critiques if you’d like, I always have more to learn, but I mainly wanted to post this to show off my new work. I particularly am proud of Dots and Power Lines.

Feel free to leave comments if you like, either positive or negative. I don’t have people over to my apartment often, so not many people see my paintings in person, so I thought I would show them online and see what the dopers thought.

2

I had a very enjoyable stroll through your gallery, Sam. I’m glad you included “Colin”. It was… what word am I searching for?.. reassuring.

3

[QUOTE=Liberal]
I had a very enjoyable stroll through your gallery, Sam. I’m glad you included “Colin”. It was… what word am I searching for?.. reassuring.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure what you mean by that “Colin” is reassuring. So I guess I’ll just take it as a compliment.

4

I really liked “Birds in Tree” and I am still liking “White flowers”, from your previous time around.

5

I liked the abstract stuff a lot, particularly “Green” and “Abstract5.” I also liked “Coral” and “Birds in Tree.”

6

Enjoyed looking at them.
Would like to see them IRL, as I suspect they would be far more striking than small images on-line.
Not exactly my preferred style, but I could imagine them being very effective in bringing a welcome splash of color to the right setting.

7

My favorite was Power Lines. I have always been sort of aesthetically fascinated by structures like electrical towers, TV towers and cell phone towers. I once did a photoshoot at this old TV tower that came out amazing…all these striking red and white metal beams criscrossing each other against a vibrant blue sky. I really captured the interplay of all the intersecting beams, and you did also in your painting.

8

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Enjoyed looking at them.
Would like to see them IRL, as I suspect they would be far more striking than small images on-line.
Not exactly my preferred style, but I could imagine them being very effective in bringing a welcome splash of color to the right setting.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks, I’m glad people like seeing them. They do definitely look better in real life, especially because I’m using my relatively cheap digital camera to take the pictures. Seeing them in their proper size and exact colors does make a difference. If I was wanting to start a website and sell my paintings, I’d probably get someone with a good camera who knows what they’re doing to take the pictures, but just for now I think this works for me.

9

Hi Sam,

It seems to me as if you have an internal conflict between representational and non-representational works. I read that as a self-questioning of “What is Art?” ---- I mean why is a tree beautiful and trash ugly type thing.

That said, it seems that a corollary(sp?) question you address is the notion of symbols. “Written Sky” cleverly illustrates that all representational paintings are merely symbols of the object being observed.

I like your stuff that endeavors to make new symbols, that is, the graphical design oriented stuff —“Written Sky”, “Yellow Fish”, “Cat”, “Birds in Tree”. The stuff that explores existing symbols (“Dog”, “Bear”, “Bunny”) seem tired/trite.

I think much of your abstract stuff lacks balance ----balance as an art concept, not as a mental one.

I would say that if you aren’t going to formally study art, stick to your works that explore new symbols for things/ideas.

10

[QUOTE=fervour]
Hi Sam,

It seems to me as if you have an internal conflict between representational and non-representational works. I read that as a self-questioning of “What is Art?” ---- I mean why is a tree beautiful and trash ugly type thing.

That said, it seems that a corollary(sp?) question you address is the notion of symbols. “Written Sky” cleverly illustrates that all representational paintings are merely symbols of the object being observed.

I like your stuff that endeavors to make new symbols, that is, the graphical design oriented stuff —“Written Sky”, “Yellow Fish”, “Cat”, “Birds in Tree”. The stuff that explores existing symbols (“Dog”, “Bear”, “Bunny”) seem tired/trite.

I think much of your abstract stuff lacks balance ----balance as an art concept, not as a mental one.

I would say that if you aren’t going to formally study art, stick to your works that explore new symbols for things/ideas.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the critique, though I’m not sure I understand everything you’re saying. For example, what do you mean by:

I realize that I paint in a lot of different styles, but I never thought about it as a conflict in figuring out what art means to me.

Also, what do you mean by the lack of balance in my abstract works? How could I learn to improve it? I’d like to learn from your advice, but first I need to know what you mean. Thanks again.

11

[QUOTE=Liberal]
I had a very enjoyable stroll through your gallery, Sam. I’m glad you included “Colin”. It was… what word am I searching for?.. reassuring.
[QUOTE=Sam Lowry]
I’m not sure what you mean by that “Colin” is reassuring. So I guess I’ll just take it as a compliment.
[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

Not to speak for Liberal (Lord knows he doesn’t need any help in that regard :wink: ), but sometimes, when a person works in an abstract, or primitively simplistic style, as you do in many of your paintings, it can be hard to tell without context whether the person does so out of choice, or because he/she is incapable of something more complex.

Including “Colin” which is a more complex work, puts your other paintings in perspective, and makes it clear that your more simple and/or abstract works are stylistic choices.

That said, my favorites are “Burst” “Red and White Flowers” and “Power Lines.” Very nice.

12

IMHO, and it’s only MHO, your “representational” stuff, the puppy, bear, etc. are fairly weak (like something I’d do, and I suck.) But all the rest of it? I really, really like. I mean REALLY like.

13

Some of the pieces in your gallery are truly remarkable.

14

[QUOTE=Sam Lowry]
Thanks for the critique, though I’m not sure I understand everything you’re saying. For example, what do you mean by:
. . . .
I realize that I paint in a lot of different styles, but I never thought about it as a conflict in figuring out what art means to me.

Also, what do you mean by the lack of balance in my abstract works? How could I learn to improve it? I’d like to learn from your advice, but first I need to know what you mean. Thanks again.
[/QUOTE]

By no means do I claim to be an expert. I have a B.S. in Studio Art from a small, state university. And I realized I couldn’t make it as an artist; so I went back for a degree in computers.

re: the conflict between representational/nonrepresentational —I could be way off base------I read into your works that you are trying to understand what is beautiful. Isn’t a tree simply a collection of abstract shapes? Why is a tree beautiful and trash not? Isn’t trash simply a collection of abstract shapes? So is it possible to distill out the perfect collection of shapes to define beauty? --Or are shapes intrinsically tied with their symbolic meanings?

I thought you may have been considering such because in “Written Sky” you seem to be comparing the notion that the phrase “the sky” and the color sky blue, aren’t the sky but symbols. Likewise, the word “cloud” is neither a cloud, nor is the shape that you bound with “cloud” a cloud. It’s very similar to the painting of a pipe by Magrite in which he includes the words “This is not a pipe”.

By balance I mean this:
http://www.artgalleryofhamilton.on.ca/edu/terms.asp?glossaryID=1013
or maybe this
http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/art2/artspeak/terms.html#Balance

Take for instance your painting of the power lines. For me, it is almost “there”, but just misses the mark. The ground was placed low and dark and makes the painting feel bottom heavy (remember it’s just an opinion). In “Ants” the two ants thrown into the bottom corner, make that corner too heavy. “Ants” lacks movement your eye is drawn to that corner and stops there. There is no reason to look anywhere else and it makes the painting feel off balance.

Where as yellow fish is a refreshing take on the symbol for a school of fish. It’s not quite the common depiction of a school of fish and your take on it feels new to me.

15

[QUOTE=fervour]
In “Ants” the two ants thrown into the bottom corner, make that corner too heavy. “Ants” lacks movement your eye is drawn to that corner and stops there. There is no reason to look anywhere else and it makes the painting feel off balance.
[/QUOTE]
I defer to someone with knowledge of the theory, but what’s the alternative? Ants placed uniformly across the whole picture? A larger scene that puts other items throughout the picture?

16

[QUOTE=gigi]
I defer to someone with knowledge of the theory, but what’s the alternative? Ants placed uniformly across the whole picture? A larger scene that puts other items throughout the picture?
[/QUOTE]

It wouldn’t have to be more ants. You could balance it out with something else —say three yellow polka-dots arranged in a triangle over toward the northeast quadrant —I’m not saying that would work. One doesn’t have to balance a painting with elements of the same thing evenly dispersed on the canvas. Repetition is a method though, that can balance some compositions. I get your point that it wouldn’t balance that one.

It’s been 16 years since I’ve had any formal training in art. I hardly qualify as an expert here. I don’t know how to fix that particular composition. My subjective opinion is that it doesn’t feel right. But I certainly wouldn’t be offended if someone else likes the painting just as it is.

17

[QUOTE=KayElCee]
Not to speak for Liberal (Lord knows he doesn’t need any help in that regard :wink: ), but sometimes, when a person works in an abstract, or primitively simplistic style, as you do in many of your paintings, it can be hard to tell without context whether the person does so out of choice, or because he/she is incapable of something more complex.

Including “Colin” which is a more complex work, puts your other paintings in perspective, and makes it clear that your more simple and/or abstract works are stylistic choices.
[/QUOTE]
Well said. Until I saw “Colin” my first thought was the artist doesn’t have the demonstrated technical expertise to work with something as simple as “Dots.”

18

[QUOTE=fervour]
By no means do I claim to be an expert. I have a B.S. in Studio Art from a small, state university. And I realized I couldn’t make it as an artist; so I went back for a degree in computers.

re: the conflict between representational/nonrepresentational —I could be way off base------I read into your works that you are trying to understand what is beautiful. Isn’t a tree simply a collection of abstract shapes? Why is a tree beautiful and trash not? Isn’t trash simply a collection of abstract shapes? So is it possible to distill out the perfect collection of shapes to define beauty? --Or are shapes intrinsically tied with their symbolic meanings?

I thought you may have been considering such because in “Written Sky” you seem to be comparing the notion that the phrase “the sky” and the color sky blue, aren’t the sky but symbols. Likewise, the word “cloud” is neither a cloud, nor is the shape that you bound with “cloud” a cloud. It’s very similar to the painting of a pipe by Magrite in which he includes the words “This is not a pipe”.

By balance I mean this:
http://www.artgalleryofhamilton.on.ca/edu/terms.asp?glossaryID=1013
or maybe this
http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/art2/artspeak/terms.html#Balance

Take for instance your painting of the power lines. For me, it is almost “there”, but just misses the mark. The ground was placed low and dark and makes the painting feel bottom heavy (remember it’s just an opinion). In “Ants” the two ants thrown into the bottom corner, make that corner too heavy. “Ants” lacks movement your eye is drawn to that corner and stops there. There is no reason to look anywhere else and it makes the painting feel off balance.

Where as yellow fish is a refreshing take on the symbol for a school of fish. It’s not quite the common depiction of a school of fish and your take on it feels new to me.
[/QUOTE]

OK, I think I’m following more now. I had kinda been exploring the themes you were suggesting, just without putting it into so many words.

And it’s funny, Magritte is actually my favorite artist. I’d never actually had made the connection between Written Sky and Magritte and using words and symbols until you pointed it out, but I guess I had been subconsciously influenced.

I appreciate your critique on using balance. I feel like I know a lot about art; like if we went into an art museum together I could identify many of the artists and what movement they were a part of and discuss their influences and who they influenced and so on. But working on my paintings and hearing some critiques I realize how limited my art vocabulary is.

With that in mind, I found some painting classes that I’m considering taking next year (it would be one of the two “Creative Painting” classes, after I figure out which one would be a shorter drive for me). I’d hesitated taking any drawing or painting classes before, mainly because I’m not as interested in representational work (and I am clearly not as good at it) and I figured any class would focus on representational work. But taking a class would obviously help me with some of the basic art concepts and how to use them better.

Thanks again everyone for your comments, both positive and negative. While I obviously love any positive feedback, I really appreciate negative feedback, mainly because I have a hard time getting any in real life.

19

[QUOTE=KayElCee]
Not to speak for Liberal (Lord knows he doesn’t need any help in that regard :wink: ), but sometimes, when a person works in an abstract, or primitively simplistic style, as you do in many of your paintings, it can be hard to tell without context whether the person does so out of choice, or because he/she is incapable of something more complex.

Including “Colin” which is a more complex work, puts your other paintings in perspective, and makes it clear that your more simple and/or abstract works are stylistic choices.
[/QUOTE]
You hereby have permission to speak for me. That was exactly my line of thinking.

20

I absolutely LOVE “Dandelions”. Can’t really put my finger on why that one more than the others, though. I like pretty much all of them.