elizabeth priddy on fri 24 sep 99
>Isn't this approach the way painting/drawing was traditionally taught in
>China and Japan? Visualising the whole thing before committing brush to
>paper (or pot).
Not really. The traditional way it is taught is to
copy good designs for years. You are expected to
"absorb" good design placement by painting the same
designs that have been established as good. You must
think about why this painting is good on your own and
digest that. Then you begin to compose your own
paintings picking elements of good paintings and
recombining them to form your own designs. Then
eventually you begin to choose your own subjects and
paint from your study of nature. This is laid out in
the book, "The Mustard Seed Garden Book of Painting".
The same information in this book was what we learned
in Design School and History of Art, boiled down into
one very dense package of a book.
There are other ways to learn it, but those ways are
not as effective. That is why they have been learning
it this same way for so long. Warning: If you don't
deal well with design theory, you should not attempt to
read and digest this book.
After you read the book, you then need a hands on
instructor to teach you about water content, brush use,
rice paper, etc. The details make the difference in
application, and the design makes the painting sing or
not.
---
Elizabeth Priddy
I speak from sincerity and experience, not authority...
email: epriddy@usa.net
website: http://www.angelfire.com/nc/clayworkshop
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:32:53 Stephen Mills wrote:
>Isn't this approach the way painting/drawing was traditionally taught in
>China and Japan? Visualising the whole thing before committing brush to
>paper (or pot).
>
>Steve
>Bath
>UK
>
>
>In message , John Rodgers writes
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>I have to go with Mel on this one.
>>
>>It's funny about this sort of thing. Over the years, I had quite a number of
>>artists(painters in this case) who worked for me in my studio in Alaska.
>>They turned their art painting skills to china painting. But of the whole
>>group, I had only one that could create an image in her mind, then paint it.
>>All the rest needed a picture..photograph, model, drawing, something to get
>>them started. But this girl could paint anything. Give her a pallette and a
>>canvas and she would run with it. It was awsome.
>>
>>She was that way from childhood. She just had that special thing. The rest
>>didn't. There were a number of her school chums who went on to study art in
>>college, but for all their training, she could still paint rings around
>>them, and she never went on beyond high school. Most amazing ability.
>>
>>John Rodgers
>>In New Mexico
>>
>>mel jacobson wrote:
>>
>>> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>> one of life's great confusions. `teaching design.`
>>> i really do not know if it is possible. have been working
>>> on it for almost 40 years,
>>> some people get it, most don't.
>>> i really think that over the years `courses in design`
>>> ruin more natural designers than they help.
>>>
>>> now, i realize that this is getting picky. but,
>>> i truly believe that we can teach art theory.
>>> color studies are very helpful, line, shape, texture, space.
>>> we can learn them in theory. positive and negative space can be learned.
>>>
>>> but design?
>>> the entire package?
>>> i have grave doubts.
>>> most great designers that i have met are born that way.
>>> mel/mn
>>> experience and more experience is the critical element.
>>> http://www.pclink.com/melpots
>>> from minnetonka, minnesota, u.s.a.
>>
>
>--
>Steve Mills
>Bath
>UK
>home e-mail: stevemills@mudslinger.demon.co.uk
>work e-mail: stevemills@bathpotters.demon.co.uk
>own website: http://www.mudslinger.demon.co.uk
>BPS website: http://www.bathpotters.demon.co.uk
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
| |
|
