But really, lets put it to the testshall we ?! You put up any obscure piece of art and I will tell you about the person who made it, the socio-political environment in which it was made, and when. How's that for ludicrous?
the nude resembles nudes you`ve seen .....as you`ve taken influence from native art you`ve seen. Certain designs and patterns struck a chord with you in previous viewings. They MEANT something to you. (or whoever the artist may be, I just read the instructions) It is an impossible task for a viewer to disect exactly HOW one`s art is autobiographical... I just think that every line you draw, paint, smear comes from a previous experience. Even when you think you`re trying something new, I don`t believe you`re pulling it out of the air.
i like the detail. i haven't seen you use pencil crayon quite like that before. nice. what the hell is it? no! it can't be?! *gasp* is that a squirrel trap?!!
For the record, this only a test, and may not yield satisfactory results...
First off, I would like to point out that this IS exceptionally challenging. Being in the "online realm" factors such as location, medium, surface (texture) and scale are all imperceptible. As well the apparent cropping or flattening of an image through the (digital) photographic process, makes it even more difficult. Being able to get closer and see brushwork might also add to the analysis.
Image 1. I think this is the most difficult. It appears to be painted on a hard flat surface like a wall, and so I'm guessing it is a mural. The colours are softened a bit so maybe it is an outdoor piece that has got 10 or so years of sunlight (or it could be the flash). This work is clearly done by a native artist (Due to the preffered use of shape, line and patern over modelled form and naturalistic representation as well as the sun drum and traditional style of decorative clothing, and generally the style of the painting itself) or someone who sympathizes with native north american issues, or admires the culture/art. If it were a mural as I believe it is, that would suggest it was a comissioned piece(most likely by a governmental source) , intended to celebrate the native community or some event. Most likely the artist was paid for this, but judging by the use of primary hues (Redish, blue yellow), not alot. Despite the limitted palette and out door working conditions, the artist painstakingly (check out the dots =) crafts every corner of the work with unerring accuracy, meaning, it's not about the money or fame; it's about the pride of his work (im guessing it's a male based on a 'masculine subject and use of sharp angles)and admiration for his subject. An artist of this kind is most likely a younger person, unjaded by years of experience, and doesn't balk at the daunting task of painting outdoors for small change.
Well that's it I think for now. I'lll come back for the other 2. In the meantime, if anyone one else wants to give it a try, that might be fun too.
We all recognized this immediately as a James Culleton. How is it so, that a few lines can reveal a persons identity? We can tell Dan's "ripped" look, but what is it that makes James's uniquely James?
James's lines are drawn effortlessly, each stroke of the cross hatch seems to have its own secret psuedo-identity. Sometimes the stroke is curled sensually, or wildly overlapping another. At other times they are isolated, unwilling to touch the line next to it, almost like it's repelled by some antimagnetic force keeping it at just enough of a distance to at least, be safe. There are portions of the drawing that are made up of single strands of contour line, stretching a long expanse of thier own and other parts where the lines pile 'sketchily' (or dare I say painterly) on top of each other. One group is a searching uncertainty, the other, singular lines, a clearly defined boundary where one thing starts and another begins. What brings these lines together, harmonizes them, is thier literal convergence. Eventually if you follow any part of a Culletton line drawing they will lead you to a dark patch, where all the lines meet in a "100 car pile up" sort of way. In the originals, I imagine this is the part that takes the longest for the ink to dry, it was once (and is) the synthesis of a goopy primordial tarpit of artistic angst, trepidation, and soulfull expression . He is not Durer, with lines like the tiny perfect feathers of a cherub wing, but rather the abstract expresionist of pens an ink-emotion-cavalier and pilgrim.
Well James you didn't give me a chance to tackle the other two, but as you can see I took one anyway (my consolation prize for trying). I wonder, did you call it quits because I was so off in the first one? Was it a complete failure? Did I get anything right?
It's a man. Was it done in the last 10 years? Does he site native american art as an influence?
Great analysis David, I just couldn't wait to share the info. And the analysis of my drawing made me blush!
The first is a man named Rejean, my Mom's brother, a french canadian. What you attribute to Aboriginal art, I would say is Acadian, which is French Euro-Aboriginal, and often mingled with Metis. An interesting comparison is his work and my aunt Denise's paintings(also my mom's sister). The lines belong to a family that I'd attribute to being fromt he same family. Like handwriting. Very auto-biographical.
Now I suspect you might have thought I would have posted a bunch of art that would have been hard to line up auto-biographically. Not so. What I'm comparing here is the link of hereditary traits in artists work. Auto-biography that carries through generations.
For instance, I think it was Greg who thought this was all my work. In a sense it is.
It's like when I see a photograph(although photography is a little different) by David's dad, I think Macri.
1. looks like it's from the early 70s? it has a happy feel to it. reminds me of my trip to vancouver with my baba when i was 4 years old. we took a train. i said that the train makes me happy because it wiggles. that was what my baba wrote on the post card she sent back to winnipeg for my grandfather to read(my 'dzgi-dzgi" sp?).
2. looks like an adult female without her pants. sicko! ;) lol... though, she is wearing a sweater, so that's not as perverted. :)
3. the styles are so similar james. it's creepy... in a nice way. heredity. okay, maybe it's not a squirrel trap? *ouch, my brain hurts* maybe it's a human finger trap? respect the other person or else *snap*. maybe???
A Love for Art was a collaborative blog for visual artists, musicians, writers, and social scientists. This blog has evolved into a new blog called BETA, go check it out!
15 comments:
I've kept the selections fairly representational. Do your worst Macro!
:)
But really, lets put it to the testshall we ?! You put up any obscure piece of art and I will tell you about the person who made it, the socio-political environment in which it was made, and when. How's that for ludicrous?
the fingernails resemble yours
=autobiographical?
the nude resembles nudes you`ve seen
.....as you`ve taken influence from native art you`ve seen. Certain designs and patterns struck a chord with you in previous viewings. They MEANT something to you.
(or whoever the artist may be, I just read the instructions)
It is an impossible task for a viewer to disect exactly HOW one`s art is autobiographical...
I just think that every line you draw, paint, smear comes from a previous experience.
Even when you think you`re trying something new, I don`t believe you`re pulling it out of the air.
i like the detail. i haven't seen you use pencil crayon quite like that before. nice. what the hell is it? no! it can't be?! *gasp* is that a squirrel trap?!!
go
a squirrel trap? you MONSTER!!!
hee hee...
p.s. good call, o bluemask.
For the record, this only a test, and may not yield satisfactory results...
First off, I would like to point out that this IS exceptionally challenging. Being in the "online realm" factors such as location, medium, surface (texture) and scale are all imperceptible. As well the apparent cropping or flattening of an image through the (digital) photographic process, makes it even more difficult. Being able to get closer and see brushwork might also add to the analysis.
Image 1.
I think this is the most difficult. It appears to be painted on a hard flat surface like a wall, and so I'm guessing it is a mural. The colours are softened a bit so maybe it is an outdoor piece that has got 10 or so years of sunlight (or it could be the flash). This work is clearly done by a native artist (Due to the preffered use of shape, line and patern over modelled form and naturalistic representation as well as the sun drum and traditional style of decorative clothing, and generally the style of the painting itself) or someone who sympathizes with native north american issues, or admires the culture/art. If it were a mural as I believe it is, that would suggest it was a comissioned piece(most likely by a governmental source) , intended to celebrate the native community or some event. Most likely the artist was paid for this, but judging by the use of primary hues (Redish, blue yellow), not alot. Despite the limitted palette and out door working conditions, the artist painstakingly (check out the dots =) crafts every corner of the work with unerring accuracy, meaning, it's not about the money or fame; it's about the pride of his work (im guessing it's a male based on a 'masculine subject and use of sharp angles)and admiration for his subject. An artist of this kind is most likely a younger person, unjaded by years of experience, and doesn't balk at the daunting task of painting outdoors for small change.
Well that's it I think for now. I'lll come back for the other 2. In the meantime, if anyone one else wants to give it a try, that might be fun too.
hhhooooooowwwwwwwhhhhooooowwwww!!!
this ananalysis makes wolfboy howl at the moon.
I`ve a growing concern for the mental state of Wolf Boy.
"like a leper messiah, wolf boy sucked up in to his mi-yind"
1. By my Uncle Rejean, age 50, very full of pride about his work, an artist half his life. On canvas, but scanne from a photo.
2.Sketch by me.
3. A coloured pencil drawing by my brother Les Culleton from a book he illustrated called The Meaning of Respect, written by Dave Bouchard.
2. Sketch by me (James)
We all recognized this immediately as a James Culleton. How is it so, that a few lines can reveal a persons identity? We can tell Dan's "ripped" look, but what is it that makes James's uniquely James?
James's lines are drawn effortlessly, each stroke of the cross hatch seems to have its own secret psuedo-identity. Sometimes the stroke is curled sensually, or wildly overlapping another. At other times they are isolated, unwilling to touch the line next to it, almost like it's repelled by some antimagnetic force keeping it at just enough of a distance to at least, be safe. There are portions of the drawing that are made up of single strands of contour line, stretching a long expanse of thier own and other parts where the lines pile 'sketchily' (or dare I say painterly) on top of each other. One group is a searching uncertainty, the other, singular lines, a clearly defined boundary where one thing starts and another begins. What brings these lines together, harmonizes them, is thier literal convergence. Eventually if you follow any part of a Culletton line drawing they will lead you to a dark patch, where all the lines meet in a "100 car pile up" sort of way. In the originals, I imagine this is the part that takes the longest for the ink to dry, it was once (and is) the synthesis of a goopy primordial tarpit of artistic angst, trepidation, and soulfull expression . He is not Durer, with lines like the tiny perfect feathers of a cherub wing, but rather the abstract expresionist of pens an ink-emotion-cavalier and pilgrim.
Well James you didn't give me a chance to tackle the other two, but as you can see I took one anyway (my consolation prize for trying). I wonder, did you call it quits because I was so off in the first one? Was it a complete failure? Did I get anything right?
It's a man. Was it done in the last 10 years? Does he site native american art as an influence?
Great analysis David, I just couldn't wait to share the info. And the analysis of my drawing made me blush!
The first is a man named Rejean, my Mom's brother, a french canadian. What you attribute to Aboriginal art, I would say is Acadian, which is French Euro-Aboriginal, and often mingled with Metis. An interesting comparison is his work and my aunt Denise's paintings(also my mom's sister). The lines belong to a family that I'd attribute to being fromt he same family. Like handwriting. Very auto-biographical.
Now I suspect you might have thought I would have posted a bunch of art that would have been hard to line up auto-biographically. Not so. What I'm comparing here is the link of hereditary traits in artists work. Auto-biography that carries through generations.
For instance, I think it was Greg who thought this was all my work. In a sense it is.
It's like when I see a photograph(although photography is a little different) by David's dad, I think Macri.
1. looks like it's from the early 70s? it has a happy feel to it. reminds me of my trip to vancouver with my baba when i was 4 years old. we took a train. i said that the train makes me happy because it wiggles. that was what my baba wrote on the post card she sent back to winnipeg for my grandfather to read(my 'dzgi-dzgi" sp?).
2. looks like an adult female without her pants. sicko! ;) lol... though, she is wearing a sweater, so that's not as perverted. :)
3. the styles are so similar james. it's creepy... in a nice way. heredity. okay, maybe it's not a squirrel trap? *ouch, my brain hurts* maybe it's a human finger trap? respect the other person or else *snap*. maybe???
i'm tired. zzzzzzzzzzz...........
go
Post a Comment