Comments on: The Michelangelo Challenge

By: Jeffee Gourley

Jeffee Gourley — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:24:53 +0000

I was brousing at websites, and happened here, not used to Rss feeds, and talking much with other people on the web until recently. I liked some of the journal entries, very well stated about some subjects, and feel the same about some. As for this image, Michael Angelo style, it does look like his style. As an Artist myself, his style in my opinion, wasn’t natural looking, but he didn’t have much to work with. A lot of people like his creations and or your work resembling it as such, nice image. Like you say, if you have a recoginizable mature style, all your own is what some try to achieve. I was my own worst critique until I started adding more oil in my paint for a more natural looking, mature style and technique of my own that I was happy with. Adding with my work created many images after that. I haven’t played with digital programs with my art to change the look. My personal goal was to create Bible Book Covers for a reason and Bible Books. Someone mentioned Aesthetic painting, well I never heard the word until I started galleries at Pbase.com and someone commented, I painted in this way, or that I was a sole painter. My art recently is in my Garden with digital. Hope to have a better site, but You can visit….
Jeffee Gourley Fine Art and Photography @ Pbase.com

By: Michelle

Michelle — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:54:02 +0000

Hi Guy Love your work. Just wanted to comment on “The Michelangelo Challenge”. You can have good art and great art as well as good photography and great photography. What is the difference? COMPOSITION! The Masters knew what they were doing as do great photographers. I often study painters to help me with my photography. The only difference between photographers and painters is how we get our vision on the canvas.

By: Dietrich

Dietrich — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:07:52 +0000

Hi Guy, as usual well written and well considered – I thought a lot about this, and personally I did not find the conclusion yet. I am rather the “conservative” side. This comes only from my own personal experience: I tried arrangement images – starting from nothing and using objects (shells, scallops, snails) to create an image. I think this gets as close as it can get to the process of making a painting using the palette, the brush and the white canvas. And that’s the point: The canvass is originally white, the “David” is originally a piece of solid rock. The underground on which I place my shells is originally feature-less – at least to some extent. What I am trying to suggest is that the process of creating something (in the true sense of creation) is more extensive and fundamental in the above mentioned examples. Also the harmony, balance and sense of beauty created was not available originally – simply non extsitent. In nature photography, the scene basically exists – the “only” thing a photographer does is finding it and isolating it. (I am not saying that this is easy and I do not want to underestimate it). But, I personally find it harder to make these arranged still-life shots and come away with something I like. And that process still takes some “finished” objects. Or maybe it’s just that I have not practiced this as often as the other photographic approach. What photography definitely avoids for the creator is the use of your own fine motor skill to move the brush and paint the content/subject. And from drawing classes in school I know that some are better at this than others, some have the “talent” some do not. Not sure if this can be used to conclude that photography is the “inferior” art but imo these are the reasons (among others) why some consider it to be. Just my thoughts on this – and they go around in my mind since I picked up the cam and long after I concluded that painting is not for me cause I am simply not able to draw something that has aesthetic merit for others
Regards
Dietrich

By: Roberta

Roberta — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:51:19 +0000

Gorgeous image; and a very good point.