Philosophy Now Forum

Pluto wrote:You prefer landscapes without people.

Not at all, I just think 'that' picture would be better without 'that' man.

Yes, he is odd looking and takes up most of the picture. He is the focus of the picture.

This was done in about 25 seconds. I was sat at a table with some people, and they were trying to figure out how to attach the piece of string you get with a small digital camera. The man with the hand over his mouth seemed to be thinking, how did I get here. I really captured the scene very quickly and see it as almost like an automatic act, it was and is a quick sketch and strong for that reason. If I had laboured over it, and spent time something would have been lost, of course spending time on a drawing something would have been added too. But I like the quick creative act, like the release of the creative act in the moment. Without thought or correction.

I admire that about you... confidence. There is something very vulnerable about showing the quick sketch...at least for me.

Yeah, I don't see it like that. Here's one by Lowry.

It's like speaking without a thought of being gaurded. There's no time in which to carefully pick you words or garnish them, or cover up truth. There is no time to lie.

Yes, the spontaneous creative act. When painting I usually finish it in one sitting, I don't usually go back to it, unless it's to paint over it and start again. There's something about being in the moment, that it's a record of that time and how you felt and thought, put into a work of art. Time made material. Because everything including ourselves are in constant flux a work made over time is not the same as a work made in one moment.

I think there's a bit more to art than scribbling something on a piece of paper. I doodle all the time, but I wouldn't call it art.

No, but then you're not an artist, are you? A scribble could be deemed art.

Pluto wrote:No, but then you're not an artist, are you? A scribble could be deemed art.

Only if the 'scribbler' was someone like Picasso, or Van Gogh. You have to know what the rules are in order to break them. Anyway, we've had this argument before. Someone who goes to a piano and bangs their fists randomly on the keys is not a musician. And you would need to show something that has taken you more than a few seconds to do, that you have taken care with, before I could decide whether or not you are an artist.

tHIS one took over 5 minutes. With this one the title alone is king and the image, but an anchor to hold it, or a sack to carry it.

The Corporate Mass Media is the Moat around the Castle (raining)

Pluto wrote:tHIS one took over 5 minutes. With this one the title alone is king and the image, but an anchor to hold it, or a sack to carry it.

The Corporate Mass Media is the Moat around the Castle (raining)

cast.jpg

I think you are taking the piss.

How so?

Pluto wrote:How so?

When I said 'longer than a few seconds' I wasn't thinking 5 minutes. Something that's taken a bit of effort. Keep posting anyway. It's always interesting to see others' creativity in action.

This painting took awhile. But it's a painting not a drawing. Paintings take time and so the making is more intense. It was in 2001 and I was in London and at that time I had this urge to paint a head being supported by a hand, we all do it from time to time. I thought the pose interesting and wanted to create sublime sadness somehow. The hand looks like it could be someone else's which brings in a sensitive almost sentimental aspect to the picture.

Artist