1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

Paul Stanley's Art

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by lavmonga, Mar 7, 2008.


  1. Bryan R. Tyler

    Bryan R. Tyler TalkBass: Usurping My Practice Time Since 2002 Staff Member Administrator Gold Supporting Member

    May 3, 2002
    Connecticut
    Back in art school, one of our teachers told us to try and create images that were as child-like as possible. Not childish, but child-like. My daughter makes some beautiful artwork. Kids that are 5 and under usually have a completely different concept of space than we do, and haven't fallen into the traps of illustration.

    I don't like Stanley's work, but I wouldn't dismiss it based on it looking like a child could do it (it's not actualy very child-like at all). I try to judge all art based on what the goal of the artist is, and how close they came to achieving that goal. It's much easier to critique representational stuff :D
     
  2. Write this day down. I'm agreeing with Sundogue and defending Paul Stanley's artistry in the same thread. :eek:

    It seems that the difference, based on the Paul Stanley bashing in this thread, is only a matter bloviated sophistry.

    Let's be honest folks, the Pollock piece that I referenced looks like a drop cloth that was used when painting a McDonalds in Keokuk.
     
  3. Sundogue

    Sundogue

    Apr 26, 2001
    Wausau, WI
    That is really the issue. In an "instant-gratification" society, generally people don't want to have to spend more than a second or two looking at something before reaping some reward from it. Our culture wants soundbites and flashy images that satisfy about as much as a McCheeseburger. YouTube over a full length motion picture. TB threads over a good book, and so on.

    Every great realist artist is, at his very core, a great abstract artist. He just takes that abstraction to the level where those abstract patterns and shapes are recognizable. Whereas an abstract artist is content with them staying raw and spontaneous.

    My 2 1/2 year old daughter and I draw together every day. She will draw something that is just pure expression on her part. She does it for her sake, with no forethought as to what others will think of it. And it is not for a lack of talent because even at her age, she is capable of drawing faces that are recognizable (from the day she first picked up a crayon she was holding it like she was an experienced artist, instead of the infant's typical choke-hold grip in her fist). But when we draw together, she will draw these abstract objects and I will instantly see something in them and then I take them further and create something recognizable out of it. It isn't necessary for me to take her work any further than she created it, to make it worthwhile. It is wonderfully brilliant just as it is. It's just something we do together.

    Most people cannot judge abstract art because it requires some thought on their part. They aren't willing to ponder on it, or look at it and daydream and eventually see something in those shapes and patterns. They only want to see something representational so they can instantly decide whether it is done poorly or well. They like to be critical and negative. Yeah, even they could do abstract art themselves they think. But they won't and really can't...because they can't see the forest for the trees.

    What I find most interesting is that while artists (or at least those who have an imagination) can immediately see something representational in abstract art, those that have not developed that creative part of their brain can only dismiss it as junk because they won't take the time to find something worthwhile in it. They want to be hit in the face with it. As a society, we have lost that child-like ability to daydream. That wonderful part inside of us that is willing to just stop time and enjoy life without expecting something in return.

    I see this on a regular basis as I teach art to beginners as well as advanced students. Even many artists I teach that have plenty of technical ability have very little inspiration or imagination going for them. They can copy something brilliantly, but have no conceptual skills whatsoever. Abstract artists are purely conceptual. And that is what most people cannot grasp.

    While I am mostly a realist painter and illustrator, and I do teach techniques, my workshops and individual lessons focus on inspiring people to get to the very heart of the artist within them. I tell people all the time that even at my very best, I am but a poor imitator of the ultimate Creator. Anyone can copy (and I include those that copy from "real" life) for that is simply technical ability. It takes real creative genius to make a powerful statement about life without putting down every little detail about the subject.

    Abstract artists take everything in life right down to the most simple (and quite obvious to those who can "see") and basic elements and leave it at that. Just because the observer isn't willing to see something worthwhile in it, doesn't mean the abstract art itself is not worthwhile. In fact, most statements about abstract art say more about the observer, than it does about the art itself. And perhaps that is the very reason abstract artists do what they do.

    I am a very good realist painter, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to like my work. Nor is it even important that anyone does. And furthermore, being a realist painter does not make my work anymore valid than an abstract artist's work. It is no different than music, where avant-garde or "earth" music (or even punk rock for example) is the abstract art and jazz or classical is the realism. Both have merit, whether you like either or not.

    A lack of understanding doesn't qualify one as a critic, though based on so many ignorant comments I read one would certainly think that is the only prerequisite.

    As is so often said, "I don't know art, but I know what I like". How true. But that means very little to anyone except the person saying it.
     
  4. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001

    Jun 17, 2004
    Ireland
    Well thats a nice critiuqe of everyones opinions. Whats your opinion on stanleys paintings. As seemingly the only person actually anyway qualified to do so.
     
  5. Sundogue

    Sundogue

    Apr 26, 2001
    Wausau, WI
    I'm not critiquing anyone's opinions. And no I am not the only one qualified to critique Stanley's paintings.

    I have yet to see much in the way of critiques from anyone. I read a lot of slams and put downs of it, but nothing to back those claims up other than to say it's crap and a waste of money. Hardly worthwhile.

    You want my critique of his work? I'll follow up this post with a critique.

    Oh, and by the way, your response to my post is about as thought provoking as the post's on Stanley's work. Take a little more time and think before you post.
     
  6. Sundogue

    Sundogue

    Apr 26, 2001
    Wausau, WI
    [​IMG]

    I see in this work, a metaphor for life. I see inclusion and exclusion. People milling about, coming and going through their daily life. But like life itself, some people are allowed into the inner circle, while some are kept out. Some of the insiders have great power or perhaps are the leaders as indicated by the brighter, more vivid yellow-orange. The ones who follow are darker, more subdued green or blue. Is the circle a stage? Hmm, I wonder.

    Perhaps this is just a simple painting (on the most base level) of an ice skating rink.

    Maybe it's a plate of breakfast sausages. :eyebrow:

    I like his use of color which gives it motion. The almost fluorescent purple seems to make the circle spin and help lead the eye about it.

    What does it mean? It will mean different things to different people, but alas most will see it as worthless junk from someone who plays dress up on a rock stage.

    To each his own.
     
  7. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001

    Jun 17, 2004
    Ireland
    Maybe not directly...

    My most posts weren't intended to be thought provoking none of my posts are. I'm not an artist and am barely a musician its something that will never click with me. I make facsimiles of other bass lines and I write bass lines to other peoples songs. It's a problem to solve not an artistry. I'm an engineer, a technical person. I find meaning in proof not endless beard stroking and meandering pontification. Trying to find meaning where there is none is an excersize in futility

    So to me sometimes a spade just has to be called a spade.
     
  8. Sundogue

    Sundogue

    Apr 26, 2001
    Wausau, WI
    I wasn't critiquing people's opinions, I was DIRECTLY calling them out. Go ahead and say you think something or someone sucks. Just don't be a coward about it and not explain yourself. Most people say something sucks because they don't understand it, or can't relate to it. It's OK to admit you don't understand something or it just doesn't speak to you, but to just say it sucks, says more about you than the object of your disgust.

    Why write or speak if you have nothing to say?

    There is meaning in everything or nothing has meaning.

    Calling a spade, a spade, still says nothing. Sometimes a spade is a shovel. Sometimes it's a suit. Artists interpret and know that although some things appear as either black or white, they are really shades of gray.
     
  9. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001

    Jun 17, 2004
    Ireland
    Ok if you must force it. I see the colours he used as harsh and garish sort of like getting a torch shone in your eyes. The lines and the circle remind me of when I started doing freehand sketches in technical graphics. Parallel lines and geometric shapes. Basic and do little to pull everything together to make a painting as a whole. I don't and won't find meaning in it. Maybe not an expert or enlightened opinion but I stand by it and my ignorant statements before hand.

    Sometimes I doodle geometric shapes, linking them together if I'm on the phone or not paying attention to something. A bit of a hangover from my technical graphics class I suppose. These aren't art they are just a bunch of shapes. There is no meaning or purpose. They are definitely spades. Maybe if I call them an antagonistic struggle between child hood and maturity I could sell them for a few grand.

    I could ask you the same question

    A broad generalisation but if they are the options(especially if related to this kind of art) ill choose nothing has meaning.

    Or so people would like to think
     
  10. ric1312

    ric1312 Banned

    Apr 16, 2006
    chicago, IL.
    lol
     
  11. Sundogue

    Sundogue

    Apr 26, 2001
    Wausau, WI
    See? And you thought you weren't thought provoking!

    You were the one who said you had nothing to say. If your words do not provoke thought, why say anything? To hear yourself? :confused:


    If nothing has meaning then why post here? Why bother living then? Just taking up space? ;)

    Yes, people not only would like to think. They do. Often, those thoughts do not match other's thoughts. Your not liking something doesn't guarantee no one else will. Now there's a problem for you to try and solve.
     
  12. The solution to that problem already exists. It's called "tolerance".
     
  13. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001

    Jun 17, 2004
    Ireland
    They provoked you didn't they...


    Like I said the idea is a generalisation. Like all generalisations it isn't wholly accurate.

    The solution: Whatever floats your boat ;)
     
  14. Sundogue

    Sundogue

    Apr 26, 2001
    Wausau, WI
    Well, see there...now we are finding some common ground to agree on. :cool:
     
  15. I don't care for Stanley's style of art. I'm not much of an art connoisseur to begin with, but I've seen far sillier looking things termed "art" before.
     
  16. Sundogue

    Sundogue

    Apr 26, 2001
    Wausau, WI
    I agree. Something that has been lacking in this thread, or about art in general (and that includes me too).
     
  17. Don't worry about it. Forgetting it is a worldwide phenomenon that is not reserved to the arts or internet forums ;)
     
  18. peterbright

    peterbright

    Jan 23, 2007
    On The Bayou
    If people buy it, more power to him.
     
  19. Sundogue

    Sundogue

    Apr 26, 2001
    Wausau, WI
    Well, his celebrity status certainly gives him a distinct marketing advantage. If it were Gene Simmons I'd think he did it for no other reason than money. But I find that most creative people aren't limited to only one form of art.

    I find a lot of jealousy and envy among those in the art world. Which I think is pretty silly. I wish all artists, in every field, great success.
     
  20. I'm guessing much of the ire in this thread is due to who the painter is. Let's face it, it really doesn't matter what he paints, people will buy it because of who he is.

    That said, I'm a casual fan of abstract and modern art. I know nothing other than what I like. None of the stuff I've seen from him in this thread inspires me.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.