Thursday, September 11, 2014

Art Out Loud


Above: Dan dos Santos and David Palumbo. Photos by Greg Preston

This Saturday at the Society of Illustrators, Irene Gallo and  Kate Feirtag will be hosting Art Out Loud in conjunction with the Spectrum Exhibition. MC's Dan dos Santos and Dave Palumbo along with Julie Bell and Charles Vess will be painting live all afternoon and answering questions from the audience. This is a great opportunity to watch artists at the top of their game work. Hit this link to purchase tickets (proceeds go to the Society's student scholarship fund).




Above: David Palumbo


Above: Julie Bell


Above: Charles Vess

20 comments:

  1. Somebody went mental with Photoshop on those photos. Dan dos Santos looks like a 3D model.
    Also, $50 (non-members ticket) could be better spent on some 19 century books on painting, composition and philosophy of art. If this is "Top" of fantastic illustration today, then we have lost a lot of knowledge indeed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ales,

      A wonderful photographer named Greg Preston took those photos. He and his partner actually specifically remarked how they did not need to photoshop me. I guess I just look like a 3D model! (Which may be due to the fact I was sweaty from packing up my convention space).

      As for the ticket price;
      I'm really sorry to hear that you think seeing 4 well established artists paint, right in front of you, answering all your question for 4 hours, is worth less than a single book.

      But if learning from books has been more beneficial than learning from life for you... by all means, keep at it. This event obviously wasn't intended for you.

      It's also worth noting that we've lost more than just knowledge since the 19th century.
      Apparently, manners are long gone too.

      Delete
    2. Ales - As the owner of many great 19th century art books, but also a past attendee of Art Out Loud I can say that it is worth spending the $50 for Art Out Loud. It is inspiring and informative and I know that all the artists attending are generous with their information and time.

      Besides, this is a live event. Once it is gone, it is gone. Most likely any book you are desiring will still be there for purchase at a later date.

      Lastly, don't be rude. Your last sentence is uncalled for. It is not constructive. Many opinions other than yours hold these artists in high esteem.

      That reminds me of this article: http://muddycolors.blogspot.com/2014/08/if-you-dont-have-haters-youre-doing-it.html

      Dan - Well done! How many polygons are you pushing these days? ;)

      Delete
    3. Man...
      I'd drop $50 in a heart beat just to watch them work. I wouldn't even ask questions, I don't paint but am fascinated at how they get the final product. Plus it ain't like $50 is all that much money these days... More or less chump change anymore.

      Delete
    4. Dan, is there a recording of the live demonstration somewhere online? I hope you find this comment.

      Delete
    5. Audio,
      I do not believe so. They have done it in the past, but I didn't notice any video cameras this time.

      Delete
  2. Dan and Howard, it's a shame you had to make the comments you did. You just brought yourselves down to Ales' level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ces - I appreciate you responding because I believe that in most cases the exchange of opinions is beneficial. I thought I responded with both information, opinion based on experience and then addressed what I thought was a rude comment. Do you feel that the best response would have been to not respond at all or is there a different approach you would have taken?

      Sincerely,
      Howard

      Delete
  3. Dan: A wonderful photographer named Greg Preston took those photos. He and his partner actually specifically remarked how they did not need to photoshop me. I guess I just look like a 3D model! (Which may be due to the fact I was sweaty from packing up my convention space).

    Your photo has silky smooth, polished magazine style look, there is something very unnatural and processed about it. If'm I'm wrong about Photoshop (and I take that back) then the artificiality was achieved some other way. I just know that humans do not look like that.

    Dan: I'm really sorry to hear that you think seeing 4 well established artists paint, right in front of you, answering all your question for 4 hours, is worth less than a single book.

    ($50 will get you more than one book, those old reprints are cheap)

    Worthiness isn't necessarily established by the amount of time and physical presence, It is established by the value of the knowledge received. So yes, a single book can possess more valuable knowledge than some artists will in their lifetime.

    Howard Lyon: Besides, this is a live event. Once it is gone, it is gone. Most likely any book you are desiring will still be there for purchase at a later date.

    That is true. But my comment wasn't really about the money, it was about my lack of appreciation, about my disappointment with the fact that Bell or Santos could be considered top fantastic illustrators. I enjoy fantastically imaginative worlds and characters, but in order to gain any meaningful artistic experience from it (that I can take back to real life) I have to reach into the past. Look at the fantastic art from Caravaggio, Rubens and Rembrandt to Goya, Delacroix and many Romantics, look at the great american illustration from Pyle, Wyeth and Everett to Fawcett, to Frazetta, Jones, etc. They wanted to know about life and managed to get a grip on fundamentals of nature, on relative importance of things, on balance and order, and consequently turned paint into magic by expressing these truths. That's why their works are still meaningful and inspiring today, they have integrity and honesty about them.

    Boris didn't learn anything from Frazetta and neither did Julie Bell. And Santos didn't learn from all those artists mentioned above. They are all providers of generic kitsch and in my opinion can not be considered "top" under the same artistically critical standards that we apply to the great fantasy illustrators of the past. It would be insulting to them. We can consider Julie to be top only if we acknowledge lower artistic standards.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Howard Lyon: Your last sentence is uncalled for. It is not constructive. Many opinions other than yours hold these artists in high esteem.

    My first sentence was uncalled for (about Photoshop), my last sentence was the heart of the matter - If Julie or Santos are "Top of fantastic illustration" today, then we have lost a lot of knowledge. Christ, just look at Julie's fake barbarians that look like steroid bodybuilders that float outside of the context of the illustration's narrative, or traced, time frozen models performing fake poses and gestures, look at all those unimaginative and generic fantasy worlds and lack of narrative composition, razzle dazzle of saturated glowy colors and shiny, polished surfaces. Her inability to mentally experience those scenarios degrades her work to sterile technique and severe lack of life reaffirming content. Instead of developing the power of seeing she acquired a stock of set phrases. I don't even want to start on Santos.

    Howard Lyon: That reminds me of this article: http://muddycolors.blogspot.com/2014/08/if-you-dont-have-haters-youre-doing-it.html

    I guess it does. I was stupid enough to open my mouth even tho I knew what would happen and I knew this couldn't lead to anything meaningful. We are incompatible. I'm just tired of being unable to enjoy the vast majority of today's fantasy illustrators and the fact that artists like Julie or Santos are providing educational gatherings kind of agitated me.

    Ignore me and carry on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can only imagine how much it agitates you. Yet, for some reason you still read our blog.

      Delete
    2. That's a childish way of making an implication that I don't really believe what I wrote.
      But the truth is you're not the only contributor on this blog, for example I find Arnie Fenner's writings about publishing and industry interesting and I enjoy Gregory Manchess posts.

      Delete
  5. Ahem. Clearly SOME commenters here havent read my post on being nasty on the internet. We are above nastiness and personal attacks on MC, thankyouverymuch

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here's a link so you can study up: http://muddycolors.blogspot.com/2014/08/if-you-dont-have-haters-youre-doing-it.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lauren Panepinto, I'm aware of your post and it's a funny reading, but it's comprised of generalized judgements, stereotyping, misinterpreting, etc and so I don't think it can be used as a proof or an argument here. I also don't agree with your use of the term troll - trolls are not all the people who express negative opinions, even the ones who upset people with hard words. Trolls are a certain kind of people whose deliberate intention is to provoke and upset and they do that by using bates that even they do not necessarily believe in (because their sole intention is provocation by itself)

    Btw, your rules kind of exclude each other sometimes. You wrote that "the only place it is safe to read universally positive comments is here on Muddy Colors" and explained the reason for that with the second rule: "Honestly the better a piece is, generally the nastier the comments are." So what do all these positive comments around here tell you about the pieces on this blog? I'm kidding! :)

    Seriously tho, you wrote that the reason for negative comments is: jealousy. That's a naive statement that has a purpose to pat yourself on the back, while it has no real argumentative value. And "reading negative comments as a badge of honor" can be self delusional if you do not possess the critical ability to properly understand the negative comments. Its true that most negative comments on the internet are worthless garbage. But the internet is full of useless positive comments too. You should write a post about the worthiness of empty and clueless praises, of positively wrapped lack of argumentation and constructive criticism, political correctness, of euphemisms, of self censorship for the sake of being accepted somewhere, of surrounding yourself with a fanbase and yes sayers, etc. I appreciate positive atmosphere and good manners, but I also think Muddy Colors is such a "universally positive" place, as you said, because of lack of real diversity of critical thoughts too.

    But as I said, I understand this place and I haven't opened my mouth until yesterday when I had my moment of weakness. I'll crawl back to my lair now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was away at the Spectrum reception and the Art Out Loud demo and didn't see the reaction to what I thought to be a very innocuous informational post until now and thought I'd, in turn, respond.

    1] As hard as it is to believe, the photos by Greg Preston of Dan and Dave are unaltered. No Photoshop: they're exactly the way Greg shot them at Spectrum Fantastic Art Live 3 last May in the booth we set up for him on the floor (they were printed out and displayed immediately after they were shot: mine, unfortunately, looks exactly like me, which makes me wish Greg had been using Photoshop). Anyone can see more of Greg's excellent photography in his book, THE ARTIST WITHIN as well as in SPECTRUM 21 in November. And, of course, anyone who has met Dan knows that he's just as pretty in person as he is in Greg's photo.

    2] The comment made "at the top of their game" was a straight forward observation: it's not a comparison to other artists or an attempt to elevate Dan, Dave, Julie, and Charles above others but merely points out that they know what they're doing as artists, they do it extremely well, and they're respected by peers, clients, and the public. Their credentials are well established and don't need defending. (Though, since Frank was mentioned, I will point out that Frazetta had the utmost regard for Julie as a painter and said so on more than one occasion. I've got a photo of them together at Comic Con that I'll post sometime.)

    3] The most important aspect of Art Out Loud that seems to have been ignored is that each $50 ticket sale (the cost was slightly less for members of the SoI) went to the student scholarship fund. All the money will be given out as scholarships to art students in the Spring to help offset the cost of their educations. It helps promising students who need help. Dan, David, Julie, and Charles donated their time for free; they painted live, they answered questions, they offered advice without any expectations of a return. They were helping the students who will benefit from the scholarships in a few months as well as helping the artists present who were looking for advice and tips. That altruism is nothing to criticize.

    4] It has always been my policy to not publicly disparage the work of other artists. I can dish dirt with the best of them when I'm yakking with friends privately over beers, but saying the same thing in a public forum? I won't. There is no artist living or dead, classic or contemporary, fine artist or illustrator, of whom someone someplace has not said something derogatory about, either with justification or without. It's human nature…but it's still something that makes me very sad when it occurs.

    If anyone wants to take issue with this original post, the images, and the wording, blame ME. I'm responsible. But don't use it as an excuse to take a shot at a batch or artists who were only supporting a good cause.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And, naturally, there's a typo in my last sentence, which should read "...don't use it as an excuse to take a shot at a batch OF artists who were only supporting a good cause." Which is worth repeating, anyway. :-)

    ReplyDelete