Jump to content

My Son's Art


Admin
 Share

Recommended Posts

My son Lachlan wants to be a graphic design artist when he leaves school and he is extremely good at it, so his teachers say and in fact get Lachlan to do pamphlets etc for the school.

 

However I am a bit worried about him.........

 

Here is a piece of art he has just drawn at school...we asked him what does it represent for you and he replied with "It's meant to be she is hiding away from happiness and her happiness is melting away"

 

[ATTACH]50277._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

Should I run for the Psychologist????????????????????????

 

Resized_20190903_113043.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will tell you a story when I first started at primary school...

 

The teacher noticed that I always painted in black so she was concerned. She spoke to my parents of her concern and together they felt that I should see an Education Dept Psychiatrist as it was felt that I had some very dark issues going on in my brain. After about 4 sessions at the Psychiatrist's clinic they put me in a room with a 2 way mirror. In the corner were a whole lot of paints all in different colours except there was no black paint. Apparently I am told that I lost it and screamed and cried. The plot thickened as they couldn't work it out. They tried again except they included the black paint of which I happily went over, grabbed the black paint and started painting.

 

To cut a long story short and after about 8 sessions they finally worked out what that sinister black paint issue was in my brain...

 

In the classroom I sat the furthest away from the paints so when it was paint time by the time I got to the paints, black was the only one left!!!!!!

 

Fantastic Education Dept Child Psychiatrist at work...I was moved closer to the paints where I happily painted each day in different colours

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things are never just black and white, but some artists say that those NON-colours should nor be used  at all. (particularly black) Adding black produces SHADES of a colour and white makes a tint. Black and white produce many shades of grey. Experts can be expert at many things including confusion.  Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a piece of art he has just drawn at school...

 

we asked him what does it represent for you

 

and he replied with "It's meant to be she is hiding away from happiness and her happiness is melting away"

 

[ATTACH]3204[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

I'd be worried about his mental health if he had said " he" and "his" instead of "she" and "her". As it is, he has drawn a generic female face as a means of depicting the consequence of hiding from chances to be happy. I'd be asking him which of his female friends is showing signs of unhappiness, and telling him to go and ask her "RUOK?". He must be a sensitive lad.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is, most true art just flows out of the subconsious. Most artists don't think a great lot about things while they're creating; they just cruise along in right brain mode. It's mainly left brain thinkers like art teachers and the money people in the game that stipulate the requirement of some great meaning or representation. Art schools have subjects like 'Art appreciation', which can be translated as learning the psycobabble and waffle of the left brainers and speaking to them in their language about your art. The reasoning there is that art on it's own doesn't cut it in the industry. A bit of waffle and babbling about it's inner meaning, and bingo!, you're an instant hit and your work stands a chance of selling.

 

One of the few artists who could gain fame and fortune while still plain talking was Pro Hart. I saw him interviewed once at his home in Broken Hill. The interviewer was trying to extract some arty farty grand meaning out of him to explain his work. Pro just said that he did it because he liked painting and it was good money. The interviewer was very disappointed. The artists all know that the industry runs on bs, but they have to play the game to be recognized.

 

Most schoolkids would probably just paint what they feel like, but would also be aware that the teacher will want some explanation for it. So a lot would just make that part up. I think some of the world's best art is done by primary and pre-schoolers and pinned to their Mum's fridge with magnets. It's raw, naive and totally charming. And from an artistic point of view, world class. When asked what it is, the answers are uncorrupted and honest, with no pressure felt to explain it in a standard format, nicely packaged way. They teach you that part as you get older.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the "offerings" one sees lately are having a lend of your  credibility limits. In a past era, to the question "what is art? a good reply was "what isn't?. Some cars  and motorbikes are really, really, Fugly as are some buildings (only the cladding has been changed to make a difference to the ugly box). Humans do make art but many are only pretending, I reckon as they have (or show) little talent.. I never quite made up my mind about Pro Hart (Kangaroos with spinning back legs) .On that  note  I have a Suparoo decal for the LHS of a V6Capri  (I had a couple of them in the past) I'm going to put on a sidecar  for the missus.

 

    Jack Absolom had a nice way of doing outback colours..and landscapes. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popular Art is what you are used to. If you learned to appreciate Art as a representation of landscape, or as a record of a person, then you will struggle to appreciate the work of artists depicting imaginary things.

 

Here's a landscape by the English landscape artist John Constable, and one by Salvador Dali:

 

[ATTACH]50281._xfImport[/ATTACH]   [ATTACH]50282._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

How do you judge which is better? Subject matter? Technique? Is either one "better" or are they simply different approaches to the same concept?

 

image.thumb.jpeg.a39abc7f72f9190420b8c333679f0f52.jpeg

image.jpeg.e14408afec43b33d2ac69a965ecc5879.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always believed that good art is that which make you think.

 

If I can look at a painting and read something into it, then it is art to me.

 

Being old school I really like Albert Namatjira paintings. they make me look harder at the landscape and I se things which I would not notice in real life.

 

Pro Hart did some wonderful stuff. His township scenes with stick like figures make me think, but some of his art is just black and nasty for me. The real good stuff is that which was shot from a cannon.

 

Aboriginal art just washes over me, I see nothing in it at all.

 

The two images above are ho hum. The left one looks like a European master, but too small to really see and the other is interesting, but again too small to work out anything although it looks interesting.

 

Of course art is like wine, full of experts who want to pull the wool over your eyes. Have you ever watched Fake or Fortune  on the TV. Just on the say so of an expert a painting can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars or be worthless. Never mind if the painting has merit.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Photography phased out landscape and portrait  work to a large extent so ART tended to become more"imaginative" and surreal. After all, all things are available to  those who search for new ways of expressing the imagination and that's as it should be. I always wonder why the borders are limited to right angled  frames. When you look  at anything out there with your eyes,  square defined frames don't happen.. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used photography for years as a means to produce imaginative pictures. You may not think they are art and I leave that up to you.

 

My photos were produced in the darkroom, both as Black and white images and colour. Photographers used to produce other than rectangular images way back.

 

The picture above looks as if the artist was frightened in a cane field.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't claiming he did. And he didn't pinch it from Heinkel.

 

However, Beverley Shenstone, RJ Mitchell's aerodynamic advisor denied that the Spitfire wing was copied from the He 70. Shenstone said:

 

 

It has been suggested that we at Supermarine had cribbed the wing shape from that of the He 70 transport. This was not so. The elliptical wing had been used on other aircraft and its advantages were well known. Our wing was much thinner than that of the Heinkel and had a quite different section. In any case it would have been simply asking for trouble to have copied a wing shape from an aircraft designed for an entirely different purpose.

 

 

 

All I was saying was that the drawings themselves were a permanent representation of a mental image in the drawer's mind. Like any such permanent representation, don't they fall within the definition of a "work of Art"?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a bit too much is read into claims of copying in aircraft design. Most worked from known theory and design, and most aircraft building nations were working on similar things at the same time. If you wanted to build a new brand of car, you wouldn't waste time trying to re-invent wheels for it.

 

But I would agree the Spitfire is a work of art.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't claiming he did. And he didn't pinch it from Heinkel...

 

Sorry to be misunderstood, OME, but neither was I. I was just trying to correct the common misconception that Mitchel's wing design was revolutionary.

 

As quoted in my link, Mitchell was very impressed by the He 70 and wrote to Heinkel praising his design. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...