The other one, though! Is it me or is this one somehow more cursed than the picture with the literal demon on it?
I mean, look. What’s up with this tiny fire? If you have a quote about surviving a fire by being more badass than the fire, you better have an impressive as fuck fire, otherwise I won’t be impressed. So you burned brighter than that barely sustainable flame in the sand you would be hard pressed to properly roast a marshmallow in? Like, wow.
The sky is brighter than the fire. The sky should not be brighter than the fire, obviously. Terrible composition. (Compare the Crowley version. Flaming like anything, that fire!)
The lighting on the model looks fake. It’s not light from the fire (because as we established, the fire is tiny and hiding in a hole on top of it). It’s orange enough to be from a sunset, but the sky is lightest behind the model, suggesting that’s where the sun would be, if it had not already set. The light on the rest of the sand in the background is a lot more blueish, supporting the theory that it’s past sunset. Conclusion: there’s a second fire next to the photographer that lights the scene, and they didn’t show us the cooler, bigger fire. No, the audience has to content with the tiny fire. We were cheated for the cooler fire, guys. (Alternatively, the light comes from an orange tinted lamp, but I’ll assume nobody drags a lamp to the beach.)
The model looks a lot weirder in this pose than Crowley. Understandable, after all she’ll have to make do with the correct number and arrangements of joints for a human body. Really, try sitting like this (hanging… slouching? I don’t even have a fitting word for this ridiculous pose). Her left foot is hardly on the ground weird as she’s pulling up this leg. It’s a miracle she’s not falling over. (Definitely a demonic miracle. Angels would not get involved in this type of thing.)
No pants but a thick knitted pullover. The pullover actually looks quite nice and warm. Not sure if it’s ideal beach wear, but, fine. But where are your pants, girl. If you can stand this warm pullover, your legs should be freezing. You’ll also get sand everywhere.
And that facial expression. I will allow the idea that it’s a sexy expression or bedroom eyes or whatnot and my ace ass can’t see it, so it just looks weird to me. But. Look at that million lightyears stare. Blank and distant. What did you see, pantless lady? (I am a little scared of the answer.)
I think I’ll give it 3/10. Nice fluffy looking pullover. Model has nice hair. Beach is a little boring, but pretty enough. Fire is rather disappointing. Model should a) go buy pants and b) see a doctor to make sure she didn’t damage any vital parts twisting like this.
Fear of Critiques and Attempting Photorealism - Draftsmen Podcast
Stan and Marshall discuss fearing critique but growing from it, finding a good balance with feedback, and what they think about photorealism. Marshall is teaching a workshop and Stan loves his shoes.
“Draftsmen” is available in audio. Subscribe on these platforms to keep up to date:
Wehrli’s lecture was based on his obsession with re-constructing famous pieces of artwork as he considers them ‘untidy’. He does this in such a way that completely alters the perception of the art and in turn makes a new meaning for itself.
Wehrli’s style was very tongue-in-cheek. It is clear that his work is based on humour by challenging what is to be considered as aesthetic value in a painting; especially when spatial awareness is concerned. He states that art has aesthetic 'clutter’ that in his opinon is uncomfortable to view or contemplate, and therefore the piece can be re-arranged and as a result, be returned to its 'original state’.
It is clear that Wehrli is aware of the linear structures within art, and with this he intends to re-organise the space within the frame so that the information that makes up the painting is clearly accessed. By this, he is not only re-arranging the composition, but is also drastically changing the aesthetic value, altering the purpose and creating another veil of meaning. This contribution not only mocks the visual content, but the concept and perception of the piece.
Artists whom he was most inspired by were, Vincent van Gogh, Jasper Johns, Donald Baechler, Paul Klee, Jackson Pollock and Rene Magritte, who’s work he continued to simplify and taunt.
“Its a bit more structured, it’s not too bad, this is Jasper Johns we can see he was practising with his ruler but I think it could benefit from some more discipline.” - Wehrli
(below) Rene Magritte, Jackson Pollock and Jasper Johns work have all been simplified and made into a more logical composition.
As for the actual presentation, Wehrli was clear and easy to understand (even with a heavy Swedish accent). He didn’t use a PowerPoint format to communicate his work, rather display easels and boards, which gave it more of a personal touch as it was not done through technological means.
Although the subject matter had no particular relevance to my own studio practice, I did find the talk enjoyable and less dictating than the others I have attended or reviewed.
Meade is an American artist who became famous for her paintings that were produced on live human models. Her innovative style challenges traditional painting methodologies, and forces the audience to question what a painting is and how important the subject within the image is.
Meade also takes the concept of ‘trompe-l'oeil’ (the process of making a three dimensional scene appear to be two dimensional) in her work as she applies the paint to the model and then photographs the finished piece.
“I can take a photograph from any angle and the scene will look 2-D.” - Meade
Meade states that her inspiration for this idea came from observing shadows, and a fascination with the absence of light and trying to preserve the shadow, trace it with the use of acrylic paint as a medium. She found it intriguing that the paint would not actually be noticable until the light shifted, and the object created a new shadow. I found it frustrating that Meade did not explain her reason for using acrylic paint, so I presume it is because of the quick drying and practical qualities.
Her notion developed to include how shadows are temporary, and have a temperament for movement, that they are never static. This constant motion is dependant on light and an object to create a shadow. Meade commented that rather than painting the shadow on a canvas, due to the flatness and immobile qualities, she would transfer the life onto her models and paint them instead.
An interesting development that this light and space took on was that her subjects were allowed to walk and go on with their daily lives. Meade actively followed the models, photographing her walking canvases as they interacted with the public.
Meade collaborated with artist Sheila Vand, using her as a subject within her imagery. By painting Vand semi-submerged in a bath of milk, Meade documented the 'unexpected’ results as her limbs became hidden and blended with the opaque backdrop. In my own opinion, I agree with Meade that this series of work entitled 'Activate’was more symbolic and an elegant progression of ideas.
For me, I can see my work involving aspects of painting practice again and not just representing my ideas through sculpture. By studying Meade’s style I can see how experimentation and use of the form can be a valid and ignorable asset.
“Turning people into paintings and painting on people in a pool of milk, you find the strange in the familiar. But to get this, you must look at what is below the surface, hiding in the shadows, looking beyond what has already been highlighted.” - Meade
