New York, 1:07 AM
Thu Dec 17
63 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
| posts about #elizabethpeyton more → |
Family Portrait |
Stella McCartney Feels Heather Mills' Pain... Or, You Know, Would Like To Inflict More? |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Jezebel 
03/03/09
03/02/09
Neither of those qualities is what I perceive in either Michelle or Sasha. I sense the passion involved in the act of creating the painting, but not the warmth of the subjects themselves - if that makes sense.
03/02/09
What would work better is to spend five days looking at thousands of photos and videos (if one cannot see the person in life) and then painting the portrait.
A photo freezes the subject in a way that flattens it completely. Why do you think great photographers are such nuts about lighting? It's because the only way to create depth in a photo is to ditz around with the lighting and then take millions of exposures to capture the one or two images that look right and then photoshop them.
Check out artists who specialize in photorealism and then look at one painting by van Gogh in Paris and one in Arles. Even in a textbook. When you look at the van Gogh paintings, you'll realize that they look different because he painted not just scenery unique to those places, but with the true light unique to those places.
In a technical sense in this painting besides lacking a sense of the completeness of Michelle Obama and Sascha you also see the flaw of the flatness of the painting such that it looks like Sascha is going to fall on the ground. I'm guessing that is not intentional on the part of the artist to create tension, but rather just her inability to add dimension within the restrictions of her medium and the photo.
03/02/09
I'd like to see it in person. Without a tactile sense of the brush strokes, impasto, texture, the history of the surface - it seems like some key elements of the humanity might be lost to me.
03/02/09
The weird thing about this painting to me is that it does capture a certain "rawness" in terms of style, but the "rawness" doesn't equal the sense of immediacy that the photo has. I am not familiar with this artist and hearing that all of her stuff looks more or less like this is discouraging. Good bad or indifferent it's not my taste.
That it was done in five days really doesn't express much to me one way or the other except maybe that helps it be raw. Like sushi. Or something.
03/02/09
Also, the fact that I had to write a graded memo on fair use my first year of law school made me despise 2 Live Crew.
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
Basically they parodyed "Pretty Woman" and it got all the way up to SCOTUS and it's the leading case on fair use, so it got imprinted on my brain in a most unpleasant way.
03/02/09
I really hadn't thought about it like that, but I do think she's right. Also, I love the painting.
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/03/09
03/02/09
I do like the composition of this image, I'd just rather see it as the original photo.
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
Something that is sweet, almost to the point of being sickeningly so. As a derogatory descriptive, it means something that is affectedly dainty or quaint, or is way too sentimental.
In American English it often refers to a type of simple sweet pop music, but in British English it is used much more widely for things that are nauseatingly cute or precious. It comes from the way the word sweet sounds when said in baby talk.
03/02/09
People who only paint from photo reference make me seriously wonder if they lack the chops to paint from life.
03/02/09
Thank you all. Now I do get it. It's a bit like "precious" but more so, yes?* And thank you all especially for taking my question as genuine and not sarcastic. Sometimes I come across the wrong way when I ask things like this.
*For example "precious" in "Precious Moments" collectibles.
03/02/09
But I agree with you. Even though I'm not a fan I am happy to see an artist with fans and making money.
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
Sorry to get all serious but as a professional I do feel it's doing a disservice to say art is entirely subjective. I know that you're saying that in defense of art but it's so often used as an excuse to attack artist's work as unprofessional or not worthwhile.
03/02/09
I do see your point about this painting and frankly I thought similar things about her paintings at first glance- from what I've seen she can't render a hand to save her life- but the strength of her work tends to be the stillness she captures, the color (or lack of color) that she employs, and, yes, the rawness of her images. Which can sometimes translate to looking amateurish.
Maybe it would be easier if the image were bigger- I think her work is better seen intimately and I think that how she intends it to be see.
Okay, done with the art talk. It's like a disease. :P
03/02/09
I really dislike when people tell me I have to appreciate all art. I really, really don't. Half of modern art is crap, but everyone is too chickenshit to stand up to it. (Note: HALF of modern art, not all.)
However, I think the SUBJECT matter, and the fact that you tend not to see First Lady portraits in anything other than a more classical style is what is drawing people's attention.
03/02/09
For example, elephants slapping paint on canvas is not art -- please to use money for elephant art supplies to give art instruction to children in elementary school.
03/02/09
03/02/09
"the product of the field is completely up to personal taste."
Not always, but sometimes.
It would make sense if we're talking realist art that strives to replicate real life and thus has some kind of technical standard.
But, um, with a lot of contemporary art, it's not about technique. Have you seen the scribbles that people obsess over and pay hundreds for? They're not realistic, they're not anatomically correct.
Look at Marc Johns ([www.marcjohns.com]). He has a huge following. Look at Quentin Blake. How do you "objectively" judge a person's art when their aesthetic is rooted in simplicity and, to put it quite plainly, doodling?
03/02/09
I agree with that. I just think people need to realize that a lot of this varies by taste. I know what I like and what I don't like, and I see it as opinion. Technically, a lot of fantasy art is very very good. But I hate it. I think it looks ridiculously stupid. I don't want to see vikings and dragons and wizards beautifully rendered.
03/02/09
03/02/09
"I gather that you are not a big modern art person. Looking at something like this, I'm not looking for incredible technical expertise, but rather an emotion or feeling that is evoked through extremely intentional use of elements. If it's rough looking, it's probably that way for a reason. The painting is not my favorite, but I do like how the splotchy tone of most of the painting is contrasted with cleaner and smaller strokes in the faces, drawing attention there and making you study their expressions. So there is definitely artistic skill and intent in this."
03/02/09
I think one (myself included) can certainly appreciate technical aspects of art without enjoying the piece as a whole, as you are describing. I also think one CAN be dismissive of an entire piece without being completely Philistine. What someone is going for and what someone achieves are often very different things. I just don't think this is a very successful piece. I relate a moment from the Golden Girls...
Blanche: Barbara, I picked up your first novel the other day.
Barbara Thorndyke: Ah, yes. "So Dark the Waves On Biscayne Bay"
[to Dorothy]
Barbara Thorndyke: I've grown so much as a writer since then.
Blanche: Well, I should hope so!
Dorothy: Blanche!
Barbara Thorndyke: [to Dorothy] It's alright
[patronisingly to Blanche]
Barbara Thorndyke: Did you have a problem with my book, dear?
Blanche: Yes, as a matter of fact I did, all those waves! Big waves. Little waves. Dark waves, rollin' in! Page after page! I had to take a Dramamine to get through chapter three!
Barbara Thorndyke: Blanche, the waves are a metaphor. You see, a metaphor...
Blanche: I know what a metaphor is, dear. I'm not a dummy.
03/02/09
My friend found a pair of stupid sunglasses at a thrift store and entered her "piece" into an art show at her college. It was accepted.
03/02/09
03/02/09
@vamusical: No, I actually like a lot of modern art. And a lot of modern art I don't like, but I understand why others do. So it's not that I don't "get" modern art. And I feel like every portrait I ever did had smaller strokes in the face, because that's what happens when you're not particularly good at painting faces and have to mess around a lot to make the painting look like the person you're trying to paint. Add small face strokes, sloppy body strokes, awkward posing that doesn't quite convey three dimensions and weight... high school. And that could be the point, but then I don't think it's "moving". But, like rodrigo13 said, maybe there's something I'm missing by not seeing her work in person.
@LaComtesse: Hah! Fantastic.
03/02/09
"Just cause I don't like it and don't think it really requires that much talent or creativity doesn't preclude it from being in the "this constitutes art" club."
This was not meant to be directed at Ms. Peyton. I'm not really a fan, but I definitely don't think she's without talent.
03/02/09
Welcome to the world of Art in the past 50 years. I liked it better when it was about technique rather than gimmick.
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
However, I don't think you can claim something isn't "art" because it uses rough strokes and skewed perspective, otherwise we wouldn't have Van Gogh or Picasso.
03/02/09
03/02/09
My experience has been more that young artists walk in with inadequate technical skills that they never bother to develop because their vision overrides the medium that they have failed to master. In this case someone mentioned that Peyton can't render a hand to save her life.
So do you think she has or has not reached the level where she can break the rules?
03/02/09
sorry to get all hippy on you, but who's to say elephants don't benefit from art, just as children do?
03/02/09
03/03/09
And no one ever says you have to appreciate ALL music to like music.
03/03/09
Kostabi doesn't always come up with the idea for the work, he doesn't create it and he doesn't even sign it himself, but he is the "artist" and it belongs to him. And it's really more doodling than anything else.
03/03/09
Where Peyton appears to fall short is that it's hard to tell if the rough strokes and skewed perspective her work (at least here) is intentional and conscious or just poor technique.
03/03/09
03/03/09
i'm not too keen on this painting, and i full-heartedly agree with your sentiment, but i don't think the technique vs. gimmick argument is applicable here.
if we were talking about damien hirsch, or kosuth, maybe even ed ruscha (the three of whom i happen to adore) it would seem more appropriate.
03/03/09
03/03/09
i think if you look around a little, you'll find something you jive with.
03/03/09
i'm sad i missed this thread!
03/03/09
Also, if this was a painting of a white person with faceless black people in the background, it would be called racist. Either that, or lazy.
03/03/09
03/02/09
I'm not sure where I stand on that issue, because I can clearly see both sides of the argument.
03/02/09
03/02/09
(If it were my photograph, I'd personally be flattered.)
03/02/09
The Fairey case is interesting because he has been sued on previous occasions and those cases seem much stronger than this current one. And it's not the photographer, it's the AP who is suing him, as they own the image.
But that's not new to art- Andy Warhol was sued for copyright infringement as well, though I seem to remember that he died before the case was decided.
BTW- I think Fairey's Obama portrait (which is hanging in my dining room) is NOT in violation, though some of his other commercial works might be. And as an artist I sincerely hope that he wins his case.
03/02/09
I hope Fairey wins too. That image is iconic.
03/02/09
I got so annoyed at the Boston Police and that kerfuffle that I haven't followed the copyright case since. (I love this city but jeez, could we look more provincial?!? But then, NYPD just arrested Poster Boy so maybe we're just part of a silly trend...)
03/02/09
For a pretty amusing (and family-oriented!) recap of the legal issues, I offer:
[www.colbertnation.com]