Art sharing/critique site?

[01010101010101101010101010]

I (and I assume many other artists) am in need of a resource which will allow me to post my work and have awesome people like you share opinions and criticism. Does such a website exist already? Or shall we make one here? 

[TheStranger]

I think your artist statement "My work explores the existential clash between human frailty and the global trauma we create" is too general.  You want to say something with your statement more profound than what we already know, otherwise why say it at all.  Imagine there was a gallery show with that statement as it's theme and they chose you to be apart of it.  If so, what would your statement read then?  Define your art and make it personal versus using poetic words.  

 

Your drawings should escape the art classroom feel and I don't think you should include them on your website.  The less "school" in your art the better you're off.  What your website tells me is that you like studying the art of representation and anatomy and that you know there is trauma in a fragile world---this is similar to a lot of representational artists.  Artists have painted figures forever, such as Rembrandt(1606-1669), and artists have painted scenes of a fragile world in turmoil, such as Picasso(1881-1973).  What are you trying to say with your art that others have not done before you?  These are questions you should ask yourself.    

[01010101010101101010101010]

I think your artist statement "My work explores the existential clash between human frailty and the global trauma we create" is too general.  You want to say something with your statement more profound than what we already know, otherwise why say it at all.  Imagine there was a gallery show with that statement as it's theme and they chose you to be apart of it.  If so, what would your statement read then?  Define your art and make it personal versus using poetic words.  

 

Your drawings should escape the art classroom feel and I don't think you should include them on your website.  The less "school" in your art the better you're off.  What your website tells me is that you like studying the art of representation and anatomy and that you know there is trauma in a fragile world---this is similar to a lot of representational artists.  Artists have painted figures forever, such as Rembrandt(1606-1669), and artists have painted scenes of a fragile world in turmoil, such as Picasso(1881-1973).  What are you trying to say with your art that others have not done before you?  These are questions you should ask yourself.    

 

These are valid points which I've also been considering. The statement changes so frequently that I've sort of plugged that in as a very general summary, also as a means to remind myself where next to take it. I have probably written twenty statements over the past few years and none have fully encapsulated what I feel. Honestly it seems more difficult to create than the work itself. My art is drummed up from anxieties regarding militarism, dying, consumerism, isolation, oppression, and erratic violence. All of these things I feel and try to mediate through painting. How the f*** can I do it more effectively, and verbalize it? Truly a hair-pulling existence. 

 

The drawings are not very good and I've since removed them. Don't really want to add more because we both know they were weighing down the paintings. Thanks for the nudge

 

I have also tried moving away from figures unless I find them necessary to the idea being represented. In retrospect, I was simply inputting figures because I enjoyed painting them, a reason that no longer flies with me. There is a desperate urge in me to take this to the next level, whatever that may be. 

[douchamp]

As far as art sites that are dedicated to contemporary art this is as good a site as any. I haven't actually used this site or contributed thus far, but from what I have read so far, the critiques that are offered are geared for people interested in fine art.

 

So for the critique part 

 

General critique 

 

I agree with what you've said in reflecting on the work you made that is encapsulated by your artist statement. Most of all, I think the figures are getting in your way. Your technical interests are obstructing your conceptual interests. The figures often feel rigidly inserted into the work to communicate your ideas. What I think you should do is either make your technical interests your conceptual interests or pursue your concepts more directly. A compromise between the two doesn't work.

 

Not only that, but you have a painterly approach to depicting your subjects which I believe is inappropriate. Think about how politics and escalated conflicts are represented in modern society. There is a clinical, removed sense you get - a very pronounced divide between spectator-ship and participation. Your approach is concerned too much with the artist's indelible mark.  I think a more neutral mark - or lack of a mark - and a limited palette would work stylistically. You should also look at film stills and medical photography of war casualties and really question painting's relationship to it.

 

So for a less general critique. 

 

The painting Venus of Tikrit. My problem with the painting is its lack of subtlety. Everything is so overt. The title obviously references the history of classical painting, and the status of nude women in it. To contrast that you have a nude Iraqi woman wearing a Hijab who has been viciously maimed. Already there is this discussion of war, politics, culture, religion, and gender. The woman is identified as "Venus" (a signifier for erotic beauty and aesthetics among other things) which is in direct contrast to the utility of the veal - which is the preservation of modesty. Then you have these stars in the background and explosions, which I take to represent America's place in the overall conflict and partially the cause of the woman being disfigured. The way the figure is positioned in the picture recalls a figure drawing class in how rigidly it is treated in the composition.  

 

See, there's little room for the viewer to insert himself in. I think you can go further by making the picture more suggestive than overt and also have more for the viewer to think about. In this painting in particular, I sense that your approach is closer to an illustrator than a painter in how you visualize your ideas. As of now, I think your being too heavy handed in presenting your themes.

 

[01010101010101101010101010]

As far as art sites that are dedicated to contemporary art this is as good a site as any. I haven't actually used this site or contributed thus far, but from what I have read so far, the critiques that are offered are geared for people interested in fine art.

 

So for the critique part 

 

General critique 

 

I agree with what you've said in reflecting on the work you made that is encapsulated by your artist statement. Most of all, I think the figures are getting in your way. Your technical interests are obstructing your conceptual interests. The figures often feel rigidly inserted into the work to communicate your ideas. What I think you should do is either make your technical interests your conceptual interests or pursue your concepts more directly. A compromise between the two doesn't work.

 

Not only that, but you have a painterly approach to depicting your subjects which I believe is inappropriate. Think about how politics and escalated conflicts are represented in modern society. There is a clinical, removed sense you get - a very pronounced divide between spectator-ship and participation. Your approach is concerned too much with the artist's indelible mark.  I think a more neutral mark - or lack of a mark - and a limited palette would work stylistically. You should also look at film stills and medical photography of war casualties and really question painting's relationship to it.

 

So for a less general critique. 

 

The painting Venus of Tikrit. My problem with the painting is its lack of subtlety. Everything is so overt. The title obviously references the history of classical painting, and the status of nude women in it. To contrast that you have a nude Iraqi woman wearing a Hijab who has been viciously maimed. Already there is this discussion of war, politics, culture, religion, and gender. The woman is identified as "Venus" (a signifier for erotic beauty and aesthetics among other things) which is in direct contrast to the utility of the veal - which is the preservation of modesty. Then you have these stars in the background and explosions, which I take to represent America's place in the overall conflict and partially the cause of the woman being disfigured. The way the figure is positioned in the picture recalls a figure drawing class in how rigidly it is treated in the composition.  

 

See, there's little room for the viewer to insert himself in. I think you can go further by making the picture more suggestive than overt and also have more for the viewer to think about. In this painting in particular, I sense that your approach is closer to an illustrator than a painter in how you visualize your ideas. As of now, I think your being too heavy handed in presenting your themes.

 

I agree with the comment on the venus. It is overtly blatant and leaves little room for interpretation, a revelation I was unable to see until after publicizing the painting and viewing it in a more subjective format. I continue to feel like my paintings are undergrad, as if I must see them in this format to realize my next move forward, or to see how juvenile and literal they really are. Because when it's just the painting and myself in a room together it feels brilliant! Then I see it on my website and think what the fuck am I doing? 

 

I disagree with your comment about painterly-ness though. Part of me wishes to disarm this clinical approach used in documentation, like this or that casualty is an accessory in the image, as if there wasn't a human being recently attached to that corpse. By showing the paint I'm attempting to connect myself empathically to the deceased, like saying it's OK to let my human hand be seen while trying to find a connection to a dead person. I now see that my attempt have been unsuccessful, something part of me knew at the time but required criticism to fully realize. This is why I continue to feel like an undergrad. But it's also why I know I need to keep working to see it through. 

 

I really appreciate your thoughts, they are instrumental in helping me push forward. 

[douchamp]

Even if you disagree with all my other opinions in this post, please consider this one. I think you already have technical facility but I think where your struggling at is how your presenting the issues. I think an appropriate challenge for you would be to see how much you can communicate and obscure at the same time. That is, see how much violence and intensity you can communicate without showing/explicating it. No blood, gore, limbs, scarring. I want to see how much of the same conversation you can have by removing the shock value of it.

 

I think the flaw I identify in your work is one where your doing the job of the viewer. That is, your framing questions but answering them as well. I don't think you should necessarily pretend as if you completely lack a political/moral stance but you should be more mindful that viewer is supposed to arrive at their own answers unaided. 

 

 

 

About the painerliness

I can't help but feel that painterliness derails your message. Think of it in terms of novelists. Some novelists are concerned
with conveying the story over all else, others primarily privilege how the story is told over all else. Painterliness is too concerned with how a statement is rendered to be concerned with the political realities that your attempting to explore. Imagine if James Joyce rewrote the communist manifesto. It would be too preoccupied with language games for readers to take away its political content.

 

Another issue I have is that I am skeptical of the ability to empathize by painting in your manner. When I see your paintings and how your doing them, the first thing I think isn't "this is someone who paints to pose unsettling questions", I think "this is someone who paints for no other reason than that they simply love to paint. Now, this isn't a good or bad thing but it's a trade off. It's difficult for me to get around the suspicion I have that these paintings were simply fun for you to produce - that you enjoyed making them and handling the paint because you ultimately find the activity fulfilling. In short, painterliness is too indulgent for what your trying to communicate and I think it betrays your stated goal of trying to empathize with the victim. The sense experience one derives from painting in such a manner and the sense experience of having limbs blown off are totally incompatible. What you get out of painting isn't what they got out of becoming a casualty. 

 

Contrarily, I believe that it would be more emotionally affecting/unsettling to try to paint in such a detached manner. Both for you, who would have to wrestle with questions of empathy and for the viewer who would be unnerved  by an ostensible indifference - maybe even a sense of powerlessness - to effect change. I also think it's more telling that you flatly refused to paint in such a clinical way. I think that made you uncomfortable.

Edited July 27, 2013 by douchamp

[01010101010101101010101010]

Even if you disagree with all my other opinions in this post, please consider this one. I think you already have technical facility but I think where your struggling at is how your presenting the issues. I think an appropriate challenge for you would be to see how much you can communicate and obscure at the same time. That is, see how much violence and intensity you can communicate without showing/explicating it. No blood, gore, limbs, scarring. I want to see how much of the same conversation you can have by removing the shock value of it.

 

I think the flaw I identify in your work is one where your doing the job of the viewer. That is, your framing questions but answering them as well. I don't think you should necessarily pretend as if you completely lack a political/moral stance but you should be more mindful that viewer is supposed to arrive at their own answers unaided. 

 

 

 

About the painerliness

I can't help but feel that painterliness derails your message. Think of it in terms of novelists. Some novelists are concerned

with conveying the story over all else, others primarily privilege how the story is told over all else. Painterliness is too concerned with how a statement is rendered to be concerned with the political realities that your attempting to explore. Imagine if James Joyce rewrote the communist manifesto. It would be too preoccupied with language games for readers to take away its political content.

 

Another issue I have is that I am skeptical of the ability to empathize by painting in your manner. When I see your paintings and how your doing them, the first thing I think isn't "this is someone who paints to pose unsettling questions", I think "this is someone who paints for no other reason than that they simply love to paint. Now, this isn't a good or bad thing but it's a trade off. It's difficult for me to get around the suspicion I have that these paintings were simply fun for you to produce - that you enjoyed making them and handling the paint because you ultimately find the activity fulfilling. In short, painterliness is too indulgent for what your trying to communicate and I think it betrays your stated goal of trying to empathize with the victim. The sense experience one derives from painting in such a manner and the sense experience of having limbs blown off are totally incompatible. What you get out of painting isn't what they got out of becoming a casualty. 

 

Contrarily, I believe that it would be more emotionally affecting/unsettling to try to paint in such a detached manner. Both for you, who would have to wrestle with questions of empathy and for the viewer who would be unnerved  by an ostensible indifference - maybe even a sense of powerlessness - to effect change. I also think it's more telling that you flatly refused to paint in such a clinical way. I think that made you uncomfortable.

 

I don't disagree with you necessarily. I'm somewhat blown away by your assessment; it's like you have put my own obscure thoughts into words. I think you're absolutely spot-on, I am struggling most in my presentation. Whereas I know what my content is, I am still unsure of how to use it (or understand all of its many implications). The logic behind my acute imagery was something like "i'm disgusted, so you should be too!" It's an angsty, rather impatient way of composing an image and I thought it was a strength at the start of many of these paintings. Now I feel the opposite: it's weak, too narrow, too authoritarian. As much as I want to hold the world responsible for its atrocities, I don't think sabotaging my own art is the correct way to do it. Doing the viewer's job indeed! 

 

I laughed when you said you made me uncomfortable because I think there's truth to that. I think I've been bullshitting myself this whole time, trying to justify unfinishedness as a mode of chaotic emphasis. I still don't know how to make good art. The good-feel-painting you mentioned is probably accurate. 

 

I've also come to a realization that there isn't enough of me in my recent work. I've been focusing entirely on others, on bigger nastier ideas and almost completely removing myself while missing the point altogether. They do look like illustrations and that is not my goal. 

 

I hope you didn't read my reply as defensive because I'm thrilled to be having this conversation with you. 

[20koosya13]

Hey everyone, I'm new here and am working on putting together my portfolio and application for Fall 2014. It's all very chaotic for me, especially since I've been teaching English abroad for the past two years and will be applying to schools pretty much upon my return to the US this winter. Other than friends from home and my professors from my undergrad once in awhile, I really haven't been able to get a lot of good criticism. My portfolio thus far is here: 

 

• http://be.net/colleensmith

 

Please give some unbiased, harsh criticism. It would be much appreciated :-) Schools that I am most definitely applying to include:

 

NYAA

LCAD

Rutgers

Missouri U

 

thanks!

[tincanevening]

douchamp's observations make a lot of sense to me. I do want to have to do more work when I view yours! 

 

Check out Elizabeth Neel. Her work is abstract, and I definitely relate to it, but you might, too. There's a lot of violence to her work, but it's anything but literal. 

 

Indefinite Detention informs me with its title, but maintains a sense of mystery, which I value a lot. In Obstruction, I think a simplified green rectangle furiously, almost hastily painted would be a lot more powerful.

 

I don't disagree with you necessarily. I'm somewhat blown away by your assessment; it's like you have put my own obscure thoughts into words. I think you're absolutely spot-on, I am struggling most in my presentation. Whereas I know what my content is, I am still unsure of how to use it (or understand all of its many implications). The logic behind my acute imagery was something like "i'm disgusted, so you should be too!" It's an angsty, rather impatient way of composing an image and I thought it was a strength at the start of many of these paintings. Now I feel the opposite: it's weak, too narrow, too authoritarian. As much as I want to hold the world responsible for its atrocities, I don't think sabotaging my own art is the correct way to do it. Doing the viewer's job indeed! 

 

I laughed when you said you made me uncomfortable because I think there's truth to that. I think I've been bullshitting myself this whole time, trying to justify unfinishedness as a mode of chaotic emphasis. I still don't know how to make good art. The good-feel-painting you mentioned is probably accurate. 

 

I've also come to a realization that there isn't enough of me in my recent work. I've been focusing entirely on others, on bigger nastier ideas and almost completely removing myself while missing the point altogether. They do look like illustrations and that is not my goal. 

 

I hope you didn't read my reply as defensive because I'm thrilled to be having this conversation with you. 

Edited August 1, 2013 by tincanevening

[lenavin]

Hello

 

I am very new here and to paintings also. I have read almost over 20 pages of Visual section and learned a lot from you.

 

I wish to get your precious advices.

 

I am exactly what Douchamp described below and I am into the introspecting process to find what really I am concerned/obsessed with. But in the mean time I just enjoy painting.

 

However I really want to take an MFA , since I am  amateur, I don't aim high but want to be educated to be able pursue my passion as now my condition allows me.

 

I would highly appreciate your harsh raw criticisms if I can apply after some years preparing and which schools should fit me as I plan to visit and talk some schools this October.  

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/100261846@N02/

 

Thanks a million

 

 

 

I think "this is someone who paints for no other reason than that they simply love to paint. ...... - that you enjoyed making them and handling the paint because you ultimately find the activity fulfilling.

[Moonhart44]

I would also like critique.  Mind you, these pictures are not the clearest, but please disregard that.  I am going to take better pictures once a camera is available to me.  I just really want to know if my art is good enough in both technique and concept.  I want to be considered innovative, but am yet unsure.  

 

http://harderthangraphene.tumblr.com/

Edited November 5, 2013 by Moonhart44