never-ending gallery

[LisaLCFan]

the fab four

Nice! I've always loved the Beatles!

[Geoffrey]

LisaLCFan wrote:
>Nice! I've always loved the Beatles!
--------------
thanks, me too. it was nice to see the pleasant exchange between you and B4real too.

a lady who invited me into her home some days ago.

[LisaLCFan]

...a lady who invited me into her home...

Did she, now? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more!

[Geoffrey]

LisaLCFan wrote:
>Did she, now? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more!
-----
a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, 'tis true - but this one's not a goer.

on a more serious note . . .
"war does not determine who is right, only who is left." -bertrand russell

[199Dan]

LisaLCFan wrote:
>Did she, now? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more!
-----
a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, 'tis true - but this one's not a goer.

on a more serious note . . .
"war does not determine who is right, only who is left." -bertrand russell
255.jpg
254.jpg

Where's the drawing of trump?

[Geoffrey]

199Dan asked:
>Where's the drawing of trump?
-------
hello. why do you ask this?

it's always nice when someone takes an interest in these images. people frequently ask for specific pictures, but the problem is that there is no guarantee that the result will be satisfactory. in fact there is a very good chance that it will fall way below expectations, and that will put both myself and the other person in an embarrassing situation. this is why it is far better for someone to comment on a picture that already exists.

when making pictures it is important for one to have the freedom to include something of oneself - for otherwise there is little point in doing it. billie holiday said: "if i'm going to sing like someone else, then i don't need to sing at all." - and that could also equally apply to other forms of creativity. should i make a picture after someone's request, there could easily arise unnecessary potential for disappointment. having said that, i am not afraid of conflict, but it needs to be of my own making, and not the result of an unsuccessful attempt to satisfy a request.

this brings to mind something american writer joyce carol oates said: "my belief is that art should not be comforting; for comfort, we have mass entertainment and one another. art should provoke, disturb, arouse our emotions, expand our sympathies in directions we may not anticipate and may not even wish."

also, should i draw someone's portrait, it shouldn't be interpreted as a political statement or preference. faces intrigue me, regardless of who they belong to. drawing faces is what i do, is what a lot of people do. why not have a go? it takes effort, patience, luck and enthusiasm. aldo 'the apache' was onto something when he said: "you know how you get to carnegie hall, don't ya? - practice!"

[LisaLCFan]

...american writer joyce carol oates said: "my belief is that art should not be comforting; for comfort, we have mass entertainment and one another. art should provoke, disturb, arouse our emotions, expand our sympathies in directions we may not anticipate and may not even wish."

Oh, no, not that horrible quote again!  You trot that out on a regular basis as if it is some kind of universal truth about art. It isn't.

From William Blake's "Auguries of Innocence":

Some are born to sweet delight,
Some are born to endless night.

(And, I would add, Some are born somewhere in between!)

There is no one way to define art, just as there is no one way to define a person:  art comes in many forms and styles, as do the people who create it and as do the people who enjoy it.  If Oates and others enjoy discomforting, disturbing, dark, negatively provocative and violent art, then so be it, they can go right on ahead and make it and enjoy it. But, there are a lot of people who prefer the opposite things (in art and in everything else!), and they may create and enjoy art that is comforting and beautiful, that expresses the joy and delight and wonder of life and the world and the universe, and the positive side of humanity.

It is arrogant and pretentious and ignorant for someone like Oates to come along and say that what the above people do and what they enjoy doesn't count as art. What is the point of denigrating and devaluing other works of art (and at the same time, disparaging the people who make and/or enjoy it) just because they fail to embrace the darker side of humanity and the disturbing elements of life in which people like Oates apparently want to wallow and revel?

I actually agree with Oates that art can "arouse our emotions" and "expand our sympathies in directions we may not anticipate", but I vehemently disagree with her that it has to be unpleasant and negative:  one can have positive emotions aroused, and have their sympathies -- and even their minds and hearts and lives -- expanded in all sorts of wondrous and beautiful directions when they experience art that resonates with them and that moves them.

Art is an expression of a person's feelings, of their experiences, of their psyches, of their biases, of their passions, of their perceptions, of their personalities, etc. -- art is a personal expression of who somebody is and how they live and how they feel and how they exist (and art is probably a lot of other things, too, just as people are a lot of things!). Some people express themselves differently than others in works of art, or they are drawn to certain types of art but not others -- of course they do and of course they are, because not everybody is the same! -- and people may create and enjoy and appreciate certain types or works of art over others, but who is anybody to come along and say that what somebody else makes and what they do and what they enjoy and appreciate is somehow inferior and unworthy of the name of art?

I absolutely despise that kind of narrow-minded thinking -- it creates false boundaries and it places unjustifiable limits on how other people should and can live their lives. There is room in this world for every type of artistic expression, for every type of artist, for every type of person, and for every type of art, and it is reprehensible and ludicrous to suggest that there is a right and wrong way to make art, and that art has to be a certain way and not another:  there is no place for "should be" or "shouldn't be" in the assessment of art -- art can be anything and everything. It is an insult to humanity and an injustice to the human spirit to try to place shackles on creativity, expecting everyone to fit into the same dismal mould that people like Oates occupy.

And you, Geoffrey, are arguably a bit of a hypocrite for repeating Oates' quote as if it is some sort of personal mantra: you have said that you enjoy and admire the paintings of van Gogh, and the music of Schubert, and the poetry of Shelley, amongst other artists who have created transcendently beautiful artwork that totally defies Oates's negative ideals, and also, many of your own pictures (even if you eschew the label of "art" for them) are actually really quite nice, one might even say comforting -- hardly disturbing!  Why can't art be those things, too?  It can be, and it is!  

I don't like the kind of art that Oates creates and advocates -- I don't want to be disturbed and negatively provoked by art -- there's more than enough of that for me in the world outside of art, thank you very much -- but I would never say that what she does or enjoys isn't art or that all art should be beautiful and positively life-enhancing or anything else, because that's not how it is. Oates and others can have their endless night, while I enjoy its sweet delights! To each their own!

[abby]

An enjoyable read, Lisa, even if I'm feeling incapable of contributing anything. Lately I feel a bit disconnected from my abilities, though disconnected isn't quite right. I'm blown away by Geoffrey's drawings, every last one of them, blown away by efforts that end in pictures that look like their objects, my hands don't feel totally in my control right now despite what comes out being sensible. I'm stuck back here in the technical of art can't even consider the matter.

[Geoffrey]

LisaLCFan wrote:
>Oh, no, not that horrible quote again! . . .
---------------
thank you, lisa, for another remarkable essayette! a lot of food for thought in there!

in the past i have clumsily tried to nail down a clear definition of 'art', but ultimately feel unqualified to do so. therefore i tend nowadays to leave that task to anyone kind enough to share their thoughts about the matter - and it almost always makes interesting reading.

opinionated people are the best critics of a picture, or anything else. their reactions can be delightful, uplifting, inspiring - or negative, provocative, aggressive. it's all good feedback that can give the maker a sense of power and importance.
---------------
---------------
abby wrote:
>An enjoyable read, Lisa . . .

that's a fact!

>Lately I feel a bit disconnected from my abilities . . . my hands don't feel totally in my control right now . . .

maybe it's just a phase, hang in there, abby - none of us are machines. it'll pass, and you'll surprise yourself. stay optimistic.

>I'm blown away by Geoffrey's drawings . . .

that's an incredibly great thing to say - thank you!
----------------------------
meghan markle, duchess of sussex

[dar]

I've been taking a neighborhood computer course as a proxy for my disabled son as he is not at a level where he could complete it in the time allotted in order to get the free laptop. So...I will give him the laptop and work with him at his own pace if he wants my help. But...this course has introduced me to ImaGen and other AI image generators, writing assistants, design AI, companion AI, all kinds of AI stuff. I had an awful time accepting the image and writing apps and the outcomes of my prompts. It felt awful to see the images I prompted the computer to make. Yes, they were amazing and not images I could draw but it just felt horrible to do it. This course is aimed at young people and students just entering the world of computers. It's all about how to get the AI apps to generate everything for you and your score is based on how much you love and interact with the AI's. It is heartbreaking for me to see that the young students are being "instructed" and told that AI is the way to move forward into the future. Guess it is. But "things are gonna slide" for sure.

[its4inthemorning]

Lisa,

I feel compelled to comment on your "Oh no, not that horrible quote again!" post. Not to agree or disagree with it (I am in the former camp), but to applaud the writing itself: Clear and well thought-out sentences, a pleasant conversational style, and impeccable grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Writing like this just begs to be read!

4

[LisaLCFan]

Thanks, Abby, Geoffrey, and "4", for the nice comments on my post! I really felt that I had to respond to Geoffrey's quoting of Oates, because it is something about which I feel very strongly. Beautiful and uplifting art is often, for me and many others, a salvation, a peaceful oasis, a necessary respite from the grim realities of life, an inspiration, and something to remind one -- even if and when there is darkness and despair all around -- that there are still beautiful things in life, and beautiful people creating more beautiful things. Why anybody would oppose that is incomprehensible to me.

For a lot of people (myself included), art that embodies the positive elements of life may sometimes actually help make it possible to face another day and to go on living, for such art can truly save people's lives, providing something that fills them with light and hope, whether they create the art themselves, or enjoy the works of others. And yet, Oates says that "art should not be comforting." I ask, Why not?! Sometimes "comforting" art is the only thing that one has, the only thing that breaks through the pain and the suffering that some people experience, and Oates wants to take that away and shove more misery in people's faces instead? I just don't understand why anybody would say and think something like that, when the healing powers of beautiful and positive art seem so obvious and valuable. Maybe Oates is incapable of or unwilling to appreciate that kind of art, but it definitely enriches the lives of others in so many important ways, and she has no right to disparage that -- nobody does.

[Geoffrey]

oates' quotation didn't affect me that much, which is typical of a boring observer. perhaps this is why passionate people are so readable. i have a habit of trying to put myself in their shoes, exercise tolerance, see things from their perspective, because most people are not horrible just for the sake of it - at least i hope not. as i have said a hundred times, i know precious little about art - i just like making pictures. whether they make people happy or uncomfortable is decided by the viewer. they are entitled to their personalities.

several weeks ago a pastor came up to me in a carpark and criticised one of my drawings. it was a picture of jesus playing guitar and singing 'tonight will be fine' to a pretty woman. the guy was furious, and ranted on for about twenty minutes about how disgusted he was. the woman was a prostitute, the singer shouldn't be wearing robes, and so forth. this was the first time one of my pictures had affected someone that much, and it made me proud. i could have kissed him! had i drawn a bouquet of flowers he would likely have shown zero interest or emotion, and where's the reward in that?

[LisaLCFan]

I've been taking a neighborhood computer course ... It's all about how to get the AI apps to generate everything for you and your score is based on how much you love and interact with the AI's...

I am curious as to how they assess how much each student "loves" the AIs. Can one even measure love? I'd fail for sure, based on that criterion!

[LisaLCFan]

several weeks ago a pastor came up to me in a carpark and criticised one of my drawings...the guy was furious, and ranted on for about twenty minutes about how disgusted he was. ...this was the first time one of my pictures had affected someone that much, and it made me proud. i could have kissed him! had i drawn a bouquet of flowers he would likely have shown zero interest or emotion, and where's the reward in that?

Hmmm. There is a name (or several names) for people who derive pleasure from making other people feel unhappy and uncomfortable. I could suggest a few...