blacksheep Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) Posted in catholic questions but never got an answer, so I'm posting here instead I've been told time and time again from family members that I should do religous art. As an artist I love the classical stuff by michelangelo, carrivagio, and so forth. Personally nothing I can do can live up to those masters, and I am not really impressed with much done today. Most has a sort of coagulated milk factor that I am not too fond of. So if i was ever to do anything biblical I would want to put my own interpretation in the painting. For example I want to do a painting of david and goliath...but I want goliath not be just a big man but a monster. Grotesque and twisted. A creature bound by chains only set loose by the philistens to gain their victory. I want to do a painting of jesus being tempted by the devil in the desert. But have the devil being something truly nightmarish. Is that too much of taking artistic liberties? When is it going too far? Edited March 12, 2012 by blacksheep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumeia Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) I agree with you about your love for the "classical" religious artists! My goal ideally would also be to bring that style and level of sophistication and beauty to my own portrayals/interpretations. But nothing I do can live up to that expectation, either. Go ahead with your own interpretations! But if I were you I would stay away from anything that might twist the actual story, or that might cause theological confusion or error. As for drawing the devil, I'd be careful. Because letting yourself become absorbed in nightmarish images of evil is DEFINITELY not a good idea - And I find when I'm painting I do get VERY absorbed in what I draw. If I were to depict Jesus' temptation, I would paint something more impressionistic/symbolic for the devil that generally indicates his evil, but that doesn't go into the grotesque detail of it. But then look at the alternative option - Paint beautiful and holy things and let your heart and mind and soul become absorbed in that! Edited March 12, 2012 by Eumeia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 In art, I don't think there's such a thing as taking too many liberties with your subject. What you're trying to express is usually the guide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Do some research - online or in printed 'coffee table' art history books - into Renaissance artwork. There are a lot of depictions that were considered monstrous in their day. In those days, 'monster' was defined as the inhuman combined with the human - thus degrading the human, I suppose. For example, the cupola of the Duomo in Florence, Italy includes devils who are half-man & half horse and their flesh tones include blues & greens, the classic red devil with the pointed tail is a 'monster' because the flesh tones are all wrong and humans don't have tails, and Signorelli painted monstrous demons on the ceiling of a chapel in the Orvieto Duomo. Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris is ornamented with monstrous demons along the roof line. Probably the most famous examples are by Hieronymous Bosch, who was German (or Dutch?), slightly later than the Renaissance, and apparently crazy, too! At any rate, I say if you see it in your head, paint it! And you'll be in good company, too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 In my humble and somewhat uneducated opinion, the Renaissance, especially in Italy, was the pinnacle of artwork and music, at least in western culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I would be careful not to become too deeply entrenched in historicism (which can be an easy thing to do, given how much beauty has already been created). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1331664254' post='2400189'] I would be careful not to become too deeply entrenched in historicism (which can be an easy thing to do, given how much beauty has already been created). [/quote] In terms of quality there have been pieces of art of the highest calibre made in the last few hundred years, but in terms of sheer quantity of top quality pieces, I think the Renaissance period has a distinct edge. There has been genius all throughout history, but I think we find overall a larger amount then. Part of it was that patronage of the arts by wealthy nobles was much more common, the demand was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331667452' post='2400203']the demand was there. [/quote] I wonder how modern commercialism has affected that "demand." Everywhere we go we are bombarded by images...and even when they're visually appealing, they're not "beautiful" and probably can't be, because they're banal, mass produced, commercial images. I fear we face the same problem with literature...how can there be a soil for great literature in a world where movies and tweets and many other things dominate people's attention. Art is certainly not dead, there is great art and innovative art and literature still being produced...but I honestly can't imagine a Shakespeare or a Homer in today's world, someone with just an eternal mastery of his art and of humanity. But, I like surprises. And there are plenty of artistic geniuses from the 20th century. Personally I tend to think that movies and tv shows will be remembered as the greatest art of our times. There have been a lot of great movies and shows produced and written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1331668640' post='2400208'] I wonder how modern commercialism has affected that "demand." Everywhere we go we are bombarded by images...and even when they're visually appealing, they're not "beautiful" and probably can't be, because they're banal, mass produced, commercial images. I fear we face the same problem with literature...how can there be a soil for great literature in a world where movies and tweets and many other things dominate people's attention. Art is certainly not dead, there is great art and innovative art and literature still being produced...but I honestly can't imagine a Shakespeare or a Homer in today's world, someone with just an eternal mastery of his art and of humanity. But, I like surprises. And there are plenty of artistic geniuses from the 20th century. Personally I tend to think that movies and tv shows will be remembered as the greatest art of our times. There have been a lot of great movies and shows produced and written. [/quote] Read Gogol's The Portrait. [url="http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/1045/"]http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/1045/[/url] Edited March 13, 2012 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 [quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1331668640' post='2400208'] I wonder how modern commercialism has affected that "demand." Everywhere we go we are bombarded by images...and even when they're visually appealing, they're not "beautiful" and probably can't be, because they're banal, mass produced, commercial images. I fear we face the same problem with literature...how can there be a soil for great literature in a world where movies and tweets and many other things dominate people's attention. Art is certainly not dead, there is great art and innovative art and literature still being produced...but I honestly can't imagine a Shakespeare or a Homer in today's world, someone with just an eternal mastery of his art and of humanity. But, I like surprises. And there are plenty of artistic geniuses from the 20th century. Personally I tend to think that movies and tv shows will be remembered as the greatest art of our times. There have been a lot of great movies and shows produced and written. [/quote] Yeah, I think you're onto something. The nature of art has shifted at the moment, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 [quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1331668640' post='2400208'] Personally I tend to think that movies and tv shows will be remembered as the greatest art of our times. There have been a lot of great movies and shows produced and written. [/quote] Or at least as the hallmark media of our time. Never before had it been possible to create a moving, speaking, immortal form of art. It will almost certainly be our papyrus, our printing press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Well I don't think that you're attempting to be an iconographer so as for doing just religious art, you don't have a moral dilemma. Having said that Picasso once said, "Art is a lie which makes us realize the truth". As with icons, if you were to do a religious piece of the devil or goliath, it's not important if it's a literal depiction or not. It's not meant to be, rather it's meant to be your own interpretation of that particular subject. I'm a musician and a magician. You'd think after all these years every piece of cardistry and card magic would have been done to death. Particularly since 52 cards were not invented with games, such as poker, texas hold 'em, go fish, etc. in mind but originated by magicians, who invented them with the sole purpose of magic in mind. That history stretches back nearly 1000 years. However card magic didn't have it's "hay day" until the mid 1800's to mid 1900's with Johann Hofzinser Houdini, Dai Vernon, and later the likes of Ed Marlo. I think that Hofzinser had the right idea when he said, "cards are the poetry of magic" and to this day, we see many great magicians like Eric Jones taking what he learned from Dai Vernon and adding new twists to those old routines making them ultra-visual and creating new ideas that we never thought possible. My wife is a sketch artist and a painter like yourself. In the world of art, she does similar things by taking what she has learned from the likes of Picasso, Van Gogh, and historical painting, while making completely original pieces. Sure there is something to say about the market that took place during certain periods of time. The same could be said about classical music and even punk music. However we shouldn't forget that many painters such as Picasso did not sell their paintings for millions during their life, only after their death did their paintings become priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 [quote name='blacksheep' timestamp='1331558586' post='2399533'] Posted in catholic questions but never got an answer, so I'm posting here instead I've been told time and time again from family members that I should do religous art. As an artist I love the classical stuff by michelangelo, carrivagio, and so forth. Personally nothing I can do can live up to those masters, and I am not really impressed with much done today. Most has a sort of coagulated milk factor that I am not too fond of. So if i was ever to do anything biblical I would want to put my own interpretation in the painting. For example I want to do a painting of david and goliath...but I want goliath not be just a big man but a monster. Grotesque and twisted. A creature bound by chains only set loose by the philistens to gain their victory. I want to do a painting of jesus being tempted by the devil in the desert. But have the devil being something truly nightmarish. Is that too much of taking artistic liberties? When is it going too far? [/quote] Art is a personal vision used in a media that others can perceive. So paint your vision, and share when you are done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331669124' post='2400211'] Read Gogol's The Portrait. [url="http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/1045/"]http://www.readbooko...eadOnLine/1045/[/url] [/quote]A most interesting read and addresses blacksheep's question on how far to go with depicting the devil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacksheep Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 Thanks everyone...get ready to see some work in the future then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now