Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2004 November
2004 January
2003 December
My Links
juniperflux
cutter
bob martin
L
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| he'll. |
| 11.21.06 (2:21 am) [edit] |
|
posted by: Cutter (reply)
post date: 11.20.06 (7:10 pm)
Ties in very nicely with the previous one.
posted by: Cutter (reply)
post date: 11.20.06 (7:11 pm)
heh heh
...that can be interpreted in a few ways, I suppose.
posted by: akelso (reply)
post date: 11.21.06 (10:04 am)
Poppies of a vastly different nature. Brings me to the knees of my soul with a kind of devastation - the kind that refuses comprehension. - Andrea
posted by: 69whisper (reply)
post date: 11.21.06 (11:39 pm)
why do you use words in almost every painting ? just curious ? aren't they enough without words ?
posted by: thejongleur (reply)
post date: 11.22.06 (2:45 pm)
Reply to: Cutter
I'm duty bound, of course, to wonder about these ways you see.
Thank you.
ams
posted by: thejongleur (reply)
post date: 11.22.06 (2:48 pm)
Reply to: akelso
People can be such dangerous, lonely, scared creatures. I can't deny the fascination with such things.
Thank you.
ams
posted by: thejongleur (reply)
post date: 11.22.06 (3:00 pm)
Reply to: 69whisper
Most of the things I post are straight from the pages of my notebooks. Sometimes the words will have been there a long time, and the drawing comes from them, and other times the words will begin to resonate during the act.
I also accept that the words are as much for my benefit as anyone else.
I don't know whether any of the picures are enough (with or without words) beyond the initial notion, after which point it comes down to how much you bollocks it up.
Thank you for thinking here.
ams
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 11.23.06 (5:41 am)
Reply to: 69whisper
From one observer to another...
Personally, I'm a big fan of the pictures that contain words. What I think has to be remembered, is that whether what is bubbling inside you spills out onto the page in the form of words and phrases, or visual shapes and images that capture the imagination, or both, such mediums of expression are really just branches from the same tree. As someone who spends a lot of time looking at thejongleur's art, for me, it's really not about whether the pictures or the words could stand on their own... rather, it's more about watching an artist create a world on paper that makes me think and feel and imagine. Frankly, I marvel at the gift of being able to combine the visual and the auditory (language) in ways that work so brilliantly together... and I continue to be grateful for each page he shares with us.
Take care,
j
posted by: 69whisper (reply)
post date: 11.23.06 (8:21 am)
Reply to: juniperflux
(and reply to thejongleur)
you are absolutely right. but i have a different point of view. I think most artists leave it to the imagination of the viewer keeping their own comments reserved. That to me is mainly because everyone has a different angle of viewing the frame, hence different perception. You will agree that each and every one of us has an entirely different background, which definitely counts towards our perception. Now when an artists endorses his own remarks on the painting, the perception is shadowed and the viewer starts to see it with the artist's perspective, ultimately limiting the art. It is just like when we read a novel, we make our own movie in the mind following each line of the novelist. But when the same thing is produced on a screen, we are often disappointed as we had imagined the things in a different fasion.
Hope you get my point ? :)
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 11.23.06 (9:31 am)
Reply to: 69whisper
I agree with one thing you said: when an artist endorses perspective, it does limit art. However, I don't think that applies in this case. In fact, I don't feel as though the scribbles beneath or next to some of these drawings endorse a particular perspective at all; none of the lines tell me what the drawing is about. Further, the fact that the comments beneath each reflect a variety of interpretations seems to support that. To me, the words feel very much like all the other lines on the page... just one more expression of creativity.
We'll likely never agree, of course... but I hope thejongleur feels good knowing that his work sparks such debate.
j
posted by: 69whisper (reply)
post date: 11.24.06 (9:49 am)
you are right, we'll never agree. Let see what ams has to say about my comment above ? :)
posted by: thejongleur (reply)
post date: 11.27.06 (6:00 pm)
Reply to: 69whisper
If a writer, an artist, a movie-maker, or someone who pins silly things to the wall of a blog, has a very particular thing to say, something which he/she feels is utterly imperative to communicate, they are perfectly entitled to ensure the point arrives.
The fact you look at any kind of art, and are disappointed that you have been led in a particular direction, is an issue for you to resolve. The art is of value to you or it isn't. That is the beauty of all art, is it not? One man's "limited art" is another man's reason to keep waking up.
ams
posted by: 69whisper (reply)
post date: 11.27.06 (9:19 pm)
Reply to: juniperflux and to thejongleur
will i think JF rightly said I can never agree with your point of view.
To me when an artist writes something on his painting, he is not only pointing towards the direction for the viewer but also ensuring that only his point of view is required to be found and seen. No matter how self sufficient and self explanatory the art itself may be.
'Nature' created serene views for our eyes to see but did not scribble notes beneath to view it as per Creator's desires :). Some of us appreciate it and some of us don't. I think that's one reason most renowned artists left it to the imagination of their audience :)
posted by: thejongleur (reply)
post date: 11.28.06 (2:15 am)
Reply to: 69whisper
You made reference to an author earlier. An author uses words to create his art. His art wouldn't exist without words. By saying that an artist shouldn't put words on the work is placing a restriction on the thing you say should be free of such things.
As for your assertion on the "most renowned artists", I suppose that depends on the breadth of ones appreciation, and willingness to explore, the world of art. Perhaps seeking out artists other than the few masters referenced in mainstream life will result in a slightly less rigid definition of art.
Thank you.
ams
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 11.28.06 (3:20 am)
Reply to: 69whisper
You continue to ignore the multiple interpretations of the drawings here (with and without words) left by those who regularly visit this site. I wonder, is this because they prove you wrong or because you are simply not interested in the opinion of others?
Apparently, the rest of us are just too stupid to understand the restricted meanings that thejongleur is so vehemently trying to cram down our throats. Perhaps we should all wait for you to tell us what the prescribed meaning is, since you seem to be the only one who is thus enlightened.
Ironically, it is *you* alone who is attempting to apply a rigid definition to anything at this point. According to you art is ______________ and clearly, you are not open to exploring other options -- which from where I am sitting, makes you the only one in danger of losing out on a meaningful experience.
j