brenclan
New Member
Posts โข 89
Likes โข 34
November 2007
|
Artist, we ask you?, by brenclan on Jan 29, 2008 1:36:53 GMT 1, I just spotted a beautiful piece of art recently, however unfortunately it had been drawn on a piece of cardboard. And of course this is hardly a one off situation; plenty of artists have done likewise... but why?
I can understand perhaps the thinking behind presenting an image transposed on top of commercial packaging but surely it must be depressing knowing that what you are in the process of creating is going to fade with time.
Oh, and the final question.. is there any way of saving these pieces?
I just spotted a beautiful piece of art recently, however unfortunately it had been drawn on a piece of cardboard. And of course this is hardly a one off situation; plenty of artists have done likewise... but why?
I can understand perhaps the thinking behind presenting an image transposed on top of commercial packaging but surely it must be depressing knowing that what you are in the process of creating is going to fade with time.
Oh, and the final question.. is there any way of saving these pieces?
|
|
Martin Whatson
Artist
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,285
Likes โข 7
May 2007
|
Artist, we ask you?, by Martin Whatson on Jan 29, 2008 2:58:06 GMT 1, Without beeing the one that uses Cardboard the most I can give you my opinion on it.
I think many artist use it both because its quite easy to get the hold of and because its free.
But I know from own experience that I love the roughness and texture of the cardboard. Its something quite different from a canvas or mdf. And the natural color of it makes a great backround.
Dont think it has so much to do about the commercial packaging. And for the decaying of the cardboard. Thats one of the things that I fancy the most about streetworks of paper or on card. They never stay the same. Rain, pollution, snow, sun, dust and people picking on ie. stickers and pasteups helps develope the piece into something new.
Thats why Swoon is one of, IMO the most clever streetartist out there. Her paper cutouts looks beyond amazing when they have been on a wall for some time.
You can always bring a piece indoors, but i mean that will spoil some of the natural evolvement of the piece.
That said, I would not walk past a Neate streetpiece letting it be beacause its placed there to be outside 
Hope that helps a bit.
Without beeing the one that uses Cardboard the most I can give you my opinion on it. I think many artist use it both because its quite easy to get the hold of and because its free. But I know from own experience that I love the roughness and texture of the cardboard. Its something quite different from a canvas or mdf. And the natural color of it makes a great backround. Dont think it has so much to do about the commercial packaging. And for the decaying of the cardboard. Thats one of the things that I fancy the most about streetworks of paper or on card. They never stay the same. Rain, pollution, snow, sun, dust and people picking on ie. stickers and pasteups helps develope the piece into something new. Thats why Swoon is one of, IMO the most clever streetartist out there. Her paper cutouts looks beyond amazing when they have been on a wall for some time. You can always bring a piece indoors, but i mean that will spoil some of the natural evolvement of the piece. That said, I would not walk past a Neate streetpiece letting it be beacause its placed there to be outside Hope that helps a bit. |
|
artstylee
New Member
Posts โข 369
Likes โข 0
January 2008
|
Artist, we ask you?, by artstylee on Jan 29, 2008 5:02:48 GMT 1, I know an artist that likes to paint on materials that deteriorate over time.
I respect the idea that the artwork is like a flour in bloom and you need to appreciate it now before it fades and dies/yellows etc.
And Sometimes the viewer relates differently to a piece based off of what material the work was painted on. And it often adds something to the piece that wouldn't be there if they painted on a pristine new canvas. Which to me is the only good reason to paint on materials that will deteriorate over time, to me.
but if the same idea can be conveyed on a large heavy duty canvas or board using high quality paints materials etc., without comprimising the content within the work itself then you owe it to your audience and yourself as an artist to try to make the piece last for future generations to enjoy.
Further if an artist truely believes that there is high quality genius idea contained within their painting then why would they to limit the amount of time that there work can be visible by using low quality materials while creating the piece.
I just think it's ballsy and heroic when Banksy type artists do work on a building that's not theirs because all there work could go to shit if the owner doesn't like it and imediately paints over it when they first notice it on their building in the morning. They feel so passionately about their work that they want to bring it to the public immediately, so quickly that they might lose the work within days to city graffitti cleaners.
Overall, I think it makes sense to paint on high quality materials, and to only paint on materials that deteriorate rapidly over time if it adds something special to the content within the piece that wouldn't be there without the presence of these low grade materials.
Either way art is great. But rich artists shouldn't be using crap materials.
I know an artist that likes to paint on materials that deteriorate over time.
I respect the idea that the artwork is like a flour in bloom and you need to appreciate it now before it fades and dies/yellows etc.
And Sometimes the viewer relates differently to a piece based off of what material the work was painted on. And it often adds something to the piece that wouldn't be there if they painted on a pristine new canvas. Which to me is the only good reason to paint on materials that will deteriorate over time, to me.
but if the same idea can be conveyed on a large heavy duty canvas or board using high quality paints materials etc., without comprimising the content within the work itself then you owe it to your audience and yourself as an artist to try to make the piece last for future generations to enjoy.
Further if an artist truely believes that there is high quality genius idea contained within their painting then why would they to limit the amount of time that there work can be visible by using low quality materials while creating the piece.
I just think it's ballsy and heroic when Banksy type artists do work on a building that's not theirs because all there work could go to shit if the owner doesn't like it and imediately paints over it when they first notice it on their building in the morning. They feel so passionately about their work that they want to bring it to the public immediately, so quickly that they might lose the work within days to city graffitti cleaners.
Overall, I think it makes sense to paint on high quality materials, and to only paint on materials that deteriorate rapidly over time if it adds something special to the content within the piece that wouldn't be there without the presence of these low grade materials.
Either way art is great. But rich artists shouldn't be using crap materials.
|
|
