I've always found watercolours most unforgiving. once it's on the paper it's difficult to correct mistakes. Whereas with oils, you can go over what you've painted with a completely different colour, once the first has dried, if you so choose..
The drawback to oils is the expense, it's horrendous. A really good oil painting by a gifted amateur would be lucky to recover the cost of the materials, so any idea of painting other than for pleasure isn't worth considering.
I've a few oils I painted many years ago. every so often my wife drags a couple out of the back of a wardrobe and hangs them in the hall. I leave them there for a few days, then put them back.
You are always your own harshest critic.
Have you tried acrylics, Doghouse? Even if you do go back to oils, acrylics are cheaper initially. Water soluble oils are good too. I have just been to a great demo of acrylics by a*local*artist and tutor. Excellent morning!
Have you tried acrylics, Doghouse? Even if you do go back to oils, acrylics are cheaper initially. Water soluble oils are good too. I have just been to a great demo of acrylics by a*local*artist and tutor. Excellent morning!
Thanks for that. I might have a look at that.
The trouble with me is that I have to be "in the mood" and I haven't been for a very long time. Too many other hobbies.
I was quite keen in my youth, but didn't spend enough time developing what little talent I had.
I've sent you a PM with a photo of one of mine, to prove I'm not completely rubbish at it.
It's a shame they couldn't find at least a couple of people with actual talent. As it is, the results are little more than a stream of mediocrity and amateurishness. None of them were remotely good. I remember 'Watercolour Challenge' often had people who could really paint well. This current batch are just an embarrassment. Still, good for a laugh if nothing else.
Pretty much what I said earlier Kapellmeister. Not one of them produced anything that I'd be happy to hang on my wall. They were very, very amateurish and that is such a shame. I don't really get this because all these shows like Bake Off, Sewing Bee, the Allotment show and this prog look for people with some experience but not professionals.
My friend was shortlisted for Sewing Bee having made lovely garments since her teens as a hobby. She had to go to London for interview and that was after a very long telephone interview where they asked her all sorts of technical questions which caused her no problems at all. I honestly believe they have a pre planned idea of the people they want and it's always something like ... An older one, a young one, a gay one, a black one, a "surprise" one, a quirky one and so on. However good your sewing if you don't fit their criteria You've had it.
I remember watching Watercolour Challenge and some of the people just loved painting you could see it in their expressions and their movements and most definitely in their paintings. This love is not evident in Painting Challenge.
i think i was most impressed with the guy (from glasgow maybe?) who looked after his young children at home- cant remember for the life of me what he was called!
i was a bit disappointed with this and was hoping to see some more talent on display but it may have been because of the time constraints.
certainly, 30mins to do a coloured drawing of a flower isnt long.
i will continue watching though and hope that they all improve.
Just spent 10 mins reading the reviews of Painting Challenge on the Guardian, Independent and Telegraph. I think they're pretty much agreed that it's bland and they don't care much for the presenters.
When they were introducing the contestants and you saw a bit of their work at home they looked quite good.
I suppose being told what to paint and what to use and having a time limit won't work with a lot of artists. It's not like having to follow a recipe or a dress pattern where things are much more clear cut. This is a lot more about individual taste. I've looked at some famous artists work and thought what a load of rubbish. Like Jackson Pollock's work or some paintings where it's just a block of colour with a slash in it, like someone who didn't like it has taken a knife to it. I remember some critics raving over a painting which turned out to have been done by elephants or monkeys or something.
I think next week it's portraits or life drawing so hope we see some better pictures then.
I quite enjoyed this and wasn't particularly impressed with the results BUT to be fair the artists didn't have long to perfect their paintings and it is much harder to come up with something good when you don't have much time to think about it.
I thought most of the criticism was fair. Yes everyone has their own style but there are still things that need to be observed in art like the ability to draw perspective and form.
Well it was a bit of fluff that mildly entertained, more for it's amusing limitations than anything else. The level of skill was woefull, below even the level one comes to expect from shows with this formula. But I'll stick with it for the LoLs.
But at least it's only claim is to challange a few amateurs to show us their (limited) skills. It's not really a programme about 'fine art' but about the craft of painting, so those comments about pollock, picasso, modern art, etc have little baring. There's always a confusion about the meaning of the word 'art' in this context, mostly because the word in English has a number of roots and overlapping meanings. Most people who criticise art/artist because 'a child of five could do it' are actually criticising craft/skill not fine art.
I watched it and quite enjoyed it, but not in a must drop everything and watch it way like I am with sewing bee and bake off.
I'm a bit of a hobby artist myself, but not with paint. I "paint" with needle felting or ink or with pastels depending on what mood I am in.
I definitely would not do well in this competition, as my style is not what the judges seemed to be wanting. I liked some of the ones they slated.
I'm not totally sure that art fits with this sort of creativity competition tv program. With baking it either tastes good or it doesn't and it either looks good or it doesn't. And with sewing it's either completed, neat, well-fitted or it isn't. Art is much too subjective.
For us to be able to witness anything praiseworthy, the format doesn't help.
The task of producing something "at the drop of a hat" wouldn't interest me.
For my own small abilities, firstly I have to be "in the mood" and it has to be something I want to execute. I wouldn't respond well to, "You're doing delphiniums, you've got (however long) and your time starts, now!"
For my own small abilities, firstly I have to be "in the mood" and it has to be something I want to execute. I wouldn't respond well to, "You're doing delphiniums, you've got (however long) and your time starts, now!"
It's all too clinical and contrived.
Totally agree with you. I liked the first challenge where they could pick anything from the castle inside or out, although didn't like them being limited to one paint type. Bit unfair on those that had no experience of it.
The flower challenge was too controlled, both in time and medium. I can see why they would want them all to draw the same thing for judging, but forcing coloured pencils was too restrictive for my liking.
The third challenge seemed a bit more free on medium, but too restrictive on what they wanted.
But if I'm not in the mood, I can't produce anything decent, and however good a landscape I can produce, make me do a portrait or an animal and it will be rubbish. I can not be artistic on demand.
I don't like the way they keep criticising the chap with the long white hair. His job used to be as a portrait artist for the police, and all they did was criticise his painting, except for the nose!
I don't like the way they keep criticising the chap with the long white hair. His job used to be as a portrait artist for the police, and all they did was criticise his painting, except for the nose!
Him and Claire are my two favourites so far but the judges keep heavily criticizing them, but again I'm having problems with them needlessly being too harsh on everyone.
But I did like it when one of the judges gave us tips on portraits, want to see more of that.
Comments
Have you tried acrylics, Doghouse? Even if you do go back to oils, acrylics are cheaper initially. Water soluble oils are good too. I have just been to a great demo of acrylics by a*local*artist and tutor. Excellent morning!
Thanks for that. I might have a look at that.
The trouble with me is that I have to be "in the mood" and I haven't been for a very long time. Too many other hobbies.
I was quite keen in my youth, but didn't spend enough time developing what little talent I had.
I've sent you a PM with a photo of one of mine, to prove I'm not completely rubbish at it.
Pretty much what I said earlier Kapellmeister. Not one of them produced anything that I'd be happy to hang on my wall. They were very, very amateurish and that is such a shame. I don't really get this because all these shows like Bake Off, Sewing Bee, the Allotment show and this prog look for people with some experience but not professionals.
My friend was shortlisted for Sewing Bee having made lovely garments since her teens as a hobby. She had to go to London for interview and that was after a very long telephone interview where they asked her all sorts of technical questions which caused her no problems at all. I honestly believe they have a pre planned idea of the people they want and it's always something like ... An older one, a young one, a gay one, a black one, a "surprise" one, a quirky one and so on. However good your sewing if you don't fit their criteria You've had it.
I remember watching Watercolour Challenge and some of the people just loved painting you could see it in their expressions and their movements and most definitely in their paintings. This love is not evident in Painting Challenge.
Or white in watercolours ;-)
Paul Bell
I suppose being told what to paint and what to use and having a time limit won't work with a lot of artists. It's not like having to follow a recipe or a dress pattern where things are much more clear cut. This is a lot more about individual taste. I've looked at some famous artists work and thought what a load of rubbish. Like Jackson Pollock's work or some paintings where it's just a block of colour with a slash in it, like someone who didn't like it has taken a knife to it. I remember some critics raving over a painting which turned out to have been done by elephants or monkeys or something.
I think next week it's portraits or life drawing so hope we see some better pictures then.
I thought most of the criticism was fair. Yes everyone has their own style but there are still things that need to be observed in art like the ability to draw perspective and form.
Yes!
I have been thinking this over. At least you won't have to worry about being the worst
But at least it's only claim is to challange a few amateurs to show us their (limited) skills. It's not really a programme about 'fine art' but about the craft of painting, so those comments about pollock, picasso, modern art, etc have little baring. There's always a confusion about the meaning of the word 'art' in this context, mostly because the word in English has a number of roots and overlapping meanings. Most people who criticise art/artist because 'a child of five could do it' are actually criticising craft/skill not fine art.
It's interesting to look at the etymology of the term art.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=art for a brief summary.
I'm a bit of a hobby artist myself, but not with paint. I "paint" with needle felting or ink or with pastels depending on what mood I am in.
I definitely would not do well in this competition, as my style is not what the judges seemed to be wanting. I liked some of the ones they slated.
I'm not totally sure that art fits with this sort of creativity competition tv program. With baking it either tastes good or it doesn't and it either looks good or it doesn't. And with sewing it's either completed, neat, well-fitted or it isn't. Art is much too subjective.
The task of producing something "at the drop of a hat" wouldn't interest me.
For my own small abilities, firstly I have to be "in the mood" and it has to be something I want to execute. I wouldn't respond well to, "You're doing delphiniums, you've got (however long) and your time starts, now!"
It's all too clinical and contrived.
Totally agree with you. I liked the first challenge where they could pick anything from the castle inside or out, although didn't like them being limited to one paint type. Bit unfair on those that had no experience of it.
The flower challenge was too controlled, both in time and medium. I can see why they would want them all to draw the same thing for judging, but forcing coloured pencils was too restrictive for my liking.
The third challenge seemed a bit more free on medium, but too restrictive on what they wanted.
But if I'm not in the mood, I can't produce anything decent, and however good a landscape I can produce, make me do a portrait or an animal and it will be rubbish. I can not be artistic on demand.
Portraits would be my worse nightmare.
Liking the long haired guy more this week. Didn't take to him last week, but it's his speciality area this week
Just thinking the same.
Me and the judges don't often agree it has to be said
Especially like Anthea's, Anne's, Richard's and Claire's
Jan's I liked in progress, but the smile made it wrong
But I did like it when one of the judges gave us tips on portraits, want to see more of that.