{Painting on Location with Real Color Wheel}

	Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Home

Help

Broadcast Message to Admin(s)

Painting on Location with Real Color Wheel › Oil, Alkyd, Resin and Wax Painting › Artists, Oil, Alkyd, Resin and Oil/Wax Paintings › Klimt 1862 -1916

(Moderator: DonJ)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1

Send Topic

Klimt 1862 -1916 (Read 9216 times)

Reply #13 - Feb 28^th, 2009 at 11:00pm

Admin Offline
YaBB Administrator
Color is Everything!
Makawao, Maui, USA, HI

Posts: 1196

Well, that's it. We disagreed on a lot of points and agreed on some. I think this thread does show the progression to 4 point perspective.
Thanks Larry.
Don

http://www.realcolorwheel.com/tubecolors.htm

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Feb 23^rd, 2009 at 12:43pm

LarryL Ex Member

"This is an opinion not a fact. I would like to see this strange distortion."

The fact that the eye has a curved lense, then keep ur eyes fixed straight ahead while concentrating on ur peripheral vision. dont turn ur head. u will see if u are in an enclosed room that the lines of the walls are curving around you.

That's quit a story but it has nothing to do with painting.

"Escher's curved perspective lines have nothing to do with nature"

wikipedia is obviously not referring to the escher u posted.

"All converging lines to vanishing points curve as they pass through your horizon line, going from the astral VP to the terrestrial VP"

"Lines not going through your horizon line, like rail road tracts that reach the horizon line with straight lines."

"I can't agree with that, it was incorrect then and it's incorrect today. Your explanation is also incorrect, incorrect 2pt is not correct 2pt."

deny all u want don. its 2 point. maybe not ur ideal version of 2 pt but still 2pt.

I finally worked out (i think) what you were trying to cryptically allude to regarding the napolean - that the lines from the vanishing points of all 90' angles should converge at the station point. why didnt u just say that? only professors of perspective care about that don.

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Feb 23^rd, 2009 at 6:41am

LarryL Ex Member

Cambiaso had no knowledge of perspective because his vps dont line up in a quick sketch? its absurd. he has internalized the rules of perspective and is drawing freehand from imagination. and polenov's lines are not converging. not even close.

Polenov's lines are not close in your image because your lines aren't accurate.

"I can't follow that comment, .... "

the vps are both close to the edge of the painting meaning the cone of vision is very wide which causes distortion in two pt.

No, I don't agree with that.

"Perspective is seen as straight lines, not curved lines, relationships can be viewed in curved lines which is used in composition but not perspective.
There is no such thing as 5 point perspective. "

from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvilinear_perspective
The system uses curving perspective lines instead of straight converging ones to approximate the image on the retina of the eye, which is itself spherical, more accurately than the traditional linear perspective, which uses straight lines and gets very strangely distorted at the edges.

(This is an opinion not a fact. I would like to see this strange distortion.)

It uses five vanishing points. Four vanishing points are placed around in a circle, they are named N, W, S, E. And there is one vanishing point in the center of the circle. Earlier, less mathematically precise versions can be seen in the work of the miniaturist Jean Fouquet. Leonardo da Vinci in a lost notebook spoke of curved perspective lines .

This is the only mention of a lost Da Vinci notebook in WiKi that I know of. I'm not a big fan of Da Vinci, the 1pt perspective artist. Michelangelo was the better artist and he couldn't stand the guy. Anyway, here is one of his paintings showing his one point perspective. You say he talked of curved perspective lines but the book has been lost.Ok, we'll leave it there.

Escher's curved perspective lines have nothing to do with nature.

here is a picture in 5 point. u need curved lines for 4 point too. this reproduces more accurately what the eye sees than linear perspective since the eye has a curved lense. in reality everything appears curved, the straight lines are an illusion because people focus only on the center of their cone of vision where the lines appear more or less straight. linear perspective is just a geometric construct that simplifys what is actually seen.

All converging lines to vanishing points curve as they pass through your horizon line, going from the astral VP to the terrestrial VP. Lines not going through your horizon line, like rail road tracts that reach the horizon line with straight lines.

"Can you notice anything strange about his drawing? Something that just doesn't look natural? There is no 90º angle."

The reason the drawings dont look "natural" is beacuse the vps are so close to the image; again it is a wide cone of vision which causes distortion. They are still 90' , just highly distorted. The reason for this is plain enough I think - de Vries wanted to illustrate 2 pt convergence and he would have needed a page several feet across to include the vps at a distance without this distortion. Also, its more eye catching and dynamic for a book on perspective. But in any case this is clearly 2pt well before canaletto.

I can't agree with that, it was incorrect then and it's incorrect today. Your explanation is also incorrect, incorrect 2pt is not correct 2pt.

Sorry about the napolean pic. on my monitor its not that big.

I hope you can read this without a magnifying glass.

"If you took a book and laid it at your feet, the 90º angles of the book would give you a 90º distance on the horizon line. The same book sitting on a table in front of you would have the same VPs as the book on the floor, 90º apart."

Im not sure what ur trying to say - objects at the same angle have the same vps?

"The distance between the book's vanishing points is 9.5 inches. That is not even close to the bottom of the leg, seat or arm of the chairs vanishing points."[/color]

not really sure what this is about. what does measuring distance between vps have to do w anything? obviously the book and chair have different vps as they are at different angles. and the distance between the chair's vps is greater than that between those of the book because it is at a less acute angle to the picture plane.

The picture you posted below looks to me like eighteen blocks mounted in a globe all with 1 point perspective.

fivepointperspec_drawing-1.gif (10 KB | )

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 5:05pm

LarryL Ex Member

deMan again

deman1670cu.jpg (150 KB | )

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 5:04pm

LarryL Ex Member

pozzo

Here art the perspective lines for Pozzo's etching. You can see one side is accurate but he really doesn't have a clue about the second VP. They are of course supposed to line up on the horizon line.

pozzo.jpg (71 KB | )

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 5:04pm

LarryL Ex Member

Vredeman de Vries'
[color=blue] Both building in the drawing are wrong. That's why they look weird.
The corrections are here;
http://www.realcolorwheel.com/perspective.htm
Since we have so many viewers I am making a corrected drawing to be viewed side by side to de Vries'.

vredeman24.jpg (130 KB | )

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 5:02pm

LarryL Ex Member

polenov

Larry, your lines in the picture above and below are not accurate, that's making the problem.
Vertical lines:
On the left side the Columns 1 & 2 are wrong. In the front; column 1 is correct but the line is bent where my line stopped. #2 is correct, #5 is correct, #7 is wrong because you included the column behind it from the right side of the building. #8 is correctly drawn but the painting is wrong, I think Polenov wasn't believing what he was seeing.
Horizontal lines:
The top horizontal line is wrong, the middle line is very close and the bottom line is right.

My perspective lines on Polenov's Parthenon show the horizon line with the Right VP, Left VP and Top VP. The Bottom 4th VP is not show, it would be lines heading to a point below the earth the same distance down as the astral point is high.

polenovsux.jpg (191 KB | )

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Feb 22^nd, 2009 at 4:59pm

LarryL Ex Member

"It wasn't his choice to keep to 1 point, he didn't understand 2 point. "
I have attatched a portait of Napolean by David showing his use of 2pt.
I find your contention that artists of obviously great technical skill would have trouble mastering the basics of 2pt perspective to be pretty odd. I mean, they teach this stuff in elementary school and it was clearly well-known by the time of ingres and david.

"The floating blocks of an adjustable form don't go to the horizon line and would automatically have 3 points as in your Luca example. This is isometric not lineal perspective. all lines are perpendicular to each other."

I meant to say 3 directions as in isometric, front, side and top or bottom. There are just as many implied convergence's as implied divergence's. His method is great but his drawing is a bit quick for finished work.

Which is it, 3pt or isometric? I mean if its 3 point, this is way before canaletto. I really dont think this is isometric. u can definately see some implied convergence in the heads and torsos for instance. But I think the point here is that cambiaso has a profound intuitive understanding of the fundamental principles of perspective which is far more advanced than simply grasping the basics of 2pt.

Luca Cambiaso (1527 - 1585) Had no knowledge of perspective as I think this work shows.

"The viewed sides are estimates on Perugino's part. I attached a detail of the painting with a widened canvas to show his horizontal extension lines."

I think ur trying to make perugino look bad. Im attatching an image of the polenov athens piece to show that his perspective lines are not converging to a single vp. i mean, u would expect this of course because the parthenon is obviously falling apart and not perfectly straight. but i think it suggests that rigidly measuring for vps is missing the point.

I have no problem with converging VP lines, I think they are converging quite nicely and if done accurately will give very important information.

"A wider viewing angle also increases the viewable hight of the zenith making the aerial and terrestrial VPs difficult to perceive. The visible top edges of the building still go to their 90º point separation on the horizon line, the sides still go up to their aerial and down to their terrestrial VPs."

im not familiar w ur terminology here, or really what ur trying to say.

"Deman does not understand the principles of 4 point. This is an approximation of what he is viewing. I attached an image extending his drawn lines. This is just an early attempt at 2 point. "

the architecture shows a highly distorted 2 point because the vps are so close. but iI think there is at least an implication of curvilinear perspective in the overall composition, the figures and some of the cieling beams. (i think this is actually 5 point) u cant make something like this and be ignorant about basic 2pt.

I think you can be blissfully unaware and not be ignorant. The knowledge just wasn't there yet.

"the architecture shows a highly distorted 2 point because the vps are so close."

I can't follow that comment, ....
I can follow this one though "curvilinear perspective"
–adjective
1. consisting of or bounded by curved lines: a curvilinear figure.
2. forming or moving in a curved line.
3. formed or characterized by curved lines

Perspective is seen as straight lines from point to point, relationships can be viewed with curved lines which can be used in composition, but not perspective.

There is no such thing as 5 point perspective.

As far as 2pt being developed around the time of canaletto, this is demonstrably false.
Here is a plate from Jan Vredeman de Vries' 1604 book on perspective.
and the frontpiece to Andrea Pozzo's 1693 Perspective in Architecture and Painting

Can you notice anything strange about de Vries' drawing? Something that just doesn't look natural?

I had to reduce the size of your posted image of Napoleon in His Study, it was 24 inches wide and I had to scroll to see the whole image and type. It would have been that way for the rest of this thread. I kept your original portrait image size to show the angles you used to line up the left VP so it looked accurate. I blew it up even larger to make very exact perspective lines from his painting. David had a very good eye to be sure. But his original drawing/painting was not accurate because that was done by eye also. He didn't have the basic knowledge of 2 point point perspective. If you took a book and laid it at your feet, the 90º angles of the book would give you a 90º distance on the horizon line. The same book sitting on a table in front of you would have the same VPs as the book on the floor, 90º apart. That is not even taught in college today much less in elementary school.
Here are the accurate perspective lines from David's painting. All but the chair are done with 1pt, including the top lines from the desk behind the chair which you included with the chair's 2pt perspective lines. I also included the Right VP which is even farther off. It's clear to me David did not possess the knowledge required for accurate 2pt perspective or else he would have used it.
The book on the floor has blue perspective lines, the chair has orange lines. The distance between the book's vanishing points is 9.5 inches. That is not even close to the plotted perspective points from the bottom of the leg, seat or arm of the chair.

david-2-pt.jpg (85 KB | )

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Feb 21^st, 2009 at 4:07pm

LarryL Ex Member

deMan

deman1670.jpg (182 KB | )

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Feb 21^st, 2009 at 4:06pm

LarryL Ex Member

perugino

The hexagon building is also false perspective, it's 1 point showing 3 sides of a 6 sided building that has 120º corners not 90º corners. The viewed sides are estimates on Perugino's part. I attached a detail of the painting with a widened canvas to show his horizontal extension lines. I corrected your horizon line to be even to the man's eyes standing in the doorway (I assumed he is the same height as Perugino). Notice how none of the extended lines meet at the same point on the horizon which would be a prerequisite to 2 point perspective.

perugio.jpg (229 KB | )

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Feb 21^st, 2009 at 4:01pm

LarryL Ex Member

"one point perspective was not used as a style"

actually it was - neoclassicism. as practiced by david, ingres, leighton etc. they didnt use 1 point all the time but they used it a lot.
[color=Blue] I don't agree. David used 1 point all the time and Ingres was just weaning from it in small ways.
David, 1871, 1874, 1804, Perspective was not his strong point but buildings were secondary. He did change the VP when the facing of the structure changed but still kept to 1 point perspective. It wasn't his choice to keep to 1 point, he didn't understand 2 point.
Ingres, 1814 Sistine Chapel (2point), Don Pedro of Toledo Kissing the Rapier of Henry IV. 1814 (2point), Paolo and Francesca. 1819 (2point). Ingres was learning to use 2 point perspective and would bring it into smaller objects in the painting. Remember, Canaletto had it in 1730.
[/color]

"Two point was started about the time of Canaletto 1740."

2 point was around long before that. as u have acknowledged u need 2 point to draw a figure from imagination. here is a composition of block figures by luca cambiaso (1527-85) also, even in strict 1 point, the addition of diagonals turns it into 2 point. renaissance painters often included octoganal or hexoganal buildings whose facades are receding in 2 point within an otherwise 1 point composition. see perugino's Christ handing keys to st peter of 1482.

[color=Blue]2 point means 2 points on the horizon line from a block sitting on the ground. The floating blocks of an adjustable form don't go to the horizon line and would automatically have 3 points as in your Luca example. This is isometric not lineal perspective. all lines are perpendicular to each other. This is not true perspective and shouldn't be used as a comparison.
The hexagon building is also false perspective, it's 1 point showing 3 sides of a 6 sided building that has 120º corners not 90º corners. The viewed sides are estimates on Perugino's part. I attached a detail of the painting with a widened canvas to show his horizontal extension lines. I corrected your horizon line to be even to the man's eyes standing in the doorway (I assumed he is the same height as Perugino). Notice how none of the extended lines meet at the same point on the horizon which would be a prerequisite to 2 point perspective.[/color]

"But the stationary 3rd and 4th points of perspective in the human form are not really noticeable. Those points have to do with great heights and depths above and below the horizon line."

I dont think this is right. 4 point perspective actually depends on how wide the viewing angle is and has nothing to do with how large an object is. for instance, if i have a huge building, but i view it from a mile away it will appear 2 point because u are only looking at a narrow portion of ur field of vision. on the other hand, if u just draw whatever is before u, even in an enclosed space, and go right up to the edges of vision it will be 4 point. here is a 1670 painting by cornelius deman showing 4 point.

[color=Blue] A wider viewing angle also increases the viewable zenith making the aerial and terrestrial VPs difficult to perceive. The visible top edges of the building still go to their 90º separation on the horizon line, the sides still go to their aerial and terrestrial VPs.
Deman does not understand the principles of 4 point. This is an approximation of what he is viewing. I attached an image extending his drawn lines. This is just an early attempt at 2 point.[/color]

"her head isn't sitting on her shoulders correctly"

okay that is arguably true. it doesnt bother me though.

"That's photo of the painting"

its a small photo so hard to tell, but it doesnt look like a painting to me. if u go to wikipedia u can see it is a real church designed by polenov
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramtsevo_Colony[/url]

[color=Blue] It looked like a painting to me, one that I would do. I agreed it was a photo and posted one of his Athens paintings showing 3 obvious perspective points.
Here are details of a 1730 & 1738 Canaletto paintings showing obvious and correct 2 point perspective.[/color]

[img]http://www.realcolorwheel.com/klimt.htg/canaletto19copyDetail.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.realcolorwheel.com/klimt.htg/canaletto11cropped.jpg[/img]

Luca_Cambiaso.jpg (356 KB | )

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Feb 20^th, 2009 at 3:15pm

LarryL Ex Member

hi don, thanks for the invite.

My pleasure Larry,

the taormina is definately 1 point, u are right. but again, that's not really a flaw as a huge percentage of work since the renaisance has been done in 1 point. the figures here, while unspectacular, dont have any obvious flaws. its clearly skilled academic work on a high level.

I know the point you are making but one point perspective was not used as a style, it is what the artists knew at the time it was painted. That's why he got the derogatory comment at the time that "He was painting in the past". Two point was started about the time of Canaletto 1740. More then 100 years before Klemt. Here are 2 of Canaletto's works. He is the first to show that the vanishing point changes with the facing direction of the building. He is fluctuating between 1 & 2 point perspective. Hasn't quite got it yet but was leading the pack.
This is how 2 point perspective on a building works. The VPs are 90º apart, the painting is a 60º view. This building is not high enough or deep enough below the eye level to show the ariel or terrestrial VPs

Looking closer I see I have actually used 4 point perspective, look at the church building's left most and right most verticals. The curve to the astral VP starting at eye level and at the same point curving inward to the lower terrestrial VP.

""Philosophy", "Medecine" and "Jurisprudence", provoked widespread controversy"

yes thats true. it was mainly because they were considered pornagraphic and had a radical, non academic style.

"Klimt never used 3 or 4 point perspective, he didn't know they existed. His figures did not size correctly in distances. Foreshortening is the only perspective in figures and I already stated how badly he did there. "

this is wrong. perspective is present in every single object at all times.

You are right. I was talking about stationary objects. The moving form with blocks having changing directions, foreshortening and receding planes as you have shown have 2point perspective each. Each block has a movable individual facing direction. But the stationary 3rd and 4th points of perspective in the human form are not really noticeable. Those points have to do with great heights and depths above and below the horizon line. So actually the human form blocks are made with multiple 2 point perspective points.

furthermore, klimt was rather good at it when he wanted to be. in the period when he produced philosophy and medicine his figural perspective was actually quite daring and novel. in the image i have overlayed perspective lines on a sketch for medicine showing that it is arguably in 4 point. also i have highlighted a few of the structural blocks that form the figures. this shows klimt's highly advanced intuitive grasp of perspective.

I see what you mean, he does juggle the blocks nicely, but notice her head isn't sitting on her shoulders correctly, it looks like it was cut and falling off. Comment on this if you will.

as far as polenov, i can see his use of 4 point. (but whats the point of the photo of the church?)

That's photo of the painting, you can tell it's a photo by the equally out of focus sides. They are in the round shape of the lens.
Well I thought it was a painting but you are right, it's a photo. So I added another of his, a painting done in 1882 of the Parthenon. To me it shows clearly the use of accurate 4 point perspective.

fairly subtle and intuitive. i dont think this is anything new, though. rembrandt did that regularly. this is how the eye actually sees and you are likely to get this effect whenever you "eyeball" something. the other types of perspective are artificial geometric constructs - while they do not represent as accurately what the eye sees they are still a valid stylistic choice.

"The camera will not give an accurate drawing because of lens distortion. It won't give accurate color because of CMYK, the use of black severely limits shadow colors. There will come a day when fine artists rule the roost again. Taking the judging out of the hands of non-artists will be the start."

well it depends what lense you use. you can obviously get lenses that exaggerate 4 point if you want. or you can use a telephoto lense that will produce a pretty accurate 2 point. as far as color, the technology is improving all the time. and you can view the image digitally its in rgb. i think alot of artists used photo ref only for drawing, and observed color on location. (like dagnan-bouveret and also sorolla at times) i think the only consistent way to beat photo ref is with imagination.

klimt_medicine.jpg (202 KB | )

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Feb 20^th, 2009 at 2:45am

Admin Offline
YaBB Administrator
Color is Everything!
Makawao, Maui, USA, HI

Posts: 1196

Don
Hi Larry,
This is our thread. 2-19-9
If you want to use more then one picture per post you have to have it already on a server and write in the web code to the image. Otherwise you can only use one image per reply. You can edit your own posts anytime. In fact we can keep it to two posts. I have never done that with anyone but it may work well. We can do that on the next Topic.

That was the 2012 forum. the new 2013 forum you can post multiple pictures.

WE were talking about Klimt and his work with perspective.

Don
If you would like to go to a forum where we can post the paintings we are talking about I would like that.
DonJusko (20 hours ago) 0 Reply | Remove
I downloaded 40160204~Vienna-Burgtheatre-Co urt-Theatre-Posters.jpg. He is not what you say. He is limited to 1 point perspective and would never even dream of 4 point perspective. Her right raised arm is as bad as the MGM logo girl. I overlaid his perspective lines on my image if you would like proof I'll email it to you.

mittROMNEY666 (10 hours ago) 0 Reply | Spam
u seem to be holding klimt to unreasonable standards here. which of the old masters or 19th cent artists ever used 4 point perspective? i can think of the mirror in the arnolfini portait, a sp by parmigianino, carel fabritus' view of a delft street. but there were not many. there is a very clear 3 point in klimt's medicine. whenever u draw a figure it pretty much has to be at least 2 point.
mittROMNEY666 (10 hours ago) 0 Reply | Spam
admittedly, his architecture is mainly 1 point but that is true for the vast majority of artists at the time; its just a stylistic choice.
as far as aerial perspective, klimt's knowledge is evident in his taormina. i admit his later works are primitive.
DonJusko (2 hours ago) 0 Reply | Remove
1894 KK or Court Theater built.
Using1900 to be the date of this mural and other murals with one point perspective.
If you go here and click on the thumbnails you will see what I mean about lacking the basics.
(I sent all the links from my inbox)
DonJusko (2 hours ago) 0 Reply | Remove
1893, Klimt and Matsch are commissioned to decorate the ceiling of the Great Hall of the new University of Vienna. The series of paintings, "Philosophy", "Medecine" and "Jurisprudence", provoked widespread controversy. He is never to accept a public commission again.
It was said "He was painting in the past".
DonJusko (2 hours ago) 0 Reply | Remove
For 20 years Moscow (1000 miles away) had been painting with 4 point perspective.
This is new page link to this painting. Vasiliy Polenov. Granny's Orchard. 1878.
Oil on canvas. The Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia.

mittROMNEY666 (10 hours ago) 0 Reply | Spam
"there is a very clear 3 point in klimt's medicine. whenever u draw a figure it pretty much has to be at least 2 point."
DonJusko (2 hours ago) 0 Reply | Remove.
Klimt never used 3 or 4 point perspective, he didn't know they existed. His figures did not size correctly in distances. Foreshortening is the only perspective in figures and I already stated how badly he did there.
I'm sorry, but this guy will not make the list no matter how much he is promoted.

Don
"the drawing and painting skills are lacking thanks to a steady amount of wars since the Spanish-American War. "
Larry
possibly a contributing factor but i think the real culprit is the camera. once it wasavailable, it was too tempting to pass up. people no longer wanted to devote years of study to their craft - the camera allowed even a novice to have perfect drawing. and once everyone could do it, it ceased to matter.
Don
The camera will not give an accurate drawing because of lens distortion. It won't give accurate color because of CMYK, the use of black severely limits shadow colors. There will come a day when fine artists rule the roost again. Taking the judging out of the hands of non-artists will be the start.

Artists using photomechanical means are not hard to weed out by looking at a group of their work. What really bugs me is the way they will smugly have theirs hung right next to a piece painted by a real artist on location. They will never say it was painted from a photo and they are happy fooling anyone they can. An illustrator in a fine art showplace. Usually with judges judging art better then theirs.

http://www.realcolorwheel.com/tubecolors.htm

IP Logged

Feb 20^th, 2009 at 1:52am

Admin Offline
YaBB Administrator
Color is Everything!
Makawao, Maui, USA, HI

Posts: 1196

This is a conversation between Larry and I that has been going on for a week.
It's about the difference between a fine artist and an illustrator and moves on to 1,2,3,4 and what I (Larry) calls a mythical 5 point perspective. These are the posts in the last two days, when we decided to bring it here where we could post the images we are talking about. Larry is Mitt, I'm Don

Don
Klimt is not what I call a finished fine artist as I said before. He never learned the basics.
Van Gogh played with a Retical but left it behind as unnecessary.

MittROMNEY666 (1 day ago)
klimt won a scholarship to the vienna school of arts and crafts and studied there from 1876 - 1883. In 1888, Klimt received the Golden order of Merit from Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria for his contributions to murals painted in the Burgtheater in Vienna. - from wikipedia

DonJusko (1 day ago)
Yea, I know, and Piccaso is a great artist. I have my own taste and it not influenced by the likes of others. I doubt if Emperor Franz Josef or his advisers really knew anything about art.

mittROMNEY666 (1 day ago)
don have u actually looked at the burgtheater paintings? they are highly refined academic works - reminiscent of alma-tadema. klimt won plenty of academic competitions and was highly thought of by the establishment early in his career. now u may not like klimt or tadema, but to say he hasnt mastered the basics is a bizarre claim. this guy wasn't picasso.

DonJusko (20 hours ago) 0
I tried to give the links that show the lack of basic knowledge in ariel and lineal perspective, while his resume is impressive I don't think his paintings are.
I tried 2 more times to post links to the paintings I'm talking about even encrypting them with spaces but they won't post here in YouTube.
If you would like to go to a forum where we can post the paintings we are talking about I would like that.

DonJusko (20 hours ago)
I downloaded 40160204~Vienna-Burgtheatre-Court-Theatre-Posters.jpg. He is not what you say. He is limited to 1 point perspective and would never even dream of 4 point perspective. Her right raised arm is as bad as the MGM logo girl. I overlaid his perspective lines on my image if you would like proof I'll email it to you.

mittROMNEY666 (10 hours ago)
u seem to be holding klimt to unreasonable standards here. which of the old masters or 19th cent artists ever used 4 point perspective? i can think of the mirror in the arnolfini portait, a sp by parmigianino, carel fabritus' view of a delft street. but there were not many. there is a very clear 3 point in klimt's medicine. whenever u draw a figure it pretty much has to be at least 2 point.

mittROMNEY666 (10 hours ago)
admittedly, his architecture is mainly 1 point but that is true for the vast majority of artists at the time; its just a stylistic choice. as far as aerial perspective, klimt's knowledge is evident in his taormina. i admit his later works are primitive.

DonJusko (2 hours ago)
1894 KK or Court Theater built. Using1900 to be the date of this mural and other murals with one point perspective.
If you go here and click on the thumbnails you will see what I mean about lacking the basics.
(I sent all the links from my inbox)

DonJusko (2 hours ago)
1893, Klimt and Matsch are commissioned to decorate the ceiling of the Great Hall of the new University of Vienna. The series of paintings, "Philosophy", "Medecine" and "Jurisprudence", provoked widespread controversy. He is never to accept a public commission again.
It was said "He was painting in the past".

DonJusko (2 hours ago)
For 20 years Moscow (1000 miles away) had been painting with 4 point perspective.
This is new page link to this painting. Vasiliy Polenov. Granny's Orchard. 1878.
Oil on canvas. The Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia.

DonJusko (2 hours ago)
Mitt said: "there is a very clear 3 point in klimt's medicine. whenever u draw a figure it pretty much has to be at least 2 point."
Klimt never used 3 or 4 point perspective, he didn't know they existed. His figures did not size correctly in distances. Foreshortening is the only perspective in figures and I already stated how badly he did there.
I'm sorry, but this guy will not make the list no matter how much he is promoted.

DonJusko (1 day ago)
Being a great artist is being able to paint anything in front of you. I include that artist and the one able to remember what they learned and paint a story, like Masaccio, Caravaggio, Van Dyck, Raphael, Rubens, Rembrandt, Velasquez, Frans Hals, Vermeer, Murillo, Lebrun, Mignard, Delacroix, Bellows, Shishkin, Goya, Vigee-LeBrun, Levitan, Pukirev, Polenov, Courbet, Bouguereau, Repin and Homer. I may have left out some but you know what I mean.

DonJusko (1 day ago)
Mitt is right and wrong. First you train with models before you, then you paint stories with what you have learned.
mittROMNEY666 (1 day ago)
i agree w most of ur list. needs more italians though. even the more realistic artists of the baroque/rococco period like caravaggio, velazquez and hals did far more than just replicate what they saw.
once we get past 1850 and the camera becomes available, there is a definate break however. u dont really see the same level of fluency in the draftsmanship. the value and color is more accurate (and so is the draftsmaship if ur talking about mechanical accuracy). but something has been lost.

DonJusko (19 hours ago)
Needs more Italians though? You betcha, it's a very small list, I might even have missed some of my favorites.
Today we have the most advanced color pigments in history but the drawing and painting skills are lacking thanks to a steady amount of wars since the Spanish-American War.

mittROMNEY666 (9 hours ago)
"the drawing and painting skills are lacking thanks to a steady amount of wars since the Spanish-American War."
Mitt: possibly a contributing factor but i think the real culprit is the camera. once it was available, it was too tempting to pass up. people no longer wanted to devote years of study to their craft - the camera allowed even a novice to have perfect drawing. and once everyone could do it, it ceased to matter.
~

http://www.realcolorwheel.com/tubecolors.htm

IP Logged

Pages: 1

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Home

‹ Board

Top of this page