Wow, I knew things were too good to be true respecting Miller. He thinks artists can't do anything except what their work shows. Artists are often able to do lots of things, perform many technical methods, in addition to what their current work displays. Linear perspective is one of the standard skills. Since I know Laurie Fendrich I can assure listers that she is extremely skilled in perspective even though her new paintings are flat. Even I taught figure drawing and anatomy for years, and perspective as well. Hale's anatomy is ok but his method leaves no room for working after nature. I think it's better to go directly to the subject, including anatomical charts, etc., and not do specialized methods.
Also, it's funny that Miller says Hopper is the go-to perspective guy. Well, he certainly knew perspective but I can't think of a single painting of his that follows it accurately. On purpose he distorted his perspective. Don't believe me? Well, take tracing paper and lay in his perspective othogonals and you'd find them awry. His Gas Station is a masterpiece of skewed perspective that adds to the anxiety expressed by that scene. And don't even think about Manet and perspective or Van Eyck, and many many others. WC --- Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An abstract painter, like Laurie Fendrich, has no > more business (unless it's > only about business) teaching perspective than a > curator (and sometime ABX > painter) like Robert Beverly Hale, had teaching > figurative anatomy. > > Because -- as William has been asserting -- taste is > the important thing a > teacher has to teach -- and -- as I would assert -- > the best (or only?) true > evidence for taste is the product thereof. > > So unless Ms. Fendrich uses perspective to create a > deep, illusionary, > architectural space in her own admirable paintings > -- she has no business > teaching it. > > Even if she's only teaching the non fine-arts majors > -- i.e. those who aim > only to be amateurs --- because even amateurs should > strive for excellence - > and will benefit from the best kind of education. > > Edward Hopper is the one who should be teaching how > to design paintings using > perspective -- or if he's not available -- someone > else who's completely -- > and successfully -- immersed in that kind of design. > > Which makes another point about taste: if it's > casual -- it only deserves > casual attention. > > To be important -- taste requires a total -- fanatic > - obsessive -- > immersion. > > > The devoted, but mediocre, flamenco dancer can > teach flamenco dancing better > than the super-star ballerina ever could -- etc. > etc. > > (I'm guessing that there's usually quite a gap > between the kinds of paintings > that amateurs would like to do -- and the kinds of > paintings made by art > school professionals like Fendrich -- so painters > like Fendrich end up > teaching those popular classes for amateur beginners > - whether they're really > qualified to do it or not) > > > > ************************************************************* > > > > > > > Fine with me. One needs to be for something and > against something as an artist. For an interesting > comment re teaching and perspective...with a last > line > hinting taste, see > www.chronicle.com/review/brainstorm/fendrich > > Laurie Fendrich is an impressive abstract painter > and > writer. > _____________________________________________________________ > Own the Ultimate Platinum Credit Card. Click here. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijldJdFtPbAQIUPWyHWx1yAE3 > HDZxY4eviCW1xUW7qsmHrgbC/
