Saturday, December 19, 2009
Costa Rica
Patricia and I just came back from a great trip to Costa Rica for a destination wedding of two of my friends from the Peace Corps (pictures are posted at picasaweb). I thought about taking my oil paints along, but they just don't lend themselves to that kind of a trip. So I did pen & ink sketches instead, adding some watercolor for interest.
So here's some of the outcome from that: all are 5.5" x7.5" on 140# coldpress paper.
Nuevo Aranal is off the tourist track (menu in Spanish), and Mincho runs
a great streetside breakfast bar there, full of local color.
This couple had a little restaurant in Bagaces, and they served us excellent soup and salad.
Ocotal was advertised as one of the nicer beaches. And it was, except for the black sand beach
(volcanic lava). Nothing wrong with that, really, but black foam just isn't very esthetically pleasing.
Coco was a sleepy, picturesque little town full of souvenir shops.
Lake Aranal was really large and beautiful. We would have gone kayaking here, except that
both days we were there it doing a good imitation of the monsoon season.
Volcan Aranal is impressive, and is a main tourist attraction because it has been continually active for years, so that you can see glowing lava flows at night, and maybe even some explosions and flames. However, it went dormant last month, so no more nighttime fireworks shows, at least for now. We did not even see the top of the volcano while we were there (the monsoon, again), but I kind of like this view anyway.
So here's some of the outcome from that: all are 5.5" x7.5" on 140# coldpress paper.
a great streetside breakfast bar there, full of local color.
(volcanic lava). Nothing wrong with that, really, but black foam just isn't very esthetically pleasing.
Volcan Aranal is impressive, and is a main tourist attraction because it has been continually active for years, so that you can see glowing lava flows at night, and maybe even some explosions and flames. However, it went dormant last month, so no more nighttime fireworks shows, at least for now. We did not even see the top of the volcano while we were there (the monsoon, again), but I kind of like this view anyway.Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Vieques -> Frances Harper
So, a big point of discussion in Vieques was the age-old conundrum What is Art??? Views included the Human Interpretation of Nature, the Expression of Beauty, the Process of Illuminating That Which is Wondrous or Mysterious or the Essence of it All (I've taken considerable liberty in paraphrasing, here). I took a good bit of flak for my definition, but I still think it as good as anything else that was presented:
Art is anything that people (NOT including the artist him/herself, and preferably more than one person) say it is and pay money (or give something of recognized value) to obtain it.
So yeah, nobody bought Van Gogh's strangely sloppy work until after he cut off his ear, so when was he making art? I contend that it wasn't art until people started buying it. What about a masterpiece that got destroyed before anybody saw it - was it art? I say no, it wasn't art: it was only a potential masterpiece that got destroyed. OK, how about Urs Fischer who has somebody dig a big hole in the middle of his gallery and then calls the hole a work of art? I say it IS art if somebody agrees, and buys it (and believe it or not, his hole WAS sold. To a collector, for a LOT of money!). And if in 20 years we decide that the hole was farce instead of art? I say that the value changed and it stopped being art. There was a time when real estate was a very smart investment, like Dutch tulips and dot-com companies. Their value changed too, and they stopped being smart investments.
If that didn't generate comments or fiery emails to me, I don't know what will.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
I've been painting some - mostly making some feminine faces that get messed up in the background-foreground. I think they are interesting.
But much more, I'm focusing on Frances Harper. Have met with the Fashion Collection curators at Phila University, Nancy Packer, and the Phila Art Museum, Christina Haugland. We can peg her dress as 1895 +/- 2 yrs or so, which makes her age in the photo (see 2 posts ago) about 70, which seems amazing - she appears so patrician and forceful. Yeah, that isn't so surprising for 2009 maybe, but for 1895? And, the dresses in that period were amazing, with all their layers and hooks and bones and stays, bustles and puffy mutton sleeves. These ladies TOOK UP SPACE!! And the fabrics were beautiful, shimmery - mostly a heavy silk. Unfortunately older women tended to wear quite dark colors, but even so the fabrics were figured or textured.
Patricia and I are headed to Costa Rica for Charles and Heidi's wedding tomorrow, and soon after our return, will be going to Madison WI for Christmas with her family. So I can't start the portrait until January. But meanwhile, I am salivating with anticipation.
Whoops! I was just about to add photos of the wonderful dresses and fabrics that will help guide my portrait. I'd LOVE to share them with you, but I have signed papers that said I would only use them for research and would not publish them. See me in my studio!
Art is anything that people (NOT including the artist him/herself, and preferably more than one person) say it is and pay money (or give something of recognized value) to obtain it.
So yeah, nobody bought Van Gogh's strangely sloppy work until after he cut off his ear, so when was he making art? I contend that it wasn't art until people started buying it. What about a masterpiece that got destroyed before anybody saw it - was it art? I say no, it wasn't art: it was only a potential masterpiece that got destroyed. OK, how about Urs Fischer who has somebody dig a big hole in the middle of his gallery and then calls the hole a work of art? I say it IS art if somebody agrees, and buys it (and believe it or not, his hole WAS sold. To a collector, for a LOT of money!). And if in 20 years we decide that the hole was farce instead of art? I say that the value changed and it stopped being art. There was a time when real estate was a very smart investment, like Dutch tulips and dot-com companies. Their value changed too, and they stopped being smart investments.
If that didn't generate comments or fiery emails to me, I don't know what will.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
I've been painting some - mostly making some feminine faces that get messed up in the background-foreground. I think they are interesting.
But much more, I'm focusing on Frances Harper. Have met with the Fashion Collection curators at Phila University, Nancy Packer, and the Phila Art Museum, Christina Haugland. We can peg her dress as 1895 +/- 2 yrs or so, which makes her age in the photo (see 2 posts ago) about 70, which seems amazing - she appears so patrician and forceful. Yeah, that isn't so surprising for 2009 maybe, but for 1895? And, the dresses in that period were amazing, with all their layers and hooks and bones and stays, bustles and puffy mutton sleeves. These ladies TOOK UP SPACE!! And the fabrics were beautiful, shimmery - mostly a heavy silk. Unfortunately older women tended to wear quite dark colors, but even so the fabrics were figured or textured.
Patricia and I are headed to Costa Rica for Charles and Heidi's wedding tomorrow, and soon after our return, will be going to Madison WI for Christmas with her family. So I can't start the portrait until January. But meanwhile, I am salivating with anticipation.
Whoops! I was just about to add photos of the wonderful dresses and fabrics that will help guide my portrait. I'd LOVE to share them with you, but I have signed papers that said I would only use them for research and would not publish them. See me in my studio!
