Hello All,
I have spent the last 5 years in full time school and work, blah, blah,blah.....and i didnt have time to take any art classes. I have to self teach. I work with acrylics and have all the brushes and paints etc. I know i am terrible. I have lots of ideas of what i want to do, but cant translate it to canvass. So my question is: Any suggestions on the best technique to get better? Obviously it means painting a lot, but should i force myself to paint 10 minutes every day, whether i am in the mood or not or should i try to paint a subject 10 times in one sitting? Any suggestions? I realize every one is different in their approach to art. At this point i just need some guidance.
posted by:
Vanessa
SF Bay Area
  • what style/technique do you instinctively adopt when drawing and painting...?

    there are "rules of thumb" that can help you develop a sense of proportion and tone and colour etc but ultimately it's about what you are interested in exploring/achieving etc...

    depending on the effects you want to achieve and your own fun and mastery the choice of materials and scale can be significant too...

    after artschool in the early 80's I tried to keep going with large canvasses which was totally inappropriate to my poverty and isolation so although I did manage some good stuff I struggled too much and lost the work whereas if I'd of focussed on smaller drawings I would have saved myself a lot of pain and perhaps been better able to cope with life in general etc...

    there are a lot of conditions at work...

    if you have the time and resources and will to paint 24/7 then that might be a good way to develop your skills and would at least represent a learning experience... :)
    • Ar you attempting to paint realistically, from life? Or what?
      • Well, i have given up trying to paint realistically because i just cant draw, but i can get closer to reality if i use color. Ok for example I decided i was going to paint an eye. so i looked at various examples of eyes to see the best way to paint it. i wasnt trying to get realistic coloration, more of the proportion and shape.
        • Oh okay. Can I offer a couple thoughts? Firstly, You hint at two methods of making images. The first way, perceptual, is simple observation of things like proportion, lights, darks and shapes. This is the bedrock of most art forms, the early stages of many abstract painters. Basically, it is to render a likeness, often from three dimensions, but also two, as in copying a magazine photo.

          You also allude to a second approach to image making: imagination. I think you said, "I want to be able to make the things in my head." In many ways, imagination dos not match the world as we see it. What we can see is far more complex than what we can imagine. Real situations, when closely observed, often seem to defy logic. The power of an artist is to render what they see, not what they think it should be.

          So, and you probably won't like this, because you said you can't draw, I suspect you need to learn to draw first, even as a practice to develop your powers of observation.

          On another point you raised. It is a good idea to spend time with your art stuff, even if you don't feel like it. Long ago, a professor told us to go into our studios every day, even just to sit. I have followed her advice and found it to be ultimately fruitful. This is the mark of an artist: we work through times of self-doubt AND confidence. How many times have you heard someone say, "Oh I love to draw."
          "Why did you stop?"
          "I guess I'm waiting for inspiration." And, you just know they will be waiting forever.

          Anyway, I suggest drawing. When you can "map out" the basic, overall scene on the page, Do it again, on canvas, with paint. Copy. Don't fuss over technique. Find a painting that excites you, something simple, and make a copy that is proportionally correct. Make it look just like the original. You own "hand" will take care of technique. Draw/paint what you see for a while, then try imagination.

          Sorry for the long reply. It's just that your question is so fundamental.
          • I think that you might need to go through some boring stages with this...master those...and then, you know the freer expression will come later...

            you know, like learning to play some tune on the piano that you hate, until you can master the keys enough to go it on your own.

            my own drawing skills stink....

            but if I had the time, I would take all the standard art classes until those skills were brought up some notches. I think it would be very worthwhile...

            and you know, you could bring up those issues, in the class, with the teacher. And there, with the teacher watching your process, they could give you some more specific insight...
            • I dunno about classes and teachers... hahaha

              I was always a naturally shit hot draftsman but that was probably down to drawing even as an infant and copying illustration styles from comic books etc...

              I guess lifeclasses and artschools can bring a bit of sociable peer comparison stuff but the basic rules of thumb are just things like squinting to get general tonal values and measuring to get proportions and then with paint or chalks it gets into mixing colours and experimenting with application etc...

              with a bit of discipline in applying these rules it actually should be difficult to not be a good draftsman (especially as we have so much access to photographic supports) and then all the other "qualitative" issues will come to the fore...

              like when you're comfortable with the basics you can really get technically stylistically virtuoso brilliant and amaze yourself with convolutedly sensitive outrageously psychically pertinent genius then get thoroughly depressed because nobody cares least of all yourself and then you realise life itself is hopelessly cruel and futile and you wished you'd of done fun music stuff instead or sport or anything that might of earned money and got you a life etc... hahaha
            • I agree with you. I think that for any subject or discipline there will be areas that are boring and need to be "learned". So yes i will probably have to take some classes that may be boring or deal with boring topics to get to level i want to be. I did take one painting class in college and it was fundamentally helpful because whenever the teacher finally got around to me, his advice was always very productive for me. It was like taking the next step up.
          • Long replies are great. Dont worry. I am very happy to see all the people who have responded to my question have given well thought out answers. It is good food for thought. I can think about what every one has said and all of it makes sense. Thank you i appreciate your long answers.
    • "Mastery" that is the question! Do you think i should discover what my style is first. My problem is that i tend to be very cyclical. I am not the kind of person who routinely does the same thing everyday. I tend to have cycles. that is why i am wondering if i should force my self to sit down for maybe 30 minutes per day and paint even though i am completely not in the mood. At this point i am going to keep on with acyrilics because i already have the materials, as for what i am trying to achieve........I just want to get the ideas that exist in my head onto canvass.
      • I think style comes after "mastery." There is a thing called "hand," your innate tendencies, hand becomes style. In regard to your cyclical nature, the more you can cycle your way through experience, the quicker you get to style.

        If it's ideas you want to illustrate, then that's a different proposition. Regardless, even illustrators master drawing first. Illustrators are among the best drafters. Take a woman in a dress standing in a street. How do you do the wrinkles in the fabric? Where is the light source? What is the perspective space of the street? It's a long-term study, enjoyable. Going from imagination is the most difficult, but there are tricks: classical lighting, photos as reference, but it still requires observational skills. If you don't have to concern youself with technique, style will automatically flow out.

        I wish I could just say an easy way to go from here to there, but it all takes time and practice. Your question is "what's the best way to become good at painting?" I vote for perceptual drawing as the best--and quickest way--to become good at painting. But this is just how I would do it. If you can't draw, it makes painting more difficult. Maybe others think differently. Again, I am struck by the starkness of the question. I've been working on that question all my life. It's fun to try to put it in a paragraph. Challenging.
  • Ok, I haven't read any of the other posts so forgive me if I duplicate.

    Its your methods really that you have to reconsider. If you really want to do representational painting you could find a way to resolve you drawing issues. I don't believe there is any worthiness in sticking to traditional drawing methods. If you used good photographic references of your chosen subject matter. You can use squaring up methods or overhead projection by photocopying or printing your photo into acetate.

    I think you do have to put the hours in if the type of work you want to do requires it. Most problems are better worked through rather than thought through. Things happen then and quite often unexpected things. 10 minutes may not be long enough for you to reach that point of new possibilities.
    If you want to develop your painting skills you could set yourself the task of transcribing a favorite painting. Its amazing what you can leans about processes that way.
  • I am self taught....and at first my paintings were so flat and horrible. I didn't want to take classes because of the outragous cost. Believe it or not I watched some PBS art shows and Bob Ross (so funny i know) and I can't even tell you how much that helped. Good pointers and ideas to get started....then you just grow from what you enjoy.
    I have found painting is easy--and I am glad I saved the money. People actually want to buy my stuff and think I have an Art degree.
    Good Luck to you!!
    • Pollock developed his style of painting because he felt that he could not do figurative painting...

      The is no bad art, only bad titles.
      • I meant -There is no bad art, only bad titles.
        • Yes I understand the point you are making Andrew, I really do. The lady who first posted the question needs to find her language. I think that is an important consideration. She has to make that decision, but I don't believe there is a disney world were no bad art exists, nice as it sounds. Its a well coined phrase, I know.
          • How many now legendary artists were considered terrible in their time? Van Gogh comes to mind, just to name one.

            There might not be a disney world for you where no bad art exists. Just think of all the art you don't like...and there are probably 100 people who do like it. I agree she needs to find her own language.

            And each language is its own world, its own definitions of what is right and wrong.

            To evaluate the Beatles on the same scale as Tibetan throat music would be wrong.
            To evaluate Cy Twombly on the same scale as Renior would be wrong.
            To evaluate American Ballet Theater on the same scale as a break dancing competition would be wrong.
            To evaluate Paul McCarthy on the same scale as ancient Greek sculptures.

            There is no absolute in art. There are absolutes for different styles and genres, but not across them. Unless we say that the self is the absolute.

            "I understand your point, I really do." - not sure you do.
            • Yes I agree with what you say about context obviously. That’s understood, isn’t it, by most? And I also full heartily agree with you that absolutes are not desirable in any art practice otherwise the work looses 'the question' and before you know it you have a dead thing on your hands. You're preaching to the converted here with all that.
              What I meant was, and I probably should ve been clearer. It’s a very simple point really about decisions. Some artists never quite get a handle on the language they decide to use. It you can imagine reading a classic novel and all the spelling is wrong throughout not intentionally and it detracts from the intended meaning. You know, it just doesn’t contribute or successfully disrupt which is just as important and probably more so.
              I suppose it comes down to definitions like all these types of discussions usually do. A definition of 'bad art' is cultural as you suggest.

              But I think the phrase 'There is no bad art, only bad titles' is a simplistic one and I really hate that phrase. It undermines the artists in my opinion and makes the wrong assumption that artists may be holding themselves above the art. Like, being too cool to be judged by or against any criteria. There’s an insecurity about it. I think most artists have more to them than that. They are willing to take up the gauntlet and respond intelligently and not just emotionally to whatever is launched towards them by the spectator, the critic and theorist, and thankfully too.

              Hey this is cool!....but I suspect Vanessa isn't reading this any more.
              • Yes, context! and then if context is what makes the work understandable or good then I still say there is no bad art. Just the context has not been found yet to make it good. I don't think that it undermines the artist at all. There is bad art - art that does not fulfill the criteria it set out to.

                to paraphrase Nietzsche - "Personal aesthetic is dead"
                • Yes we agree on all this Andrew. I just don't have your total belief that a criteria will come along to support all outcomes.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    I think a post-modernist might argue that there is no bad art, except for their critiques of modernism.

                    But first, the example of Van Gogh is interesting because I think the "discovery" of his hidden genius is part and parcel of his mystic. Laypeople's fascination with Van Gogh's reassessment is measured in dollars. In the artworld, he is valued as an important relay in the history of modernism. In his time, his value as a modernist was already evident, not to the official salon artists of the time, who were having a totally different kind of dialogue, but apparent to the growing modernist movement.

                    If there is any context rigid with absolutes, it would be modernism. Because modernism's roots are found in the renaissance, imo, modernism was able to rake in generations of artists into the domain of modernism, right up to today. At least half of all works have been assessed through modernist concerns--what is good, what is bad. I say half, because the other half has been interpreted through the lens of the post-modernist. Except fot the post-modernists' general distain for modernism, it's rare that they pronounce any any as bad.

                    The zeitgeist of our time has not been the re-evaluation of what was once-bad as now-good, but more often the turn toward what was once-good is now-bad. Maybe, even more cynically, what is now-good is also now-bad.
                    • I like these statements Kimowan

                      I think a post-modernist might argue that there is no bad art, except for their critiques of modernism.

                      The zeitgeist of our time has not been the re-evaluation of what was once-bad as now-good, but more often the turn toward what was once-good is now-bad. Maybe, even more cynically, what is now-good is also now-bad.

                      They make me want to shout 'Bingo'.

                      Regarding the Laypeoples fascination with Van Gogh. I think also there is the romanticised and often misrepresented details of his biography to contend with. It successfully produces a branding in the comfortable role of manically tortured artist producing work for a market . Heroic romanticism as a marketing script, I suppose. but we all know it for what it is.
              • Hello to all! Thank you eveyone for giving me their perspectives on how to paint. Sorry about the non replies. I have been in Singapore since the 20th. I am still in Singapore, but have just gotten a chance to read everyones replies. I do have a question for you Selkie. When you said that I needed to find my "language" did you mean that figurative or literally. Again, thank you everyone for the replies. Yes i am still reading
                • Yes Vanessa,
                  I meant your visual language. Its a decision only you can make coming from a genuine interest in something that you have encountered. It could be figurative narrative painting or it could be formal abstraction that interests you. It could be so many things for there are many.

                  It might be useful for you to locate a 'tribe' which is a good word for it I think. You know, all the art and artists living and dead that you can identify with or are interested in. Not necessarily just painters I should suggest. Once you have located your tribe you can appropriately channel your research in the right direction. It's practical and also it can help you to gain confidence in the way that all subject knowledge does.
                  When I use the word research, just to be clear, it should involve primary research, actually getting your hands dirty and experimenting with paint not just viewing work in galleries or reading about it. That's why its important to spend enough time the materials.

Recent topics in "Art//Life"