RoR: Forum

The italicized are the dictionary.com’s definitions for radical.

Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem.

My usage was virtually exact. With Aware, the contrast of warm/cool light theory between the interior and exterior is both innovative and fundamental. Fundamental in the sense that I have to understand how light works on a 2-dimensional surface. Light is one of the axioms of visual perception, can’t find a deeper root.

Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education.

Understanding the essence of how light works in an artwork enables me to go out fresh and explore its possibilities and to cast off traditional and staid ways of making art. This enables me to conceptually flip the warm interior light with the cool exterior light and merging them so there is a seamless flow.

Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.

In almost everything I make I look for new ways in some aspect of visual communication. The red paper as a base color to start off a representational piece is huge departure from "current practices."

I can safely say that within representational art I am a radical. Amusingly, it is kind of a curse–its seems to take forever for others to grasp just one aspect meanwhile I have gone off and made 500 interesting solutions to new problems.

Cheers,

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 3/28, 10:45am)

Post 21

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 11:26am

Joe wrote: "Reminds me of Rand's passage in RM about that apple painted red, so red that no apple ever looked like that, but yet, it does...With that in mind, that's how I was reading your "radical" statement."
I view the above differently. What I understood Rand to mean is that she talking about the conceptual creation of a 3-dimensional thing on a 2-dimensional surface–it looks like but is not literally an apple. That would apply to any competent Ma and Pop painter. What I was talking about is that within representational art there is the radical stretch from axiomatic understanding of light to the furthest reaches of innovation.

Michael

Post 22

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 11:45am

"What I understood Rand to mean is that she talking about the conceptual creation of a 3-dimensional thing on a 2-dimensional surface–it looks like but is not literally an apple."

I don't think we are that far away from each other, Michael. ("This is not a pipe.") But talking beyond the technical means, I took her to be talking about painting the archetype of the apple, highlighting its essential features. A representational painter of your mom and pop variety might paint it realistically, staying true to the actual color, but a romantic realist would highlight the redness (no disrepect to Granny Smith Green!) of the apple.

Here's the quote for those interested:
"It is a common experience to observe that a particular painting-for example, a still life of apples-makes its subject 'more real than it is in reality.' The apples seem brighter and firmer, they seem to possess an almost self-assertive character, a kind of heightened reality which neither their real-life models nor any color photograph can match. Yet if one examines them closely, one sees that no real-life apple ever looked like that. What is it, then, that the artist has done? He has created a visual abstraction."

At any rate, not disputing your use of the word radical. You satiated my curiousity. As for the picture itself, since I am not a fan of the color red, it's a little too red for me;). But I was wondering how your idea would translate with, say, green canvas or purple?

Post 23

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 12:26pm

Joe wrote: "I don't think we are that far away from each other, Michael. ("This is not a pipe.") But talking beyond the technical means, I took her to be talking about painting the archetype of the apple, highlighting its essential features. A representational painter of your mom and pop variety might paint it realistically, staying true to the actual color, but a romantic realist would highlight the redness (no disrepect to Granny Smith Green!) of the apple."

Joe, oh, sigh, I think we are light years away from each other.

I don’t understand how your example fits a romantic realist.

A romantic realist painting means something completely different for me than a color choice. Romantic Realism is a thematic vision that looks believable or real. Most of my major works fit this category while many of my works do not. Rembrandt does this in many of his epic/scene works. The Renaissance artists do as well–many, many artists do this throughout history, its not limited to Objectivism.

Michael

Post 24

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 12:33pm

Well, let's leave it at that, then, Michael. Wasn't looking for an argument, sincerely sorry if I don't understand you the way you'd like to be.

Post 25

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 1:10pm

Joe,

No offense taken.

But I wonder if your actually curious or only looking for the things that conform to your views.

Michael

Post 26

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 1:21pm

I was simply curious, Michael. But if I am going to be subject to a trial every time I ask you an artistic question, I'll simply stop asking you questions.

Post 27

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 2:57pm