Camera Obscura and Camera Lucida

**Paul Rhoads** · February 4, 2010, 03:35 AM

For heaven's sake Bart, whoes 'venting' at you!

Why don't you explain your point: how do you define drawing? What do you think drawing is about? How do you define the western drawing tradition (if at all), and how do you compair it with other traditions? This would be interesting!

I think the western drawing tradition is the most interesting one because I think it deals most profoundly with space. This means that the western drawing tradition gives the greatest expressive possibilties.
This is MY VIEW. Having this view I can only feel that Hockney is a jerk.
What is your view? - not what is your view of me for holding the view I do...
;)
But what is your view of DRAWING?

**Darren** · February 4, 2010, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by Paul Rhoads:
But what is your view of DRAWING?

I know that you are talking to Bart here Paul but I came across this the other day:
Definitions of drawing.

As for my definition, I'll have to think about it some before I respond. Perhaps it's for another thread?

**bart johnson** · February 4, 2010, 03:52 AM

Paul, I also just happened to pick up an old Phaidon book on Mantegna yesterday (for 15 bucks) that includes a preliminary drawing of the St. James part of the Ermitani church that I'd never seen before.

**bart johnson** · February 4, 2010, 03:53 AM

Sorry Paul I just saw the question about drawing. I can't talk at the moment. I will get back to that as soon as I get the chance.

**Orp** · February 4, 2010, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by Paul Rhoads:

I think the western drawing tradition is the most interesting one because I think it deals most profoundly with space. This means that the western drawing tradition gives the greatest expressive possibilties.
This is MY VIEW.

Just so we are clear - YOUR VIEW is based on a vague value judgement according to however you feel it should be defined, right? 5000 years of Asian Art for example, has only given us inferior or non-existent expressive possibilities.

How 'profound'...LMAO

**Paul Rhoads** · February 4, 2010, 06:08 AM

ust so we are clear - YOUR VIEW is based on a vague value judgement according to however you feel it should be defined, right? 5000 years of Asian Art for example, has only given us inferior or non-existent expressive possibilities.

Whatever.

**Orp** · February 4, 2010, 07:25 AM

Afraid to answer a question for once in your life?

Here's a guy who at the first sign of someone actually asking him to explain himself runs for the hills...what a complete intellectual coward. Yet the declarative statements still march on with no justification.

Still LMAO.

[ 04. February 2010, 13:34: Message edited by: Admin ]

**sander** · February 4, 2010, 07:27 AM

I am willing to redirect the arrows- no need for Samson to bring the pillars down on our Forum.

When painters write, as we do here, we become critics. Our bias narrows and we misinterpret the views of others. It's the critics I usually don't care for and the painters who then become performance artists for the inner circle of critics.

Such artists may be very influential as JC noted of Warhol. Hockney may indeed become Art101 as Darren pointed out. I even like Hockney's View to the East as Bart directed to it. Still, a decorative comment on vGogh and Asia. If I understand Paul's use of the word, "decorative" then I can go on to my point: Hockney is performing for that small circle of critics who ARE Brilliant, verbal, intellectual (and far left) except that they are the engine for commodification.

**Orp** · February 4, 2010, 07:31 AM

To be fair to Hockney, he does capture the vacuity of Los Angeles space well...if that's what one likes.

Don't see much 'Western Art Spacial Profundity' there, however.

Excuse me...whatever.