REALLY???
Ever hear of Leger (my biggest influence) and Botero?
I'm in a bit of a WTFish-daze after receiving the following response from submitting images of the Zen Flower paintings below:



The response:

Hi John
I like the idea but maybe the women should a little more attractive. She looks a little like a body builder with the thick neck and huge shoulders!! OUCH! It may be that you don’t like archetype figures but they do sell better




I know dude was being honest, and I have a thick skin. I don't expect every person to dig every piece I paint, but...you've started dealing with me knowing full well that I do not generally paint "delicate" women. The thick and curvaceous/larger than life/earth-mother-ish imagery is part of my whole "thing". It's explained in my Artist Statement even.

Anyway, maybe I'm reading too much into it. I just found it...interesting.

They're fine.
I don't get the person's remark.

I don't think the size of the figure matters to a collector.



Somewhere along the line I stopped painting women figures, and need to get back to that.

Some of my stuff (no I'm not trying to hog the spotlight ):

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn....7_5582.jpg

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn....7_8940.jpg

http://www.danonderdonk.c...ting02.jpg

I love the proportions... its almost like the perspective is taken from an angle of a young child looking up at his/her mommy or aunty. I love it, it make me get a nostalgic feeling from the shape of the figures.

Its like "here mommy.... I picked this for you"

I love them.

paintedlady said:

And proportions or no, I don't see how that affects a paintings desirability.

Imago said:

Those are cool!
And please, you always hog the attention.

Imago said:

I agree.

Imago said:

Painted: I never even saw it from that angle! I love that!

That's my issue. I don't "get" the response either. I mean, I get that crap "thin is in" attitude in selling products like fashion and other things. I don't agree with it, but I expect it.
I guess I'm surprised that it would be something that would come up in ART.

Especially when you're already dealing with me. You've seen my portfolio. You're read my whole statement and how the size of the women is a major point of my work. You've CHOSEN pieces with thick women in them.

I don't get it.

johnart said:

Don't you love critics? I guess that fool wouldn't like Picasso's work either.

johnart said:

I love the ambiguity of their size in your pieces, that's the beauty of it.
The smaller heads and thicker arms makes them seem for like fertility goddesses and nurturing.... if the images were thin, the images would read too sorrowful.
Like more of a statement regarding loss or rememberance.


IMO.

I'm an artist myself and I think that statement is outrageous! wow

I happen to think the work is great. I feel changing the look of the women and their figure is not necessary. I dont like it when people try to take what they like/what they think is right and try to push it on someone elses creative work.


A few years ago Steadwood suggested I place a blank canvas on an easel at my art shows for critics. That way...if they think they can do better,they can prove it No one has accepted the challenge.

yeah maybe hot nude women would sell better, but then you're not trying to sell these as Playboy cartoons, are you?

johnart said:

You know the impressionists were criticized for their paintings too. Often lambasted for daring to call their 'vulgar' paintings 'art'. Today of course, one need only take a short stroll across the river Seine from the Louvre' to see impressionist work being cherished at the Musée d'Orsay.


I don't view the size of the women as having an affect on the overall tone of the paintings. And if that's an issue or an intention behind your art, then one could just as easily argue that those women are beautiful. It's a perfect contrast from the sexually neutered, often cold and baron figures seen in fashion industry spreads. I'm not saying skinny=baron, but let's face it--feminine energy paints with a broad brush, and whoever critiqued you has a narrow mindset.

I envy your ability to capture feminine energy. I've tried over the years to capture it in my work, but it always leans towards a more masculine or androgynous tone. I also can't seem to capture joy in my work--it's always got a desperate or angry quality.


I think you're stuff is fine the way it is. Whoever critiqued it has tunnel vision.
[Edited 8/5/09 14:38pm]

Tell him to fuck off.











I'm still very crabby today.

I think they are adorable!! Who wants to always stare at some skinny bitches anyways? I think they show a lot of charm.

In theory critiques should be helpful. I think that his 'critique' was more subjective which doesn't benefit you at all. As an artist I'm sure your used to all kinds of critiques so this should roll off your back. I wouldn't pay it any mind. Just keep doing what your doing. to each its own.

Utterly ridiculous. Large(r) women are found throughout art history, in different media, with different purposes, subjects within differing contexts.

The fact that he's unfamiliar with that is almost laughable. Tell him to study everyone from Jacob Lawrence, Picasso, Kahlo and Matisse to even far less-serious works by R. Crumb.

He needs a clue.
[Edited 8/5/09 15:31pm]

heybaby said:

I agree 100%

ThreadBare said:

One of my favorite pieces is by Klimt, Danae....



her rounded thigh makes this portrait stunning to me.

paintedlady said:

I mean, the cool thing about art is in the different places artists and audience alike fine beauty. Homogeneity doesn't fit that equation.

I don't get that stupid critique at all. If you changed the work according to his suggestions it wouldn't be your vision any longer...it would be the critic's vision. I wish he could see this thread.

I like it. Keep doing your thing.

johnart said:

what a LOOOOOSER
he probably hates Gauguin too

NDRU said:

who the hell hangs hot nude women up in their house but pervs anyway!

paintedlady said:

Why is she spitting gold coins out of her vageene ?



I saw something like that in Bangkok.

"spitting"

ZombieKitten said:

ThreadBare said:

I think I might be in deep dookie.

I failed to mention that this just happens to be the dude that just signed me on to his agency.

I don't think we're off to a good start.
I hope this is just miscommunication of some sort (though I doubt it).
I am NOT changing the style of my women.
If this becomes a continued issue, I'll simply send him different material and see how he does by me over the next year.
FML.

Oh.

I still say stick to your convictions. You'd be amazed how doing that can pay off, too.

johnart said:

send him a still life WITHOUT nude

heybaby said:

Critiques roll off my back. I take notes on what I find helpful, but that's about it.
What I'm hung up on is that the critique is about an important component of my work. Everyone doesn't have to like my imagery, but all you have to do is look at my website (which he did in detail before signing me) to know that that scale is the norm for me. It's kind of like critiquing Picasso (not comparing myself) for painting facial features in odd places on the face. Or Keith Haring for not painting enough facial features in his figures. It's what they do.

More so, I almost feel (and again this could just be me) that it was kind of an unprofessional way to put it, considering you're an agent dealing with someone you're starting a professional relationship with.

ZombieKitten said:

Or call him and say, I've changed my style altogether.
From now on I'm only painting pussies and hotdogs...together.