Jess 1-22-08 (2)

Well, today we get two posts while I wait for Bill to get out of class. I had my first real project start in painting class, which was very exciting! I've never really painted before, so it's really grand to just have a canvas to call my own. I'm sure if I ever progress with oil painting, or painting in general, someday I will look back on this first project with embarrassment. But for the time being it is great to finally get some real art training.

She had laid out some still life things to paint -- a bowl, some glasses, but mostly paper towel and toilet paper. Not entirely fancy for a first painting, but I managed to avoid most of the toiletries in my painting. She had us do a quick sketch of different things on the table, "zooming," if that's possible with a graphite drawing, in and out from more detail and less objects to less detail and more objects. I must say, since I usually only do quick sketches and rarely put a concerted effort into my little art projects, that it is very hard to continue on with an image to refine it rather than giving up and leaving it alone... which is what I usually do. But eventually I ended up with a super-close-up of the corner of a glass next to some imprinted paper towel. Most people drew their image onto their canvas with pencil from the sketch, but I used acrylic paint instead. The teacher indicated that over time, graphite will float to the surface of a painting and become visible, even if you hide it completely with oil paint. I knew that would drive me crazy if it happened, so I opted for acrylic paint as my outline instead. Plus it was fun to get to use my paintbrush and get a feel for it... I mean I have to paint on the canvas eventually anyway, and more accurate pencil outlines aren't going to keep me "inside the lines" if I can't handle a paintbrush properly.

Drawing from life is much harder than drawing from pictures or photos, I must say. I can't even imagine trying to paint or sketch a subject that is living, never mind the still life objects we observed today. Painting from 2D is very different from 3D. I don't often sketch from life so really this whole class is pushing my boundaries in every direction possible. It does make me feel better that there is only one or two art students in the room, since after we are done with our painting we are required to exhibit and submit ourselves and our work to classroom critique. Seeing as so few people have ever even seen my sketchbooks, and I usually dislike it when people try to watch me draw, this is probably breaking my area of comfort the most. I was nearly shaking from nerves when the professor was quite clearly standing behind me in order to watch me sketch. Although she tutted approvingly or muttered something like "good" or some kind of positive word under her breath it's hard to work under her eyes, no matter how nice or supportive she may be. But in a way it is good for me, so that I will not be quite so shy about my art when I leave the class, regardless of how good I think it is. I will try to take a camera with me to class so that I can post pictures of my progress from time to time, or at least the final results.

I like my professor a lot, despite my timidness about being watched when she makes her rounds. She has a pleasant southern twang and she's very to the point, so that we can get down to business and start creating instead of being lectured. I like her style, teach as you go instead of expecting us to remember all the technique at once. In fact, she doesn't really teach much about technique... but if you're more messy with your paint she doesn't make a fuss, but rather constructively notes that you have a "Monet-esque" or some other painter's "style." I mean really... we all know that we just suck at painting and can't be more delicate with our hands, but it's nicer to hear that you look like Matisse. It's encouraging.

I really love my art history course in gender issues. Today we went over female portraiture and the different styles, as well as the different reasons for the styles. I learned why the Mona Lisa, who is by herself rather underwhelming, is so special. Leonardo did only 6 portraits that we know of today, or that we have today, and 5 of them were of women (although the majority overall of portraits in 15th c. Italy were of men, curiously). Most of the portraits of women in that era were flat strict profiles made to make the women look elegant, stylish, rich, and beautiful. Usually they had a solid background, or placed in an urban, domestic setting. Leonardo, however (and as you can see with Ms. Mona) placed his "sitters" (subjects) at an angle for more life and movement, almost always with a detailed background of the outdoors/nature, and gave the women just enough of a blank expression so as to suggest intelligence, psychological complexity. In the traditional profile paintings, women are more holders of fancy (and more important) family jewels and beautiful, idealized statues. For Leondardo, however, his women were alive, more than just a jewelry stand or a decoration. It's very cool. Mr. Da Vinci was a very cool cat in his day. Once you see the norm as opposed to Da Vinci's work, it's obvious why he was so revolutionary and unique.

DaVinci:




Other People:


Anyway, enough artistic blab, time to make soup. Tata!