Art vs. Literature, the showdown of a century! [nekare]

One thing that's always bothered me in literature (and fic, as well) is the portrayal of artists and their work. Most of the times, whenever a character has any artistic talent, it'll have long scenes of said character remembering another one and drawing him/her so realistically it 'jumped out of the page' or something like that. No matter the technique, or style. No. It'll always be realistic and so painfully detailed it'll be just like a photograph. Every. Single. Time.

Art doesn't work like that. What's more, an artist's mind doesn't work like that. Art is much more subjective, and no artist ever paints the same way. Besides, without a model on sight, even the most hardcore of realistic painters would have trouble portraying it with 99% accuracy.

I don't know. Most writers seem to have a very precise outlook of what they think art is - when was the last time you ever read about a abstract artist? Or a cartoonist? Or manga-styled drawer?

Possibly the best potrayal of artist I've seen in a book was in The Time Traveler's Wife, which has everything to do with Audrey Niffenegger being an artist herself. Every single thing Clare creates is really personal, and somewhat abstract, and the one time she paints someone - Alba - she does it using her as a model, and even then she applies her own touch. And, of course, the descriptions of how a pastel bar feels on one's hands, how it looks, are really accurate, and add quite a touch.

I don't think I'm a great artist. I'm not, right now I'm much more of a designer, or a writer, but I've been drawing for my entire life, and the way literature sometiems devalues anything else but realistic art (and even that, it's always with pencil, or maybe with charcoal, if the writer is creative enough. Oils are somewhat standard too, but whoever has heard of acrylics? Or gouache?), sort of offends me. Dunno. This post was brought to you by a great, beautiful book that shouldn't bother me with such small a detail, but does. And by having crap like Cassie Claire's books run with the stereotype as well.

Discuss! I know I have both writers and artists in my flist. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON ~~YAOI~~ ART IN LITERATURE?

December

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7 1	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

AUGH I HATE PHOTOREALISM. WHAT IS THE POINT. The ability to recreate something exactly as it is does not a great artist make. There was a girl in my art class in college who, for every project, would turn in paintings that would be, yes okay, incredibly done and PAINFULLY DETAILED and stuff, but she'd still only ever get Bs because it didn't mean anything. I guess a lot of non-art people don't get that, and it makes me want to kick their shins.

SO YES, I AGREE. Also omg Time Traveller's Wife.

[link] [reply]

I do like photorealism - I had a still life class last semester and it's quite relaxing, drawing away withough having to worry about giving it a meaning, but I really don't like the implication that ever single artist can draw like Leonardo fucking DaVinci. No one is that talented, dude.

But yeah, that's it - non-art people don't really get it, the need to create. And they should, because writing is something like it, buuuut. I mean, look at James Jean's art. If I were to see 'and he drew a faceless girl swinging in a swing that never ends and is made of her own hair' in a book, I would die HAPPY. But it seems unlikely I will, woe.

Zomg I love the book so much. Makes me cry every single time, though. ;___;

[link] [parent] [reply]

One of Dorothy Sayers' short stories is centered around an artist and his hated subject (an abusive boss who got the portrait through coercion). Not only is the painting described as representational of the sitters' inner nature, but the artist is, to some extent, identified by style and brushstroke. Actually, artists crop up on a semi-regular basis in Sayers' stories and I think she did them justice at least in terms of range. Some of them are described as being quite mediocre and basically none of them are described as producing photorealistic works.

I've read a book where a bug-person creates not-entirely-realistic statues with colored spit. It was awesome.

Perdido Street Station, China Mieville.

Which is a great book, art and artists aside.

yeah, I've read all of his books and most of his short stories. My favorite book of his is Un Lun Dun though, because it's the most fun and freewheeling and imaginative yay!

My most vivid notion of an artist in literature is Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray. And that was near photorealism, but Dorian also sat as an active model for the artist throughout the creation of the portrait. (Also, it's essential to the plot that the portrait be an exceptionally accurate portrayal of Dorian...)

Anyhow, I consider myself a bit of an artist and a bit of a writer... as in, I used to draw all the time, but I've transitioned my creativity more towards writing as of late. I sure as hell know that I don't represent my subjects photorealistically when I draw, and that I'm absolute crap without some sort of model or reference. So yeah, I know what you mean when the stereotype is in use.

Just babbling, for what it's worth.

nekare

Art vs. Literature, the showdown of a century!

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

December