The Ackman art thread.

Post Reply New Topic

lay off

deleted
Xenu I've written a few things and then thought better of it. Let me just say you need to stop this diatribe against Ackman.
Leave him alone. He's already down. You don't need to kick him. Stop it.

The so-called helpful criticism is merely a matter of demanding the artist conform to the critic's art preferences.Art is a wide open field with all sorts of personal innovation involved. No critic can direct a creative mind. Neglecting the emotional content of this thread very little sensible advice has been offered Ackman. All anyone can do is let him know he is doing very well in investigating color and layout in graphic design and encourage him to continue his exploration. It is not a matter of stroking someone's ego. I have a degree from Pratt institute in industrial design, have graduated from a four year course at the School for Visual Art, have spent a long life studying and working in various art forms and can speak with some background in the field. In my estimation Ackman is in the early stages of developing a personal perspective in graphic art and deserves room and encouragement to progress at his own speed and in his own manner. What he has produced is very encouraging and his graphic patterns are striking and imaginative. Stop crapping on him.

This one really made me laugh. I did geography in school. It's kinda cool though- I think if you keep it up, it'll definitely be considered 'outsider art'. You remind me of Henry Darger (henry darger wiki)

One thing I would recommend though is that you be more open about when you've copied or traced off other pictures. Nobody minds unless it looks like you're trying to pass them off as your own freestyle drawing.

Ackman's art is unschooled but I have a great love for "naive" or "primitive" art. The correctness matters little, if anything it can detract from the energy of the work. Picasso strove to learn how to draw like a child again. I remember seeing a painting in someone's home by a local Grandma Moses artist. It was of two farm women taking wash off the line before an approaching storm hit. It was not accurately rendered but you could practically feel the breeze on your face. That's where the talent lies.

Why do you insist that art must all be free style drawing. Andy Warhol made a successful career out of playing with various techniques of using modified photos. There is much more to art than free style drawing. The concept of using striking color melding with meteorological charts with startling and dramatic color and adding a fictional element is original and amusing and very interesting. Acknowledgment of source material is entirely unnecessary and is not required of other artists. Why demand it here?

I was talking to the person who posted this. Not to you. Also, where did I say that this wasn't art?

I was merely making a suggestion that he make it clearer that he has used other's work in his own, not dismissing it out of hand because of it.

As for aknowledging source material, that is a contentious issue. What is slightly less contentious though is aknowledging that source material has been used at all. Since it is quite clear that some of the pictures are drawn over photographs, I think if the artist made it clearer, it would help prevent people from thinking that he is trying to trick them. Aknowledging an obvious fact would not change the art itself in any way.



That is entirely your opinion. May I suggest you let others have theirs. I was not demanding anything from Ackman, just recommending a couple of things and giving feedback. Whether he decides to listen to it or not is entirely up to him.

I came here to comment on Ackman's drawing because I liked it. I certainly did not expect to be attacked for making a suggestion. Please refrain from jumping to conclusions and leaping at everyone who does not entirely match your opinion of what constitutes art. You are not doing the artist any favours by doing so.

My goodness, aren't you jumpy. There is no need to acknowledge a meteorological chart that has been grossly modified for artistic purposes. Almost all art refers to other material in some way or another. There is nothing discourteous about using material, photos or otherwise and making huge changes without providing reference. I was making general observations and your immediate aggressively defensive response is totally inappropriate. There is nothing wrong in actually criticizing anybody else's opinion if there are reasonable grounds for doing so. You are free to criticize my observations as I am free to criticize yours.

Bit rich considering you were the one who jumped on my comment.

I understand, from reading through this thread, that you've taken it upon yourself to be Defender of Ackmans's Art, but that doesn't mean that you need to take issue with everyone who simply makes a suggestion to him. I wasn't attacking his art, just offering advice.

That I find merit in Ackman's work where others seem mortally offended that he experiments with various intriguing techniques does not mean I am his knight in shining armor. I didn't "jump" on any comment, merely pointed out that there are alternate and valid points of view. You are the jumpy one to become offended that someone might feel differently from you. There is nothing wrong with declaring sources or refusing to use photos as a starting point but sources may be interesting but not vital and using photos to base ones experiments on in no way invalidates final results. If Ackman plays around with various techniques that other established and recognized artistic creators have used with great success, why demand special requirements from him? Schwitters, Braque, Picasso, Duchamps, Oppenheim, Tinguely and many others have worked with all sorts of weird materials and people delight in the results. It merely strikes me as very odd that people should hammer Ackman for doing much the same thing and obtaining interesting results.

alright there, delirum really isnt at fault here.

She gave some helpful critisism to start off and ackman jumped at it like it was a challenge. things only got worse from then on.

I think sand, you are a little confused. I know there are 12 pages, but just readread earlier on, im sure you will find it.

delirium, calm down just a bit, if he wants to be jumpy let him be. he likes his art, reagrdless of if he wants to practice or not is all up to him, dont let it get to you.

ackman, your art has potential. keep working at it, and calm down a bit as well

to start.
it elevated from here

woah ,man, s**t! dont be so fragile or jumpy at it. learn to take it a step at a time

I have followed the thread from the beginning and all my comments were basically that Ackman had real ability and was worth watching. He never asked for direction in his work and the comments were so basically ignorant of the way an individual explores his capabilities and what the potentials of art might be and so vituperative that they were totally inexcusable. Of course most creative people who understand the insecurities of exploring experiments in art have skins tough enough to ignore unwarranted comments and thoughts of suicide are totally extreme. But Van Gogh was emotionally unstable enough to slice off an ear and he never sold anything during his entire career but his work today is extraordinarily high priced. I am not trying to put Ackman in Van Gogh's class, merely noting that creative people need room to explore and discover their capabilities without being crushed by ignorant observers.

yes, there were more than a handful of over the boundry comments made by many parties, including ackman.
im saying dont pin it all on delirium, lene, or anyone else.

i agree. anything can be done with confidence or pratice. which is something he should get after he gets some help

Whether he needs help is up to him. I just want to indicate he should not stop working, experimenting, enjoying his capabilities.