AlexanderPeev

I'm curious what drawing habits other people have. For example I recently purchased a tiny sketchbook and some pens, and since then I have been drawing people every day (against their will, haha) in the public transport, or wherever I manage to pull the sketchbook out of my pocket and scribble a few lines. I consider the sketches too small to be uploaded, so I suppose they will remain only on paper for the time being. I made this step, since I would like to utilize as much as possible from the daily time that I usually write off as wasted, and reading lectures in the bus really doesn't agree with me.

So, would anybody else (presuming somebody reads this) like to share their drawing habits?

Alexander Peev

It was about time - I deleted (almost) all deviations and all journals that weren't in tune with my gut feeling. Sorry for the lost faves

Stay tuned for more submissions

Alexander Peev

OK, I just had to put a new journal entry up, because the old one was invalid for more than a month. (My PC got repaired within a few days of me posting the previous entry. ) I realized how long I've been gone when I looked at my message center, and couldn't recognize it.

Now that all the 4000+ deviations are nicely stacked up for me, I'll probably delete the club submission backlog and process only those from my watchers (I just don't have that much time on my hands to do them all). I even have a backlog of deviations to submit, that has waited for a while already.

So how's everyone?

My computer had a heart attack, it's in a coma right now - my CPR didn't work, so I'm writing this message using the microwave... Actually, I just dug up an old processor box that nobody uses (of course), and plugged it in until I take my comp to the first aid, possibly Monday. Otherwise, it does feel like I'm using a microwave.

What else... oh, let's say - even if you have been living under a rock and don't know who MJ is, I believe you should definitely see the "This Is It" movie. Otherwise you'll miss a lot. There's no point in not seeing it, because I believe the Jackson family can instantly come up with another ingenious way to gain money from Michael's death. Or maybe I'm saying that because I'm not a hardcore fan - I doubt I even reach the "standard fan" category.

Ok, that's all from me - the microwave ringed.

Alexander Peev

Well, I bet everybody has their own study method when it comes to exams and especially if time is short, but now I'll tell some of mine. At least it will distract me for a few minutes before I dive in the books again.

So here I am with three art history books open and some extra reproductions staring at me from the computer screen. These books are the 3rd and 4th tome of Janson's History of Art and the 4th tome of Alpatov's history. Both the former and the latter titles differ significantly in publishing time (almost 3 decades, in my translation of it, a lot more otherwise), content, style, organization, and of course - illustrations. (What follows is just my personal opinion)

I can say, since Alpatov's book is older, it has mostly black and white images, which is not the best solution. It is shaped more as a story of which each chapter must be read from beginning to end for best understanding. The illustrations are often grouped in large "islands" of 20 or more images, that span on several pages and divide the text. So, except that, there is rarely an element, like a few lines of poetry, that make a brief pause in the text flow. This is good, because that achieves plenty of room for describing verbosely each subject, and it really is descriptive.

So, from this point of view, the book is very informative, despite the fact that more recent books are recommended for their inclusion of current data and a newer interpretation. I have (only) one remark for the style of Alpatov's book, though - it leaves the impression of the author (or the editor/translator, who knows?) being biased towards some ideals and certain historical events (Yes, each epoch's filter of the past).


Janson's book, on the other hand is quite the opposite. The format is large (A4, compared to Alpatov's A5), the same font size, with slightly more line spacing. The presence of contemporary design decisions is also notable, when we compare the two books - strong headlines, emphasized text, a two column layout (except for the introduction parts), with illustrations floating around the text (all these are absent in the other book, and if there is an image present on a certain page, there is only the descriptive text next to it, surrounded only by whitespace). The illustrations are all colored, with nice quality, even though some of them are rather small. And there is a world map at the start of each tome, and a time line at the end.

There are several things that annoy me in Janson's history however. First of all, this is the shortest history of art book I've read ever. Probably due to all the colorful illustrations and the space limit and management, some things were obviously left off. Of course it's not necessary to know all the works by each and every artist (some have thousands), so it should be OK to have about 5 of the most famous or masterful ones in mind. But even some of them are missing.

Some of the things that were left out include "Colossus", "Saturn eats his son" by Goya and any mention of his "Disasters of War" period and the "Nude Maja" (!), also the "Liberty leading the people", and the "Chios Massacre" by Delacroix were also not included. And this is what I note after a superficial look over a few pages of the book (of course, I made sure they are missing), and taking only two artists into account.

Good thing I already knew about these paintings beforehand, because if I didn't - I would be screwed at the exam in case I read only from Janson's book. In this light, the book is more for people who already know history of art (or don't have a very detailed interest in it) - it's more like a short synthesized update. So, this makes the book not too informative, despite all it's valuable information and new interpretations.
(Also - Russian art from the XIX century did not make it into the book and the передвижники - peredvijniki;
Even though it has the Postmodernism and photography described up to the 1990s, something Alpatov's book is missing - it ends after the Impressionism, unless there is a fifth tome I don't know about)

Another annoying thing is that some artists appear in more than one place. For example, Bernini is an architect and a sculptor from the Baroque era, and the book talked about his work on the "St. Peter's basilica" in Rome - in the Architecture section, and about his sculptures, like "David" and "St. Teresa's ecstasy" in the Sculpture section, several pages further. I know this follows a certain order and logic, but it's confusing and counter intuitive, to me at least.

I would rather have the art period be separated by artists, and each artist to have sculpture/painting/architecture/etc sections, with some notes on the epoch's sculpture/painting/architecture/etc before all of the artists. I believe this would make it easier to find what you are looking for, OR there should at least be some references to the other places that have text about a certain artist, and maybe a separate index of artists.

So, to conclude, I will say that both books have their pros and cons and are both worth using, not alone, but with other literature too, or other means of information (like the Internet, though some definitions contradict the books, and I don't take them into account).


So, this is all from me for now, I'll be back after tomorrow's (10 June) History of Art exam, or the practical Academy trip, if I don't manage to go on-line before that.

P.S. I got "6" on the exam (which is equal to the American "A" or Russian "5"). Good luck on everybody else's exams!

Alexander Peev