Doc-Hammer's avatar

Doc-Hammer

Doctor Hammer
6.8K
Watchers
675.8K
Page Views
30 Deviations
Artist
Badges
Super Albino: Llamas are awesome! (203)
My Bio
Current Residence: NYC
deviantWEAR sizing preference: Like a women's medium.
Favourite genre of music: Snore Core, and my band "WEEP"
Favourite photographer: I liked Helmut Newton when I was a kid... Probably still do.
Favourite style of art: Style? Ummm, heartfelt and honest, but not "clever".
Operating System: Mac, G5
MP3 player of choice: Extra-old, 10G ipod
Shell of choice: Shell Levene (Ya know, Glengarry Glen Ross)
Wallpaper of choice: William Morris, in pale greens.
Skin of choice: Ummm, girl skin? Like, extra-soft girl skin.
Favourite cartoon character: Dr. Girlfriend, Master Billy Quizboy, Henchman No.21
Personal Quote: If your work can be easily copied, it should be.

Favourite Visual Artist
Whistler, Titian, Rembrandt, Gustav Moreau, Velasquez, etc.
Favourite Movies
Ken Russell's The Devils
Favourite Bands / Musical Artists
Downtown Sasquatch, The Zits, Hey That's My Bike, etc...
Favourite Writers
Baudelaire, JK Huysmans, Mallerme, Proust
Favourite Games
Cootie, Don't Break the Ice, Mr. Mouth, Pay Day, G'nip G'nop, Toss Across
Favourite Gaming Platform
You are kidding me... Right?
Tools of the Trade
brush, oil, canvas, pigment, girl in bra
Other Interests
Painting, being a Venture brother, my band, and a York's peppermint patty

Statistics

Page Views675.8K
Deviations30
Watchers6.8K
Watching23
Favourites15
Comments Made1.3K
Comments Received2.5K

Watchers

6.8K Deviants
Spencer-Heffron's avatar
Spencer-Heffron
tbbowser
artificialist23's avatar
artificialist23
seikatsubei
Malavian
Cigarette-Daydreams's avatar
Cigarette-Daydreams
cubsfanbigmike's avatar
cubsfanbigmike
joeballs187's avatar
joeballs187
Misskittydahling's avatar
Misskittydahling
Kayl-MacLaren's avatar
Kayl-MacLaren
Maxcorpse
DustinCrop
rose64bud's avatar
rose64bud
Cowprobe's avatar
Cowprobe
JacksonAMac's avatar
JacksonAMac

Watching

23 Deviants
SRaffa's avatar
SRaffa
mistressali's avatar
mistressali
AlMaNeGrA's avatar
AlMaNeGrA
mallaard's avatar
mallaard
Team-Venture's avatar
Team-Venture
isapilapil's avatar
isapilapil
secondarySCHOOLslut
larafairie's avatar
larafairie
holyman's avatar
holyman
plangdon2's avatar
plangdon2
bluejune
painters's avatar
painters
fates-sieve's avatar
fates-sieve
stigmatattoo's avatar
stigmatattoo
virtualpalette's avatar
virtualpalette

Group Admin

Doc-Hammer is not a Group Admin yet
Groups they admin or create will appear here

Group Member

Doc-Hammer Hasn’t Joined Any Groups yet
Once they’ve joined groups, you’ll see them here.

Badges

203 Badges
Llama: Llamas are awesome! (1)
Give a Llama Badge
Cake: My, that's a delicious cake (1)Cake: My, that's a delicious cake (1)Cake: My, that's a delicious cake (1)Cake: My, that's a delicious cake (1)Cake: My, that's a delicious cake (1)Cake: My, that's a delicious cake (1)Cake: My, that's a delicious cake (1)Cake: My, that's a delicious cake (1)Cake: My, that's a delicious cake (1)Cake: My, that's a delicious cake (1)Cake: My, that's a delicious cake (1)Cake: My, that's a delicious cake (1)Cake: My, that's a delicious cake (1)
Give a Cake Badge
0 badges sent, 203 badges received:
Llama: Llamas are awesome!
Llama: Llamas are awesome!
Llama: Llamas are awesome!
Llama: Llamas are awesome!
Llama: Llamas are awesome!

Comments

You’re right, I don’t really need to abstain from showing my works online. It’s a little idiotic and reactionary. But here is my position (which is a little idiot and reactionary, of course) : When people see paintings online, they look at a photograph with all the artifacts that photography imparts. They didn’t see the painting. Just as a picture of a woman looks only a little like the woman herself, a painting has the same issues. Some paintings are photogenic, while others “look so much better in person.” So when I decline to post pictures of my work what I’m trying to do is make a point. I’m saying that when you look at a 72ppi photograph of a painting on your uncalibrated screen, you are not looking at a painting at all. And since my work these days are trying to take advantage of the surface of the painting and how lighting conditions effects the viewing, to show it online, where I lose both those factors, is absurd… That’s why I don’t want to show them online. Maybe my paintings are designed to not be “photogenic”. Or that I think the photo just shows their image, and it loses their personality. I don’t want them to be without their personality!

Yeah, in a way, Tim taking 4 years to create painting in the fashion that was never used to create the original is really: "Tim took four years to learn to paint is an awkward mechanical fashion." And that's great. I'm glad Tim can now paint in this way. Vermeer didn't though.

Maybe the larger question is "Why do we love Vermeer?" Well, it's not because he is the worlds most miraculously accurate painter, it's because his paintings are appealing. The modern love of his works started when the National Gallery did a retrospective of him and the placed his little known "Girl With The Pearl earrings" on the cover of their magazine. People just responded to it because she was simply appealing. He made a beautiful image. Creating beauty is, as you say, a "Faustian act" in my opinion. Look, my mom can push a button and have a picture of a girl in one second. But will it be iconically beautiful? No (sorry Mom). My point is that thinking that Vermeer's method is all of Vermeer is Tim's largest act of arrogance.

This plays into your love of a guitar sound that you found out was simply alternate tuning. You clearly loved the sound. You heard the invention in it. You responded to it as we do when something is beautiful. How could that beauty fade when you learned the fingering isn't impossible? I mean, when I figure out a song I love on guitar I also learn how idiotically simple it is. My response is "You clever bastard! Damn ,why didn't I think of that!" And I fall more in love with it for it's cleanliness and simplicity. Its beauty is now, in my mind, like the effortless beauty of someone blessed with good genes. It's still beautiful, and now almost more beautiful because it is just song writing and not gymnastics.

You state that you may be "petty" for abandoning something you loved because it wasn't created in the way you first thought it was. I'm not sure I'd call it petty. But I do think you may have abandoned beauty because you found out its perfect lips were made so with lipstick. You're an idealist, not petty. But in the end, you lost your favorite band from it. 

Duchamp’s “Fountain” was a urinal. An actual urinal that you would piss in. He submitted it as art in a group show 100 years ago. This is the grandfather act of Conceptual Art and Found Object. Believing that those two forms of art have been played out; I say that I “piss in Duchamp’s fountain” in that I return his “art” back to what it actually is… a urinal.

No no, there are many scholars looking at Vermeer. Tim is too full of himself to give a shit about that. He knows nothing about art, and art history and doesn't claim to. But my point is Tim's impetus. Tim is gonna debunk greatness. Knock it down a peg. His arrogance is offensive. That's a Vermeer is to Tim; A machine making an object. The beauty, composition, sentimentality, visual power, etc. are not even in Tim's mind. He was raised in the wake of Conceptualism. All those words have nothing to do with "real art". He doesn't see Vermeer as art at all. He thinks he does, but he doesn't. He has no respect or understanding of it. It just scares him and makes him feel incompetent. "Art isn't supposed to do that!" He sees a Vermeer painting as a selfie snapped by a child. Tim can do that too!
Haha! No. Please see that I am commenting on contemporary thought and not isolated or personal manifestations of it. The point I thought I was making clear is that "cheating" and "tricks" (in word or understanding) are used to describe antique methods, as "traditional, handicraft, academic, etc." are used to slander and simply knock down representational art. I'm not sure how to reduce this to a "comment", so excuse this if it's messy:
100 years ago Duchamp presented a urinal at an art show. He was a pissed off painter, and made statement. Wow! Hip! It's new and it resonates. 50 years later Conceptual art takes a foothold. It's refreshing at first; You don't have to make a fetid commercial object, you can simply discuss the concept. It's like the cleanest form of art. But you're not supposed to look at it or be engaged by its aesthetic value which is confusing to the human animal (and that only helps Conceptualism gain an elitist foothold). It's a freeing atmosphere, but boy does it get ridged and dogmatic fast. Suddenly every Tom Dick and University is hiding behind the avant garde. "How can we be tired old blowhards? We're the hip new thing!" The hip new art is something that you're not supposed to look at, and rejects the object and any skill needed to make it. We are living in the wake of this. Generations have grown up seeing "fine art" as intentionally ugly and childish. It is! Beauty was rejected. Can you go back? (rhetorical: the Renaissance is a rejection of dogmatic Christian/Mediaeval thought and an embrace of the last time art and thought was 'right", that being the Greek ideal.) They won't. Because Greenberg and other powerful critics also came to the conclusion that art development is linear. Like, if Otto Dix rejected beauty (which he didn't, he simply broadened the rigged definition of it) then we are past beauty... Can't go back, can't be wrong. Forward into the new! And it was just this idea that became the new criteria: is it new? Is it shocking? etc. Bla bla bla.
So here we are. Rothko works are millions of dollars. Are we gonna be able to go "It's a red blob that Tim, or anyone can do in under an hour."? No. That's economic heresy. But what we can do is try to pacify ourselves. Say "It's okay. We didn't create an artistic shit-show out of the late 20th Century. We did the right thing. We made art real. We made it authentic. What we rejected is nothing. It's a sham. It is the Devil." This is the inclination. It's an old inclination. In fact it's the exact method for making a Devil. Beelzebub? That was originally the name for a Philistine god. So taking what your enemy worships and making that your Devil is an old tradition.
That's what I see happening. It's not done intentionally. It's movement of thought that has been around for ages, and this is our moment's manifestation of it. The optimist in me sees it as the beginning of the end of the Conceptualist experiment. It's not only ran its course, but it's infected the lab.
Did that make any sense? My point been truncated and hobbled to the point of being inambulatory I fear. I'm really sorry but to truly make a case I'd need a small book.