Drawing and painting involves ‘reinterpreting’ what we see. The reality is always more complex than our interpretation of the original object or reality. So we can also say that a drawing or painting is a simplification of reality or what we see.

In drawing we interpret every thing in lines. These lines may look smooth when we lay them side by side or we may smudge them so that they disappear as lines. I prefer to see the lines. This is just a personal thing. You have my permission to prefer the smooth look of smudging.

In my art philosophy I like to say the most with the least effort. I don’t do cartoons but I think it is the same philosophy as cartooning. But cartoons stop and don’t say enough for me. So I ‘refine’ my ‘cartoons’ and put more details in them.

Another way of saying this is, I like to see a lot of whites in my drawings and a lot of darks, but few mid-tones. I think this technique is called chiaroscuro.

I’m sure this is just my personal preference but, a drawing with a lot of mid-tones appears boring and dirty to me. Few mid-tones to me make a drawing look ‘clean’.

You don’t have to feel bad if you disagree, and I don’t have to feel bad if you disagree. This is just like some people prefer chocolate ice cream and some people prefer strawberry. Most people will agree that both are good but they just prefer one to the other.

Thanks for reading and I’d like to hear your opinions or thoughts concerning your art philosophy.

I see art as the interpretation of reality. The artist sees the reality, not the sterotypical 'its a red ball'. The artists sees a sphere, a myriad of colours and values, lights, midtones (yes midtones ) and darks.

For me, I enjoy the challenge of creating a realistic drawing or painting. I like the challenge of details and complex light and shade. I can also flip to the other side and move into loose movement and broad colour and value ranges.

There are no lines in life or reality, but in art we have to start with creating by using lines. My philosphy is to create the illusion of reality where there is simply paper or canvas by using lines that don't resemble lines. I am a magician and freely give away my secrets.

I can agree to this.
Everybody sees things in a different way as his neighbour. So if three people draw the same face it will be although different.
This is art for me. To put feeling into a picture. That can no camera do in this special way.

Then your style is more like photorealism than my style, right? Or you might say more like the photo a camera produces?

The reason I said, "reinterpreting” is our minds interprets reality. This is why everyone “perceives” things differently. When we see reality we often feel emotions. This is our perception of reality and is a reality in our minds only.

When we draw, paint or create a work of art this is a reinterpretation of the original reality. Or we could say a third reality. First the object or scene, then our perception of it, and then finally the art we produce.

This is also why our art is different from other people’s art. And this is why we all have a different perception or appreciation for what is art.

This is also why it is so hard for an observer to judge or determine the artistic value of someone else’s art.

I might look at someone’s artwork and say, “I don’t get it.” This does not mean it isn’t art. It just means I don’t see or feel the artistic value that the artist must have felt.

I don't know if my artwork is photorealism, perhaps at times yes. I vary depending on the medium or the mood that takes me or even how the subject 'speaks' to me. Yes art production can be seen as a 'third reality'

Art is very subjective which is a good thing otherwise life would be rather boring. How each individual interprets the red ball for example or in the case of here - a subject from the Drawing Challenge - is very different.

Determining how one reaches a level where one can put what they see and what others can recognize onto paper is the challenge. However, all art is not realism but takes many forms into surrealism, abstract, impressionistic, etc. All are valid art forms and all have their own following, but all are based in the tradition of form and light and no one can acheive any of these interpretations of art until they have mastered the basics and understand the foundations of technique.

I don't look for artistic value or feeling in art as a rule. I like some art, and not other pieces but I don't overanalyse the why's and wherefores of the artist who created it. As in most cases, the whys and wherefores are that it was an image that pleased the artist at that time and there was no hidden meaning in the subject. I find it amusing when critiques pick apart pieces at shows or in reviews. It really is a joke when you speak to most artists who say 'well, I just painted it cause I wanted to'.

I guess I'm really in love with the idea of the informed stroke. One look at a subject, then one mark (or shape) on the piece. I want each stroke to say something about form, light, color and be so precise... but not detailed. I love to come up on a piece and just see lines and squiggles and blobs of color (if it's a painting) and then back up ten feet and have it all come together. That really makes me happy. A bunch of tiny detail rarely does it for me. I can think of a few examples where that's not true, but there is also so much going on as far as color theory and painting and line work goes that it's an intellectual feast that I can get stuffed at.

I'm still trying to form my own philosophy as far as art goes. And until then, I'm doing what I can with what I have. I'm pretty much known as the sponge at the art department. You give me a stack of books and five minutes with a teacher I'll turn it into a library I have to read /now/ and a two week discussion where I keep dropping in and bugging everyone.