Not a photo, but a digital painting

[Wilhelm-Scream]

It is odd that he would so painstakingly devote so much time and effort to creating what amounts to a photograph of a homely waitress at a Greek restaurant.

 

[DV8]

I'd do her

 

[DV8]

and then she'd be like: "You know you just fkd a painting, right?"

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I'd do her.

Not I said the Wilhelm.

 

[DV8]

^you're such a vagina snob, Wilhelm . . . she looks very . . . uhh, clean

 

[EdRyder]

I dont know about all that ,...
Guy who fills jar with crucifix and urine,= not Art
Guy who sculpts Jesus out of butter= Art

The definition of art does not rest in the eye of the beholder.Its in the process.In the work that is put towards it.It doesn't just happen...

The Ed Wood versus hollywood sellout argument reminds me of the old Thomas Kinkade Home Shopping Network argument.Is he an artist?I'm not a fan at all.He has skill but hes a complete sellout because he just gives the people what they want by the boatload.If he is an artist,it cant be argued that its all technique.But the process ,the implementation of technique cant be taken away from him.He painted it ,he put in the work to it.

 

[knowsbleed]

All that time and effort, SIXTY FIVE HOURS, and I can do the same thing with a scanner.



Seriously...if the man can create an original piece of work then that's different...but he photorealistically recreated a photo without adding or changing anything at all. Just to show he could do it?

I'll be truly impressed when its an original piece.

 

[DV8]

well, art is inherently subjective to all viewers . . . . but there are a lot of 'artists' that are just @$$holes trying to pawn off crap for 'art' . . . but since art is subjective, we're expected to not judge their form of self-expression . . .

 

[DV8]

All that time and effort, SIXTY FIVE HOURS, and I can do the same thing with a scanner.



Seriously...if the man can create an original piece of work then that's different...but he photorealistically recreated a photo without adding or changing anything at all. Just to show he could do it?

I'll be truly impressed when its an original piece.

exactly . . . why not choose more dramatic lighting and subject matter?

but he did change one of the little dress ruffles by her armpit

 

[04nbod]

Yep, and as such, we form opinions.
I prefer to see hard graph craftsmanship on paper not digital that is evident in front of me than for example, an abstract social commentary on the world today, or a cow cut in half, does that make there work any less credible? No.

There was an artist who once came in to talk to my class years ago who did stunning pieces of fantasy art.(i'm not talking dungeons and dragons type fan art here) Her figures were based on models but of course the unnatural was her imagination and they were stunning visions of a different world and she told us that art galleries turn her away because its digital. They say if its painted they would put them in their halls straight away. Then I look at the work of Sarah Fenelli who is an illustrator who uses collage to create fairy story-like images for books who has exhibitions. I don't see why glue should be different than layers on a computer especially when they are just going to be photocopied anyway. The texture of Fenelli's work is lost so there is no difference. It think if an artist is going to explore this new digital media and innovate they should be supported.

No way. Art isn't in the eye of the audience at all.
It's all about the motivations of the artist.
If the Artist creates something that wasn't there before, and honestly says that it's his art, then it is art.
Who the hell is someone else to tell him that it's not a valid self expression, or something he's not passionate about, or something over which he agonized and invested time in, so that it would match the concept in his mind?

oh dear lord you are a duchamp guy! A piece means nothing if the viewer can't get anything out of it. An artist's own vision can only go so far and it dies with him. Great art of merit outlives its maker due to its affect on the generations of people that view it. It may provide self satisfaction for the artist to create it and might be cathartic but if its only a one way relationship for the piece and when the artist dies his 'art' dies too.

For instance, you could have a TV show written and directed by a hack who is DOING it, plugging in all the familiar blanks, for the paycheck.
He has certain artistic impulses, but he denies them, because he has the skill and knowledge to produce what will appear to be professional and slick on air.

Then, you have Ed Wood, who bends over backwards to beg and steal to get a laughably poorly made movie made, because he's obsessed with his vision of it, and wants to go through the magical exercise of seeing/feeling something in his head, and manifesting it in the physical world.


The first guys work is super professional, slick, impressive...and isn't ART.
Ed Wood's movie is crappy, ridiculous, reeks of ineptitude, but is his ART.

but look at your hypocrisy here. You are dictating what is art when earlier you said ' Who the hell is someone else to tell him that it's not a valid self expression,' from your point of view it seems a child drawing out of happiness is art and perhaps because it has no hidden agenda the purest form of self expression yet it is not in a gallery it is on the kitchen fridge. What is the point of a room full of art that alienates its viewer because it is a 'personal expression' why do we care?

 

[Logan's Runt]

All that time and effort, SIXTY FIVE HOURS, and I can do the same thing with a scanner.



Seriously...if the man can create an original piece of work then that's different...but he photorealistically recreated a photo without adding or changing anything at all. Just to show he could do it?

I'll be truly impressed when its an original piece.

I feel the same way. I wouldn't call it 'not art' but I have a broad definition of art. However, half of what you learn in a good art program is to choose your medium with purpose- why do it as a painting if you can get the exact same thing out of a photo printer? What are you bringing to the image with your medium? Its an amazing display of skill, but that's all it is. Its a mediocre piece of art.

But it does sound from the article that it was a personal exercise in technical skill- I don't think he's claiming it to be a fantastic work of art.

 

[knowsbleed]

but he did change one of the little dress ruffles by her armpit

Oh, well that changes everything.

I retract my previous statement...the dude is digital smex.

 

[04nbod]

I dont know about all that ,...
Guy who fills jar with crucifix and urine,= not Art
Guy who sculpts Jesus out of butter= Art

The definition of art does not rest in the eye of the beholder.Its in the process.In the work that is put towards it.It doesn't just happen....

so this is art because it took the most time and effort? Anything else that moves you and makes you think is not because it didn't take time?

 

[DV8]

I feel the same way. I wouldn't call it 'not art' but I have a broad definition of art. However, half of what you learn in a good art program is to choose your medium with purpose- why do it as a painting if you can get the exact same thing out of a photo printer? What are you bringing to the image with your medium? Its an amazing display of skill, but that's all it is. Its a mediocre piece of art.

But it does sound from the article that it was a personal exercise in technical skill- I don't think he's claiming it to be a fantastic work of art.

that's true . . . and he really did do an amazing job, technically

but he tucks his polo in and has a feathered hairstyle . . . he's not really doing anything exciting in terms of his self-expression

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

There was an artist who once came in to talk to my class years ago who did stunning pieces of fantasy art.(i'm not talking dungeons and dragons type fan art here) Her figures were based on models but of course the unnatural was her imagination and they were stunning visions of a different world and she told us that art galleries turn her away because its digital. They say if its painted they would put them in their halls straight away. Then I look at the work of Sarah Fenelli who is an illustrator who uses collage to create fairy story-like images for books who has exhibitions. I don't see why glue should be different than layers on a computer especially when they are just going to be photocopied anyway. The texture of Fenelli's work is lost so there is no difference. It think if an artist is going to explore this new digital media and innovate they should be supported.

Just a matter of preference really.

 

[Logan's Runt]

that's true . . . and he really did do an amazing job, technically

but he tucks his polo in and has a feathered hairstyle . . . he's not really doing anything exciting in terms of his self-expression

I thought he was the grungier looking one on the left?

Edit- Nevermind, I guess I just assumed the one on the left was the art guy.

 

[04nbod]

well, art is inherently subjective to all viewers . . . . but there are a lot of 'artists' that are just @$$holes trying to pawn off crap for 'art' . . . but since art is subjective, we're expected to not judge their form of self-expression . . .

for years i studied to be an artist but quit this year because of the arrogance and crap that is considered art. I looked around the students i was with and while there were stunning resin casts and photography (incuding photoshop enhanced ones!) there was a lot of crap. There was a girl who did lots of mediocre paintings and hung them in a spiderweb made out of string in a tree who scored higher than me, and it was a really bland idea behind it. It basically meant 'I love my family'

 

[DV8]

I thought he was the grungier looking one on the left?

Edit- Nevermind, I guess I just assumed the one on the left was the art guy.

so did I . . . that dude's touching the painting like he's all proud of it

 

[Logan's Runt]

for years i studied to be an artist but quit this year because of the arrogance and crap that is considered art. I looked around the students i was with and while there were stunning resin casts and photography (incuding photoshop enhanced ones!) there was a lot of crap. There was a girl who did lots of mediocre paintings and hung them in a spiderweb made out of string in a tree who scored higher than me, and it was a really bland idea behind it. It basically meant 'I love my family'

That can be incredibly frustrating. I stayed in it for the little bits here and there that could still be learned- but I had to put up with a lot of bulls***t to be sure.

I think its a shame to let your potential further development as an artist be shut down by the arrogance and bull in an art program, because that's just a tasting of the arrogance and bull of the art world itself. You have to figure out how to exist within and around that. Being under-appreciated/overly criticized is a staple of being an artist.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I dont know about all that ,...
Guy who fills jar with crucifix and urine,= not Art

WRONG.
It's one of my favorite pieces of art.
You're just wrong. It's not a matter of opinion.
It has nothing to do with what the audience says about it.
Otherwise, you can bring me literally any piece of art ever created and I can tell you that it doesn't truly "count" as art.

I am an artist, and I have heard old men, upon hearing some of the most genius music EVER created, dismiss it as "just noise".
They're wrong. They don't know what they're talking about and they're mistaking their personal taste, and their very confined, very specific experience of the music, for the GRAND, UNIVERSAL definer of what "ART" is.

Same here.

 

[Logan's Runt]

so did I . . . that dude's touching the painting like he's all proud of it

I know.

 

[DV8]

I know.

haha who the hell are those guys anyway!? Lol! they look like a couple of coked up biker rejects . . .

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

well, art is inherently subjective to all viewers . . . . but there are a lot of 'artists' that are just @$$holes trying to pawn off crap for 'art' . . . but since art is subjective, we're expected to not judge their form of self-expression . . .

That's true, we share some common traits, for example in drawing or painting if your goal is ultimately to create the illusion of the three dimension on a two dimensional surface (something @$$holes are probably not likely to do very well) , from a sensory point of view, if the form isn't right, the perspective, the proportion or the lighting, your beholder can pick that up, a 5 year old child can pick that up.

 

[EdRyder]

for years i studied to be an artist but quit this year because of the arrogance and crap that is considered art. I looked around the students i was with and while there were stunning resin casts and photography (incuding photoshop enhanced ones!) there was a lot of crap. There was a girl who did lots of mediocre paintings and hung them in a spiderweb made out of string in a tree who scored higher than me, and it was a really bland idea behind it. It basically meant 'I love my family'

Well,You were probably surrounded by trustafarians who had no business being enrolled there to begin with...
But again,there was stunning resin casts because they were taught the technique.The proper way to do it.
So just expressing yourself isn't really enough..
A dude in art school could paint a moody dark evil shock value painting of brains and guts inside a fridge and call it "Dahmers fridge"That jerk will probly score higher than you too!Even though the painting might suck major suckage,and he painted it overnight with a petrified whale penis..The Shock value will have the chumps a school droolin
Now Thomas kinkade steals that idea ,.. He takes his time and technique and makes it ten ways from awesome(the glowing fridge light is bouncing off the brains beautifully,I can see it now )
Bang!=Art
One guy just painted from his heart and "expressed" himself
The other guy used his skill and technique to create a work of art

The right brush with the correct stroke devastates "expression" all day
I pee a few times a day,trust me, it ain't art..No matter what lens I photograph it with

 

[DV8]

That's true, we share some common traits, for example in drawing or painting if your goal is ultimately to create the illusion of the three dimension on a two dimensional surface (something @$$holes are probably not likely to do very well) , from a sensory point of view, if the form isn't right, the perspective, the proportion or the lighting, your beholder can pick that up, a 5 year old child can pick that up.

exactly . . .

what it comes down to is that the guy who produced this painting has excellent rendering skills . . . but no concept . . .

and concept can be meaningful to one person (Wilhelm and the 'Piss Christ' piece), and not to another (EdRyder) . . . and that's what makes art, itself, ultimately subjective . . .