Art Appreciation thread

Just because something is "childish" doesn't mean it's not art. After all, isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder?


Have you ever seen the realistic pokemon sketches? They are quite good.

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/291/d/0/_blastoise__by_arvalis-d5i82dj.jpg

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/247/9/9/_tyranitar__by_arvalis-d5dlzjh.jpg

I think they are pretty well designed and nice to look at.

Then you rock for remembering that Twig. And I of course agree it's art. Since it's an appreciation thread I can expand that thought rather than derailing.

Art at its core is an individual's attempt at expression or passion. With a child, you're unlikely to have abstract emotions or concepts but the simplicity of the work only reinforces the passion or emotion in my mind. My daughter has just started self portraits as she's just become more aware of the concept of self. Her earlier drawings were of family members and then family. There's a cognitive path that is fascinating.

On the subject of fan art, I would consider it art still. However, and this isn't an insult, as it's inherently a derived work one aspect of higher art is missing. That would be creativity or innovation. Technical skill can be amazing but that's the reason it's not always recognized as art. Similar to Weird Al. Rather than see the musical proficiency it takes to replicate such a broad array of music, he's often labeled as a copycat. And sadly it's hard to argue, regardless of the enjoyment we get. In his specific case though he has made original songs and done polka mashups that show off his creative ability. I would point that out to anyone doing fan art. Fan stuff can be awesome and is tremendous practice. However, use that experience to branch out and find yourself.

I thought as a little juxtaposition to the stuff like the childrens art. This red square (though it's not a square) is worth into the millions for what is a shape, in red, on canvas. Extraordinary. Amazingly the same artist has more stuff like black square, black circle and white on white as pieces.

He's obviously a visionary.

I detect some sarcasm I feel Serious.

Here's the thing with that particular painting...

What the artist is conveying is that, like the painting, humanity is just a red rectangle on a blank canvas.  

The rectangle is clearly intending to demonstrate that man's desire for order leads us to build walls and barriers that "box" us in.  It's a rectangle and not a true square since the artist is trying to make us aware that humanity can't ever fully achieve the order we desire.  There's always going to be something that's uneven.  

Red is used for a variety of reasons here.  In the USA, it's the color for "Stop" signs.  The artist is subtly conveying that you should stop to see his work.  In addition, the color red is associated with blood and the soul (which is why vampires were considered so horrific).  It's symbolic again that it's humanity we're talking about.  As well as the fact that, despite our desire for order as seen by man's law, we are still spiritual beings tied to the planet through a synchronous energy.  

The background is white or "blank" to show that we create our own world in what is effectively a blank canvas of a life.  There's two things to note here:
First, that despite our best intentions, the order we try to achieve is still face to face with the blank canvas that is the rest of the world.  It's a reminder that a natural force like an earthquake or hurricane can overcome our seeming order.
Second, this one ties in with the first, life is cyclic and eventually our red rectangle can't escape the blank canvas (note it's surrounded) and our lives will ultimately return to "blank."  


I can't believe anyone would fail to see how deep and meaningful this red rectangle is. In no way did I just make all of this up.

I'm impressed you had the motivation to do such a lengthy analysis of it

Good sarcasm is it's own art

skarekrow13 wrote:Good sarcasm is it's own art

Truthfully, I feel sometimes when we are analyzing literature in class and such, that what the teacher is saying about symbolism or whatever, is just far-fetched. I don't think authors just sit around, and have every single color put there on purpose.

You know the "Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy"? The number 42. He just picked it randomly, although there are so many people out there, that think he picked it for a certain reason.

I think he later developed it to be a score on a scrabble board or something crazy like that lol

Yeah, he just had whatever number then, to me, it seemed like he was making jokes for his own benefit on ways to make that number actually mean something later. Some artists can be very deliberate but from any experiences I've had you just do something because it's what seems like should be done (like music I've written or any drawing I've done that's decent). Writing is often more deliberate than other types I feel but not always to the degree that I've seen suggested.

Serious_Much wrote:I'm impressed you had the motivation to do such a lengthy analysis of it

Really? Are you kidding me? REALLY? It's Skare bro what else would he do? lol

Demon, your pokemon post you made on the second page with the links, to me, I wouldn't call that art because it's stuff anybody can do on a computer. They look like computerized images. If they did them as drawings, then yes, they would be art. But the other pics you posted aren't really art imo. That fuzzy pokeball one you posted, could have been someone's pic taken from any site and played with using photoshop or something. I can do that stuff and it's not really considered art. It would be like taking a photograph of you, (not to offend, just an example for my reasoning), and using the warp function in my paint program. To explain this better, I'll try to grab a picture of my niece that is on my Nintendo DS and show it here.
Computerized art is not really art because most programs do everything for you. Real art, is something you draw, paint etc. Usng your hands to bring a picture to life. Not a mouse and a program.

Skare - Those pics your daughter drew could actually be posted in here because you didn't draw them. And, I miss that avatar With all the stuff that goes on in this forum, it's nice to see something from someone pure of heart.

How about this one? It's the only one I have (digitally) that's me.

art1
ärt/Submit
noun
1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also :  works so produced



Well, as it seems, a creative way to depict pokemon, would qualify as art. And that "fuzzy pokeball" I'm assuming you were talking about the flower, which is just beautiful. And although it does "typically... such as painting or sculpture".. It does say typically.

Art does not have to be drawn. It doesn't even have to be a visual. It can be something like music, or literature.

Truthfully, I could start talking about the glory of Beowulf, or the intriguing tale of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and still be on topic.

Ok I think we should draw the line here at actual visual art. Music and stuff like that is part of "the arts", but it's not art perse in terms of what is being posted in this thread.

Oh!  Oh I like this discussion!  What "is" and "is not" art is a question that will never have a definitive answer, and people who challenge the accepted norms are always the ones who make the biggest waves.  Analyzing art is an exercise in critical thinking, and that is always good for the brain muscle.  Even if the conclusion is: this art sux.

I feel I need to address something that has rubbed me the wrong way before I contribute, however. Twigster, I cannot fairly judge your comment about digital art without seeing what kind of experience you have with it.  But for myself - a person who draws and paints both digitally and traditionally - I don't see where you can reason that "the program does everything for you" and that working digitally is not "using your hands to bring something to life".  A digital program is a tool, just like a paint brush or pencil.  Both take discipline to use effectively.  A person can use a warp tool, or add a sepia photo-filter, or overlay, or automated sun glare.... and have horrid results.  (Not making assumptions about the pic of your niece, incidentally.  I'm generalizing.)  My computer knows nothing about composition, or color palate, or what the "rule of thirds" actually means (despite the fact that it gives me a handy grid when I am using the crop tool) and when and where I want to use those things.  

The computer is a medium through which an artist expresses their work - like choosing a ballpoint pen over a pencil and eraser, or acrylic over oil.  And like all mediums has it's strengths and drawbacks.  For example: if I want a glaze in photoshop I don't have to wait 5 to 24 hours for the oil to dry; I can just add a new layer with a special blend mode.  But I can't make the paint run or use drips and scratches like I would with oil without resorting to cheap imitations that don't have the same impact.  It is completely fair to say you admire the labor that has gone into a piece of traditional work, and enjoy it for that reason. Oftentimes the process is as much part of the art as the end result (and I sometimes explore this notion in my own work). But saying something does not qualify as art because it was done on a computer is..... well, a bit hurtful.

Inversely, the quality of the work is not dependent on the labor involved in it's creation.  I would like to point out that it usually takes me considerably longer to complete a digital illustration (sometimes 40+ hours), than it does an "a la prima" oil painting (like 3 hours tops) that I could sell for a couple of hundred bucks in a gallery. 

All I'm saying is.... open up your miiiiiiind!

Wow.  That was longer than I intended. And a bit of a rant (sore point, much?)  To avoid an even longer wall of text, I will come back in a new post with some actual artwork to talk about.

Here's one that has stuck with me since I saw it months ago:

Praetorian by Alexius
(Spoiler because it will take up a lot of vertical screen space)

Praetorian:

Alexius is a photographer by trade, and utilizes his huge library of images as references or direct elements in his work.  (i.e. matte painting) If you would like to see the process, check here: http://fav.me/d1wxt4w

He has a very strong grasp of perspective and creating realistic city-scapes.  So what do you do when you have mastered a skill? Take it to another level!  Or in this case, bend it so far it's standing on it's head.  Alexius has taken a complicated scene and conveyed it in an original and unforgettable way: A nearly 360 degree overhead panorama.  (Is that a thing?!  I feel like it should have it's own term.) Not only does he provide a "widow" for us to view this dramatic scene, he puts us right in the middle of it.  We look up at the sky, into the rain, and see an ethereal being descend from a swirl of cloud and lightning.  If anything, I wish I could see this image at it's 21 x 50 inch print size for the full effect.