- #1
Thread Owner
I think most modern art lacks creativity and thought. Nowadays someone can slop down some lines and call it, "The Horizon on a Sunday" and earn tons of money for it. It's crazy.
Should modern art be more... creative?
- Thread starter Ringo
- Start date
Short answer no. While Damien Hurst might not have contributed much in the way of creativity recently, you can't tar the whole of modern art with the same brush. In actuality if you were to accuse any group of artist for being uncreative it would be the young budding artists and illustrators. Most of the time it is another persons idea they have done with minor changes. Young comic and manga/anime artists make the same mistake. Most (but not all) use marvel or manga proportions which are a ****isation of tradition cel animation which is a simplified version of the actual human form.
Traditional art might not be as relevant as it was 20 years ago as Photoshop and other software programs combined with graphic tablets have created this new golden age of illustration and concept art. You then have graffiti artist like banksy who's art only survives a few days before it is destroyed. Will the pieces themselves aren't great pieces, the fact they are destroyed makes them fantastic artistic statements of defiance.
What you say is true to a degree, but it is so rare for that to happen that it's not worth judging the entire industry by that alone. For every one person who does that, a hundred thousand real artist will go unnoticed by the masses.
Traditional art might not be as relevant as it was 20 years ago as Photoshop and other software programs combined with graphic tablets have created this new golden age of illustration and concept art. You then have graffiti artist like banksy who's art only survives a few days before it is destroyed. Will the pieces themselves aren't great pieces, the fact they are destroyed makes them fantastic artistic statements of defiance.
What you say is true to a degree, but it is so rare for that to happen that it's not worth judging the entire industry by that alone. For every one person who does that, a hundred thousand real artist will go unnoticed by the masses.
I think most art done nowadays is too minimalist, in the way that it turns into ostentatious art. You put a black dot on a white canvas and say it's art, because it means "this" or "that". Although there is creativity, there is not much work put into things; at least, it's how I see it. Soulless art and such.
Of course, there are many exceptions - thank god -, but there are certain things that make me really facepalm. Like this portuguese sculptor who has exposed in Versailles (France), who makes these really gross and weirdish "works of art"... I don't know, I dislike her ideas. Apparently, she ordered TAMPONS to make a ****ing chandelier. The best part is that all this is shaped in a penis shape, yeah. Beautiful isn't it? Best part is that it's actually hanging in our Assembly of the Republic. >.>
Of course, there are many exceptions - thank god -, but there are certain things that make me really facepalm. Like this portuguese sculptor who has exposed in Versailles (France), who makes these really gross and weirdish "works of art"... I don't know, I dislike her ideas. Apparently, she ordered TAMPONS to make a ****ing chandelier. The best part is that all this is shaped in a penis shape, yeah. Beautiful isn't it? Best part is that it's actually hanging in our Assembly of the Republic. >.>
The problem with modern today is, well, basically what you said or that people make something controversial for the sake of controversy then call it art whereas I call it being an attention ****. Which isn't to say art can't be controversial, just that many so-called artists do someone controversial for the sake of the controversy rather than the art itself. Like that tampon thing mentioned above, or that thing once upon a time where this guy took a crucifix with Jesus on it then submerged it in his own urine... and called it art.
Hell ****ing no. Being gross, being a ****wad, or just being flat-out insulting isn't art. Art can involve those things at times but that doesn't mean the reverse is true.
Moving on, yes abstract art can be like at times... but to be honest, having recently just further emerged myself in the art world (and therefore the people in it), I've come to the conclusion that what you're talking about usually involves just a bunch of arrogant artists who get one big break and think they're ****ing Picasso now and think that everything they do, no matter how little effort is made, is worth their weight in gold. So basically stuff like that, and it being praised, is just a bunch of arrogant artists patting themselves on the back because now they don't actually have to have talent or utilize any skills beyond knowing how their tools operate in order to make a lot of money.
And since minimalism is still kinda hot right now, that's just where the money seems to be at.
Having said that, oddly enough the other hot thing right now is photo realism. Which, yes, certainly takes a lot of skill and I don't deny that it's awesome... but, why the **** would I wanna look at a painting/drawing of something real when I can just see a photo of it? That isn't to say I can't appreciate the skill involved or anything, not at all. Like there's this one guy who does photo realism using pens and pointillism and it's so ****ing cool. Esp. considering he's not an artist by profession, just as a hobby. But he admits to coping right from preexisting images, and his versions look like the Brightness/Contrast and Saturation have been adjusted and that's it. I mean you can tell it's not the exact same image, but it's that **** close is what I'm saying. So certainly his skill, talent, and ability is beyond ****ing amazing. But it's just too real looking to be interesting.
I don't dislike photo realism or anything, but at least do something cool with it. Now he's just an example, it's not even his main focus in life so I'm not ragging on him or anything. But like I went to this juried art gallery I had entered into a few months ago. Well my stuff didn't get in. I quickly came to the conclusion they must have been afraid of a little color (okay, a lot of color) because every other 2D piece there was so muted and there was so much black and while the vast majority were really well done... they just... they were so boring.
I was going through them and was like "oh, a kid, okay... oh a zebra... oh a large wooden carving of a quill and ink? Well okay, that's actually cool... oh look a whole row full of paintings/drawings of people... oh look more realistic animal drawings... oh thank God, abstract at last! Finally something a little more riveting!"
But at this free open gallery I was a part of I met this woman who made this realistic painting, using models I might add. But then made it kick ****. How? Napoleon Bonaparte and Napoleon Dynamite styled in the same way as 'American Gothic'. It looked very real, was very well done, and was overall just ****ing amazing.
And that's not all, she had another picture called 'Beer Goggles' where it looked less realistic up close but if you stood a certain distance away it did look pretty real. But it was also distorted, since it involved a guy literally holding up two glasses of beer over the top half of his face in order to make beer goggles. And it was the glasses and the beer itself that looked real, in my opinion. The guy actually looked a bit cartoony once you stopped being distracted by the beer.
Point being, to me doing something like that is taking photo realism and making it interesting. More entertaining than a photo I mean.
Anyway, having said all this, art shouldn't necessarily be anything. I would hope and pray people would be creative with it, because the possibilities are only as limited at your imagination and your medium (ie. you're not bound by physics with a painting, but you are with a sculpture so if you wanna have a sculpture that looks like it defies physics then you're bound by your knowledge of how to actually do that).
Me, personally, I used to think I was bound by some degree of reality in my drawings (since I never get to paint anymore). But then I started watching this show called Concrete Canvas, which focuses on Julian Beever (you may know him as that guy who does the really awesome 3D chalk drawings that are just really ****ing awesome). But during the show there are times when other artists, street artists, get to talk and show off their own stuff. And there's always a whole variety of them too, and of varying legalities because the show takes place in different countries so the attitude about street art as a whole varies from place to place.
This is when I began thinking about something, the more and more I watched this show (alas, it's a limited series though), I noticed all these different kinds of art styles and how none of them were really bound by any sort of physics in their art work. So I gave it a shot myself, inspired by this one guy on the show who liked to draw toons but did so in a more dark and twisted way. Well I just decided to draw a toon version of my Fursona and it came out looking kickass if I do say so myself.
Come to think of it, my art has actually improved dramatically now that I've stopped giving a **** about the confines of reality. I just recently drew an Anime version of a character I call Gorgon Queen (who was originally drawn in an Adventure Time style) and, you know, like all my lovely ladies I gave her quite the rack and hourglass body shape, but in the Anime version I made her more thin in the waist so I could make her more snake like. About the only thing I actually goofed on in that picture was making her crown a bit too big, but, meh. That picture was the first time I've ever actually been happy with something I've drawn.
I quickly decided after that "**** you, physics/realism!" and went on a bit of a drawing frenzy - even going so far as to draw a cow/milk girl, petting zoo people style. And I ****ing loved it, by the way, because I no longer feel guilty about drawing massive breasts on curvy but still kinda thin women. Because this isn't reality, so **** it. Also that was actually the first time I managed to draw hands correctly... or as correct as I ever have at least. So **** yeah.
Oh, but, enough about that I guess. I'd like to see more creativity myself, mostly because I'm still bitter about being rejected from a show even though one of my pieces was more entertaining than anything else there.
Point being, yes I personally think art itself should be creative. However art is subjective and there's no accounting for taste with some people. So it is how it is. Some people like the most tasteless things sometimes, that's just how it is.
Also sorry for my rant there, got a bit side-tracked with it, but my life has basically been denied art recently so I'm a bit fixated on it because I miss it.
Hell ****ing no. Being gross, being a ****wad, or just being flat-out insulting isn't art. Art can involve those things at times but that doesn't mean the reverse is true.
Moving on, yes abstract art can be like at times... but to be honest, having recently just further emerged myself in the art world (and therefore the people in it), I've come to the conclusion that what you're talking about usually involves just a bunch of arrogant artists who get one big break and think they're ****ing Picasso now and think that everything they do, no matter how little effort is made, is worth their weight in gold. So basically stuff like that, and it being praised, is just a bunch of arrogant artists patting themselves on the back because now they don't actually have to have talent or utilize any skills beyond knowing how their tools operate in order to make a lot of money.
And since minimalism is still kinda hot right now, that's just where the money seems to be at.
Having said that, oddly enough the other hot thing right now is photo realism. Which, yes, certainly takes a lot of skill and I don't deny that it's awesome... but, why the **** would I wanna look at a painting/drawing of something real when I can just see a photo of it? That isn't to say I can't appreciate the skill involved or anything, not at all. Like there's this one guy who does photo realism using pens and pointillism and it's so ****ing cool. Esp. considering he's not an artist by profession, just as a hobby. But he admits to coping right from preexisting images, and his versions look like the Brightness/Contrast and Saturation have been adjusted and that's it. I mean you can tell it's not the exact same image, but it's that **** close is what I'm saying. So certainly his skill, talent, and ability is beyond ****ing amazing. But it's just too real looking to be interesting.
I don't dislike photo realism or anything, but at least do something cool with it. Now he's just an example, it's not even his main focus in life so I'm not ragging on him or anything. But like I went to this juried art gallery I had entered into a few months ago. Well my stuff didn't get in. I quickly came to the conclusion they must have been afraid of a little color (okay, a lot of color) because every other 2D piece there was so muted and there was so much black and while the vast majority were really well done... they just... they were so boring.
I was going through them and was like "oh, a kid, okay... oh a zebra... oh a large wooden carving of a quill and ink? Well okay, that's actually cool... oh look a whole row full of paintings/drawings of people... oh look more realistic animal drawings... oh thank God, abstract at last! Finally something a little more riveting!"
But at this free open gallery I was a part of I met this woman who made this realistic painting, using models I might add. But then made it kick ****. How? Napoleon Bonaparte and Napoleon Dynamite styled in the same way as 'American Gothic'. It looked very real, was very well done, and was overall just ****ing amazing.
And that's not all, she had another picture called 'Beer Goggles' where it looked less realistic up close but if you stood a certain distance away it did look pretty real. But it was also distorted, since it involved a guy literally holding up two glasses of beer over the top half of his face in order to make beer goggles. And it was the glasses and the beer itself that looked real, in my opinion. The guy actually looked a bit cartoony once you stopped being distracted by the beer.
Point being, to me doing something like that is taking photo realism and making it interesting. More entertaining than a photo I mean.
Anyway, having said all this, art shouldn't necessarily be anything. I would hope and pray people would be creative with it, because the possibilities are only as limited at your imagination and your medium (ie. you're not bound by physics with a painting, but you are with a sculpture so if you wanna have a sculpture that looks like it defies physics then you're bound by your knowledge of how to actually do that).
Me, personally, I used to think I was bound by some degree of reality in my drawings (since I never get to paint anymore). But then I started watching this show called Concrete Canvas, which focuses on Julian Beever (you may know him as that guy who does the really awesome 3D chalk drawings that are just really ****ing awesome). But during the show there are times when other artists, street artists, get to talk and show off their own stuff. And there's always a whole variety of them too, and of varying legalities because the show takes place in different countries so the attitude about street art as a whole varies from place to place.
This is when I began thinking about something, the more and more I watched this show (alas, it's a limited series though), I noticed all these different kinds of art styles and how none of them were really bound by any sort of physics in their art work. So I gave it a shot myself, inspired by this one guy on the show who liked to draw toons but did so in a more dark and twisted way. Well I just decided to draw a toon version of my Fursona and it came out looking kickass if I do say so myself.
Come to think of it, my art has actually improved dramatically now that I've stopped giving a **** about the confines of reality. I just recently drew an Anime version of a character I call Gorgon Queen (who was originally drawn in an Adventure Time style) and, you know, like all my lovely ladies I gave her quite the rack and hourglass body shape, but in the Anime version I made her more thin in the waist so I could make her more snake like. About the only thing I actually goofed on in that picture was making her crown a bit too big, but, meh. That picture was the first time I've ever actually been happy with something I've drawn.
I quickly decided after that "**** you, physics/realism!" and went on a bit of a drawing frenzy - even going so far as to draw a cow/milk girl, petting zoo people style. And I ****ing loved it, by the way, because I no longer feel guilty about drawing massive breasts on curvy but still kinda thin women. Because this isn't reality, so **** it. Also that was actually the first time I managed to draw hands correctly... or as correct as I ever have at least. So **** yeah.
Oh, but, enough about that I guess. I'd like to see more creativity myself, mostly because I'm still bitter about being rejected from a show even though one of my pieces was more entertaining than anything else there.
Point being, yes I personally think art itself should be creative. However art is subjective and there's no accounting for taste with some people. So it is how it is. Some people like the most tasteless things sometimes, that's just how it is.
Also sorry for my rant there, got a bit side-tracked with it, but my life has basically been denied art recently so I'm a bit fixated on it because I miss it.
- #6
Thread Owner
What's that artist's name? I'd be interesting in lookin'.
Might be Kelvin Okafor
http://kelvinokaforart.blogspot.co.uk/
I just saw a girl at school - looking at this blog last week -
Sadly I don't remember. I just know that under a year ago Yahoo! had news thing on him and showed some of his stuff (I remember one was a red headed woman, the other a tiger). But I never bookmarked the page so I don't have access to it. Pretty sure he has an account on DA though, but again I don't know his name on there. I'm also fairly certain he uses ballpoint pens.
But, it's been a while, so I might be getting confused. Sorry I can't remember. ><
But, it's been a while, so I might be getting confused. Sorry I can't remember. ><
- #9
Thread Owner
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2012/08/samuel-silva-incredible-photorealistic.html
this guy has a red head -
this guy has a red head -
The way I see it, art means different things to different people.
What may seem too minimalism to some, may be extremely simple, but elegant to others. Though, in my opinion, art should be something that conveys an emotion or a feeling or a concept, instead of just a dot on a white canvas. I do think a lot of "artists" are just lazy and think that 'if I put a red dot on a black white canvas, I can just tell people it's something really deep and meaningful and I'll get paid tons of money for it'.
But, no. Art is different to everyone, and some modern artists really do think outside of the box and make something unique that has deep meaning. Some don't.
What may seem too minimalism to some, may be extremely simple, but elegant to others. Though, in my opinion, art should be something that conveys an emotion or a feeling or a concept, instead of just a dot on a white canvas. I do think a lot of "artists" are just lazy and think that 'if I put a red dot on a black white canvas, I can just tell people it's something really deep and meaningful and I'll get paid tons of money for it'.
But, no. Art is different to everyone, and some modern artists really do think outside of the box and make something unique that has deep meaning. Some don't.
- Messages
- 93
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 47
If people enjoy it, then fantastic, but personally I don't give modern art any attention. It just doesn't make me feel anything at all, whereas most of the art prints I've got above my desk make me feel inspired and creative. Personal taste really.
