Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

Photography is probably the only classical form that I could say that I participate in (visual anyway) and one thing I've started to appreciate is how badly a lot of people really need someone saying "yes that's all very pretty but you need to work out wtf it is you are doing and why". Drawing up some sort of statement or writing an essay explaining that is one way that people can get their thoughts together on the subject. A lot of photographers I know have come to the same conclusion, once they master the practical aspects, which doesn't take all that long if you're interested tbh.
 
I was bored...


15312569319_40fe6c3677_c.jpg


15476336016_5148e46ebe_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
FridgeMagnet said:
Photography is probably the only classical form that I could say that I participate in (visual anyway) and one thing I've started to appreciate is how badly a lot of people really need someone saying "yes that's all very pretty but you need to work out wtf it is you are doing and why". Drawing up some sort of statement or writing an essay explaining that is one way that people can get their thoughts together on the subject. A lot of photographers I know have come to the same conclusion, once they master the practical aspects, which doesn't take all that long if you're interested tbh.
Click to expand...

Are you into film or digital or both? :)
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
Getting back to some art ...
Here's some more excellent digital art.

excellent-art-06.jpg
Click to expand...
bubblesmcgrath said:
Best-Digital-Art-Designs-32.jpg
Click to expand...


you know, the thing about works like these...I just don't have a concept of what it is that the artist is actually doing to create them so I feel a bit lost trying to assess them...are they using a photograph/series of images they didn't create themselves? if not, how easy or difficult is it to create something that looks photorealistic using the tools available...?

there was a poster here who was making a foray into digital art portraits. I think I prefer that more natural style, which ends up looking more like a painting, with imperfections and all the stuff that says something about the person who created it. Or digital art that is totally unique and is not relying on photorealism yet is creating a very palpable mood and setting which corresponds to their unique vision.

technical skills are cool, but sometimes leave audiences cold...it's like FridgeMagnet said, an artist needs to have a good idea of what it is they're saying with a piece, and things like these sometimes seem like a great deal of technical skill with no soul or purpose other than to create a slick image.
slick images have their place, but it's generally more for advertising and stuff like that..
 
Miss Caphat said:
you know, the thing about works like these...I just don't have a concept of what it is that the artist is actually doing to create them so I feel a bit lost trying to assess them...are they using a photograph/series of images they didn't create themselves? if not, how easy or difficult is it to create something that looks photorealistic using the tools available...?

there was a poster here who was making a foray into digital art portraits. I think I prefer that more natural style, which ends up looking more like a painting, with imperfections and all the stuff that says something about the person who created it. Or digital art that is totally unique and is not relying on photorealism yet is creating a very palpable mood and setting which corresponds to their unique vision.

technical skills are cool, but sometimes leave audiences cold...it's like FridgeMagnet said, an artist needs to have a good idea of what it is they're saying with a piece, and things like these sometimes seem like a great deal of technical skill with no soul or purpose other than to create a slick image.
slick images have their place, but it's generally more for advertising and stuff like that..
Click to expand...

I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. I look at the digital portrait of Hugh Laurie and see personality coming through.
The second one has a definite sense of a commentary on broken people..broken lives..broken perfection. ..damaged yet still beautiful.


chilango said:
Not everything that "can be" is though.
Click to expand...

Digital art is most definitely art :)
 
Re skill. Yes digital art is very skillful. It can be a complete work created from scratch or it can be edited pieces. It is not always representational either.

Personally my preferences within digital art would lean towards digital paintings. Which can be done in any number of styles or genres.

chilango said:
Obviously.

But not every digital image is digital art, is it?
Click to expand...

Are we heading for a "digital photography" is not art moment? Or do you mean data imagery?
 
I'm hoping that virtual reality will become the next big movement within the digital art world .....and indeed the world of modern art.
So many experimental possibilities. So many sensory opportunities.
The idea of full body emersion in a work of art is very appealing :)
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
Are we heading for a "digital photography" is not art moment? Or do you mean data imagery?
Click to expand...

Whilst I'm not inclined to get into a discussion of "what is art?" there are many things that are patently not art. If only because their creators never intended them to be art. Some digital imagery will fall under that bracket as will some drawings, some applications of paint, some textiles, some ceramics etc.

Of course there's a lot more to what makes something art than the intention behind its creation (or is there? ;)) but we don't need to have that fruitless discussion to accept that some stuff, uncontroversially, just isn't art.
 
Miss Caphat said:
there was a poster here who was making a foray into digital art portraits. I think I prefer that more natural style, which ends up looking more like a painting, with imperfections and all the stuff that says something about the person who created it. Or digital art that is totally unique and is not relying on photorealism yet is creating a very palpable mood and setting which corresponds to their unique vision
Click to expand...

Was that Vintage Paw ? She made some really cool stuff. I wish she would post more :)
 
:oops:

My tablet is propped up at the side of the sofa where I sit with my laptop, whispering, "come on, use me, you know you want to" and I keep replying, "maybe tomorrow."

I'm rubbish.
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
Personally my preferences within digital art would lean towards digital paintings. Which can be done in any number of styles or genres.
Click to expand...
I find digital paintings generally do nothing for me. I prefer artists who explore the technology itself and the art being emergent from the constraints and rules built into whatever platform they're working with. Like a guy who I found on Tumblr who writes programs that produce gifs.

This:

tumblr_mpt11do5OT1qfjvexo1_500.gif


Was created by this program:

Code: 
v1[t_] :=
{Cos[t], 0, Sin[t]}

v2[t_, a_] :=
1/Sqrt[1 + Sin[t]^2 Tan[a]^2] {-Sin[t], -Sin[t] Tan[a], Cos[t]}

v3[t_, a_] :=
1/Sqrt[1 + Sin[t]^2 Tan[a]^2] {-Sin[t]^2 Tan[a], 1, Cos[t] Sin[t] Tan[a]}

P[t_, a_] :=
{v3[t, a][[2]]/Tan[a] - v3[t, a][[1]], 0, -v3[t, a][[3]]/2}

Q[t_, a_] :=
{v3[t, a][[2]]/Tan[a], v3[t, a][[2]], v3[t, a][[3]]/2}

vertices[t_, a_, A_, B_, C_, D_] :=
{P[t, a] - A*Sqrt[2]/2 v1[t],
  P[t, a] + B*Sqrt[2]/2 v1[t],
  Q[t, a] - C*Sqrt[2]/2 v2[t, a],
  Q[t, a] + D*Sqrt[2]/2 v2[t, a]}

Tetrahedron[T_, t_, a_, o_, A_, B_, C_, D_] :=
Table[
  {FaceForm[White], Opacity[o], EdgeForm[Thick],
   Polygon[
	Table[
	 T[vertices[t, a, A, B, C, D][[1 + Mod[i + j, 4]]]], {i, 1, 3, 1}]]},
  {j, 0, 3, 1}]

Kaleidocycle[t_, n_, o_, R_, A_, B_, C1_, D1_, x_, y_, z_, S_] :=
Translate[
  Scale[
   Rotate[
	Table[
	 Rotate[
	  Table[
	   Tetrahedron[T, t, 2 Pi/n, o, A/Tan[2 Pi/n], B* A/Tan[2 Pi/n],
		C1/Tan[2 Pi/n], D1*C1/Tan[2 Pi/n]],
	   {T, {TransformationFunction[IdentityMatrix[4]],
		 ReflectionTransform[{-Sin[2 Pi/n], Cos[2 Pi/n], 0}]}}],
	  r*4 Pi/n, {0, 0, 1}],
	 {r, 0, n - 1, 1}],
	R*Sin[t], {0, 1, 0}],
   S],
  {x, y, z}]

rr[q_] := (SeedRandom[q]; RandomReal[])

K[t_, pr_, Q_, w_] :=
Graphics3D[
  Table[
   Kaleidocycle[t + 2 Pi*rr[w*q], 5 + 2 Floor[10 rr[2 w*q]], 1, 0,
	1.5, 1, 1.5, 1, 1.2 pr*rr[3 w*q], 1.2*6/5 pr*rr[4 w*q],
	10 pr*(1 rr[5 w*q] - 1), 1],
   {q, 1, Q, 1}],
  PlotRange -> {{0, pr}, {0, 6/5 pr}, {-10 pr, 10 pr}},
  ImageSize -> 500, Axes -> False, Boxed -> False,
  Lighting -> "Neutral", ViewPoint -> {0, 0, Infinity} ,
  Background -> White ]

Manipulate[
K[t, 15.5, 18, 5],
{t, 0, 2Pi}]

And while I'm sure he has some idea on how it will come about, I bet there's a lot of experimentation and unexpected results which produce images he would never have imagined.

This is also a great piece of digital art, IMO:



He took a video of himself and uploaded it to YouTube. Then after YouTube compressed it (adding artefacts, and losing definition), he downloaded it and re-uploaded it again, adding more compression and artefacts. After 1000 uploads and downloads, you're left with the above. It was inspired by this awesome work on resonance:

 
Nice post Fez909..

I'd add to it that the programmers who write software to enable all digital art are deserving of recognition...
They are creators of a new medium where code is the brush and software the canvas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chemn
Geometric Art/ Mandala
Replies
22
Views
336
Sweet FA
Sweet FA
A
  • Poll
Is photorealistic art really "art"?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
182
Views
5K
Dr. Furface
Dr. Furface
A
"The Hanging Committee:": thread for amusing tales about arts events.
Replies
6
Views
486
moochedit
moochedit
A
Art Fraud stories.
Replies
0
Views
239
Aladdin
A
Mumbles274
The 2023 Art Thread
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
247
Views
10K
JimW
JimW
Back
Top Bottom