PDA

View Full Version : Realism vs. Idealism


JTD
06-03-2005, 08:59 PM
I commented on some work the other day where an artist had asked for help and the responses were (I'm paraphrasing): 'get an anatomy book' or 'learn to draw' or 'that elbow looks wrong'. I have to admit that this kind of response bothered me and put me in a little rant-trance. The first problem I saw was that the people who responded were completely assuming that what the artist wanted was realistic anatomy. In their defense, the original artist never stated exactly what kind of help was needed. Don't you just hate that? But I digress.

My point here is that I do not believe that realism is superior to idealism when it comes to art. It is neither better nor worse; it is simply a way of presenting an image that you're feeling in your heart. In my opinion, it'd be like saying red is better than orange; gouache is better than watercolor; straight lines are better than curves. It is simply a way of presenting an image. Yet I've witnessed disparaging remarks if the anatomy is idealized. Why? Should Southpark be realistic?

Maybe at the heart of this, people feel that if it is not 100% representative of its real-world doppelganger then it should be so deformed that Picasso would be suing for trademark infringement if he were alive. Maybe nothing in between each extreme is acceptable unless it has basic color blocking or is using a 'toon' shader. But in my opinion, the notion of "acceptable" has no place in art (that is not to say that art can't be evil or inappropriate because I've seen some horrible, unspeakable things). But art is simply what it is. It is innate. It is personal.

In conclusion, I'd like to encourage those folks, who cannot lay down a lifelike portrait or who feel their artistic skills are lacking, to continue their quest for expression. I want to say that what you create isn't "lacking" but rather your own personal interpretation of art. You are an artist.

Leebre
06-03-2005, 10:16 PM
...I do not believe that realism is superior to idealism when it comes to art. It is neither better nor worse; it is simply a way of presenting an image that you're feeling in your heart. In my opinion, it'd be like saying red is better than orange; gouache is better than watercolor; straight lines are better than curves...But art is simply what it is. It is innate. It is personal...

I agree with you 100%. While I appreciate (and often stand in awe) of artists who are able to do photorealistic work I don't have much desire to do so myself. I figure if I want to experience the physical realism of something then I will look at a photograph of it, or better yet, look at the actual object its self. When I create "art" I find myself doing it for two reasons: I am creating something that cannot be found in reality and/or I am attempting to communicate essence. There is just as much merit in my attempt to express my interpretation of some intagible quality of a nude figure as there is in my attempt to faithfully recreate the nude figure's form. However, in my experience, more often than not you really do need an understanding of how to create the reality of a thing before you can adequately express its essence, or even produce a decent stylization.
I think if one is wanting their work to be critiqued they either need to be prepared for those kinds of remarks or point out beforehand that their work is expressly not meant to be photorealistic.

Sulla
06-03-2005, 10:20 PM
Well without seing the work its hard to judge. Maybe it looked like he was trying to do work the looked true to life so they assumed thats what he wanted. I find the when doing people they look good when correct or so distorted you know they were not ment to be. When they are just a little of they just tend to look wrong.

Arc80
06-04-2005, 01:42 AM
I agree with SULLA. I don't think the issue here is about being realistic or idealist. Basic fundamentals of art are very important and will always be important. Without having a strong fundamental understanding, you won't be able to break or bend the rules.
For example, Piccaso, he is known as one of the best abstract artist in the world, but if you look at his sketch books and previous works (before going to abstract), you'll see that he'd proven that he understand and have the knowledge on how to draw realistically (proportions, shading, and what not). That's why he did abstract so well, because he knew how to break the rules.
So even if you are creating something that doesn't exist in the real world (like most of us here do), you have to show that that creature or whatever, can exist in the real world and people can relate to it in some ways. And this is how you find your nitch in style and individuality. Unless you are really doing something abstract and minimalism. Even in surrealism you'll see that artists shows a great understanding of basics.

In terms of south park, well, if you actually look at the character designs, the proportions works with the style that the artists were aiming for.

Anyway, if you are really just doing this for fun (which again, i think most of us are doing), then by all means go for it. Make art from your heart and that you feel can express who you are (which everyone of us here do too). But if you are also trying to get a job base on what you are doing, then expect some realistic critisicm from the pros or whoever is viewing it, because most of them have been doing this longer than we do.

cheers

Darktwin
06-04-2005, 04:57 AM
I agree with SULLA. I don't think the issue here is about being realistic or idealist. Basic fundamentals of art are very important and will always be important. Without having a strong fundamental understanding, you won't be able to break or bend the rules.
For example, Piccaso, he is known as one of the best abstract artist in the world, but if you look at his sketch books and previous works (before going to abstract), you'll see that he'd proven that he understand and have the knowledge on how to draw realistically (proportions, shading, and what not). That's why he did abstract so well, because he knew how to break the rules.
So even if you are creating something that doesn't exist in the real world (like most of us here do), you have to show that that creature or whatever, can exist in the real world and people can relate to it in some ways. And this is how you find your nitch in style and individuality. Unless you are really doing something abstract and minimalism. Even in surrealism you'll see that artists shows a great understanding of basics.

In terms of south park, well, if you actually look at the character designs, the proportions works with the style that the artists were aiming for.

Anyway, if you are really just doing this for fun (which again, i think most of us are doing), then by all means go for it. Make art from your heart and that you feel can express who you are (which everyone of us here do too). But if you are also trying to get a job base on what you are doing, then expect some realistic critisicm from the pros or whoever is viewing it, because most of them have been doing this longer than we do.

cheers

Arc80 hit on all the main points I was going to state. When your dealing with competion in any sense, there is always going to be a standard of measurement. In art, the standard of measurements is the ability to draw from life/figure (realism) before expressing oneself artistically. Most of the artist from the modern art movements had solid foundations in drawing/painting or whatever before they started expressing themselves abstractly, and you can see the strong fundamentals in there abstract work. Like many have already stated, I believe you have to know the rules before you can bend them. And if your just doing art for fun, and you post your work on a site like this with people aspiring to be professionals and already professionals, be ready to get critiqued, because they're only trying to help you get better.

Lunatique
06-04-2005, 05:22 AM
There's a difference between idealizing things and depicting them incorrectly. Look at all the Anime/manga, comic books, 2D animation..etc--most of them are highly idealized, but no one looks at them and say "That looks wrong." This is because the artists who work in those styles know HOW to idealize them without making them look wrong. So, yes, you absolutely need to understand real anatomy in order to be able to idealize it in such a way that doesn't look wrong.

Desert-of-Seth
06-06-2005, 11:10 AM
I agree that art is individual.I think sometimes the viewer may not get what the artist wanted to depict.At this point,it might be better for the artist to stress what s/he wanted to express in her/his artwork :) That's what "description" is for :)

cha0t1c1
06-06-2005, 03:41 PM
I think using an idealistic figure in a person's style is purely observational(by instinct it feels right, due to many variables, such as consistency-the rest follows the same way- mood and message).

I hope that made sense....

ThirdEye
06-06-2005, 06:40 PM
Idealizing and stylizing just for the sake of it are useless. If there's a meaning it has to be specified, otherwise crits become impossible.

dmonk
06-06-2005, 06:47 PM
Idealizing and stylizing just for the sake of it are useless. If there's a meaning it has to be specified, otherwise crits become impossible.

Well isn't imitating reality just for the sake of it pointless? Getting what is inside your head out in the open is important. No one is forcing anyone to like anything.

I don't see anything wrong with style for the sake of style, I can choose to like it or not.

Edit:

Let me clarify before I get flamed.
You guys make great points BTW.

To me it's just that everyone has there on preference. I see stuff in the choice gallery all of the time that is excellent and extremely well done, but it just won't be to my liking. I don't care what the deeper meaning of something is, if I don't like it and visually it doesn't work for me than that is that.

A portrait is just a portrait, you may capture an emotion, but it doesn't ecessarily have a meaning. I find stylized images more intriguing because it all has to do with how the essence of something is captured, more than the accuracy of the image.

Look at Hirschfield (sp) all style. I believe he could have done more traditonal work, but then.. why would he stand out from the rest.

monkeybeach
06-07-2005, 12:37 AM
A portrait is just a portrait, you may capture an emotion, but it doesn't necessarily have a meaning. I find stylized images more intriguing because it all has to do with how the essence of something is captured, more than the accuracy of the image.

hmm. i can't say i agree with you there. sure it might be easier to depict something like anger by drawing a little stormcloud over someone's head, with lightning shooting from it, but why would that be any more intriguing than a realistic picture conveying the same emotion using little or no "artificial" means? emotion is the goal, after all. also, it's not uncommon for highly idealized pictures (assuming there are people in them) to be fairly repetitive and boring, since most people when painting without any real world reference wind up painting pretty much the same faces over and over.. just painting without boundaries alone is no guarantee that you'll create something original and unique.

dmonk
06-07-2005, 01:21 AM
hmm. i can't say i agree with you there. sure it might be easier to depict something like anger by drawing a little stormcloud over someone's head, with lightning shooting from it, but why would that be any more intriguing than a realistic picture conveying the same emotion using little or no "artificial" means? emotion is the goal, after all.

I'm not saying it would, but isn't that all a matter of personal preference?

As far as real world reference......

Reference or not, I can look at something and decide if I like it or not. In the end, the image is going to work or not. If it works to a degree where more people like than not than some might consider that a success.

As an artist it's up to you to decide if you are happy with the final. It doesn't matter if a million people get your work if you don't like it

tAstyBITs
06-07-2005, 09:53 AM
Art is anything put forth as art.

That statment is undeniable.

But it dosen't mean you like everything put forth as art.

I agree with JTD. but regardless of what you do if people are making comments on the arm looking wrong then maybe the arm is a distraction to the work and the style needs ot be pushed farther so that people don't think it should look real.

The artist himself needs to make decisions that he likes and if he likes what he does then go with it, at least don't get offended by people comments just understand them.

me 2 cents.

dmonk
06-07-2005, 11:29 AM
Art is anything put forth as art.

That statment is undeniable.

But it dosen't mean you like everything put forth as art.

I agree with JTD. but regardless of what you do if people are making comments on the arm looking wrong then maybe the arm is a distraction to the work and the style needs ot be pushed farther so that people don't think it should look real.

The artist himself needs to make decisions that he likes and if he likes what he does then go with it, at least don't get offended by people comments just understand them.

me 2 cents.

Exactly!:thumbsup:

You have put it much better than I would have.

kmest
06-07-2005, 03:19 PM
you guys told every thing i wanted to say...

there are some pics here in Finished gallery which made my eyes focused on them for some time just because they're well rendered and too realstick they are but not a single art in them..for example the car images or the room images which are realy realstick(i dont call them ART..they're more like industry pics)....i look at them for some time...there are some other pics with strong idea's but poor render,lighting,models....just pass them....but we all stop and love the ones with both strong understanding of realism and good ideas/styles.....so i guess as many said before,we first have to learn realism to be a better artist..and when i say realism,i mean seeing better...

comic-craig
06-09-2005, 09:50 PM
I don't think you can make art that appears wrong, awkward, or in general lacking appeal and expect people to like it because its "your style". I love stylized artwork- I easily get tired of realism- but I can (and do) point out that someone's work is weak or unexperienced. It is my personal feeling that its all in the intention of the art. If the audience can feel (without you telling them- because you probably will not get the chance) that you meant to do something- then I think its legit. The problem arises when much of your work is realistic- but then you have something that seems totally wrong. I think this happens a lot in CGart- an artist tries to make a "hot" woman- but maybe she ends up looking like an old granny- then suddenly they don't want to hear that they couldn't pull it off. They may tell you they wanted to make her look like a granny- but if that is the case- the critique should be "its not clear that you wanted her to look like a granny". If the public can't get the intention behind your work- then it still might mean it could be improved. But... if we can understand just by looking at it that you meant for it to look strange or different- or ubnreal- then we can appreciate it like you meant it to be seen.

I also have another thing I've noticed here- people tend to love things involved with sci-fi, movies, comics, and nakedness. People at this site tend to hate things that couldn't work in the "real" world, aren't "hot" enough, or don't have the right number of buttons for a lightsaber. This is because most of the artists here are similiar in a bit of nerdyness (I say this cause I can be a nerd myself):) . I love much of the work here- but I also realize that the critiques/art come from a certain kind of person- and not the public at large.

dmonk
06-09-2005, 10:05 PM
My whole thing is it is very possible for an image to work without being accurate to the real world.


Just like a completely accurate image can just not work or be interesting at all.

It goes both ways. Your going to look at something and your either going to like it or your not going to like it. Just because you like it or get it doesn't make the image "correct". Just because you may hate or not get it doen't make the image "incorrect".

You can always offer up your opinion or suggestion, but at the end of the day it's not up to you unless your paying the Artist or it's your own image.

I think coping out and saying "I ment to do that" is lame with out an explanation, but maybe they actually "Meant to do that".

Junpei
06-09-2005, 11:41 PM
Look at it this way, this is a largely professional art board, people will critique based on perceived technical mastery, and how the composition appeals to the particular viewer.
your probably not going to go very far as a Ďprofessionalí artist if nobody likes your art, a Monet is probably considerably more pleasing to look at then an amateurís scratch for most people. Perhaps that amateur poured there heart and soul into there dirty eraser marks, and thatís good for them, but without sign of standards of expertise shown - nobody is going to pay a million USD for it. This forum is designed for professionals, people who want to make a living in art. If you don't want industry opinion there are plenty of amateur sites on the web as well. Sorry if I offend anyone..

dmonk
06-10-2005, 01:51 AM
Look at it this way, this is a largely professional art board, people will critique based on perceived technical mastery, and how the composition appeals to the particular viewer.
your probably not going to go very far as a Ďprofessionalí artist if nobody likes your art, a Monet is probably considerably more pleasing to look at then an amateurís scratch for most people. Perhaps that amateur poured there heart and soul into there dirty eraser marks, and thatís good for them, but without sign of standards of expertise shown - nobody is going to pay a million USD for it. This forum is designed for professionals, people who want to make a living in art. If you don't want industry opinion there are plenty of amateur sites on the web as well. Sorry if I offend anyone..

All I'm saying is that Realism does not equal a good piece of work and vice versa.

The topic is realism vs. Idealism

You may be missing my point. If a picture sucks it sucks.

Commercially if more people like your work than hate it, then you've created a successful image. Am I wrong?

Go check out the MOMA there are plenty of examples of excellent work that don't fall into the "Standards of Expertise" and are quite famous.

Paintings are hanging on museum walls now right now that some of you wouldn't look at twice if they didn't have a famous name attached to.

There's nothing wrong with standards in my book ,but there is more to art than standards. Some of the most money making designs of the last decade don't really fit in the standards of realism. "Sponge Bob Square Pants", "RugRats" Dr. Seus etc you might smirk that I even mentioning them when talking about art, but they are designed buy someone in there own personal style and they work and speak to just as many people today as the Mona Lisa.

Junpei
06-10-2005, 02:26 AM
i think you missunderstand my point. there are infinite possibilites of expression within a standard of exellence /or/ expertise authority. i'm not saying you shouldn't be original at all, completely opposite. i feel that alot of the discussion is relating to art bias, i'm saying that many times originality is rewarded as long as it shows expertise, even here on the boards!! hence monet and his impressionism (and those museam pieces you commented on). thats what i was commenting on :) hope you understand now.

Shaidar
06-10-2005, 07:10 AM
I recently posted an abstract traditional (oil/acrylic) painting to the Finished Work 2D forum. The submission was denied with the generic reasons for an unsuccessful submission listed in the email.

I can only assume that it was denied because of it either being an abstract piece, and/or because it was with traditional media. I know this is a computer graphics forum, but to me art is art, no matter where it came from, and I would have loved to get the feedback of the great CGtalk community. Also, I have some rare traditional paintings in the 2D finished forum in the past.

I have submitted this same painting to other more contemporary art related forums on the Internet and have got a great response from the readers.

This seems to highlight this issue of realim vs idealism (or surrealism, abstraction etc). The CGtalk forums are a great resource with a great community but it seems that their is a massive focus on photo-realistic images or at least realist centered art, with little interest in more contemporary and experimental art practice.

I think it would be very valuable for the community if it could accept more of this experimental and not purely realist art. These two artistic styles should sit side by side, not with one relagated to the backstage.

When it comes down to it, the essence of art is about expression, not about realism. You can have a fantastic, technically perfect and photo-realistic image, but without expression and artistic merit and thought, it just becomes a piece of eye candy. To be completely successful, an artwork needs to combine elements of technical skill and artistic expression.

Art isn't about being technically preficient in a specific 'set-out' and defined manner. Many of the most popular and famous artists of the 20th Century became famous by breaking the boundaries of realism and traditional art practice. Jackson Pollock's drip paintings certainly don't represent any skill in the tradional practice of realism and art making, but they are incredible and beautiful works. Picasso's cubist works are far from 'real' and 'correct', yet they are again, fantastic.

I think when critiquing art one needs to be extremely open minded in their analysis of what is 'good' and 'bad'.

.:ZRDwD:.
06-10-2005, 07:22 PM
Hmmmm.. NOW I find this thread (slaps forehead).

Ironically, this is what I wrote for the thread "Should 2D artists use traditional perspective, or 3D tools to generate perspective?"
http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=2370996&postcount=25

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this, now that I've read through this thread. I thought I was going above my own head stating this opinion to "pros".

comic-craig
06-10-2005, 09:03 PM
[QUOTE=Shaidar]Art isn't about being technically preficient in a specific 'set-out' and defined manner. QUOTE]

First off, I agree with the above line completely. Also, It was said well before:
[QUOTE=tAsty BITs]Art is anything put forth as art.QUOTE]

Still- the name of the site is "CGtalk". I believe that refers to the "CG" art community. Art is of course part of the focus here- but as it relates to the CG industry. I'm not saying this site is about realism- but "being technically proficient " in CGart should be important. If not, it would be called "ArtTalk". I haven't seen your art- so I can't comment- but I would agree that if it was generated on a computer and it wasn't a rip off of another commercial image, that it should have been posted. That said, I totally feel free to tell people that their art is good or bad based on my opinion. Artists don't have to like it- they don't have to agree- but if they didn't want feed back, why post it? You should always consider the source before you take any critique seriously. This isn't directed at "Shaidar"- because he wanted feed back.... on that issue, I would have to see the work before I could comment.

Lunatique
06-11-2005, 02:43 AM
Traditional artworks ARE allowed at cgtalk. They just have to 1) be good enough 2) relevant to the general focus of the type of themes we see at cgtalk.

There are plans to have a tradtional art forum here. Don't know when, but we already talked about it and agreed that we should have one.

Shaidar
06-11-2005, 03:07 AM
Cool, good to hear! I look forward to an art forum that can be more focussed (or at least be open to) more experimental and abstract work.

Lunatique
06-11-2005, 04:38 AM
Well, I don't know how open it'll be to abstract works. It is nearly impossible to critique or judge abstract works, and that makes it problematic for various reasons. Surrealism would probably be about as abstract as what would be openly accepted. Abstract 3D is a different story, since 3D is far more technical, and generating procedural effects and other random weirdness in 3D requires technical knowledge, but in traditional 2D, you could just splatter some paint on a canvas and call it abstract.

stepington
06-11-2005, 04:41 AM
Idealistically I'm a realist. Realistically I'm an idealist.:sad:

Shaidar
06-11-2005, 06:36 AM
Well, I don't know how open it'll be to abstract works. It is nearly impossible to critique or judge abstract works, and that makes it problematic for various reasons. Surrealism would probably be about as abstract as what would be openly accepted. Abstract 3D is a different story, since 3D is far more technical, and generating procedural effects and other random weirdness in 3D requires technical knowledge, but in traditional 2D, you could just splatter some paint on a canvas and call it abstract.

Well I guess you have never been to art school and analyzed and critiqued more abstract and experimental contemporary art. Some discussions I remember lasted hours on a painting you label as "splattered paint on canvas". It seems that in your mind art should solely be critiqued on its technical merit. (Or at least a large portion). This seems like an extremely rash and judgemental view of art.

Art is about lots more than just technical skill at moving a paintbrush, moving a mouse, or moving some vertices around. Realist art and abstract art share many attributes that make them either a successful or an unsuccessful piece. Form, shape, color, dynamics, symmetry, tone just to name a few. Whether an artwork was created over many long years or by "splattering paint on canvas" like Jackson Pollock, all of these elements of visual analysis come into play. To start labeling specific art forms as "technically more skilled" than others destroys the essence of what art is truly about. Artistic expression.

With the addition of these new art related forums it seemed that CGtalk was embracing a wider range of art , offering a communtity for people to discuss all things to do with art (not just specific digital tools). If it shuts out entire segments of the contemporary art community, I hardly see how it is fulfulling its goals. (Maybe I have misinterpreted its goals).

Schwinnz
06-11-2005, 07:22 AM
I agree completely with Shaidar. Abstract art is all about composition rules.

And art NEVER SUCKS (as opposed to what someone said). You can dislike it for many reasons, but it cannot suck plain simply.

ThirdEye
06-11-2005, 10:44 AM
My whole thing is it is very possible for an image to work without being accurate to the real world

Sure but as i said in my previous post it has to make sense and not be done just for the sake of it: in other words it has to work.

Junpei
06-11-2005, 02:10 PM
Well I guess you have never been to art school and analyzed and critiqued more abstract and experimental contemporary art. Some discussions I remember lasted hours on a painting you label as "splattered paint on canvas". It seems that in your mind art should solely be critiqued on its technical merit. (Or at least a large portion). This seems like an extremely rash and judgemental view of art.

please show more respect to forum leaders, use of this forum is a priviliage.
i don't think abstract would work here for several reasons, one which you have just supplied now. think about it.:wise:

comic-craig
06-12-2005, 02:19 AM
I hope to say this with as much tact as possible: but can anyone (with some authority) please explain to me what is the overall theme/standard of this website. I did a short search, and I didn't find my answer. As I stated before, I thought it was computer related art. Now I find out that it doesn't have to be made on the computer, but has to live up to quality standards. I'm wondering what are those standards?:) I've seen a few pieces here and there that looked very awkward and entry level. I always thought that it was okay- that the artist was just starting out and they'd come along.... we all want to improve. I hope this doesn't sound rude- but I personally think that concept or of splattering paint on a canvas is the same as clicking the spherize filter in photoshop.:D Neither really do anything- unless their is thought behind them. Many people look at abstract art and think: "Crap, I could do that..." For me, I always return with "Yeah, but did you do it first". If this site isn't about CG art, and its open to traditional art, I would think that abstract art could be posted. Then we could all crit it with "Crap, I could do that.":)

I've put lots of smiling faces in this post to help calm myself and the other readers.:thumbsup: Oh- by the way- I'm for both realism and idealism, I just thought I'd mention.

Craig

Lunatique
06-12-2005, 04:42 AM
Well I guess you have never been to art school and analyzed and critiqued more abstract and experimental contemporary art.

My mother is an abstract painter. I've taken art history in school. I used live in San Francisco and have been to MOMA more than a few times. Please don't assume anything about me.

I'll explain why there's a preference here at cgtalk--and please remember, I'm trying to rationalize the general mentality of people here, not my own.

If I grabbed someone off the street--someone who knows nothing about art or CG, and sit him down in front of computer with a 3D software. What are the chances that he's going to be able to model, texture, light, and render anything at all right away? And if I sit him down in front of a canvas with a bunch of brushes and paints, what are the chances that he'll be able to do an abstract piece right away? This is why I said what I said.

As far as my feelings about abstract art goes, the problem with abstract art is that you can't tell the hacks from the genuine ones. There is no criteria for judging. Four-year olds are stunning the world with their "genius" because they exihibit strong sense of composition and color. But where do you go after that? How will you grow as an artist? Just go on doing more variations of composition and color for the rest of your life? How are you going to portray the more complex emotions and ideas you have as a human being? Can you portray forgiveness, jealousy, compassion, pensiveness, reassurance, malcontent, apathy..etc with abstract shapes, colors, lines..etc? And even if you think you could, what are the chances that your audience will get it?

I do like some abstract art, but I enjoy them for different reasons than I would representational art. However, cgtalk is mainly focussed on tangible themes and ideas that require reprensational aspects to depict. Just look at all the CG Challenges and the Daily Sketch stuff. How are judges supposed to judge abstract entries against representational ones? Of course, you might not want to participate in the competitions and just want to submit your work for the Finished Gallery. That's fine, but it's not up to me to validate your submission; other Forum Leaders handle that. If your submission is rejected, you should ask them why, and it's not up to me to speak for them. I'm only trying to explain the general mentality here at cgtalk. There are tons of traditional art websites that are into abstract art--no one's stopping you from posting your work in those places. If you choose to post them here, then you'll have to take into consideration the general taste and preference of this community. Once again I'm NOT the one to accept or reject your submissions--that is not my area of involvement here at cgtalk. If your abstract piece gets rejected, talk to the person who rejected it.

csDevil
06-12-2005, 05:29 AM
About Idealism: I guess abstract art isn't very welcome in forums simply because people are used to something bound to realism. It doesn't make much sense to post something Mondrian-like and say "hey, this is my job, please CC"... Ok, some here might understand (or think that did) and comment, but what's the point on posting something so subjective that nobody can really know what led you to that, what is your intention with that and, even worst, if the artist really knows what he did, intended to do something, knows how that kind of art works - that would be the aspect that would distiguish art from not-art. (of course, this has nothing to do with any case here in CGTalk, I didn't even know Shaider's case before reading this topic as I don't know any other case.)

As said here: there are LOTS of works that are only known becouse are linked to a known name. Dali used to call some of his own works as sale crap, and now some of these works are conteplated just becouse have his name. Again, we get to that absurd question: "what is art then?", which answere will never be flawless.

tAstyBITs
06-12-2005, 06:59 PM
As far as my feelings about abstract art goes, the problem with abstract art is that you can't tell the hacks from the genuine ones. There is no criteria for judging. Four-year olds are stunning the world with their "genius" because they exihibit strong sense of composition and color. But where do you go after that? How will you grow as an artist? Just go on doing more variations of composition and color for the rest of your life? How are you going to portray the more complex emotions and ideas you have as a human being? Can you portray forgiveness, jealousy, compassion, pensiveness, reassurance, malcontent, apathy..etc with abstract shapes, colors, lines..etc? And even if you think you could, what are the chances that your audience will get it?

I attended the SanFransico art institute for a year. I got to travel around the city visting art gallerys. All of it was abstract art. But I have to say the good stuff went way beyond what a 4 year old can accdently do. It takes genius to wow people and I was seeing it.

Frankly people here probally just don't like it. I droped out of the school cuz it wasn't for me. But I have complete respect for abstract art since I know how hard it is to make something that can wow people.

I think all artistic thought comes to us in a abstract way to begin with. Our creative minds should be open to understing relationships between feeling and shapes more.

cha0t1c1
06-12-2005, 08:14 PM
I attended the SanFransico art institute for a year. I got to travel around the city visting art gallerys. All of it was abstract art. But I have to say the good stuff went way beyond what a 4 year old can accdently do. It takes genius to wow people and I was seeing it.

Frankly people here probally just don't like it. I droped out of the school cuz it wasn't for me. But I have complete respect for abstract art since I know how hard it is to make something that can wow people.

I think all artistic thought comes to us in a abstract way to begin with. Our creative minds should be open to understing relationships between feeling and shapes more.

what do you feel then about untitled abstract?

I find it annoyingly amusing and very provoking...however, art for art sake is just too bloody frustrating...

tAstyBITs
06-12-2005, 08:45 PM
I don't know what you mean by untitled.

why would art for art sake be so frustrating, it's just art.

I think people when they are told something is fine art, abstract art etc, they feel that it has to be good in a way they don't understand. Like it saying it's better or requires a education to know what makes it good. I look at it as either I like it or I don't just like anything else.

But to make money as a artist I wonder. I think abstract fine artist make alot because rich people have to beleive they're buying something worth money. Mostly it's just something to look good on the wall of their very large home. Maybe it's people who buy crapy art for art's sake that piss's you off.

Of the art I saw in san fransicso I didn't like alot but some stuff was really very cool and clever.

nineinchneil
06-13-2005, 07:55 PM
And art NEVER SUCKS (as opposed to what someone said). You can dislike it for many reasons, but it cannot suck plain simply.

actually i disagree. art can indeed be poor. if the artist has an idea in mind, (trying to convey a strong emotion, for example), and the piece doesn't convey it to the standard the artist desires, then i would say it's bad.

slaughters
06-13-2005, 08:31 PM
Art is anything put forth as art.

That statment is undeniable....I deny it :)

If I said that my dads choice in clothes was art, that would not make it art, regardless of how I put it forth.

nineinchneil
06-13-2005, 08:42 PM
I deny it :)

If I said that my dads choice in clothes was art, that would not make it art, regardless of how I put it forth.

like i said in the other thread, art is everwhere, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it. sure there is art in your father's taste in clothes. i'm guessing that your father wears clothes that he thinks makes him look good/feel comfortable. it's an aesthetic decision; how is that not art?

tAstyBITs
06-14-2005, 01:48 AM
If you say something is art so long as you think so what does it matter what others think.

Shaidar
06-14-2005, 02:31 AM
My mother is an abstract painter. I've taken art history in school. I used live in San Francisco and have been to MOMA more than a few times. Please don't assume anything about me.


Sorry to assume anything. My point was just that there is MUCH critique you can make of an abstract piece, with art school being an example of where it is done.


I'll explain why there's a preference here at cgtalk--and please remember, I'm trying to rationalize the general mentality of people here, not my own.

If I grabbed someone off the street--someone who knows nothing about art or CG, and sit him down in front of computer with a 3D software. What are the chances that he's going to be able to model, texture, light, and render anything at all right away? And if I sit him down in front of a canvas with a bunch of brushes and paints, what are the chances that he'll be able to do an abstract piece right away? This is why I said what I said.


So you're saying that the only thing the CGtalk community cares about is critiquing a work by how well an artist can move a mouse or use a computer program. Forget composition, lighting, balance, tone, rhythm, movement, etc. If so, that is pretty sad and dissapointing indeed. And if this is the case, then I would hope that by publishing some more "non-traditional" art it would push the community into accepting a wider range of art.

And to say that anyone can make a good abstract painting just by sitting down in front of a canvas is a bit presumptuous. As I just said, there are many many factors in a good abstract piece. If there was nothing to improving abstract art what would be the point of going to art school for 3 years, or doing a masters or PhD producing abstract work?


As far as my feelings about abstract art goes, the problem with abstract art is that you can't tell the hacks from the genuine ones. There is no criteria for judging. Four-year olds are stunning the world with their "genius" because they exihibit strong sense of composition and color. But where do you go after that? How will you grow as an artist? Just go on doing more variations of composition and color for the rest of your life? How are you going to portray the more complex emotions and ideas you have as a human being? Can you portray forgiveness, jealousy, compassion, pensiveness, reassurance, malcontent, apathy..etc with abstract shapes, colors, lines..etc? And even if you think you could, what are the chances that your audience will get it?


Ahh. I feel like I am repeating myself. Can't tell the hack from the genuine? As many people have just said, there is definitely something "special" about a good piece of abstract work, just as there is about a good piece of realist work. You don't just grab a canvas, through some paint on, and have a successful piece of art.

Your point about the 4 year old painting an amazing painting explains one of the essences of abstract art. It isn't about perfecting a specific technique for 20 years. It is about expressing emotions, feelings, and ideas in a purely instinctual way. What is wrong with a 4 year old painting an stunning painting? To me, it is an incredible experience to see an incredibily beautiful and instinctive work from a 4 year old. It shows the beauty of our existince, that someone so innocent (and "un-taught") can create something so deeply moving and beautiful.

How do you grow as an abstract artist? This is again implying that their is something superior to realist art. For some people growing in their art implies depicting scenes with more and more realism and believability. For others there is no interest in realism, it isn't a concern of their art, but they are concerned with many many other things. Different concerns, different people. No need to define one as greater or superior to the other. And who is to say that realism is a better way of portraying emotions and ideas of our existence. Realism is only one aspect of our existence, there are many many more levels. To many artists, it is in abstract/experimental work that they find an avenue to depict the more spiritual and complex emotions and ideas of our existence.

To me (personally), one of the incredible things about abstract art is that it touches every member of the audience differently. Each and every viewer will have their interpretation and instinctual feeling about a piece. Because it isn't attached or defined in the Real of our outer existence, it can reach through and touch our Soul and the more subtle aspects of our Inner being.

I am not upset just because one of my abstract pieces wasn't accepted. I am upset for the entire community. It just seems sad that so much of the contemporary art space won't be allowed on the site.

SpeccySteve
06-14-2005, 02:50 AM
If there was nothing to improving abstract art what would be the point of going to art school for 3 years, or doing a masters or PhD producing abstract work?


Good question.

To me, it is an incredible experience to see an incredibily beautiful and instinctive work from a 4 year old. It shows the beauty of our existince, that someone so innocent (and "un-taught") can create something so deeply moving and beautiful.

Can you show us some of this moving and beatiful abstract art painted by 4 year olds or is that just theoretical?

Shaidar
06-14-2005, 03:09 AM
I don't know if this is the best example but this is from a young girl who is apparently quite famous. The site is pretty full-on with the marketing etc, but if you look at her work it is incredible.

Here is the site:
http://www.marlaolmstead.com/

Or just the gallery of her works:
http://www.marlaolmstead.com/gallery-list.html


I used to be really anti abstract work a few years ago before I went to art school. I find that when looking at modern art you need to drop all your pre-conceptions about what art "should" be. You just need to look at an artwork and let it affect you. Don't judge it by how much so-called "skill" it needed to create. Judge it on how affects you, what does it make you feel. Think of red and gold autumn leaves spread out randomly on the ground under a tree. There is no specific order or plan, yet they are still incredibly beautiful and powerful. At least for me :)

SpeccySteve
06-14-2005, 03:24 AM
See to me at least that's a kid splashing paint around, no emotion, no beauty , just a kid arranging paint on a surface, "cute" at best.

I'm not seeing the "incredible" part myself.

I also went to art school if that helps and I have very little in the way of preconceptions regarding what can or cannot be art, I just don't buy it when I am informed that childrens scribbles are "fine art", I choose to decide these things for myself and this does not meet my expectations.

I'm sure it's very "un-taught" and "innocent" but for me at least it's not very good either, sorry.

Shaidar
06-14-2005, 03:32 AM
I'm not saying that you or anyone else should like the art. As said before, it is your opinion. To many others it is art. To me it is beautiful, and full of emotion.

I just think that CGtalk should be open to posting abstract/experimental work. It is up to the viewer to decide whether they appreciate it or not. But if it is "censored" and never posted they are never given the chance.

If there really is such a problem with working out what is good abstract before it is accepted then maybe there should be an artist on the judging panel who can analyze and critique abstract work, selecting the best ones to post.

SpeccySteve
06-14-2005, 03:51 AM
To an extent I agree, the fact remains though that they seem to be attempting to keep the finished work galleries at a certain standard of "quality", which is difficult to judge with realist art / drawings ( I personally prefer Ed Hopper to Alma Tadema so I probably can't be trusted..) , near impossible with abstract works which are almost entirely dependent on personal/historical viewpoint.

It's kinda possible to hold much representational art up to certain standards and make a judgement call on that basis, abstract automatically becomes almost impossible to rate because there are no real standards or technical yardsticks to compare anything with, for that reason alone I can see why there isn't much abstract posted.

/2p worth

Shaidar
06-14-2005, 04:03 AM
How do contemporary art museums and galleries work then? They exhibit realist and abstract work side-by-side. Abstract work has been being exhibited for the past century so it obviously can be done.

And as stated above by various people there definitely are ways to judge and critique abstract work. Judging is always going to be subjective so I don't see the difference between a judge saying "I like this abstract, I will post it." and "I like this realist piece, I will post it.". A decision has to be made regardless of the style of the piece.

If it were impossible to select good abstract works then it would not be possible to enter abstract work in (real world) contemporary art competitions. And they most certainly are accepted.

SpeccySteve
06-14-2005, 04:11 AM
How do contemporary art museums and galleries work then? They exhibit realist and abstract work side-by-side. Abstract work has been being exhibited for the past century so it obviously can be done.

Contemporary/modern art is mostly a bluff designed to part the wealthy and stupid from their money.

I don't see the difference between a judge saying "I like this abstract, I will post it." and "I like this realist piece, I will post it.". A decision has to be made regardless of the style of the piece.

and with the realist work the judges have at least a yardstick, a barometer on whether that piece is up to scratch or not, abstract is still entirely subjective.

If it were impossible to select good abstract works then it would not be possible to enter abstract work in contemporary art competitions. And they most certainly are accepted.

See my first answer.

Edit: Picasso, father/god of modern art admits he was taking the piss a bit..

he 'refined,' the rich, the professional 'do-nothings', the distillers of quintessence desire only the peculiar, the sensational, the eccentric, the scandalous in today's art. I myself, since the advent of Cubism, have fed these fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics with all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my mind. The less they understood them, the more they admired me. Through amusing myself with all these absurd farces, I became celebrated, and very rapidly. For a painter, celebrity means sales and consequent affluence. Today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich. But when I am alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, not in the grand old meaning of the word: Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt, Goya were great painters. I am only a public clown--a mountebank. I have understood my time and have exploited the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter confession, this confession of mine, more painful than it may seem. But at least and at last it does have the merit of being honest."
Liike that quote .

Shaidar
06-14-2005, 04:15 AM
Contemporary/modern art is mostly a bluff designed to part the wealthy and stupid from their money.



Well it is obvious that you have an extremely critical and one-sided view of contemporary/modern art then. Others don't always share your view of contemporary art, and I don't think such a strong view should shape an entire community.

Like it or not, modern art is here now, and it is here to stay. It will evolve, but art is always evolving.

Well I better get back to my meaningless art designed to rip off the wealthy and the stupid then :p

SpeccySteve
06-14-2005, 04:24 AM
Notice that I said "mostly".

Coolest thing I've seen this month was an installation round the back of an obscure Uni building that consisted of a waterfall made of scaffolding and industrial bits in a beautiful natural location where a natural waterfall was impractical (nice view, no water.)

Very cool in my (entirely subjective) opinion, but again see "mostly".

Shaidar
06-14-2005, 04:32 AM
Well that is sad to think that Picasso had those feelings about himself and his art.

Regardless of whether he had those feelings, his art is still incredible, and to me it stands alongside the great old artists that he mentioned. There are many modern "father's" of modern art and I don't think all of them would share his feelings.

When art has such a history as that of the great Old Masters I imagine it would be hard to justify within yourself that your seemingly random and more abstract work was making you rich and famous. But this is what history does, it lays out all these preconceptions about what everything "should" be like. Modern art was breaking through these barriers. Everything that is new and revolutionary is always challenging, whether it be for the artist or for society.

I myself am still finding it hard to accept the fact that I feel more fulfilled when I am more free and abstract with my work. I used to be extremely precise and aimed for pure photo realism, but now I am enjoying creating my art from instinct and intuition. Sure it is sometimes challenging, but that is what art and life are about - shifting, changing, exploring, and developing.

SpeccySteve
06-14-2005, 04:35 AM
Well, it's 5am here so I'll get probably get back to this in the morning..:D

Shaidar
06-14-2005, 04:36 AM
Notice that I said "mostly".

Coolest thing I've seen this month was an installation round the back of an obscure Uni building that consisted of a waterfall made of scaffolding and industrial bits in a beautiful natural location where a natural waterfall was impractical (nice view, no water.)

Very cool in my (entirely subjective) opinion, but again see "mostly".

See that is what excites me about modern art! Possibilities such as these. Art has drastically changed from what it once was 200 or 400 years ago, where something like that would never have been thought of.

Today where anything can be art, the limits of the imagination and creativity have no bounds. We are free to explore whatever crazy artistic idea we have. It is this freedom of expression which excites me. Sure I myself may not appreciate some crazy piece of modern art, but at least the artist was enjoying themselves and expressing their own unique creative gift.

slaughters
06-14-2005, 01:32 PM
...i'm guessing that your father wears clothes that he thinks makes him look good/feel comfortable. it's an aesthetic decision; how is that not art?He's color blind and wears plaid paints with plaid shirts.

He chooses clothes for comfort, not "art"

slaughters
06-14-2005, 01:35 PM
...Others don't always share your view of contemporary art...Picasso seems to have :).

nineinchneil
06-15-2005, 07:52 AM
He's color blind and wears plaid paints with plaid shirts.
He chooses clothes for comfort, not "art"

comfort is functional. and if the bauhaus movement proved anything, it's that functionality is art.
why can't plaid pants and plaid shirts be art? sure he may not wear it with art in mind, but what's stopping that from being art? just because it's not a current trend? art is so much broader than that.

Shaidar
06-15-2005, 08:08 AM
comfort is functional. and if the bauhaus movement proved anything, it's that functionality is art.
why can't plaid pants and plaid shirts be art? sure he may not wear it with art in mind, but what's stopping that from being art? just because it's not a current trend? art is so much broader than that.

I totally agree. Often people seem to think that art has to be beautiful and pleasing to look at, but as you said functionality is art. I know the debate of "what is art" can go around in circles, but one could argue in a completely rational and justified manner that basically everything is art. Basically the definition of "what is art" or what is appreciable always comes back to one's own subjective opininion.

I don't think anyone should label anything as "crap" or "not art" when there are so many other people who believe the exact opposite. You can personally and subjectively not appreciate the work, but no need to attack its existence as a piece of art - no one is asking you to buy it or hang it on your wall.

slaughters
06-15-2005, 12:59 PM
comfort is functional. and if the bauhaus movement proved anything, it's that functionality is art.
why can't plaid pants and plaid shirts be art? sure he may not wear it with art in mind, but what's stopping that from being art? just because it's not a current trend? art is so much broader than that.There seems to absolutly nothing you would not call art. And from another thread, there seems to be absolutly no action you would not forgive if done by an "artist".

This seems to be a very black and white view point to me, but you're intitled to your opinon. There is really no need to continue this, so I'm dropping out of the conversation.

nineinchneil
06-15-2005, 03:21 PM
See that is what excites me about modern art! Possibilities such as these. Art has drastically changed from what it once was 200 or 400 years ago, where something like that would never have been thought of.

Today where anything can be art, the limits of the imagination and creativity have no bounds. We are free to explore whatever crazy artistic idea we have. It is this freedom of expression which excites me. Sure I myself may not appreciate some crazy piece of modern art, but at least the artist was enjoying themselves and expressing their own unique creative gift.

amen, dude!

nineinchneil
06-15-2005, 03:28 PM
There seems to absolutly nothing you would not call art. And from another thread, there seems to be absolutly no action you would not forgive if done by an "artist".

look, you obviously are aware you're putting things out of context. i've made it abundantly clear that i'm not forgiving an artist for anything:

you don't seem to have a problem with animals being killed for clothing as much as animals being killed for art. i never once said i was defending the artist. i was just curious about the double standard you're presenting. if you're so adamantly against killing animals for art, then why are you not as outraged with animals being killed for other forms of aesthetic value? read the posts before you put your foot in your mouth.
i don't hate people who eat meat or wear animal skin. i hate people who eat meat or wear animal skin, and then get riled up when an animal is killed for 'art'. once again, i'm not defending the artist. i'll say it again for you slaughters, i'm not defending the artist. i just think that the hypocrisy is pretty blatant.

great googly moogly indeed :rolleyes:

comic-craig
06-16-2005, 03:27 AM
He's color blind and wears plaid paints with plaid shirts.

He chooses clothes for comfort, not "art"

Then I think you missed the point of the original statement. If he wears them for comfort, and not art- then it was never put forth as art.:)

I think basically too much importance is given to the term "art"- just because its art, doesn't mean its good, bad, or special in any way. Artists are not special people. "Regular" people make creative decisions every day- if a computer programmer has come up with a new and creative way of writing software- and he wants to call it art- I say more power to him.:)

Craig
Still thinking idealism and realism are both neat

CGTalk Moderation
06-16-2005, 03:27 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.