Artists We Don't Care Too Much About

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04 April 2005   #46
Picasso, my God!

Hi, I respect you not admiring Picasso, BUT, men, women!
The man was a genious! Remember, he painted in a way that was revolutionary and
has inspired a whole generation of artists..
And besides, suceeded in convincing his customers too!
Now, most of the works in these forums and in these cg art beginning days are just
great, but mostly inspired in realism, erotic, film scenarios, games...in my opinion
mostly uninspiring, though highly technical. But there are already fantastic examples
of innovative efforts and increasing by the day.
Sebastian Marquez
 
Old 04 April 2005   #47
I know..

..i am a dead man now! :-)
Sebastian Marquez
 
Old 04 April 2005   #48
Originally Posted by The Photographer: Yes, Bouguereau is the correct spelling - sorry, I don't know where I got that from or perhaps I'm just a bit dyslexic .... Anyway, it didn't change a great lot when searching for him on French webpages and in the encyclopedia there was only three lines.

Let me just add that it's not that I actually dislike this artist - it is more that I don't like the Art Renewal Center for which he seems to be the biggest idol. I would think that meeting in the middle of the road would be reasonable. Worship Bouguereau a little less and hate Picasso a little less too.

Anyway, this discussion about modern art - I get the impression that for most people, modern art is Picasso, Warhol and Pollock and that's almost about all there is to it. That's completely unfair. The 20th century had so many completely different styles. You can love some of them and hate others, but you can't just put all in the same box.

All periods of art should be sources of inspiration which I'm sure they are anyway unconsciously or not.

Some artists though seem to be much more popular with CG artists than outside the CG world - that's perhaps worth thinking about.


I just wanted to state that factualy and historically, the Art of The Modern World Starts with Neoclassicism and Romanticism. It's not just 20th century; Modernism is the era of 'Isms'. So all this fight between Art Renewal and the rest is in fact a little civil war between the schools of Modernism and Post Modernism themselves. Being extreme is not the wisest choice. And if you can't find anything about Bouguereau until most recently is due to certain issues between fame, infamy and connections. While his themes aren't always my favorite, I do admire his skill. While I prefer Picasso's early pencil doodles and more classic sketches than to his 'genious' work. I am however not an advocate of any period inside Modernism, cuz it's all a BIG HUGE soup full of different vegetables...all so different from each other and not always that wise to combine between themselves.

I personally don't care much about Mondrian Beckman or Kandinsky- but I can recognize some merits behind their ideas, even though I think they should've stuck to writing instead of splashing about.
__________________
DEATH TO THE LURKING TROLLS! MAY THE STEEL OF BELLS BLEED YOU THROUGH THE EARS AND THE CURSE OF RAVENS FLY YOU INTO OBLIVION.




 
Old 04 April 2005   #49
Good intervention oz.

Originally Posted by oz haver: I personally don't care much about Mondrian Beckman or Kandinsky- but I can recognize some merits behind their ideas, even though I think they should've stuck to writing instead of splashing about.


Both Mondrian and Kandinsky had great influence on Modern Architecture, may be more so because of the pure abstraction and geomtric correlationships. Let's not forget the context of their ideals, the Bauhaus: a multidiciplinary school that taught architecture side by side with graphic design, painting, sculpture, and industrial design.

Those two artists are a classical example of how not to immitate Modernists. What is left is their profound legacy that we need to understand and the purpose of it, not the style! So it is completely irrelevant to like or dislike their work, IMO

I, too had this hang-over of abstract art that immitated them, and that is not because they were superficial, but their inventions in aesthetics work had a great influence on modern times culture that enabled the incompetent to use them and stand as high and tall as Mondrian, but with an absolutely empty vessel. Similarly, CG has given a great jump start to many people who can't even draw by hand, to generate some striking visual effects paintings that might indicate to look like the work of the Masters.
 
Old 04 April 2005   #50
Yes, Wassily Kandinsky is a great color theorist also; I especially like his thoughts on color.

From: Concerning the Spiritual Art, C.5: “The Effect of Color”

“If you let your eye stray over a palette of colors, you experience two things. In the first place you receive a purely physical effect, namelessly the eye itself is enchanted by the beauty and other qualities of color. You experience satisfaction and delight, like a gourmet savoring delicacy. Or the eye is stimulated as the tongue is titillated by a spicy dish. But then it grows calm and cool, like a finger after touching ice. These are physical sensations, limited in duration. They are superficial, too, and leave no lasting impression behind if the soul remains closed. Just as we feel at the touch of ice a sensation of cold, forgotten as soon as the finger becomes warm again, so the physical action of color is forgotten as soon as the eye turns away. On the other hand, as the physical coldness of ice, upon penetrating more deeply, arouses more complex feelings, and indeed a whole chain of psychological experiences, so may also the superficial impression of color develop into an experience….

And so we come to the second result of looking at colors: their psychological effect. They produce a correspondent spiritual vibration, and it is only a step towards this spiritual vibration that the physical impression is of importance….

Generally speaking, color directly influences the soul. Color is the keyboard, the eyes are the hammers, the soul is the piano with many strings. The artist is the hand that plays, touching one key or another purposely, to cause vibration in the soul.

It is evident therefore that color harmony must rest ultimately on purposive playing upon the human soul.”



Like I said, I love his writings…and even though I don’t like his visual works of art, I find some truths and merits inside his words. I think this can well apply to any kind of style and I wouldn’t have minded studying under Kandinsky at all (unless he made me make stuff like his- there we would have had LOTS of trouble). Too bad also I don't always enjoy modern architecture either (which is why I left architecture school back in the 2001).
__________________
DEATH TO THE LURKING TROLLS! MAY THE STEEL OF BELLS BLEED YOU THROUGH THE EARS AND THE CURSE OF RAVENS FLY YOU INTO OBLIVION.




 
Old 04 April 2005   #51
Thread automatically closed

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.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.