Simplicity is Complex

#1

I was just having a think about simplicity within cg in general and how it is not that easy to pull off.

If you think about it, something that looks appealing and deep but is in fact quite technically simple can be one of the most complex and time consuming things to achieve in cg. There are many things to be considered in order to get across any sort emotion or idea in a simple character or scene and that is made much harder when there are few things to work with in order to communicate your idea. I once heard a quote (not sure who by) that was at the bottom of a long letter saying “Sorry, but I didn’t have time to be brief”. I think that applies to art too. How many of you see a piece of art and think “Why didn’t I come up with that, it’s such a cool and simple idea. I could’ve done that.”? Yet, in reality it would not be so easy to do so. I believe that could have alot to do with how complex simplicity is.

What essentially I am saying is that something that is deep and complex in theory, but technically and possibly visually simple is a very hard and rare thing in cg. I also believe there are a quite a few people out there who don’t entirely appreciate such a thing. What do you guys think?

#2

I agree with your post. I think it takes a lot of skill and a practiced eye to achieve the simple yet complex, the subtle yet deep image. I think it’s easier to resort to “eye candy” because being selective takes more thought and there for, more work and planning and as a result, more delay before the gratifying experience of painting or modeling can actually begin. I also think it takes a measure of bravery to try an image like this which has a greater likelihood of failing.

Good post.

Some examples that I think of are:

Catherine Woskow

“Madame X” by John Singer Sargent

madame_x.jpg636x1270

“Psalms 4:1” by Dean Mitchell

And much of Phil Hale’s work.

#3

im actually a minimalistic artist, and actually have trouble with creating works that have alot of detail and such :shrug: but im a traditional artist… with works that look digital! lol but yes, i dunno, i find it easier to be simplistic and get the message across.

[?]

#4

I have the idea that the less distraction there the more easy it is to find flaws in technique, often this will le a picture down real quickly.
Personally I get distracted so easily that it’s simply a bad idea to start working all over the place because I’ll forget things, SO I try and keep it ismple enough to get to a good end result.

But in actuality the great simple pieces, might seem simple but they’re not, there’s a ton of things going on to give the image that little vibrance. All with a purpose I presume.

#5

I think super simple images usually have thousands of tiny, tiny details that you don’t really ‘take in’ but still make up part of it. That’s how you can paint a plain room and have it look atmospheric…

But I hate thread titles like this…:argh:

#6

These are cool spin off threads though:). ‘what makes this image work’ kinda thing.

You’d get a whole load of contradictary posts and they’d all be right too in the end, lol.

#7

Segvoia: I think you’re completely off. Those pictures are very complex, and contain a lot of details. Sphere mentioned technical simplicity, which to my implies that he’s referring to fewer lines and colours than a regular image.
My personal favorites are ink drawings consisting only of lines and no shading, that still manages to give the illusion of depth.

#8

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.