I think Mako's way of seeing it is true, because most of the well-known abstract painters didn't paint abstract when they started out.
In fact, looking at the great artists of before they always started out painting very realistic and then in later years once they've mastered that they started mixing it up.
It almost seems inevitable.
Picasso painted very anatomically correctly and detailed paintings before becoming what we know him for now.
Note that when I talk about this below, I'm a bit biased against fine art. I don't really see the value that it provides the broader world outside of the small niche of society that appreciates fine art. The conversation has turned inward, and works of art are expressing concepts like 'what is art' rather than dealing with bigger-picture issues, and this frustrates me. This is despite the fact that in art school I made a bunch o' fine art myself lol. If abstract art is something you enjoy, please go for it! Also I accept that I might be 100% wrong.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'genuinely communicating ideas in a meaningful way', but I'm not sure abstraction is the way to go if you're looking to clearly communicate concrete ideas to an audience. Historically, abstraction was a reaction to the invention of the camera. Previously the value of the artist was in their ability to record history. Portraits, landscapes, etc. Now there was a tool that could do this with far more accuracy than the painter, and so painters looked for other ways to retain value and use their craft constructively. This was one of the drivers of the rise of abstract art.
Over the course of the century we've see each piece of art became less about a clear expression of a concept, and more about providing a broader arena within which viewers could find and construct meaning. Often the concepts the artists were trying to express became more about art: 'what happens when I put these colours together', for instance, and 'what is art? is this art?', rather than anything that pertains to the real world.
It's this decidedly vague approach to the expression of concepts that runs contrary to what it sounds like you're trying to achieve. For instance, you''l see artists, do things like smear a handful of clay paint on a bit of wood they found at a historical site. They'll hang that on the wall, write an artist's statement that says 'this piece of work symbolises the xyz that happened to abc at this location' and call it finished. But take away the artist's statement, and you've just got some wood with some clay on it, and the clarity of the expression of the artist's concept has all but vanished.
Interesting that the 'fine art' you posted seems to me more like conceptual art. I suppose my definition could be wrong but I've always associated fine art with painting and sculpture, and primarily the pre-20th century styles which focused more on realism and beauty, rather than an idea to be conveyed abstractly. I find it interesting that you class the picture you posted as fine art because I wouldn't call it that, although of course I've probably got the definition wrong and these things can be very subjective anyway.
In many ways I detest modern art, as, like you said, people can apply whatever pretentious and vague concept they like to whatever they can cobble together, and without explanation it in itself has no intrinsic message or value. Going to University to study art didn't exactly help either, the tutors seemed (to me) to have their heads up their arses and were into the whole "anything is art" nonsense. Give me the old masters' works any day of the week.
The more vague you make a piece of art the easier it will be for the viewer to find his own meaning in it.
In a way it's lazy, it's like the artist goes "I Dunno what it is, that's your job now."
That's very true! I think I mixed my meanings there. I think what I was really trying to express is that abstract art usually requires a description from the artist to define its meaning, at which point it's no longer doing its job of concisely conveying a concept
a hell of a lot of fine art education is empty (or filled only with the gaping falsehood that everything is subjective). from my experience I think the core of the problem is where the profit falls in the enterprise of teaching art. particularly with government funded institutions. an art school/class makes money by milling successive years of students. they won't fill their quotas if they actually have rigorous standards and fail sub-par students, and a very easy groove to slip into to keep an art class going as a business venture is to let your students mess about with different media and generally waste a lot of time, give them their certificate and get the next lot in.
the old masters I should think would mostly have been trained as apprentices in order to work (i.e. etch or paint things from the bible lol)
imo the problem with completely turning away from any modern art is stagnation. Having taken part in both technical art studies and a more liberal art course, the technical stuff was very impressive but shallow, often just repeating the styles of past artists. Some of the liberal stuff was too vague or unimaginative for my taste, but there was still a good deal of creative freedom and experimental ideas coming out from those people that made it valuable for a time. I think you need a little bit of both, studying the old masters and building your technical skill while still having a capacity to experiment and grow rather than wallow in the treaded waters.
Also of course the problem of profit in education is an issue as well when it comes to assembly line learning, so a good deal of your improvement as an artists will probably come from your own work and development.
Anybody have recommendations for software that will help me use art programs more effectively on a tablet with pen? Getting sick of having to click on Edit -> Undo with my pen every time.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/147418/595582c7-3f51-4320-9db0-723bb50998b8/the pulse rifle.png
I should actually learn how to use Photoshop again...
they're not meant to be used without a keyboard lol... you need the shortcuts
quality sux because i don't know how to properly record my screen. been learning processing and generative graphics
Just got a dip pen. The anatomy is AWFUL in the second one in retrospect. Apologies for the smearing and blotting, still learning how to use traditional media.
This is a weird question, but I promise I have my reasons. Anyone here know anyone / have any tips about sketching DIGITALLY and inking TRADITIONALLY rather than vice versa? I'm way more comfortable sketching digitally but it's so much faster to ink traditionally, so combining the two would seemingly improve my output a lot. Being able to sell traditional commissions at a comparable price and quality to my digital art would be a godsend.
Would printing out my sketch in a light color (like the usual light blue?), inking over it, and scanning it back in work out fine? Is there printer paper that won't fall apart when painted with watercolors?
nobody knows who created this behemoth creature or why. it roams deep underground and at the bottom of the sea. anything caught in its gaze becomes transfixed, unable to move a muscle.
it's october after all
been getting back into Halo as of late.
Needs a darker, more defined line for the mouth I think, kind of like how the folds of skin for the eyes are dark and defined since they're sharp creases and the pupils need a bit more love too. Over all the sharpening should be a bit more consistent and a bit less sharp as you can start to see some artifacts on there as well around the chin. Ear lobe is another example, you have a pretty good balance of shadow having less defined portions but then this ear in shadow is as sharply defined as the lit side so it makes that side look very flat in that area. Your sharpening technique really shines on the left (his right) lit portion of the face and the depth around the eyes and mouth are very well done.
Aye. Would note this was more of a doodle. But yea.
I do think a lot of my problems stem from the fact i have a shitty attention span and get bored too quickly with art pieces before they get finished.
It is a good doodle, especially if the only crit is "needs some darker lines, focus more on consistent sharpening/bluring" and I thought personally it looks finished. I tend to work on things in short bursts, keeps you excited to come back to it and I find staring at something too long makes me miss small mistakes that I will notice the next day when I return to something. I also feel if too much time is spent in one sitting I will get not headaches per say but strain on the head. Also makes you zone out and not THINK when creating which isn't always needed but I find when I am actively thinking about how I am going to do things before I put them on paper even if it is a fluid as I go kind of organization. I can find myself zoning out and just shading in a generic cylinder for example to finish it quickly when it might be something a bit more subtle like a forearm that needs further defining so it comes off a bit flat or rushed looking. Then I get that discouraged anxious feeling like I could be wasting all this time on a bad piece yadadadada.... so I do short bursts.
I did a batshit insane portrait in MSPaint
Based off of this:
So there's a lot of doomsday talk going around right now. Just a reminder that we do have a Creationism Corner Facebook group
that we set up for this purpose! Head over there an join so that if the worst does happen, our little sub-community doesn't die out.
Fuck, I don't have a Facebook account.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.