Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Hyperrealistic Art by Paul Cadden Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
Search Search Module
Collapse

Advertisement Advertisement Module
Collapse

Featured Images Featured Images Module
Collapse

Mediabistro Creative Sites Mediabistro Creative Sites Module
Collapse
Latest Topics Latest Topics Module
Collapse

  • B
    Comment on Hey guys, I'm wondering which domain name sounds better.
    B
    You might try always spelling it out with mixed case, as in MichelleBethDean.com. Domain names aren't case sensitive, so it'll work with no problem. It'll also eliminate any confusion over what it says...
    Today, 02:00 AM
  • haileyfield
    Need color choice help on logo design...
    haileyfield
    I created this logo for a company called Circa 3 and I'm having a hard time deciding which one works best and then applying color. I attached a greyscale photo of what I believe the hierarchy to be (dark...
    Today, 01:22 AM
  • Lucifer
    Comment on Canvas
    Lucifer
    Lol @ Seamas.
    Today, 12:56 AM
  • TimDojo
    Reply to Personal Logo Critique
    TimDojo
    First I think the concept is solid, it is clean and doesn't feel trendy. I won't talk about the fonts b/c I think that point has been made enough...witty post by @Buda about the tension, lol! My only...
    Yesterday, 11:48 PM
  • seamas
    Comment on Canvas
    seamas
    Is that your personal experience?
    Yesterday, 11:41 PM
Advertisement Advertisement Module
Collapse

Sponsors Sponsors Module
Collapse

X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MikeHun View Post
    Aww c,mon!
    Heh heh, I didn't tell anybody to stop posting. I'm sure the next obscure reference you post to support your argument will be the one to convince everyone that you are right

    Comment


    • Ya know I love photography but not more than Art...
      "After all is said and done, more is said than done."
      Aesop

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Meffy View Post
        *puts a brass plaque on the gif*

        Ta-daaa: ART!
        I made that .... So in my world ...yes I created something artful

        If any one wants to debate that watch it because I will hurt you


        _______________________________________
        Hello... My name is Kittie and I'm a Font-a-holic.

        Daily Trivia Game ...GDF Fantasy Football League

        Comment


        • Continuing on with whacking that horse...

          Originally posted by MikeHun
          In a big way I agree with Tea the word Artist has been co-opted far too much, rhetoric and semantics aside.
          Hasn't the loftiness of the word been intentionally torn down by artists themselves? The past hundred year's worth of Art (note the upper case A) was characterized by the interaction of traditional representationalism with its antithesis?

          My old art history professor claimed that, arguably, the most important painting of the past 100 years was Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. Its importance stemming directly from it being the seminal painting in which Picasso altered the course of 20th Century art by rejecting the pretentiousness of established Art with new aesthetic viewpoint. Some 50 years before this Édouard Manet's Luncheon on the Grass was a direct challenge to the established viewpoints of what the Paris Salon regarded as worthy Art. The entire Impressionist movement of the late 1800s was, once again, a deliberate reaction against the exclusivity of the Paris Salon (at the time, the unofficial arbiters of what art was and wasn't).

          During the 20th Century, the major art movements, from Cubism to Fauvism to Dada to Abstract Expressionism to Pop to performance art, have all had decidedly anti-art underpinnings.

          My point being that as soon as people come to believe that only certain art qualifies as being art, a group of artists emerge with the express purpose of tearing down that preconception. And what's interesting is that this anti-art eventually remains as being the most memorable art. For example, how many people remember any of The Salon artists who rejected the work of the Impressionists as being low-brow garbage? Yet today, the Impressionist works of Monet and Degas are regarded as being the epitome of high-brow art.

          I agree that there is good art, bad art, derivative art, sloppy art, soulless art and name-your-adjective art. I also realize that times and tastes change, and that people's personal tastes and preferences vary for all kinds of different reasons. Personally, I'm perfectly fine in accepting anything as being art that someone claims to be art. I might think that it's crappy, but my personal tastes aren't the arbiter of whether or not it's art.

          As for photography, in my opinion, it ranges from amateurish snap shots to brilliant art of the highest caliber.

          Comment


          • DING DING DING.

            We have a winner.
            "I love deadlines. I love the 'whooshing' sound they make when they go by." - Doug Adams
            LinkedIn

            Comment


            • Picasso was a child prodigy when it came to classicism and realistic representational art, the son of a painter who himself gave up when he saw his sons talent.

              He had to turn to cubism and basically along with Braque changed the worlds taste in "art". Hitler thought all these new modernists were degenerates and his ideology was based on eliminating the degenerates from the face of the world... and creating a new world order where there was no room for it, unless it was state approved art.
              "After all is said and done, more is said than done."
              Aesop

              Comment


              • Originally posted by <b> View Post
                Continuing on with whacking that horse...



                Hasn't the loftiness of the word been intentionally torn down by artists themselves? The past hundred year's worth of Art (note the upper case A) was characterized by the interaction of traditional representationalism with its antithesis?

                My old art history professor claimed that, arguably, the most important painting of the past 100 years was Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. Its importance stemming directly from it being the seminal painting in which Picasso altered the course of 20th Century art by rejecting the pretentiousness of established Art with new aesthetic viewpoint. Some 50 years before this Édouard Manet's Luncheon on the Grass was a direct challenge to the established viewpoints of what the Paris Salon regarded as worthy Art. The entire Impressionist movement of the late 1800s was, once again, a deliberate reaction against the exclusivity of the Paris Salon (at the time, the unofficial arbiters of what art was and wasn't).

                During the 20th Century, the major art movements, from Cubism to Fauvism to Dada to Abstract Expressionism to Pop to performance art, have all had decidedly anti-art underpinnings.

                My point being that as soon as people come to believe that only certain art qualifies as being art, a group of artists emerge with the express purpose of tearing down that preconception. And what's interesting is that this anti-art eventually remains as being the most memorable art. For example, how many people remember any of The Salon artists who rejected the work of the Impressionists as being low-brow garbage? Yet today, the Impressionist works of Monet and Degas are regarded as being the epitome of high-brow art.

                I agree that there is good art, bad art, derivative art, sloppy art, soulless art and name-your-adjective art. I also realize that times and tastes change, and that people's personal tastes and preferences vary for all kinds of different reasons. Personally, I'm perfectly fine in accepting anything as being art that someone claims to be art. I might think that it's crappy, but my personal tastes aren't the arbiter of whether or not it's art.

                As for photography, in my opinion, it ranges from amateurish snap shots to brilliant art of the highest caliber.
                +++1

                I agree.

                The modernists liberated Art from the Academy.
                Keep Saturn in Saturnalia.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by <b> View Post

                  My old art history professor claimed that, arguably, the most important painting of the past 100 years was Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. Its importance stemming directly from it being the seminal painting in which Picasso altered the course of 20th Century art by rejecting the pretentiousness of established Art with new aesthetic viewpoint. Some 50 years before this Édouard Manet's Luncheon on the Grass was a direct challenge to the established viewpoints of what the Paris Salon regarded as worthy Art. The entire Impressionist movement of the late 1800s was, once again, a deliberate reaction against the exclusivity of the Paris Salon (at the time, the unofficial arbiters of what art was and wasn't).

                  During the 20th Century, the major art movements, from Cubism to Fauvism to Dada to Abstract Expressionism to Pop to performance art, have all had decidedly anti-art underpinnings.

                  My point being that as soon as people come to believe that only certain art qualifies as being art, a group of artists emerge with the express purpose of tearing down that preconception. And what's interesting is that this anti-art eventually remains as being the most memorable art. For example, how many people remember any of The Salon artists who rejected the work of the Impressionists as being low-brow garbage? Yet today, the Impressionist works of Monet and Degas are regarded as being the epitome of high-brow art.

                  I agree that there is good art, bad art, derivative art, sloppy art, soulless art and name-your-adjective art. I also realize that times and tastes change, and that people's personal tastes and preferences vary for all kinds of different reasons. Personally, I'm perfectly fine in accepting anything as being art that someone claims to be art. I might think that it's crappy, but my personal tastes aren't the arbiter of whether or not it's art.

                  As for photography, in my opinion, it ranges from amateurish snap shots to brilliant art of the highest caliber.
                  Creative destruction...

                  These are all paintings by artists you attribute, no?
                  How has photography moved world opinion unless it was photojournalism?
                  "After all is said and done, more is said than done."
                  Aesop

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MikeHun View Post
                    Creative destruction...

                    These are all paintings by artists you attribute, no?
                    How has photography moved world opinion unless it was photojournalism?
                    When you add filters to it and Instagram it.
                    Dribbble Page
                    Behance Portfolio
                    Linkedin Profile

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MikeHun
                      How has photography moved world opinion unless it was photojournalism?
                      I don't know about moving world opinion, but I think that down the road in, say, a hundred years that photography and film/video might potentially be recognized as having been the most important art forms to emerge and mature during the 20th Century.

                      If all it took was pointing a camera in the right direction and memorizing which lenses to use along with some other technicalities, I wouldn't consider photography as an especially important art form. If that were the case, most photos from a technically proficient photographer would look, more or less, the same.

                      But that's not the case.

                      Look at the work of Edward Weston, Alfred Stieglitz, Dorothea Lange, Imogen Cunningham, Paul Strand, Annie Leibovitz or Henri Cartier-Bresson and you'll see huge differences in style and artistic interpretation. Each has taken the same medium and used the tools of that medium to express very different artistic visions.

                      Back when I was in art school, a group of us piled into a car and drove to Berkeley to see an exhibition put on by Richard Avedon. I was somewhat dismissive of this guy's photography until I walked into that show. I was absolutely stunned and blown away by what I saw there.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MikeHun View Post
                        Hitler thought all these new modernists were degenerates and his ideology was based on eliminating the degenerates from the face of the world... and creating a new world order where there was no room for it, unless it was state approved art.
                        How do you not see that this is exactly what you are doing yourself on a small scale?

                        Thread Godwinned.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by <b> View Post
                          I don't know about moving world opinion, but I think that down the road in, say, a hundred years that photography and film/video might potentially be recognized as having been the most important art forms to emerge and mature during the 20th Century.

                          If all it took was pointing a camera in the right direction and memorizing which lenses to use along with some other technicalities, I wouldn't consider photography as an especially important art form. If that were the case, most photos from a technically proficient photographer would look, more or less, the same.

                          But that's not the case.

                          Look at the work of Edward Weston, Alfred Stieglitz, Dorothea Lange, Imogen Cunningham, Paul Strand, Annie Leibovitz or Henri Cartier-Bresson and you'll see huge differences in style and artistic interpretation. Each has taken the same medium and used the tools of that medium to express very different artistic visions.

                          Back when I was in art school, a group of us piled into a car and drove to Berkeley to see an exhibition put on by Richard Avedon. I was somewhat dismissive of this guy's photography until I walked into that show. I was absolutely stunned and blown away by what I saw there.
                          Really? if you were to to do a blind comparison of images between say Avedon and lets say Yousef Karsh I really don't see much of a stylistic difference between photographers.

                          Minor variations in style, or more like compostion and lighting but if you "draw" parrallels to painters where you really see individualism then I would say they are not that many variations between photographers, none that are significant.

                          Cinematographers yes...
                          "After all is said and done, more is said than done."
                          Aesop

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by VDM View Post
                            How do you not see that this is exactly what you are doing yourself on a small scale?

                            Thread Godwinned.
                            I'm not ... there exists a place for every ceative endeavor, I would defend that to my death.
                            "After all is said and done, more is said than done."
                            Aesop

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MikeHun View Post
                              Really? if you were to to do a blind comparison of images between say Avedon and lets say Yousef Karsh I really don't see much of a stylistic difference between photographers.
                              I see a bigger difference there than I do between Braque's and Picasso's Cubist work.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MikeHun View Post
                                I'm not ... there exists a place for every ceative endeavor, I would defend that to my death.

                                Oooh! Mind if I video/YouTube that?

                                Comment

                                Mediabistro A division of Prometheus Global Media home | site map | advertising/sponsorships | careers | contact us | help courses | browse jobs | freelancers | content | member benefits | reprints & permissions terms of use | privacy policy Copyright © 2014 Mediabistro Inc.
                                Working...
                                X