HOME | DD

undefinedreference In reply to goose-fat [2013-05-25 21:29:34 +0000 UTC]

If it's that easy, why isn't everyone doing it already? I guess because of the "awesome idea" factor

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

goose-fat In reply to undefinedreference [2013-05-25 21:46:48 +0000 UTC]

Well, this guy [link] didn't know how to draw, and look how famous he is - give it a shot.
also, make sure you get a really big canvas.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

undefinedreference In reply to goose-fat [2013-05-26 04:39:08 +0000 UTC]

Who is that? I like stuff like that. I think, because the picture's a bit small. How much does a 2x2m canvas cost? The big canvas factor does make a lot of sense to me, because I can imagine there's a much greater sense of physical freedom working on one than there is sitting behind a computer focusing on the mouse pointer all the time. Perhaps one day I will liberate myself too..

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

goose-fat In reply to undefinedreference [2013-05-27 01:09:16 +0000 UTC]

Well, that's Mark Rothko, actually. It was hard to find a picture that showed the paintings I like and a view of them in a gallery. Actually, buying canvases that size can get really expensive (maybe $70-$150 in the U.S.) but I don't know anyone who does that - you can always buy stretcher bars and fabric and stretch one for yourself, and it's wayyyyy cheaper. If you want, you can practice painting on hardware store stuff like hardboard (probably about $15-20 for 2x2m) + gesso (which is a basic primer that you can buy) until you get the hang of it. Lol, I think those are the basics xD. And there's a whole range of random materials that you can paint on, too, hehe.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

undefinedreference In reply to goose-fat [2013-05-27 09:03:23 +0000 UTC]

Oh it is Rothko, they seemed a bit atypical to me. I have never seen a Rothko in real life but apparently they move some people to tears. What's wrong with not being able to draw? I can't draw! Does this add an extra handicap to my already rather unfortunate life? () One thing that annoys me is whenever I upload something sufficiently "vague", people always mention Rothko, though I have to admit I've sometimes probably tried to mimick his work to an extent, not because I wanted wanted to create something similar but because I just like stuff like that. I mean fuzzy boundaries etc. Like this for example: [link] . I was mostly curious about whether it's possible to generate the emotional thing digitally. I somehow doubt so. I think I hate all digital and video art. Btw these day I think you have to get a wooden board, collect a pile of kitchen or other utensils (I think medical stuff is the hippest), glue them onto the board, paint them in happy colors and finally (and this is the most important part - absolutely crucial if you want to be taken seriously by anyone) paint the whole thing white with plaster paint, but so that it just doesn't cover completely. Then you will have "art". Or is that passé already too? I haven't the faintest idea what "art" is to be honest. I'm just here on dA because I need to keep busy all the time because if I don't I will drown in depression, much like a shark will drown in the seawater if it doesn't keep swimming.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

goose-fat In reply to undefinedreference [2013-05-27 22:16:27 +0000 UTC]

Oh, yeah, they're way more amazing in person. These [link] were in my city for a while and it was incredible to look at - they look like they're burning, and it feels like you're about to walk through the gates of hell or something. And apparently the restaurant he painted them for didn't want them, hahaha. But obviously, that didn't affect him. I think the emotional thing has a lot to do with the resonance between adjacent colors (maybe red and slightly different red?) and there are a lot of colors that can't be displayed on your typical screen. Unfortunately. What you described? that's true "art" . And, oh, yes, another way to convince people of the worthiness of your "art" is to stick fake animals and inflatable objects that don't fit in any reasonably sized room all over it. Like this [link] and this [link] (the last one is going to be built soon and Bloomberg is paying for it so people are calling it the Bloomberg bubble ). I think art is due for a big change - I mean, we can do better than that. I find it refreshing that you're not going just for shock value or following any of these stupid trends.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

undefinedreference In reply to goose-fat [2013-05-29 16:17:11 +0000 UTC]

Actually I put it the wrong way, or at least I put the focus in the wrong place: it isn't in the first place the amount of skill which radiates from great works, but the amount of attention which has gone into them. That would be attention in a broad sense, which includes attention paid to training and studies, but these too (obviously) ultimately reflect onto the attention paid on the work itself. It translates into a sense of control over every single aspect and detail, which might strike the viewer as impressive, but it's the attention itself which gives a work its "personality", i.e. brings it to life. Art as canned attention!

It's nice talking to you, you seem "sufficiently down-to-earth"

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

undefinedreference In reply to goose-fat [2013-05-28 09:37:29 +0000 UTC]

The only museum I've been to for ages is the Kröller-Müller near where I live. It hosts a collection of late 19th / early 20th century art, a.o. the largest collection of Van Goghs on earth (in the Universe in fact, by my best knowledge). When you enter the "painting division", you first get to see works of the lesser gods. A lot of it is in the category "nice picture". Then when you enter the Mondriaan room, and the Picasso room next to it, it's like woooossshhh! An entirely different ball game! My favorite painting is this Mondriaan: [link] . It's my favorite because when I stand in front of me I can feel it live and breathe and talk to me. So one day I set out to find out what makes the difference, and after an in-depth investigation through the museum I came to the conclusion that it ultimately comes down to one thing: skill. Those who produced nice art knew what they were doing, but those who produced great art REALLY knew what they were doing, and what they wanted, and how to get there. They had a level of control which mere mortals will never achieve, and in some way that shows, and in my opinion it's what makes people admire these works. It's what makes these works come alive. As with Rothko's paintings, in that Mondriaan as well as in this Picasso [link] which hangs in the room next to it, in every square cm there are 100.000 different shades of grey and brown. It's that richness which I have been trying to emulate with da komputer, though I have to admit that most of the time I'm too lazy / not ambitious enough to pursue it to the fullest. I have no idea where art is going, all I see on tumblr is lots of blurry black/white/grey an (yes!) white plaster paint, and a distinct hang for "decay" in western art. It's as if distinct shapes and colors have been banned to the realms of mere ornamental. I would definitely like to see this one [link] in real life some day, even if it's "old". As for the silly stuff you pointed at, you could have added the giant rubber duck.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0