*THIS* IS PROPER FANTASY ART!!!!
Mashed Taters
Michael O'Neill
>
> http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~bissiri/pix/Rodney.Matthews/RM_list.html
Even if it's only because of
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~bissiri/pix/Rodney.Matthews/treebeard.html
Amazing nonetheless.
M.
David Sulger
>http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~bissiri/pix/Rodney.Matthews/RM_list.html
What is or isn't art is a subjective matter of opinion, Sparky.
HTH
--Dave
Impressionism Loather
Possibly, but I'd say that those who go in for primitive, basic looking
'impressionistic' art only do so because they have insufficient artistic
ability to actually produce a finely detailed and 'realistic' picture,
whether it be fantasy, landscape, portrait or whatever.
Michael O'Neill
Wasn't it Picasso who said something along the lines of
"At sixteen I could draw like Raphael; it has taken me a lifetime to
learn how to draw like a child."
Of course, you wouldn't understand that, you utter prole.
M.
Arkady
David Sulger
>>What is or isn't art is a subjective
>>matter of opinion, Sparky.
>>HTH
>Possibly,
No, definitely. What constitutes art is always a sujective matter,
dictated as much by the personal preferences of the critic, as well as
the talent of the artist.
>but I'd say that those who go in for
>primitive, <SLAP!>
Don't try to fool us, Sparky. We're not as stupid as you assume. Your
complaints about Mia's art have nothing whatsoever to do with
aestetics. You're getting back at her for some percieved slight.
Unfortunately for you, since she is liked far more than you are in this
group, you're not getting a hell of a lot of sympathy.
--Dave
Mia Kalogjera
> > >
> > > David Sulger <or...@webtv.net> wrote:
> > > > Sparky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~bissiri/pix/Rodney.Matthews/RM_list.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > HTH
> > >
> > > 'impressionistic' art only do so because they have insufficient artistic
> > > ability to actually produce a finely detailed and 'realistic' picture,
> > > whether it be fantasy, landscape, portrait or whatever.
> >
> > Wasn't it Picasso who said something along the lines of
> >
> > "At sixteen I could draw like Raphael; it has taken me a lifetime to
> > learn how to draw like a child."
> >
> > Of course, you wouldn't understand that, you utter prole.
>
> *ahem*
Well, it _is_ true that in certain Communist countries abstract and
impressionist art weren't favoured.
--
"I don't walk on the edge. I walk on the other side."
Die Andere Seite at http://www.crosswinds.net/~jereeza
TheOneRing.net LotR film site at http://theonering.net
e-mail: jereeza(at)yahoo.com or mia(at)theonering.net
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Impressionism Loather" <pc0...@offline.com> contains these words:
> Possibly, but I'd say that those who go in for primitive, basic looking
> 'impressionistic' art only do so because they have insufficient artistic
> ability to actually produce a finely detailed and 'realistic' picture,
> whether it be fantasy, landscape, portrait or whatever.
From the way you use it, I don't think you know what "impressionistic" means.
The so-called Impressionist school ranges from the often quite
straightforward realism of Renoir and Monet to much less
"photographic", more experimental styles such as Seurat or Matisse.
But I can't think of a single Impressionist painter, major or minor,
who didn't at least start off by painting strictly realistic pictures
of some technical merit, because that was how art was taught. Their
less literal stuff is a reaction to the limited ability of that
strict realism to capture the elusive qualities of light -- which
they felt impelled to try because photography was creating "real"
images better than any painter could, but still failing to suggest
the full experience of vision, the elusive "life" of a scene. Turner
anticipated them, and he too could paint realistically when he chose.
So, what you mean is probably not the specific school, but "art which
isn't literally representative" generally. But literal realism is
rarely as literal as it looks. The most "real" painting just looks
that way because it conforms to a series of accepted tricks,
illusions and conventions, as unnatural as any -- such as
perspective, or the look of a tree full of leaves, or hairs on a
head. Perspective is an optical illusion, a trick of sight in 3D
rendered down to look right on paper. And no artist paints every leaf
or every hair, they evolve conventions to depict them --
"impressions" we accept because we are used to them. So every
painting is to some extent an "impression", and dissolves as you look
at it into a mass of brushstrokes -- just some sooner than others. Of
course, when you get into Cubism and Surrealism, the unreality gets a
bit extreme simply because they're trying to establish new
conventions -- influenced by, say, African or other "primitive" art.
The features of a Benin bronze look weirdly stylized to us, but to an
African from that culture they're a fair enough likeness of a
particular face.
And you like Rodney Matthews, but his style isn't "realistic". He's
extremely stylized. His landscapes are broad abstractions, a sort of
visual shorthand for what they represent (as many comic book artists
use) and certainly not "finely detailed". And his figures and forms
are stretched and pointed and shaped to create a sense of movement in
his composition. For example, in some images his flying creatures are
extravagant or impossible as fliers by any natural laws; but their
function as a picture elements override that.
All told, your comment is a fairly familiar one -- a slightly more
refined version of "My ten-year old kid could do that!" but not much
more valid. You are assuming your own taste represents the frontiers
of art, and that anything you don't understand has to be dishonest
trash -- all of which doesn't exactly add weight to your opinions.