1eyedking Graphics =/= Art Direction

[roll-a-die]

Not quite, there's a reason they're called ART classes, not EXPRESSION classes. As I've said Art is a learned skill and capacity for creative thought. Why should early sketches and paintings by someone like rothko be considered art, while something like Andrew Jones' work be considered drawing?

Again as I've said above almost all art has intention and purpose, what disheartens children from art is both lack of skill and bitches like you attempting to remove merit from what little success they do have.

It's a matter of intelligence, capacity and intuition. People aren't born equal or the same. Neither in manual dexterity or in intellectual capacity. When some are born with higher degrees of either or both, enough to guide herself with a conscious higher purpose where the form of her expression isn't just a passing hobby brought about under the particular circumstances (duress, boredom etc.), circumstances can easily be discriminative and whether you like it or not, there's a threshold to that line.

When you oppose this, you condone treating everyone as equals on their abilities' worth and to console them for nothing.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I'm an American, you're not patriotic if you aren't moved by those words. Yes there is some degree of natural talent in art, but, by far, it is a learned skill, that can be honed through practice. Natural Talent helps yes, but is not required to be an artist.

Here's a rothko piece from the 1920s

Here is one of Rothko's early pieces from 1933

Here's a piece just 4 years later,

Obviously he got better over time and with teaching.

How about later in life when he moved towards abstaction,

Here's an early one

and here's one of his later works,

Once again he clearly improved over time.

EDIT linked the wrong image.

 

[Gragt]

This thread is so full of fail. A real pleasure to read in the morning while eating my cereals.

 

[Black Cat]

@ Kron

"This shit screams overdesign in such a way that words cannot convey.
Thus, it is a drawing."

Rococo is the very definition of over design, to the point the word has come to be used as a synonym to over elaborated and over decorated thing, yet it is art.

Why now this obsession with over design not being art?



@ 1eyedking

"OK, what a load of crap. Even if we were to extremely bend it and somehow make it fit (completely ignoring the cosmogony part)"

Ok, you have to be joking. I said it was the same concept, not the same plot. Both Matrix and Dark City have really heavy Gnostic influences, yet i can assure you neither the gnostics, nor the hermetists, nor the qabalists, nor any of the others wrote of artificial inteligences, leather clad jesus, black guy with glasses who kicked much butt, nor cities that got remade over night, nor really high graze scores. Sure, the plot is diferent, but the elements and the essence of the work, thus the message, is the same, regardless.

Let us drop it, in any case. We both already said our parts. I only see the settings as a tool, you see the settings as an internaly consistent fictional world. That's fine, no hard feelings, but to keep discussing will go nowhere.



@ Le Petit Furet

 

[1eyedking]

This shit screams overdesign in such a way that words cannot convey.
Thus, it is a drawing.

By the way, cavemen did not have an aesthetic intention when they proyected their hands on the stone, and drew themselves hunting. The desire to obtain something led them to "draw" it in a confusion between reality and mystical achievement. It did not have artististic aspirations, so it is not art. In a smiliar way, we could say that the tools and ornamentation of primitive tribes nowadays in africa are art. But again, the creation of such things does not follow an artistic calling, but a series of traditions linked with religious beliefs and practices. They have a use, thus they can not be art.

Children little understand when they scribble. They are not conscious of the creation of something artistic, they are not conscious of an intention.

Intention is key in the process of art. A work of art cannot be accidental or aleatory. That is, a work of art, or anything else. The thing to be created must be done consciously, with an intention in mind. Of course intentions are usually not enough.

At least there is one person who understands, in all of the Codex. What a pleasant surprise to find intelligence and taste after all the other crap that's been posted.

[...]

2/10. Troll intent too obvious.

 

[roll-a-die]

This shit screams overdesign in such a way that words cannot convey.
Thus, it is a drawing.

By the way, cavemen did not have an aesthetic intention when they proyected their hands on the stone, and drew themselves hunting. The desire to obtain something led them to "draw" it in a confusion between reality and mystical achievement. It did not have artististic aspirations, so it is not art. In a smiliar way, we could say that the tools and ornamentation of primitive tribes nowadays in africa are art. But again, the creation of such things does not follow an artistic calling, but a series of traditions linked with religious beliefs and practices. They have a use, thus they can not be art.

Children little understand when they scribble. They are not conscious of the creation of something artistic, they are not conscious of an intention.

Intention is key in the process of art. A work of art cannot be accidental or aleatory. That is, a work of art, or anything else. The thing to be created must be done consciously, with an intention in mind. Of course intentions are usually not enough.

At least there is one person who understands, in all of the Codex. What a pleasant surprise to find intelligence and taste after all the other crap that's been posted.

You mean the only one who parrots your views in the correct manner?

[...]

2/10. Troll intent too obvious.

I'm not trolling. I really want to see your answers.

 

[1eyedking]

He doesn't parrot my views. He actually said something quite insightful.

Oh, and you can't expect me to take you seriously after the "Obviously he got better over time and with teaching" comment. You trolled your due, be a good boy and go watch your artistic Anime now.

 

[roll-a-die]

He doesn't parrot my views. He actually said something quite insightful.

Oh, and you can't expect me to take you seriously after the "Obviously he got better over time and with teaching" comment. You trolled your due, be a good boy and go watch your artistic Anime now.

Yes Rothko took honest to god classes, and taught honest to god classes to get better at art. He got better overtime with practice, you ignoramus. Anime isn't really all that good of an art form, but it is an art form/genre. Disputing it doesn't help your case at all.

You seem to be confusing art with fine/high art. In fact all of you seem to be.

Here's the difference, Fine Art

Art,

Not art,

Art,

Fine art,

Art,

Not art,

Fine Art,

 

[Black Cat]

@ roll-a-die

What's the third image from below? I very much like it.

 

[denizsi]

This thread is so full of fail. A real pleasure to read in the morning while eating my cereals.

Eating cereal in a Sunday morning. LOL

 

[roll-a-die]

@ roll-a-die

What's the third image from below? I very much like it.

That's Andrew Jones. http://androidjones.net/art/

EDIT to show you guy's he's not JUST a computer artist, here's a poster he did, over the course of 3 years, he painted and drew 1000 self portraits on both paper and computers.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

When you oppose this, you condone treating everyone as equals on their abilities' worth and to console them for nothing and do I need to say how this is tell-tale of the general mindset behind the western politics ie. the decline of the west?

So called "talent" in art is usually just the will to spend much more time on one work than others. Art classes often don't produce good artists because the teachers suck. Most of them doesn't even bother to explain basics of drawing to student, which means that people who could make huge advances in a few weeks by merely applying these basics end up with a little progress and keep doing the same basic mistakes.
Sometimes one tip from a person who knows how to teach can bring more progress than tens of hours of shitty drawing lessons.

 

[crufty]

have to watch art v illustartion, some folks are posting illustration and calling it art...naughty naughty!

and here is some art: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13xbhz2il5M

 

[DraQ]

The Witcher as a game is pretty intelligent, 1EK as a poster, however decreasingly so

Why? Because I've said anime is bad? Explain.

No, because all you post recently is retarded stuff, sweeping generalizations or retarded sweeping generalizations.

Go on a cool-down period, away from the Codex, internet or computer in general, maybe it will help - you used to be cool.

 

[Orgasm]

You time wasters should get yourself a hard definition before you argue about what is what is not.

Not art,

Why not, my enlightened friend?

 

[1eyedking]

Great, a thread about art direction and now filled with shit (literally), women pissing, anime cartoons, deviantart collages, and whatnot. Incredibly pleasing to the eyes and a joy to enter and discuss.

Serves me for bringing up a serious subject hurting childrens' sensibilities by saying the cartoons they watch are frivolous, here, in the Codex, I guess.

 

[Orgasm]

Thread is shit. but its because you are dumb. Because your shitty original post is a laughable mess and because of your moronic ramblings, your imagined superiority and lack of purpose. Because there a libraries filled with art theory, practice, history. And because the Codex is filled with anime faggots.

You are doing the right thing by blaming yourself.

 

[Gragt]

Eating cereal in a Sunday morning. LOL

I love my cornflakes and on Sunday even more so.

 

[crufty]

btw anyone who thinks the cave art isn't art...

:codexrage:

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Not art,

The next person that says "this is/isn't art" when they actually mean "ME LIEK / HAET" will get a swift kick on the prostate.

You liberal arts college students worn out my kicking foot

 

[Radisshu]

@ 1eyedking

Edity Edit: @ Radisshu

Was that BLAME! or am i becoming rusty? If so we are best friends forever now, just so you know. :3

Yes, that was a BLAME! piece. I guess. At least Tsutomu Nihei made it, but I guess it's some kind of BLAME! concept stuff since the character appears to be Killy.

 

[roll-a-die]

Not art,

The next person that says "this is/isn't art" when they actually mean "ME LIEK / HAET" will get a swift kick on the prostate.

You liberal arts college students worn out my kicking foot

Pictures of art and other things are not art. I actually quite like it. The piece is art but the picture of it isn't.

Why not, my enlightened friend?

It's a picture that was used for rote instructional purposes. It's also just a picture of shit, with no skill involved in it's creation. It could be art to some people, I'll admit, but, by my definition that's not art. Feel free to punch me for that CK.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

It's a picture that was used for rote instructional purposes. It's also just a picture of shit, with no skill involved in it's creation. It could be art to some people, I'll admit, but, by my definition that's not art. Feel free to punch me for that CK.

PHOTOS ARE ART TOO YOU COCKSUCKER ARRRRRGH

 

[roll-a-die]

It's a picture that was used for rote instructional purposes. It's also just a picture of shit, with no skill involved in it's creation. It could be art to some people, I'll admit, but, by my definition that's not art. Feel free to punch me for that CK.

PHOTOS ARE ART TOO YOU COCKSUCKER ARRRRRGH

Photos are art, that's true, but only in certain cases. It's a matter of what they intended with the photo in question. If it's just quick pic of poop than it's not art. If it's something like,

Then it's art.

It also comes down to the skill and creativity need to properly capture a shot.

This is art, http://vimeo.com/11673745

Pictures of poop which require no skill and are uncreative, aren't.

Pictures of statues made to look like poop, taken from the correct angle, are.

Pictures for the local newspaper of a vagina bike, meant to document a project, aren't.

The vagina bike in question, art.

Pictures of you in a mirror taken with your cell phone, not art.

Decently taken portrait shots, art.

Now I know your thinking, "Isn't that a double standard," it's not, in my opinion, photography itself is not an art, until you grow more skilled.

The difference is one requires a decent set of compositional skills to qualify a picture as art. When we draw, we are at least attempting to further a skill set. You however can take a picture without even rudimentary knowledge of how a shot is supposed to come together. We can draw well instinctively, or with practice. In order to take a decent picture you have to learn certain things. Also, you can take 1000 pictures without learning anything about how to compose a shot. When you draw or paint you are at least furthering your skill each time.


It all comes down to quality and type, for things like the vajayjay bike shot, it's like calling court records, art. For the poop shot it's like calling something a monkey put together out of piled feces and vomit, art. Once again it comes down to the fact that people opinions of art are fluid between everyone. I'm a firm believer that art is a skill that can be learned by anyone, and that art takes creative thought. Pictures of poop show no creative thought or skill(beyond pushing a button) in composition. Neither do some pieces of journalism photography. Nor do cell-phone mirror shots.


The top photo you posted is art, the gif from before, isn't.

 

[hiver]

:had a power supply burnout:

1eyed king,
You ask how are those still i posted art?
Those were just first several ones i could find quickly, stills that give a fair glimps into four animated movies and ingenious creativity and talent of artists who made them with incredible amounts of effort to which those few stills are proof of.

They are not only considered pinacles of animated movies in anime or manga style but pinacles of animation at all.

Ofcourse, they are a sum of their parts and even more - something greater then the sum of their stories, animation, sound, music scores, quality of writing, voice acting, imagination and inspiration.

You can freely dislike Ghost in the shell personally.
That is not the issue.

I think you should be familiar with Sturgeons law too.
Amount of lesser quality works in some specific art area, whether anime or manga or any other art, has no bearing on best works made in that art.

Everything, every art or entertainment form is on the whole comprised of 95% shit of varying degrees and 5% pure gold.

There are numerous scene in Ghost in the Shell that are at first look very simple and yet speak volumes. The whole movie spreads meanings, background details, characterisation,conflicts and its themes often without anyone saying a word.
Its minimalistic yet rich in substance.

Executed beautifully and works supremely well as a whole.

For Miyazaki, just look at that still of wizard Howl lying in his bed. Isnt the amount of details in his room practically insane?

True, its a specialistic feature of high anime art to create such wondrous detailed enviroments just for the hell of it for a shot in the movie that lasts only a few seconds.
As is a shot of mountains in the distance or "mountains in light".

That doesnt lessen the insane amount of work and expert craftmanship that went into designing, drawing and coloring those pieces.

Its also something another graphical artists could appreciate fully just like a musician can appreciate masterworks of music more then an ordinary person.

Do i have to mention Princess Mononoke won numerous awards globally and an Oscar too?
And everyone who knows anything about animation on that level was stunned by it?
All the critics, all the experts and other studios in the whole world?

Not only because of illustration, graphical design and animation but as a whole package.

And by the way, they need to be watched to experience them fully.
If anyone didnt yet its a big mistake.

 

[crufty]

I thought ghost in shell movie was poop

illustration <> art

tv series redeemed ghost in shell though. btw, still hoping for another volume of appleseed! not that i can remember what happened.

btw naruto is more artful then princess mononoke. it is a pretty subtle kids show.