tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post6533169546464369768..comments2024-03-28T12:26:00.040-04:00Comments on ILLUSTRATION ART: DRAWING WITHOUT ELECTRICITYDavid Apatoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comBlogger148125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-90252124912544340342009-07-27T07:39:27.218-04:002009-07-27T07:39:27.218-04:00I agree with omwo viewsI agree with omwo viewsSandra Jacksonhttp://www.dramaticmonologue.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-33666050468418772232009-06-30T06:02:45.433-04:002009-06-30T06:02:45.433-04:00Ben, thanks for a thoughtful comment. I don't...Ben, thanks for a thoughtful comment. I don't think many people here would disagree that apples and oranges are beautiful in different ways, but I think it would be a mistake to throw up our hands and say that there is no overlap whatsoever. I think we can meaningfully compare drawings with etchings, watercolors with gouache paintings and more. We can even compare digital art with analog art, as long as we are thoughtful about how we do it.<br /><br />But I think the thrust of my post was a little different than "is digital animation superior to drawings or paintings?"<br /><br />On more than one occasion, the path of ilustration has been dramatically altered by technology. For example, when photoengraving was invented, it didn't matter how good an artist was with old fashioned wood engraving, the future belonged to color reproduction painting. Gustave Dore's style became history and Howard Pyle took over, despite the fact that both artists were extremely talented. <br /><br />Later, an entire illustration industry premised on fiction in magazines such as the Saturday Evening Post, Colliers, Life, etc. was wiped out with the invention of television. <br /><br />Putting aside issues of quality and moral superiority, the older technologies were just not as entertaining to the masses. Black and white engravings could not entice readers the way those rich, full color Howard Pyle paintings did. As a result, there was an explosion of illustrated magazines. And as dazzling as the illustrations in those magazines became, they could not compete with the excitement and sound and movement of TV for viewers and advertising dollars.<br /><br />It's not hard to imagine that we are in the middle of another such paradigm shift, where moving digital images replace many static illustrations because digital animation appears more exciting and distracting to many viewers. (Remember, talkies swept away silent movies not because they were bad, but because people liked getting sound with their pictures.) As newspapers disappear and magazines go on line, it could be that places that once contained spot illustrations will one day contain moving electronic images.<br /><br />We should not kid ourselves that the world has stopped changing. Don't get me wrong, I don't think drawing and painting would disappear from the face of the earth, but it's possible that they could command a much smaller audience 100 years from now. I am interested in views on that subject:David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-69194445934641883932009-06-30T02:28:33.031-04:002009-06-30T02:28:33.031-04:00I'm an illustrator who left the path to pixar....I'm an illustrator who left the path to pixar. I love walle and UP but think it's silly to compare apples with oranges. Which is more fruity? They're both fruits. The best fruit is whichever is in season, doesn't look rotten or have hidden rot, worm or pesticide poison we can't immediately see.<br /><br />We can enjoy each thing for what it is. Or we can assume our subjective opinions are objective truth. I believe in absolutes and am sure that I don't know everything. So it's awfully difficult to start telling people their ideas are wrong unless we have serious authority.<br /><br />Matters of taste vary. Some people love terrible things that are self destructive. We can all sacrifice pieces of our lives for small glimpses of what we're convinced is enriching transcendence only to find the pursuit erodes our personality and crushes our spirit.<br /><br />Art is a word and words are containers of meaning. So what is: "art," what is "good," what is "bad"? What is "true"-ly so? Is there an absolute moral law? And if so, where do these laws come from? Is there a giver outside of ourselves? Or do we each have the capacity to make perfect moral decisions? What could the consequences of moral blindness bring? Walle touches on this lightly at the beginning.<br /><br />Margaret Atwood in "Negotiating with the dead" writes about art and its perceived meaning in a series of lectures. If you think you know what "good art" is, be prepared to have your foundations rocked by a world famous writer. It was an articulate destruction of some of my defensive and proud pretensions.<br /><br />To me these are the most helpful kinds of books. Since my MA I've been lucky to discover a few others which also scare me to more healthful tensions.Ben Weekshttp://www.benweeks.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-73073428411827013532009-06-29T12:23:57.858-04:002009-06-29T12:23:57.858-04:00I agree with you there as well! I'm actually ...I agree with you there as well! I'm actually talking about the heart and sensitivity (of course talent, and mmessage) present in the art itself, making it in my book "good art" which comes through whatever the media, or even in spite of it!Kim Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07593633705200153974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-6564874946329715732009-06-18T09:43:41.026-04:002009-06-18T09:43:41.026-04:00Kim, the heart and sensitivity are certainly essen...Kim, the heart and sensitivity are certainly essential, but I am sure you would agree that there are plenty of artists with hearts as big as all outdoors, who are painfully sensitive to the human interaction around them, but who are terrible artists. As far as I can tell, Margaret Keane was such an artist.David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-4266328283412217952009-06-17T11:18:39.669-04:002009-06-17T11:18:39.669-04:00I still say that it is the heart and sensitivity b...I still say that it is the heart and sensitivity behind the image(s), not the media in which it was produced.Kim Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07593633705200153974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-32203528976123625232009-06-16T06:45:41.192-04:002009-06-16T06:45:41.192-04:00>>>And what do you think Shakespeare woul...>>>And what do you think Shakespeare would be doing with his time if he were alive today? <<<<br /><br />Celebrating his 445th bithday?Rob Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07587811799010051018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-64032799492076306742009-06-15T10:17:02.449-04:002009-06-15T10:17:02.449-04:00I don't understand what it means to say that W...I don't understand what it means to say that WallE can't be fine art. Is that because it is popular theater for the masses? So was Shakespeare. Is that because it is funny? So was Shakespeare. What exactly disqualifies it? I don't know if the Pixar artists thought they were making "fine art," but I don't know if Shakespeare thought he was making fine art either. I'm not saying WallE was as good or important as Shakespeare, but I don't see why they aren't running in the same horse race. And what do you think Shakespeare would be doing with his time if he were alive today? Probably writing for movies.<br /><br />JLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-78947366808300081502009-06-15T09:41:31.466-04:002009-06-15T09:41:31.466-04:00David you really need to see all of Cremaster 3 to...David you really need to see all of Cremaster 3 to appreciate it. you really can't judge it from a trailer. it is a very complex and strange work of art.<br /><br />i would never have compared it to Wall E myself, but Rob asked for a fine-art example of contemporary movie making.<br /><br />with that, i respectfully bow out of this conversation, as i think we're talking different languages.<br /><br />cheersLaurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-813724375773532682009-06-15T09:07:36.266-04:002009-06-15T09:07:36.266-04:00Laurence, I have now checked out Cremaster 3 as yo...Laurence, I have now checked out Cremaster 3 as you suggested. I am having a little trouble figuring out how much of what I am seeing is photography and how much is digital art created by humans. Perhaps you can fill me in as I am curious about how such things are made. <br /><br />With that confession, I personally would not put Cremaster in the same league as Wall-E. Cremaster seems better at creating the kind of murky images that I found titillating when I was a teenager reading science fiction, but Wall-E (at least the first half)seems to me to be so much wiser, so much more creative, so much more knowledgeable about human nature and so much more rewarding as a work of art that there is really no comparison. As someone (perhaps Rob?) previously noted, the artists behind Wall-E were able to squeeze an astonishing amount of humanity into some fairly basic geometric shapes-- replay the clip I posted and look at the facial expressions, the gestures, the body language that come from a piece of machinery with no mouth or nose or eyebrows or voice. From the time the robot heaves that first sigh as he greets another day, you are looking at a work product that required close powers of observation and creative choices that I just don't see in Cremaster. It required an ability to distill and prioritize what has been observed and translate it from human flesh (with all of its additional sensory cues) into triangles and rectangles. Wall-E also demonstrates a sense of timing (comparable to Chaplin's) which I just don't see in Cremaster. Look at the subtle movements in the way Wall-E tentatively investigates that bra, or the way you see that fire extinguisher hurled away after Wall-E's unfortunate run-in. Those could have been handled a thousand different ways that would have been far less effective. Watch the way the camera pulls away from Wall-E at the end of my clip, artfully showing how the lonely little robot continues steadfastly on his mission as the days and centuries go by-- I looked in vain for that kind of creative camera and sound work to provide context and depth in the Cremaster trailer. <br /><br />I do however agree with you about Schiele. Now there was an artist whose eyes could penetrate 3 inches of lead.David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-40491745936162055762009-06-15T08:33:54.928-04:002009-06-15T08:33:54.928-04:00ok, so Rob agrees it's not fine art, excellent...ok, so Rob agrees it's not fine art, excellent... let's move on. (I thought that's what the discussion was about anyway)<br /><br />Rob, Cremaster is a series of films, not painting... i'm not sure what you have been looking at.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-76946067699496153092009-06-15T08:23:13.616-04:002009-06-15T08:23:13.616-04:00>>>even if i LOVED Wall E as a movie i wo...>>>even if i LOVED Wall E as a movie i wouldn't call it fine art. i'm still surprised you can't see the difference.<<<<br /><br />Lawrence, I'm surprised that you haven'r realized you are the only one who has mentioned WALL-E in terms of fine arts. Indeed, on a blog dedicated to the working artists in the illustration trade, the concept of fine arts as anything other than a peripheral reference, is rare. <br /><br />For most illustrators, the fine arts <i>can</i> be a well from which to seek refreshment. But the basic aims of illustration are somewhat different from those of the fine artist...especially the more theoretical fine artists in evidence since the mid 19th century. Before that, the aims were more closely aligned in the sense of narrative.<br /><br />Now that the aims of fine arts has gone away from narrative and has included such things as visual phenomena and surface, comparisons between the two fields become increasingly invidious. It's like comparing oral surgery to heart surgery. There really is a big difference and you wouldn't want to swap surgeons.<br /><br />I am amazed that you would go to a movie and, instead of carrying popcorn, carry a big sack of preconceived notions...does this comedy compare with David's <i>Death of Marat</i>... Is Humphrey Bogart as good as Leonardo. The sack of preconceptions must be so big that it makes the movie incomprehensible because you can't see over it. Render unto Caesar that which is salad...Rob Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07587811799010051018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-29371586654355630752009-06-15T08:08:29.827-04:002009-06-15T08:08:29.827-04:00>>>as to your question of a work that ove...>>>as to your question of a work that overshadows Wall E, try Cremaster 3 or 4 by Matthew Barney.<<<<br /><br />Ah yes. This is an example of where half a century of being a working pro must have dimmed my eyes to deeply meaningful work that will survive the centuries. Damn! If I could only recaprure those untrained eyes, I'm sure that these images of mummery would have deeper meaning. Sadly, because of the imposed distortions that must come with being deeply immersed in visual arts for so long they come away as trite displays of a craftsman's skills with paint...admirable for fans of billboard sign painters and china decorators (not to mention the perfection of almost everyone with a paintbrush in Xianchun province, or wherever those crank 'em out painters reside.<br /><br />Needless to say, this is no Velazquez. Hell, it's really not as interesting as WALL-E. However, it's great for the Internet Art Appreciation Society.Rob Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07587811799010051018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-40096565339907605292009-06-15T05:32:11.791-04:002009-06-15T05:32:11.791-04:00i have high standards David, but far from eccentri...i have high standards David, but far from eccentric. the work of Egon Schiele and Francis Bacon instantly comes to mind. i could list many more.<br /><br />even if i LOVED Wall E as a movie i wouldn't call it fine art. i'm still surprised you can't see the difference.<br /><br />i'd love to know what anyone from pixar thinks.<br /><br />(REALLY have to go now)<br /><br />LJLaurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-73608030305034510262009-06-15T04:42:22.674-04:002009-06-15T04:42:22.674-04:00Laurence, you write: "i really doubt the peop...Laurence, you write: "i really doubt the people at Pixar would argue their film is fine art either. at least i hope they're intelligent enough to know the difference." I believe some of the artists from Pixar have been reading these comments. I would be very interested in their response to your view.<br /><br />I can't speak to your taste, but your standards for what qualifies as art seem pretty eccentric and at odds with most of art history, not to mention impossible to police in any kind of consistent fashion. If art is to be measured by the earnest heart and the noncommercial motive of an individual artist, you will need a polygraph (or Kev's "E-meter") to resolve its status, and even then you may not find a drawing or painting since the dawn of time that passes such a test.<br /><br />But I will say this: if Rob, Kev, Antonio, Raphael and I all agree that Wall-E is a quality piece of art (a truly rare alignment of the stars and planets) that establishes it as a scientific fact.David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-42937813456260360022009-06-15T02:28:22.914-04:002009-06-15T02:28:22.914-04:00Kev, of course that's just my opinion. i thoug...Kev, of course that's just my opinion. i thought that's what we were doing... discussing our opinions. The fact that Wall E is irritatingly cute is just one of its flaws so i wouldn't get hung up on that one. i thought the Incredibles was far superior... but not fine art either. <br /><br />by your own logic, YOUR belief that Wall E is fine art doesn't make it so either. <br /><br /><br />"so the idea is that 'fine art'as a category should be scrapped ?<<<<br /><br />Huh? Where'd you come to that conclusion?"<br /><br />that wasn't to you Rob, but David, who has responded.<br /><br /><br />as to your question of a work that overshadows Wall E, try Cremaster 3 or 4 by Matthew Barney.<br /><br /><br />Antonio, no not strict logic at all. you're far better at that than me. i do possess common sense however, despite what may appear here.<br /><br />i'm genuinely amazed that many people here see depth and profundity in a sappy robot film and even more that they are willing to call it fine art, but you're obviously easily pleased. <br /><br />i have to take a break fellas, as real life (more accurately: work) beckons.<br /><br />LJLaurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-71811879315630641502009-06-14T19:26:03.433-04:002009-06-14T19:26:03.433-04:00>>>Rob, I'm so pleased with your appr...>>>Rob, I'm so pleased with your appreciation for Wall-E, I'm almost willing to forgive your view of Koons!<<<<br /><br />The ideal would be to have Pixar animate Koons' work. Imagine the terrier made of potted plants coming to life...or Michael Jackson and the chimp in outer space. A dream to be wished for.<br /><br />On a matter related to this burgeoning discussion; as an artist who has more than a little background in the technical aspects of painting, the single thought that has dominated so many artists has been the search for magical paint mediums that will transform someone into another Rembrandt. Just claim to have the lost medium of Rembrandt, Rubens or Margaret Keane and the sound of wallets opening will be deafening.<br /><br />The belief in such Holy Grails is quasi-religious and, as such, comes with its own degree of close-mindedness. What is apparent is the snobbishness so many have toward new media. The truth is, I have never seen a more stick-in-the-mud group than most artists. <br /><br />When MIT, Nathaniel Jacobson and Liquitex combined to create the Modular System of color, it was a breakthough for any serious painters who actually knew about color theory (probably less than 10% of the brush owners). It made painting so easy and predictable. But efficiency was trumped by paints with fanciful names that indicated nothing (The Modular System named their colors after what position on the Munsell color wheel--it's hue, value and chroma).But that's uninspiring when compared to romantic names like Van Dyck Brown or Naples Yellow (I won't even discuss the silly CI numbers from ASTM)<br /><br />That example of a self-defeating attitude was about paint. Now that we have new tools that Rembrandt never dreamed of, the same group immediately discounts them in much the same way that photography is discounted by "real" and oh-so "fine" artists.<br /><br />The reality is that there is far more creativity happening in an applied artwork such as WALL-E than all of those damnably dull cast drawings, reiterated schoolboy nudes, single figures in search of deep meaning and endlessly rendered objects put together in a "composition" that's more of a rebus than anything meant to communicate (skull+candle-rotten apple+dead bird=the meaningless of human existence).<br /><br />It seems that we really do need magic talismans and, for the True Believers all of the best ones are ancient, therefore anything new has no validity.<br /><br />Puck had it right..."what fools these mortals be."Rob Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07587811799010051018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-7768693957787252892009-06-14T19:00:23.291-04:002009-06-14T19:00:23.291-04:00Laurence: That's ok, if you are going that way...Laurence: That's ok, if you are going that way I have no objections. We can talk about art intuitively and it is fine by me. I thought you were going for a concrete definition, and that requires a greater care with strict implications. But if you don't feel like going that way I don't insist upon it either, one can simply talk about art at the personal level of judgement calls. It is probably the most interesting level anyway, though not strictly logical. I was just trying to understand if you were trying to go for a strict definition (or at least strict necessary conditions) or not, because it seemed so for a while.<br /><br />I do agree that when I talk about something being art, or fine art, I mean it in that more or less undefined sense at the level of judgement calls, and it's good enough for the most part - though there is also room in life for philosophy!<br /><br />We can therefore forget these fineries and restrict our disagreement to the pure and simple fact that you called wall-e juvenile...you godless philistine! :) That's it, that means pistols at dawn! :)<br /><br />AntonioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-8299906700562332412009-06-14T18:53:18.916-04:002009-06-14T18:53:18.916-04:00>>>so the idea is that 'fine art'...>>>so the idea is that 'fine art'as a category should be scrapped ?<<<<br /><br />Huh? Where'd you come to that conclusion?<br /><br />I'd better tighten the leading to prevent more such cases of reading things between the lines that are not there.Rob Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07587811799010051018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-49012349633299726932009-06-14T18:42:09.859-04:002009-06-14T18:42:09.859-04:00Antonio,
you should know when you see art that wa...Antonio,<br /><br />you should know when you see art that was produced with pure intent and when you see art that is commercially driven. the difference is there to be seen by you. i'm not going to point out or name the qualities which great art has to have.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-73327205353734862862009-06-14T18:31:16.264-04:002009-06-14T18:31:16.264-04:00>"I wonder if the quality of being art >...>"I wonder if the quality of being art >shouldn't be ascribed to the object >itself, irrespective of biography"<br /><br />>of course it should.<br /><br />ok, then...but then you don't really mean that individual intent is a strictly necessary condition. You can still say it is a very strong condition, but it cannot be a strictly necessary one, otherwise we have a contradiction here (unless I am missing a step somewhere).<br /><br />AntonioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-67033250092197476572009-06-14T18:29:42.347-04:002009-06-14T18:29:42.347-04:00Laurence John...
Your definition of Fine Art is Y...Laurence John...<br /><br />Your definition of Fine Art is YOUR DEFINITION. If the people who made Wall-E think it is Fine Art, they are not unintelligent simply for disagreeing with YOUR OPINION of what Fine Art is.<br /><br />Earnestness? What are we going to use to judge that quality, an E-meter? A psychic? Does earnestness mean that the artist didn't make any money off the work and is thereby uncompromised by crass commercial considerations?<br /><br />You found Wall-E irritatingly cute? I suppose you forgot to add to your definition of Fine Art that it SHALT NOT irritate you. NOR SHALL it ingratiate itself to others.<br /><br />This couldn't be the first time that someone pointed out that your opinions are not universally held.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-24217561345379081492009-06-14T18:20:22.058-04:002009-06-14T18:20:22.058-04:00"I wonder if the quality of being art shouldn..."I wonder if the quality of being art shouldn't be ascribed to the object itself, irrespective of biography"<br /><br />of course it should. and you should have the sensitivity to tell good art from bad.<br /><br /><br />"...but imagine that tomorrow somebody would find historical evidence that it was not Michelangelo but a committee of artists, constantly interfered with by a group of meddling patrons who designed and painted the ceiling of the sistine chapel"<br /><br />i don't know about the committee of artists, but the meddling patrons sounds true. that's a commissioned piece of public art. not a good example of self-produced art.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-19666663056169570732009-06-14T18:18:09.577-04:002009-06-14T18:18:09.577-04:00ok,
so then you find that it is ok with you if th...ok,<br /><br />so then you find that it is ok with you if the definition of what is art or not depends upon our knowledge of how it was created and not just on the object itself? Is that a fair characterization of your position? Meaning, you cannot affirm an object is art unless you know it wasn't created by a committee?<br /><br />So, if tomorrow you found that the sistine chapel's ceiling had been created by a committee you would no longer call it art, no matter how good it looks?<br /><br />or am I missing some loophole in this?<br /><br />AntonioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-75503049701995489812009-06-14T18:10:25.991-04:002009-06-14T18:10:25.991-04:00yes, as long as it had been made by one person wit...yes, as long as it had been made by one person with ernest intent it would be art. it wouldn't be fine art because it would still be an annoying little popcorn movie about an irratating cute robot.<br /><br />i really doubt the people at Pixar would argue their film is fine art either. at least i hope they're intelligent enough to know the difference.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.com