..................................WWW.ATRIBECALLEDNEXT.COM

ART ON ATCN: Neosurrealism




Its a debate that has begun but never really has it been grabbed by the balls here on ATCN. Art is, was and will always be subjective, a matter of ones personal preference or taste but surrealist work has always taken the harshest criticism.

In the past few weeks the debate of computor enhanced paintings and photography has been debated and argued in short spurts so lets have it out once and for all. Where do you stand?

Neosurrealism...Sink or Swim?

Biz

15 comments:

Booga said...

SWIM! Personally, I hate narrow definitions of art. If something is beautiful, creative, expressive, innovative, skillful and/or evokes a reaction/emotion/thought, I'm callin' it art. I love it that I can go to one gallery and see a bunch of ugly shit that offends my eyes (on purpose or not), go to another one and be blown away by the beauty of the pieces, see something else and be pissed off, etc.
I don't want all art to be beautiful, nor do I want all art to be conceptual. I'm stoked about technology's contribution to art, I just hope that people don't forget the appeal of holding a brush in their hand/seeing brush strokes on canvas... Old school mediums do, generally require a little more craftsmanship and dedication, which I both do and don't like.

Sergiu P said...

It's brilliant!

EXPLOREdesign said...

times change and advances in technology gives us new ways to express ourselves, the days of oil paintings are respected but done, art is whatever you want it to be aslong as thought and consideration is put into it, have you ever tryied to design a painting on computer it isnt easy and can take just as much skill and talent as it does to paint on a canvas,

respect to all digital artist!!!!

Anonymous said...

the penultimate pic looks like a really bad fart.

clav said...

The way I see it is if Da Vinci were alive today he'd be using Photoshop amongst other things.

People seem to forget (and this applies to ALL the arts, music/sculpture/fashion etc) that what we consider genius ie the Mona Lisa etc was done when the people creating these things used the best technology they had available to them at the time - do you honestly think if they were alive today they'd be still using the same techniques as they did back then? Of course not!

Technology has been wonderful in that it has allowed people far wider access to be able to create (and distribute) their own self-expression but the thing that hasn't ever changed is that the "vision" has always been more important than the execution even if the execution is exquisite in its own right. Therefore, although we may have to trawl through a lot more "shit", the number of people producing "gems" of whatever description remains pretty much the same proportionally!

For me, ultimately the destination (the end result and our reaction to it) is more important than the journey (how it came to be). Ergo, Neosurrealism is just as valid as the Renaissance, Romanticism, Expressionism etc...

A strong swim in my book!

PS @ anon - I actually thought the same thing! lol

Leese said...

I have to agree with booga on this one-she is sooo right. I love the computer graphics and find some of the stuff amazing, but although there is sooo much skill involved-i couldn't create computer art to save my life, i also feel that people that use paint brushes on canvas to create images that look so real life that it almost looks as though it is photograph is magic to me-it must be easier to do thaat with a computer chip than with your own mind and dexterity! However saying that, we as mere mortals are limited and wen you throw technonlogy into the mix the idea of what is art expands beyond the imagination-i am sure the likes of vincent van gogh and especially Leonardo Da Vinchi would have loved to have seen what they could have created with a mouse, keybord and photoshop.

DELS (Kieren Dickins) said...

For me, the thing that I dont like about computerized art is that sometimes its so impersonal. You could replicate a style digitally and nobody would be able to tell the difference. It lacks that human quality. Personally, as a designer I would rather make it myself by hand. I only use computers as a tool - not to create art from the conceptual stage to the finished product on screen. There are only so many techniques and processes that computers can do.

SClear said...

I really like computer enhanced / post-produced photography stuff. Although I'm not mad about any of those images posted.

I don't actually know much about photography though... so will now be quiet.

Anonymous said...

If its creative surely thats all that matters right?

can we take our noses out of the air and just appriciate!

Booga said...

@ anon- Who's nose is in the air? I don't see any posts on here that are pretentious, it's just everyone speaking their piece.
I think some of y'all misinterpreted what I was saying. I did not say "fuck digital art. It sucks, and digital artists suck". I like it but with certain caveats. Leese and Dels pretty much expanded on what I was thinking on that tip. Yes, I realize that artists, throughout time have used technology to create, inspire, and/or bolster their pieces. Whether it be the camera obscura, tracing paper, lighting tables or any myriad of inventions that were at some point new and unorthodox. However, I think it's a damn shame that all things old get abandoned. New is not always better (as people are so prone to believe), sometimes it is merely different.

EXPLOREdesign said...

alot of the old oil paintings from the masters as you may want to call them didnt even paint them. there students did in there work shops they just directed there vision..not sayin they never put a brush to the canvas tho.

i defiantly agree tho, dont just rely on computers find ways of creating things with other mediums, dont be scared to experiment computers are just a tool to help with the process of design...not to rule

p.s good debate

Booga said...

@ expolore design: I'm not wont to call the old painters "masters". I realize that many renowned painters, past and present (including graf arists working as "toymasters") employ apprentances. Does that take away fromt he skill level used to create these paintings? No, it merely means that a)it was a collaborative effort and/or b)credit was not distrubuted properly.
Somehow my words got distorted and now I'm some anti-technology, anti-post-rennaissance fucktard. Noooo, that is not the case. LOL

Anonymous said...

Big post
im saying swim...bring on the new

EXPLOREdesign said...

haha i have great respect for all artists and that was no dis aimed at the great painters they mapped the way, i was just making a point that everyone uses tools to get the results they want and if that means using a computer or using someone else to achive what they want etc etc fair enough, if its visual then its art however it got there you have the choice to like or dislike.

Samantha Jones said...

SWIM, i agree with Booga!

WWW.ATRIBECALLEDNEXT.COM