/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.2256614]

I like making conceptual pieces.
I don't see any creativity in photo representation.
I appreciate the talent.. but its just illustration.
To me art is about thought process.
Engaging the viewer, making them question the piece and try and work it out for themselves.
Photo representation is too obvious.
Image is a previous piece of my work in progress, if you like illustration and photo representational drawings I don't expect you to understand.

[Anonymous No.2256617]

If you have to rely completely on context or pretense to communicate your message then you have failed as an artist

[Anonymous No.2256620]

>>2256614
those are some very interesting ideas, have you tried drinking bleach?

[Anonymous No.2256621]

Looking to discuss the concept of photo representation more than anything.

[Anonymous No.2256623]

Tried bleach, need something stronger.

[Anonymous No.2256645]

>>2256614
>I like making conceptual pieces.
Good for you, I guess.
>I don't see any creativity in photo representation.
Well, you're probably not looking very hard. Even photography contains a considerable amount of creativity when practiced at a high level, and representational art, even at the realist end of the spectrum, allows for a great deal more creativity.

Really, it sounds more like you're not seeing something you don't want to see.
>I appreciate the talent.. but its just illustration.
"Just illustration," like that's a dirty word or something. But illustration carries the traditions and skills of the old masters far more than contemporary fine art. So, you know. Fuck you for that.
>To me art is about thought process.
Sounds to me like you need to do more thinking then. Representational art came about and remains popular still today because it communicates so clearly and without pretentiousness. And the reason it has such clarity is because it uses a visual language that's familiar to everyone.
>Engaging the viewer, making them question the piece and try and work it out for themselves.
...and this is where conceptual art falls far short. It's why normal people don't get it, it's why comments like "my kid could do that" are so common. People have such varied experiences and knowledge that purposefully making things more obscure by abandoning the common visual language of reality just muddies things unnecessarily. Not to mention how pretentious it is and sounds. Might as well just say it's "deep."

Also, fuck you again for implying that representational art can't do those things. If anything, it can do it better. Viewers are more easily engaged with things that they recognize and can related to, not abstract concoctions, and being representational doesn't preclude leaving open questions for the viewer to work out on their own.

[Anonymous No.2256678]

Thank you for that response, thats what I was looking for.
I appreciate photography a lot, most of my work starts from photograph I have taken, but then for me personally, the enjoyment comes from transforming the raw image into something of my own.
Illustration wasn't meant to come across as a dirty word but rather something seperate to 'art', like I said yes it is skillfull, but as a mental process it's more concentration than imagination I would say.
Yes it is something that everyone can understand, but for me, speaking on a completely personal level, familiarities don't overly excite or capture my mind.
I guess the whole last section about the viewer depends on your target audience, I appreciate that maybe it is all overly pretentious.
For me representational art doesn't stimulate my mind as much as the puzzle of conceptual art.
I'm not trying to say my view is correct or however you may see it, I just wanted to open up a constructive discussion with people who are in to representational works to find out their views on the matter, so I fully appreciate everything commented.

[Anonymous No.2258601]

>>2256614
Obvious troll.

[Anonymous No.2258701]

Hello OP, fuck you
this is my contribution to the thread. Please don't take it as a shallow and petty insult (if thats all you see it as then you just dont GET it and are probably one of those hack illustrators). Please try to imagine my workflow and the physical process of typing "fuck you" and then try to relate it to yourself without using any traditional labels and instead focus on the emotion and subversive undertones of "fuck you".

Title: Fuck You OP
Artist: Anonymous

[Anonymous No.2258720]

"They ask that frightful question, "What I am supposed to think?, in front of an art work. Outside the art world nobody says that. "

-from Gilbert and George conversations between 1993 and 1997

[Anonymous No.2258729]

>>2256614
Good job OP, I really like it. I would have liked it better if you moved that chair a bit to the left and replaced that red bottle with a blue one. That way it makes more sense.

[Anonymous No.2258776]

the lights on the pallet are a metaphor for christ's suffering on the cross, man.

[Anonymous No.2258782]

Representation isn't the only point of "Representational art" or even the main one, and "photo representation" implies that all painters do is try to be a photo-camera or that painters copy from photographs for the sake of imitating it. That is true in some cases, but don't make the mistake of conflating every painting that isn't "conceptual" into that lowest form. It also implies that people who like paintings that represent concrete objects in some way like them because of the imitation.

Not even everything about it representational art are familiar. The forms and objects may be, but the purpose or meaning are not always. There are old paintings that we do not even have the material means to decipher, or they require specialists to. If representation was the final cause of any of these art that show visual reality in some way, still lives would be at the same level as history painting, or even higher seeing that they generally are more realistic, because all differences between these genres would be naturally ignored and only their ability to capture three-dimentionality would be the focus. The merit of past paintings and drawings would be spoken of only on their skill to imitate, and we know that's not the case. We know that creativity in art has historically always been valued in the times they were created.

It also doesn't mean anything for a conceptual artist to say that art is about the thought process as if to say other art forms do not partake in it or inspire thought. It just so happens that the process is generally more coherent than conceptual art. Conceptual art generally doesn't inspire a well ordered thought, but forcefully subjects the partaker into confusion as they try make out the associations between unrelated symbols in the background of a cluttered non-structure.

[Anonymous No.2258803]

>>2256614
trigger warning

[Anonymous No.2258836]

>Got my BFA did, fam!

[Anonymous No.2258892]

>>2258836
>let us admit that much of the realistic art produced today is mediocre, this is not the faul of art or its principles, but is due to the inadequacy of the artist.

the art renewal center doesn't suck because of realistic art. it sucks because the artists suck.

thanks fam.

[Anonymous No.2258908]

>>2258892
The Art Renewal Center is the first to admit that its contemporaries aren't at the level of many of the masters of the past, so in effect, yes.

[Anonymous No.2261749]

>>2258908
so it's fucking useless

THANKS OBAMA SMDH TBH