...why? There are plenty of digital pieces that are just as compelling.the day we see a completely digital piece in a national gallery, with no processes used to transfer to a larger cavas (ala murakami and the 1000s of hours it takes to screen those textures onto medium) will be a sad day for art IMO.
i saw this in person last year. it was fantastic
...why? There are plenty of digital pieces that are just as compelling.
Naw, the physics of taking pigment and using a physical object to place it on a canvas will always be infinitely more compelling then a printer printing a digital piece....why? There are plenty of digital pieces that are just as compelling.
...why? There are plenty of digital pieces that are just as compelling.
Where was this quality of digital repo when I was studying ;_;
This single painting helped me to meet and talk to my current wife nearly 10 years ago. Crazy that I see it posted here.
I think Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase No. 2. is my personal fave.
Got to see it at NYCs 100 anniversary of the Armory Show where it premiered. Man, what a gass.
This single painting helped me to meet and talk to my current wife nearly 10 years ago. Crazy that I see it posted here.
Well that's just not true. You have as many chances to get that stroke as you want provided you have enough paint and the motivation to keep reworking your piece. We call them masters because they persevered through making all the bad work and built up the skill to make their masterpieces.Naw, the physics of taking pigment and using a physical object to place it on a canvas will always be infinitely more compelling then a printer printing a digital piece.
There is no undo or take backs. The artist had once chance to make that stroke right and they did, and thats why we call them masters. Digital paintings can be amazing and some of the best artists today work that way but the pieces they are producing just do nothing for me compared to creating a physical painting.
Stunning!the day we see a completely digital piece in a national gallery, with no processes used to transfer to a larger cavas (ala murakami and the 1000s of hours it takes to screen those textures onto medium) will be a sad day for art IMO.
i saw this in person last year. it was fantastic
Now i just want to see a 10 ft by 10 ft million dpi screen with a digital painting on it.Well that's just not true. You have as many chances to get that stroke as you want provided you have enough paint and the motivation to keep reworking your piece. We call them masters because they persevered through making all the bad work and built up the skill to make their masterpieces.
I feel like digital painting is not an inferior method of painting. I agree that physical paintings do have an element of tactility that many, if not all, digital paintings lack, but I would still maintain that there are many out there that evoke just as strong a feeling as a physical painting. I do agree that prints aren't as compelling, but I also believe digital paintings should be viewed digitally for best results. Just as physical paintings should be viewed physically.
This single painting helped me to meet and talk to my current wife nearly 10 years ago. Crazy that I see it posted here.
Haha I'll say it to my next one too :P
Like which?Man, old paintings creep me the fuck out.
What kind of crazy shit did early humans see and experience to influence some of these pieces?
They're also the strongest evidence we have that European lions didn't have manes.
These paintings are from the Chauvet cave in France and over 30.000 years old.
Incredible, I don't think I have seen these exact ones. Are those depictions of Rhinos in France?These paintings are from the Chauvet cave in France and over 30.000 years old.
Yes, these are supposed to be whooly rhinos which were inhabiting Europe until about 12.000 years ago.Incredible, I don't think I have seen these exact ones. Are those depictions of Rhinos in France?
It's hard to tell what happened here - did the man in brown assault the woman or did she collapse of her own accord and hit her head? The second pool of blood tells me it's the former.
🤗This is a great thread, @signal. Even if I don't always respond, every update is super interesting.
Above image reminds me, I may have posted this earlier but what the hell....
Hieronymus Bosch
For a contemporary artist, I absolutely love Amano. He's, of course, known well on the forum for his artwork in the original final fantasy games. But he's done some great original paintings as well as at for other medium like anime.
I absolutely love his mostly minimalist use of color, and he's been pretty prolific over the last 40 years.
I'm getting Rendezvous with Rama vibes from this one. I wonder if the tunnel to heaven motif here had any impact on Clarke.Above image reminds me, I may have posted this earlier but what the hell....
Hieronymus Bosch
god seeing the bear on the right i cant help but be reminded of thisRecently watched AMC's The Terror and found this piece of art depicting the fate of the Terror and Erebus.
Edwin Landseer's Man Proposes, God Disposes. Love the title and the expression on that right polar bear. Plus the painting has an interesting history.
To me that's part of why I don't really like digital "paintings". Paintings look so much better on a physical medium like canvas than on a screen. It's the same with photos, they they always look better on a decent print. I think screens are awful for picture-art.I feel like digital painting is not an inferior method of painting. I agree that physical paintings do have an element of tactility that many, if not all, digital paintings lack, but I would still maintain that there are many out there that evoke just as strong a feeling as a physical painting. I do agree that prints aren't as compelling, but I also believe digital paintings should be viewed digitally for best results. Just as physical paintings should be viewed physically.