How do you judge if something artistic is good or bad?

[Padawanbater2]

What requirements does something need to meet for you to consider it good or bad, why?


While I can appreciate abstract art, especially when I see the process of making it as some takes considerable amounts of skill, the kind of art I tend to like is either really original, really creative, or technically executed really well. Also, the level of professionalism in an artists work tells you a lot about their levels of dedication and even their goals. I can tell just by looking at a piece of art if it was made by a serious artist or just someone who sees art as a hobby. Feng Zhu has a youtube channel FZDSchool http://www.youtube.com/user/FZDSCHOOL detailing the process of the digital design world for anyone interested, imo, this is the best source of info I've come across about the industry.

Here are a few examples of some of my favorite pieces of art;

This is an image by artist Danny Luvisi, 11-15 years experience, I've been following this guy since I first saw his pencil work way back in 2005, he's one of the first guys who inspired me to push the limits, not only in art. This is his design of one of his original characters, Hex, in his story LMS: Killbook of a bounty hunter. http://danluvisiart.deviantart.com/gallery/7848546

Same artist, this is from his Popped Culture series http://danluvisiart.deviantart.com/gallery/43576073

This is an image by artist Andre Wallin http://andreewallin.deviantart.com/, this guy is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned professionalism, you can tell he's serious about his work just from looking at it, been a fan of his for a long time

SharpWriter on DA http://sharpwriter.deviantart.com/, awesome original creations with nods to pop culture which to me feel like easter eggs when you see them, even though they're usually pretty obvious, I think that sort of stuff just adds another element into the art to enjoy, Luvisi does the same thing with his art

Frank Frazetta, old school legend

Unbelievably well done, this has always been my personal favorite version of the Joker, this is namesjames' take on it, delivered in oil on canvas http://namesjames.deviantart.com/


So I think these are just a few examples of what I personally like about art, what about you?

 

[Nutes and Nugs]

Of the six examples above, one was close. The Joker.
The others, well, lol, no comment. Computer art to me is pretty cheesy.

Perception of art or fashion is in a special part of the brain.
Sorta like those that believe in religion or dreams or other things science can't explain.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Of the six examples above, one was close. The Joker.
The others, well, lol, no comment. Computer art to me is pretty cheesy.

Perception of art or fashion is in a special part of the brain.
Sorta like those that believe in religion or dreams or other things science can't explain.

What does the Joker have the others don't?

 

[Nutes and Nugs]

What does the Joker have the others don't?

It's closest to be art than the others.
Your taste for art is bizarre and dark and false.

 

[Padawanbater2]

It's closest to be art than the others.
Your taste for art is bizarre and dark and false.

The appreciation of art is completely subjective, so it would be wrong to say anyones taste in art is false

 

[Nutes and Nugs]

The appreciation of art is completely subjective, so it would be wrong to say anyones taste in art is false

It's the art that sells.
That shit doesnt.

 

[Padawanbater2]

It's the art that sells.
That shit doesnt.

Graphic Novel Release

The first volume in the series was published on 29 September 2010 in both hardcover and softcover variants. It introduces the main character and his allies and enemies, setting the scene for a plot projected to develop over at least two further books. The graphic novel is due to be released on December 3, 2013. The next volume in the series, titled LMS: Once Upon A Time In America, currently has no release date.

Plot

Last Man Standing: Killbook of a Bounty Hunter tells the story of Gabriel, genetically engineered soldier, he is a warrior of supernatural strength, anointed as the guardian of Amerika and its people. Admired and celebrated by most, Gabe’s world takes a sudden turn when he finds himself framed by the terrorist group Pandemonium, for a series of atrocious crimes he had no part in. For these alleged crimes, Gabriel is sent to the treacherous Level-9 Prison Facility and incarcerated with the very scum he helped put away. After nine years of torture and agony, the once famed hero kills his captors and escapes the 9 levels of hell he has been condemned to. From here on forward, Gabriel embarks on a journey into the heart of darkness; the New Amerika, a world filled with colorful and deadly characters that will either help or try to eliminate him – neither of which attitude is always transparent. As the once invincible hero digs deep to unravel the true reason behind his framing, he also discovers a problem he never had to face before: He’s dying; and quickly.

Film

At San Diego Comic Con 2010, Paramount acquired the film rights for the series.


Yeah.. so you were saying?

 

[Nutes and Nugs]

I'm talking about timeless art.
Sure, maybe something from 2010 Will become timeless art but we will never know.

Art that has been a staple for centuries.
You have to learn to study and appreciate it.
Not some angry pictures.
Well, unless you're always miserable.

 

[Nutes and Nugs]

CN's post is 90% true artistic photos.
Some computer crap in there but you get the idea.
I'm sure you've browsed this thread before.

https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/576250-beautiful.html

 

[Psychedelic Goo]

Never been a fan of digital art myself but can appreciate that it looks amazing. It just has too many short cuts like layers, copy paste, perfect straight lines, the undo button, colour filters, that it just seems to me to artificial. I mean you could technically make a program that has every pixel a certain colour and it would become a picture. A pixel will always be the same size every time, the same cannot be said for a pencil/pen point, or a brush stroke. Dig the style of pictures you posted though.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Never been a fan of digital art myself but can appreciate that it looks amazing. It just has too many short cuts like layers, copy paste, perfect straight lines, the undo button, colour filters, that it just seems to me to artificial. I mean you could technically make a program that has every pixel a certain colour and it would become a picture. A pixel will always be the same size every time, the same cannot be said for a pencil/pen point, or a brush stroke. Dig the style of pictures you posted though.

You don't like digital art because you think it's easier to make than traditional art?

 

[1itsme]

When you say good or bad art, what do you mean exactly? Whether or not I personally like it, do I think it took skill or creativity to make, or whether i think it makes some kind of political or social statement. Or do you mean i think it will find acceptance and ultimately sell well to the stretchy-face art snob crowd?

 

[Psychedelic Goo]

Like I said digital art can look amazing, and really the end product is all that matters to most people. But I really appreciate the art more when it is made using a physical medium, like painting or sculpting. You can almost see all the steps the artist used to create his work, with digital art there is usually some behind the scenes computer aid with the short cuts I mentioned above. So in short I think the pen is mightier than the pixel. And the creative process of digital art is just so cold, staring at a monitor waiting for your eyes to fall out of your head. Power goes out, so does your art. To much reliance on the program. Just my thoughts.

 

[mr sunshine]

Computers draw the best.......

 

[PeyoteReligion]

The appreciation of art is completely subjective, so it would be wrong to say anyones taste in art is false

It seems you've answered your own question in the OP. As art is subjective to the one judging it, so is the conclusion that they draw about it. You're obviously gonna find that it's different for everyone. One could shit on a sidewalk and take a picture of it, and call it art. Only one person need to like it to legitimize it as art. Or does the act of simply creating it make it art in and of itself?

I feel that everyone has their own taste in the style of "art" that they like. And any person denigrating other forms or styles of art is totally missing the point. For me I don't even know where I draw the lines as to what I think good art is. While I think minimalist style is boring and slightly hacky, I still find it to be a valid, quality form of art. Just like with the musical form of art, I may not like a specific genre of music, but can see that talent and creativity were involved in making it.

 

[PeyoteReligion]

Never been a fan of digital art myself but can appreciate that it looks amazing. It just has too many short cuts like layers, copy paste, perfect straight lines, the undo button, colour filters, that it just seems to me to artificial. I mean you could technically make a program that has every pixel a certain colour and it would become a picture. A pixel will always be the same size every time, the same cannot be said for a pencil/pen point, or a brush stroke. Dig the style of pictures you posted though.

So what you are saying is that the level of difficulty during the creation is what determines the quality of the art for you? That's interesting. So I can draw realism quite well, it comes easily and naturall to me. Now, if myself and another person draw the exact same image, but it was really easy for me, and really difficult for the other person, their peice is better because they had to try harder to accomplish it? See how silly that sounds.

It's about HOW you manipulate the tools you are using, not WHAT tools you are using.

 

[Psychedelic Goo]

So what you are saying is that the level of difficulty during the creation is what determines the quality of the art for you? That's interesting. So I can draw realism quite well, it comes easily and naturall to me. Now, if myself and another person draw the exact same image, but it was really easy for me, and really difficult for the other person, their peice is better because they had to try harder to accomplish it? See how silly that sounds.

It's about HOW you manipulate the tools you are using, not WHAT tools you are using.

I never said anything about the level of difficulty determining the quality or not just that art programs on computers come with short cuts, putting it in a limbo state for my personal taste. Random example, you start with a blank white canvas but want it red. On the computer: choose the colour and click, your canvas is now red. Where is my magic one touch paintbrush or pen in reality? So it's not so much as being easier, than it is in skipping entire steps and/or getting rid of entire steps 100 percent each time, no Russian roulette in the digital space. Did you create all those pixels to turn red, well ya, with that one click that was programmed to fill in the rest of the pixels, you did. You didn't turn each pixel red individually, the AI program aided you. Digital art is confined to the pixel, no matter how fine the detail is. Even if you click each pixel to be red, you're still confined to the pixel, which is not physically natural, it's man made. Now for the digital artists who only use the 'classic' tools, like pencil and eraser and no 'short cuts', what happens if you want to make a dot on the screen that is half a pixel? The computer restricts the user and helps the user, always. So it's not so much the difficulty but the computer restrictions I'm talking about. And I agree it is in how you manipulate the tools, but when the tools restrict and sometimes define you, you know that's when you have to pluck your eyes from the monitor and throw it off a 44 storey building. This is just my philosophy towards digital art. If nothing is clear, just say.

 

[skunkd0c]

someone vandalising the piss Christ work of art

 

[Padawanbater2]

I never said anything about the level of difficulty determining the quality or not just that art programs on computers come with short cuts, putting it in a limbo state for my personal taste. Random example, you start with a blank white canvas but want it red. On the computer: choose the colour and click, your canvas is now red. Where is my magic one touch paintbrush or pen in reality? So it's not so much as being easier, than it is in skipping entire steps and/or getting rid of entire steps 100 percent each time, no Russian roulette in the digital space. Did you create all those pixels to turn red, well ya, with that one click that was programmed to fill in the rest of the pixels, you did. You didn't turn each pixel red individually, the AI program aided you. Digital art is confined to the pixel, no matter how fine the detail is. Even if you click each pixel to be red, you're still confined to the pixel, which is not physically natural, it's man made. Now for the digital artists who only use the 'classic' tools, like pencil and eraser and no 'short cuts', what happens if you want to make a dot on the screen that is half a pixel? The computer restricts the user and helps the user, always. So it's not so much the difficulty but the computer restrictions I'm talking about. And I agree it is in how you manipulate the tools, but when the tools restrict and sometimes define you, you know that's when you have to pluck your eyes from the monitor and throw it off a 44 storey building. This is just my philosophy towards digital art. If nothing is clear, just say.

This is interesting because what I found when I went from traditional to digital was the opposite, instead of limiting the art, it exponentially expanded it. There are things you can do in digital that isn't possible with traditional, so you end up with results that are much more polished and refined than traditional imo. Since the mundane tasks like masking are much easier, it frees up time to actually work on the creative aspect of the art instead of the process of setting it up and making it.

One important thing though that I feel should be pointed out, traditional or digital, it takes dedication and a lot of practice to get really good at it, an amateur with the newest version of Photoshop won't be able to produce the same type of work someone with a decade of experience will, and those guys can produce some next level stuff, they're artists on major motion pictures like Star Trek and Avatar. I heard an artist say it best when explaining to a customer why they were paying so much for a piece of art that took the artist an hour to make... "you're not paying for the hour it took me to make it, you're paying for the 13 years of practice plus the hour"..

 

[Psychedelic Goo]

This is interesting because what I found when I went from traditional to digital was the opposite, instead of limiting the art, it exponentially expanded it. There are things you can do in digital that isn't possible with traditional, so you end up with results that are much more polished and refined than traditional imo. Since the mundane tasks like masking are much easier, it frees up time to actually work on the creative aspect of the art instead of the process of setting it up and making it.

One important thing though that I feel should be pointed out, traditional or digital, it takes dedication and a lot of practice to get really good at it, an amateur with the newest version of Photoshop won't be able to produce the same type of work someone with a decade of experience will, and those guys can produce some next level stuff, they're artists on major motion pictures like Star Trek and Avatar. I heard an artist say it best when explaining to a customer why they were paying so much for a piece of art that took the artist an hour to make... "you're not paying for the hour it took me to make it, you're paying for the 13 years of practice plus the hour"..

I absolutely agree that the end result in digital art is much more polished and refined as well, but for me, that's the problem. There are so many tools and aids at your disposal that being able to continually refine to your hearts content, takes the sporadic madness and permanence away that I enjoy when creating in a physical medium. Even though I sound like a broken record, I don't like the idea of being restricted to the pixel, it makes every digital piece I see a very finely detailed graph. And man I hear ya on the process of setting up pieces. It takes ages in getting your measurements, perspective and placement of objects correct when creating a picture in a physical medium, but that to me is what makes it that much more impressive.

Also agree with the dedication and experience it needs to truly create something mind blowing. It's not like I'm truly unimpressed with digital art, some of the most amazing pictures I've seen have been made digitally. It's just when something is made in a physical medium is on par with the polish of digital art, that's when my jaw drops. My philosophy on the pixel is stubborn for sure, and for that I apologize.