COSTUME ART
 

I like photo real personally. I do not mean the CG look. Soft photo real. No, not everyone can do it. I think to much art moves in the direction of costume art. To me a lot of fine art hits a term I call "costume art". It is like costume jewelary but for you wall. Something that goes well with your carpet and couch. Something that you can change the colors to match your new coffee table. I have seen so many galleries where the artists are pushed to explore there abstract side. The artists cannot draw a realistic figure but it does not matter. They have a STYLE. Of course this does not include everyone because I have seen some awsome work. I do see some abstracts with class and are great. It is just I see to many artists work, especially when you go online, that say they went to Brown or some other BIG art school and they spent more on the education than I would like to imagine. I look at there work and say it sucks. OK they know color theory and they have an OK sense of negative space but anyone with those two calsses can through paint on a canvis and do it. They look like it would if you gave a child the correct color to finger paint with and took the project away from them at the right time. They are mass produced crap.

What do other think?

well...
 

personaly i like photo real cg
but at the same time i am verry enticed to see certain "artistic" works i think that it takes a speacial person to pull off an artistic project not averyone can do it just as not eveyone can do photo realistic work art is relitive. anyway i just lost my train of thought i have to go draw something now...

hey Rich... technique is just the 50%

Fire_master. Ya I agree that both take a certain mind set but to many do not have it but try anyway.

dragonfx, I will agree that technique is 50% but it is a very important 50%. It is like trying to swim across a lake. Without being able to finish the last 50% it sucks.

Rick, I'm with ya ! I have personally felt that 70% of the abstract in 3d is "abstract" because they were hiding that they couldn't nail down a true resemblance to something. "Art" is a lot about abstraction, a re-arraignment of a concept or idea made primarily for a esthetic experience. But that being said a abstraction of a abstract is just watered down nonsense if you ask me. To me if you can get it to resemble something very well, in the first place thin after that you have a much better ability to abstract it.

I like photo real with a little twist on it to give a even deeper impression.

I have to agree with Pony here.

I really like things that could easily have been photoreal, but "tweaked" by the artist to emphasize a certain feeling/setting, and make it more dynamic. (Uh, did that make sense?) O.o

I personally like to escape into the CG, not back into life. I am not really turned on by amazingly realistic faces and such; but more the creations that are purely derived from the artists mind. There is enough violence and gangs and armies in the world, why would you want to mimic, and recreate the wrong of the world?

I am not preaching; but give me an escape any day over "trying to be so-called reality".

yeah!

so what do you guys think of dali?

I think Dali rocks.

I think escape is in order also, but modeling Reality doesn’t mean death, destruction, sex and the like. There is a lot of beauty to celebrate, take a flower for instance, or a tree.

btw. Dali could paint realism just fine. He abstracted reality. You can see it obviously in his portraits of his lover.

I love surealism in general. I love Lassen, Wyland, Escher and Dali. Oh ya Venosa is also awsome. To me this is deferent than abstract.

wel yeah, youre right. But, for some reason, inside my mind i tend to put abstract,surrealism,cubism and such on the same unnamed class