| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/06/2010 01:56:18 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by keenon:
Seriously - so here's something fun, an experiment. And yet, many holier-than-thou people seem very justified to sit in judgment. How about the Van Gogh refrigerator magnet, or the Van Gogh mouse pad, the Botticelli lipstick case, not to mention what all has been done with da Vinci. So please, save it for something worth getting in a huff about. |
Sorry, but I like to point out ignorance. Maybe someone will do some research on Van Gogh, his place in art history, and learn something. It's a longshot, but I can't help trying. |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 02:14:12 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by keenon:
Seriously - so here's something fun, an experiment. And yet, many holier-than-thou people seem very justified to sit in judgment. How about the Van Gogh refrigerator magnet, or the Van Gogh mouse pad, the Botticelli lipstick case, not to mention what all has been done with da Vinci. So please, save it for something worth getting in a huff about. |
Sorry, but I like to point out ignorance. Maybe someone will do some research on Van Gogh, his place in art history, and learn something. It's a longshot, but I can't help trying. |
Well, with a welcoming attitude like that displayed, they are bound to, no? :P |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 02:14:45 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by keenon:
Seriously - so here's something fun, an experiment. And yet, many holier-than-thou people seem very justified to sit in judgment. How about the Van Gogh refrigerator magnet, or the Van Gogh mouse pad, the Botticelli lipstick case, not to mention what all has been done with da Vinci. So please, save it for something worth getting in a huff about. |
Sorry, but I like to point out ignorance. Maybe someone will do some research on Van Gogh, his place in art history, and learn something. It's a longshot, but I can't help trying. |
Thats all well and good and I am sure there are devout lovers of his work. But sometimes people need to put things into perspective - the way some people behave its like she went to the New York Museum of Art and took a shit on one of his canvases.
I`m a great fan of his work, and rate the Mona Lisa as one of his best - but really - she only did a bit of blur here and there on those images.
;)
Message edited by author 2010-10-06 14:15:41. |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 02:17:01 PM · #29 |
| Did a little research on Serena and she's a 3rd year art student who did all this in Photoshop to create the tilt/shift look. Can't a girl have a little fun with Photoshop? :-D |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 02:23:54 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Not impressed.... I love Van Gogh... and these images are pure poo. |
]
Fotomann - meet bandwagon.
To be honest guys, this was an idea by a student - someone probably a lot younger than a lot of us ... |
All art in public view is subject to be criticized...
And as a student, the artist will have to become accustomed to that.
And for that matter, no one ever said art had to be accepted by the masses to be a success. Van Gogh didn't start achieving fame until the last year of his life.
Message edited by author 2010-10-06 14:28:33.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2010 04:23:30 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Simms:
the way some people behave its like she went to the New York Museum of Art and took a shit on one of his canvases. |
That would be a more interesting artistic statement, actually.
And btw, I'm not saying you have to like Van Gogh. I'm just talking about looking into the lake before you jump. |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 04:24:26 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by keenon:
Seriously - so here's something fun, an experiment. And yet, many holier-than-thou people seem very justified to sit in judgment. How about the Van Gogh refrigerator magnet, or the Van Gogh mouse pad, the Botticelli lipstick case, not to mention what all has been done with da Vinci. So please, save it for something worth getting in a huff about. |
Sorry, but I like to point out ignorance. Maybe someone will do some research on Van Gogh, his place in art history, and learn something. It's a longshot, but I can't help trying. |
Well, with a welcoming attitude like that displayed, they are bound to, no? :P |
I find that when I'm nice at dpc, I'm completely ignored. At least this time a couple of people noticed that I posted something on the thread. |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 04:49:14 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Simms:
the way some people behave its like she went to the New York Museum of Art and took a shit on one of his canvases. |
That would be a more interesting artistic statement, actually.
And btw, I'm not saying you have to like Van Gogh. I'm just talking about looking into the lake before you jump. |
indeed |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 09:27:57 PM · #34 |
|
|
|
10/07/2010 06:09:56 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by keenon:
Seriously - so here's something fun, an experiment. And yet, many holier-than-thou people seem very justified to sit in judgment. How about the Van Gogh refrigerator magnet, or the Van Gogh mouse pad, the Botticelli lipstick case, not to mention what all has been done with da Vinci. So please, save it for something worth getting in a huff about. |
Sorry, but I like to point out ignorance. Maybe someone will do some research on Van Gogh, his place in art history, and learn something. It's a longshot, but I can't help trying. |
Well, with a welcoming attitude like that displayed, they are bound to, no? :P |
I find that when I'm nice at dpc, I'm completely ignored. At least this time a couple of people noticed that I posted something on the thread. |
You know, I'd be interested in learning. I only have a superficial knowledge of the art world. Broad but shallow. Why is this project somehow bad? Is it something specific to Van Gogh? I'd like to know your opinion on the matter. |
|
|
|
10/07/2010 06:23:52 PM · #36 |
| Well, my opinion on the matter is that this 3rd-year art student -- someone who presumably knows a world more than I do about art -- took existing paintings (well known at that) and ran a five-minute software macro to attain a new look, and is now being deemed "brilliant." I'd go on, but I'm off to add clipart to Warhol. Probably invert the colors while I'm at it. |
|
|
|
10/07/2010 06:30:31 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why is this project somehow bad? Is it something specific to Van Gogh? I'd like to know your opinion on the matter. |
Others have shown some examples of "defacing" famous works of art in a satirical manner, poking fun at the Canon, as it were. That's pretty much "acceptable", there's a tradition of that. But what this student has done is take fabulous works of art and practice photoshop on them to no purpose other than to make them 3-dimensional scenes. It wouldn't be an issue at all if it weren't being touted, by some, as "brilliant". It's anything but... It's a mundane effect slathered on work that's not one's own, and some of us find it sort of demeaning.
I mean, if there were a *reason* for it, some sort of a valid rationale, but... There's nothing original here, it's an adopted technique being applied to somebody else's work.
R.
Message edited by author 2010-10-07 18:30:55. |
|
|
|
10/07/2010 06:45:30 PM · #38 |
LOL Robert, is there a *reason* for 80% of "fine art"? I just get such a kick out of people (not yourself) who bristle at stuff like this and then wonder why others get up in arms when someone, for example, dips a crucifix in urine. Apparently they are allowed their own herd of sacred cows, but nobody else is.
If you are an art student and want to do something like this, why not use a Master? Must one limit themselves to banal works of art because the project itself is banal?
I'm not getting after you here, I'm just discussing. I realize you often give answers that do not necessarily reflect how you personally feel. |
|
|
|
10/07/2010 06:49:16 PM · #39 |
I don't see what manipulating existing art and dipping a crucifix in urine have to do with each other, but I'd imagine there are deeper currents there. If an art student popped up on the web with whacky HDR versions of your photos, Dr, you'd see that as a valid artistic effort?
ETA: I cannot pretend to understand art, and to be honest I cannot find the reason to label one artistic effort valid and another not, but this, to me, reminds me of what I did the first time I ever tried out photoshop. Oooohhhhh, watch me stretch Mona Lisa's face out. But I hadn't spent a ton on art school so didn't know what I was on to. Maybe I should have posted it online.
Message edited by author 2010-10-07 18:54:23. |
|
|
|
10/07/2010 06:56:19 PM · #40 |
Why is defacing works of art for satirical purposes "acceptable" but applying a little Photoshop for "fun" isn't?
Quote from artcyclopedia.com
"This is all being done in fun, so don't take it too seriously. But having said that, we're pretty sure you will discover several paintings you've never seen before, and stumble across some previously unnoticed details in the works you think you know well. Enjoy!"
ETA Personally, I love Van Gogh's work and if you get a chance to go to the Museum in Amsterdam, I highly recommend it.
Message edited by author 2010-10-07 19:00:16. |
|
|
|
10/07/2010 07:01:50 PM · #41 |
I can't say I'm really upset or annoyed by it, on reflection. My initial reaction was very negative, but really, what's the harm? As they said in the website, don't take it too seriously. I guess I thought they WERE being serious, that they thought this was "valid art", and I bridled at that. But by all means, have some fun. Sacred cows are fabulous targets, after all. Always have been.
R. |
|
|
|
10/07/2010 07:03:47 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
I don't see what manipulating existing art and dipping a crucifix in urine have to do with each other, but I'd imagine there are deeper currents there. If an art student popped up on the web with whacky HDR versions of your photos, Dr, you'd see that as a valid artistic effort?
ETA: I cannot pretend to understand art, and to be honest I cannot find the reason to label one artistic effort valid and another not, but this, to me, reminds me of what I did the first time I ever tried out photoshop. Oooohhhhh, watch me stretch Mona Lisa's face out. But I hadn't spent a ton on art school so didn't know what I was on to. Maybe I should have posted it online. |
I guess I was reacting to what I heard as a cry of "how dare they do that to a Van Gogh!" Maybe I'm misinterpreting what is being said. To me, it sounds no different than a generic "how dare they do that to a (insert important thing here)!" unless I'm missing something critical about Van Gogh's art. That's why I asked. Maybe he was obsessed with two-dimensions? (in which case one could then make the argument that making his art suddenly look three-dimensional is antithetical to what he stood for.)
If the argument is merely as Bear states, then I'd very quickly counter with a "get over it" since art these days seems to often be about shock value or irreverence.
Message edited by author 2010-10-07 19:07:00. |
|
|
|
10/07/2010 07:05:11 PM · #43 |
| I really thought Bear explained it very well. Dr. Achoo should read it again; Dr. Achoo's response was something I would love to give my rhetoric students to critique. |
|
|
|
10/07/2010 07:07:43 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I really thought Bear explained it very well. Dr. Achoo should read it again; Dr. Achoo's response was something I would love to give my rhetoric students to critique. |
As one who wallows in rhetoric, that would be fun. :) |
|
|
|
10/07/2010 07:48:27 PM · #45 |
| Perhaps the crucifix comparison was not helpful to the conversation. I think this may be much better. I view something like this as akin to Gottfried Helnwein's Boulevard of Broken Dreams as a takeoff of Edward Hopper's Nighthawks. It wasn't a parody or satire in my view (at least in a derogatory sense) but tried to build off of a famous work of art and provide something of its own. I see nothing different here and asked Don to explain himself because perhaps I was missing some critical essense of Van Gogh. |
|
|
|
10/07/2010 08:57:07 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... perhaps I was missing some critical essense of Van Gogh. |
I can't answer for Don, of course, but I doubt that's the issue. It's just the idea that you can take some really special work of art, morph it with photoshop, and call that "art" in its own right. Logically, I suppose that doesn't hold water, the "special" part; logically, taking *anything* that someone else did and morphing it is pretty much plagiarism, but if we wander down that path we get lost real quick :-)
Look, it's a cool effect and all that, but for me at least there's a level at which it *bothers* me to see the effect applied to something as sublime as van Gogh's work. It *cheapens* it in some indefinable way, for me. But that's just my personal problem; in the cosmic scheme of things, it's not even a blip on the macroscope. Do the same thing to work I really despise ΓΆ€” something of Thomas Kincade's, say ΓΆ€” and I'd probably giggle, as if somehow, in my own personal (and illogical) aesthetic worldview, he *deserved* it and Vincent didn't.
I know this is inconsistent, and that's why I won't take it (or myself) seriously...
R. |
|
|
|
10/07/2010 09:38:13 PM · #47 |
| Fair enough. I think people do have "sacred cows" and they have the right to them (as long as, I suppose, they can recognize the behavior in someone else and respect it). |
|
|
|
10/07/2010 11:02:08 PM · #48 |
In other news James Cameron will be remaking Citizen Kane in 3D...
|
|
|
|
10/08/2010 12:27:49 AM · #49 |
Okay, I will dare to answer for Don. I'm all for students screwing with master works. But there are very specific reasons why this specific exercise is silly:
Do you really think that Van Gogh was unaware of how to make pictures three dimensional? Do you really think that it had not occurred to artists that you can make part of the canvas blurry and other parts sharp? Van Gogh was following Manet and the Impressionists *out* of the realm of pure representation in three dimensions, which had already reached its height (not to be exceeded until the photo-realists of the next century).
Manet was the first rebel in this regard. He distorted perspective and "flattened" his paintings. His followers, the Impressionists, continued this flatness because they were more concerned with shapes of light than physical shapes. Van Gogh embraced this flatness and took the first hesitant steps toward utter abstraction, where nothing is being represented.
I'm not a huge fan of Van Gogh, though I do appreciate some of his work. But his work is based on flatness. If you do love his work, it is because of the flatness of it. He put the stars at your fingertips. For some student to put those stars back into the unreachable night sky is just... well... ridiculous. |
|
|
|
10/08/2010 01:26:50 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's why I asked. Maybe he was obsessed with two-dimensions? (in which case one could then make the argument that making his art suddenly look three-dimensional is antithetical to what he stood for.) |
Thanks, Don. I had thought it sounded like you felt it was particularly egregious that the student had picked Van Gogh and now I understand why. Learned something...as long as you are right. ;) |
|
