Modern Art is Sh*t

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-22-2016, 12:55 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I really don't know.  But if I am in the right direction, then I would suppose abstract art became passe when photography developed into an art form that could capture that essence.  In today's world of computer-generated imagery, is there any role for two-dimensional physical art?  Visual artists will remain, somebody has to work the software, and I suspect in high demand for video productions and computer game applications.  I don't play many video games but my understanding is some of the imagery found in them are very much Art.

As I said, I'm not a fan of fine art, but appreciate the art of science fiction.  I have a modest collection of hardcopy stuff adorning my walls, and a more extended collection of jpeg files used for desktops and screen savers.  While many share a notion that two dimensional art is dead, I for one sill like to look at the stuff.  While the illustrators producing such art might not be making big bucks or having their works hung in haut art museums, they are making a living and are doing stuff the old masters wouldn't have dreamed of.  

With the exception of Starry Night, I don't collect haut art.  It just leaves me cold, seeming primitive and staid.

Kelly Freas.  "A Bridle for Pegasus."  The book came out in 1973.  Kelly Freas doesn't do photorealistic.  I'm not sure what he does.  It's not photorealistic, it's not entirely abstract, there is an element of abstract swirls of paint conveying emotion, and of color for color's sake, but you can also recognize it as a lady with a guitar on a winged horse.  It also conveys several layers of emotion that reflect what goes on in the book, including an early vision of apocalyptic art.  I'm not one to claim I'm the ultimate critic capable of judging how worthy one artist or style is as compared to another, but I'd rather this be hanging on my walls than most of the old master's stuff.  There is just more there.  Kelly was able to read a book, then let his imagination run wild...  while leaving empty space on the top and bottom for a book title and author's name.  This was a commercial work.

One day when working to spiff up my screen saver, I did a Google search something to the effect of 'science fiction women".  This was one image that came up.  I could say it is photorealistic, or nearly so in its quality and technique.  I'm assuming it was done the old fashion way, with paint brushes.  Thing is, I don't really know.  I can produce similar effects with CGI, not this good in terms of composition and imagination, but...  Anyway, I am dubious about any claim about the old masters having better technique than modern artists.

Video game stuff or the sort of CGI you see in big budget Hollywood films are again things the old masters couldn't have dreamed off.  We now have other stuff for other times and other audiences.  Some of it is still limited by technology.  Computer horsepower limits image quality when the game player is moving the artwork around in real time.  Still, if you don't make the eyes pop you have trouble competing with the next game company down the road.

It might be that artists always have competed for an audience, but audiences and mediums have changed.  Fans of one style of art will sneer at fans of other art styles.  I'm not going to spend a lot of time putting this or that approach down, but clearly things are changing.  Changing, yes, but I for one don't think 2D is dead.