Sijun Forums :: View topic - let's have a civilized little talk about this photomanip wor

SplitSoul · Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2001 5:09 pm

quote:
Originally posted by Chronic Beauty:
The second a person attempts to dictate what is and isn't art is the second i realise they arn't trully an artist at heart.

Can I have an "amen"?

-Split

Krazy · Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2001 5:50 pm

Amen
ok i dont do photomanip, but i am willing to give it a try

ok heres what i think ..if you go out and take your own pictures and throw them together with thought and a mesage, or to convey a feeling and you achieve this then that is art.
but.. if you travel the net pic up a picture of a subway twist t around blur it a million times and do absolutely none of you own work then its crap.(no offence

)

oh and with the comment of seeing the same artwork over and over well i sorta agree and disagree. 1)yes the masters of this forum are often imitates and yes thers alot of big breased nude chickd all round. but now we are seeing threads like human studies we all have done human studys no one copied off one another well most of them at least, and as of the mech thread its an on going theme.

bottom line is to most people art is whatever they see and feel is appealing to the eye. but true art is down entirly by the artist himself.

just my views

InDepth · Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2001 8:32 pm

I've been reading through this thread and all the threads linked to in this thread and I just couldn't resist offering my opinion. I travel the net all the time searching for artwork and when I read through threads like this I tend to think of movie critics. Ill try to explain.

Movie Critics get paid to tell us which movies are good, which movies are bad, and why. But really all they are doing is giving their opinions based on their tastes. Which is why sometimes you agree with their review and sometimes you ask yourself "What the hell was that guy thinking... that movie SUCKED!!" Thats all anyone here is really doing. There is no appointed committee which tells us what is and what isnt art. What I think is art and what Faustgfx thinks is art are probably similar in some tastes and different in others. Everyone on this forum probably disagrees with everone else on at least one issue. Nobody is right on this issue and in the same vein nobody is wrong. I personally enjoy some photomanipulation but dont choose to feature it on my site because it is just way to abundant and there are already tens of other sites out there that already peddle it. This debate could ramble on until we are all dead and buried and Faustgfx will still think he's right... Splitsoul will still think he's right... and I'll still think that this post made any sense :-)

Eric

------------------
Eric Rainey - Owner
In Depth Arts
http://www.critical-depth.com

[This message has been edited by InDepth (edited January 05, 2001).]

Flinthawk · Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:39 pm

Well, I've been following this thread for a little while but didn't really have much to say until just now. I responded to a Splitsoul post in the gallery section when someone posted the dictionary definition of art. For some reason it just triggered a few interesting thoughts that I had. Here's a paste of it:

I think it's just that people like to focus on this particular aspect of the definition of art...

(from the posted definition)
"the superior ability that is attained by study and practice and observation"

I think that most people see photomanip as coming from people who haven't studied, practiced and observed...I kinda see it like getting a free ride if you catch my meaning. Sure, I realize that art is supposed to convey an emotion or a message but in too many photomanips I just don't see it, even after I've been told what they were looking to convey. Art is in the eye of the beholder though so if the artist thinks that the artwork they've done is a visualization of their emotion/message then I guess they achieved their goal. If they wanted to convey this idea to me then many times I'd have to say that they failed and it seems that I'm not the only one who doesn't get it many times.

Personally, whether I 'get' a piece or not I can still respect it but I'll only respect it once I know that the artist comes from something of a background. I don't mean school or a degree or technically perfect pencil renderings but I like to know that the artist used this medium because it was the best one to use...not because it does all the work for you. Too many photomanips feel like 'happy accidents' to me which means someone just fooled around until they found something they liked.

To comment on this piece I'd simply have to say I didn't 'get' it. I could stare at it all day and never come close to thinking Pride. Do I like it? No. Do I hate it? No. Why did I comment on it? Because I had a couple interesting thoughts in response to your post, otherwise I wouldn't have said a word. I might as well while I was here.

This is only my personal view as well as my thoughts on what other people may be thinking on the subject. There's another thread that's discussing this whole matter, though, where this post might've been better used.

-Flinthawk

P.S. Does anybody else think that art...the international, universal language, a language that can communicate a thousand words in a single glimpse...can be quantified in a few words resulting from the meeting of a small group of people? Sometimes I hate the idea of people going to the dictionary as if it's the end all be all of any argument, as if anything that comes from it is the absolute truth on any subject. Maybe I just have too much of an independant mind, maybe I just don't like being a sheep that's being told what something is or isn't when it comes to subjects like art. *shrugs*

Disclaimer: any and all views made by this poster are not necessarily the views of this forum and its inhabitants and was not meant to anger anyone or be taken as a personal attack in any way.

[This message has been edited by Flinthawk (edited January 05, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Flinthawk (edited January 06, 2001).]

Strukture · Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2001 12:43 am

I'm a big fan of this photomanipulation that so many of you here don't like. It has it's good qualities and bad. You can be truly creative and make your own stuff in 3d, draw pictures, and take your own photographs. Then do something amazing with them for the sake of design, or you can be horribly lame and throw in a duplicate layer of an image, change it to color doge and add some text not a single person cares about.

Spitfire · Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2001 1:02 am

I hardly think its appropriate comparing "traditional"digiart as posted on this forum with photorape :

Okay, so we drown in mechs and half-naked women and whatnot. 99% of the pieces might be unoriginal, but at least they usually require and display a certain level of talent. It might be warrior princess #3445,6 posted, but if it's drawn in a way that shows that the artist knows of anatomy, layout, color, etc. its cool. At least you can see that there was work put into it, not even when it was made but also before, to reach, through practice, the level that enabled the artist to draw something like that.

Photorape, on the other hand, doesnt know this. When somebody posts "art" like this, it is quickly visible to the skilled eye wether or not there was any skill involved. Those who see these pieces for the first time might be very impressed with the unreal look of them, so impressed they totally do not notice that the piece was obviously made in 3 minutes by slapping 3 pictures and 2 textures together and writing FUCK on top of it. Everybody can photorape as long as they know how photoshop works and have access to some nifty pics. It does not require any talent, skill, imagination or emotion and therefore is not art.

And yes, there also is good photomanipulation. Look at pyro's stuff for example. There is direction in his work, an actual image that tries to get a message (usually other than KILL YOUR PARENTS!) across. Next to that, they also display quite a knowledge of design, how to arrange elements so that they lead the viewers eye, so that they compliment eachother. If anything, this isart.

Oh and on the originality : trust me. for every big-breasted laser-gun toting warrior spicegirl from hell there are 5 bazillion bad photorapes. So i hardly believe originality is a point.

------------------
Sincerely yours, I�ve disowned us.

faustgfx · Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2001 4:03 am

(to throw in one quick thing, to Kig)

the thing i showed is not texture layered million filter crap. that's hand made effort right here. though postman's bit i don't know what went down in it, but looks better in my opinion.

in that kind of work, i do not overlay a million textures, i have one layer with one block of color it and it's there and only there that i work and shape and define and refine it. by the time the example of mine has reached the point where it's big and interesting and contentful enough and both of us like it, so much effort has been put in to it it's not even funny.

[more to follow later on the topic itself.]

------------------
sky high with a heartache of stone you never see me 'cos i'm always alone/ministry
the law of lead now reigns!@#!/earth crisis

[email protected]
icq#35983387
http://faustgfx.0wns.org

hydrid · member Member # Joined: 20 Jan 2000 Posts: 193

Photomanipulation is fine. Especially when you use a term so broad. Considering it means "manipulating photographs" I would say that all graphic designers who have ever had to do work for companies/clients will admit to doing this day in and day out.

The general crap that collects on the internet is still art even if you don't like it. I think it's really amusing to see the same color/same style art all over the place with messages like "I wish I could be phong."

But to say all of the multilayer stuff on the net is crap is also a bit harsh. So whatever. Does this really need discussion again? I thought it was decided that people could post whatever the hell they damn pleased in terms of "art" and that if you didn't like it you could just leave it the hell alone.

*GRRRR*

------------------
"There are two things for sure in this life... the universe and the stupidity of humans. And i'm not even sure about the universe."

faustgfx · Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2001 6:29 am

quote

Quote:

Does this really need discussion again? I thought it was decided that people could post whatever the hell they damn pleased in terms of "art" and that if you didn't like it you could just leave it the hell alone.[/B]

^- not the point of this thread.

------------------
sky high with a heartache of stone you never see me 'cos i'm always alone/ministry
the law of lead now reigns!@#!/earth crisis

[email protected]
icq#35983387
http://faustgfx.0wns.org

Rag · Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2001 9:50 am

Spitfire: It does not require any talent, skill, imagination or emotion and therefore is not art.

And this is....?

Three Coke Bottles...Andy Warhol

I guess if I wore a white wig, appeared a bit odd and outlandish I could be listed in the Masters section at Yahoo...give me a break! Where is the emotion or skill in that crap? Silkscreen is as easy as taking off your shoes and my 7 year old could draw those bottles. Pffffhhh! Saw a guy once use a jumbo jet and a steel reinforced canvas, he threw jars of paint into the exhast blast and sold the crap for thousands. Lots of emotions there I guess or someone stupid enough to buy it.
Art is whatever the artist wants to claim it is..period.

------------------
I don't believe in born talent, only born desire. The rest is all work.

Strukture · Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2001 2:57 pm

To be a good photo manipulator you do need imagination to break through the mold and creat stuff that actually sticks out. I just hate it when people say it takes no talent. Yes it does, not all artists have it, so there is alot of crap out there.

Spitfire · Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2001 12:53 am

Only if you're willing to accept it as art.

------------------
Sincerely yours, I�ve disowned us.

Jess · Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:51 pm

Ok. I have no talent.

This isn't a sarcastic post.

_____________________________
[deleted 'schitzophrenic']

[This message has been edited by Jess (edited January 10, 2001).]

el tigre · Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2001 6:06 pm

Surely the reason that Warhol, and the guy with the turbofan are accepted is that they were doing something that hadn't been done before, in a creative way or making a feeling or statement publicly heard inventivley(sp). I mean the value of art doesn't direcly relate to the time it took to make. Yeah art CAN be made in three minutes (photography can be art at a average time of 0.25sec), it's not the time its the feeling/story/picture conveyed.

Photorape cannot be justified by Andy Warhol.

Jess, you DO have talent.

------------------
arse, my pen just ran out. *shakes furiously*

Spitfire · Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2001 3:33 am

Right on, El Fluffy Clansman.

Oh Jess, i think the top one blows goats, but the bottom one is nice. I like the typography alot. Just lay off the scanlines, they're like rusted metal textures and aqua buttons

------------------
Sincerely yours, I�ve disowned us.

Jess · Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2001 4:41 am

Yeah I know it sucks.

Here's a different version of the second. I know these pictures take no talent. And I don't consider it art either. It's just how I express how I feel when I can't write it down.. or paint it in a picture. I work in a wide variety of mediums..

Spitfire · Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2001 5:16 am

media

------------------
Sincerely yours, I�ve disowned us.

Ko · Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2001 5:31 am

Look at some of the work McKean has done on the Sandman comic books...
I respect that, though I'm not much in to photomanipulation....
I myself practice it once in a while, when doing CD covers... but with my own ideas and my own photos!

I think it's a boring discussion, just ignore the posts if you don't like them.

Ko

Ragnarok · Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2001 6:32 am

The photomanipulation I like is the one I've seen in deaddreamer.

Anyways I'm not an expert on photomanipulation and I don't have any experience.

Spitfire · Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2001 6:59 am

Lets refrain from using the name of Dave God McKean in the same context as photorape, thank you.

------------------
Sincerely yours, I�ve disowned us.

el tigre · Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2001 7:16 am

Jess, the design is cool but I prefer the orig one (with scanlines) cause the washed out colours add to the depression imo.

scanlines are a bit wank though

------------------
arse, my pen just ran out. *shakes furiously*

Dark Entity · Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2001 9:21 am

quote:

Okay, so we drown in mechs and half-naked women and whatnot. 99% of the pieces might be unoriginal, but at least they usually require and display a certain level of talent. It might be warrior princess #3445,6 posted, but if it's drawn in a way that shows that the artist knows of anatomy, layout, color, etc. its cool. At least you can see that there was work put into it, not even when it was made but also before, to reach, through practice, the level that enabled the artist to draw something like that.

Oh and on the originality : trust me. for every big-breasted laser-gun toting warrior spicegirl from hell there are 5 bazillion bad photorapes. So i hardly believe originality is a point.
[/B]

I have to agree completely. Even I can photorape and I don't consider myself to hold a lot of artistic talent. Ask me to draw a mech (which are usually very detailed), or a big breasted woman, and 2 hours later I'll hand you a piece of paper with a fraction of the quality you find in most of the postings I've seen here.

-de

Jess · Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2001 1:12 pm

quote:
Originally posted by Spitfire:
media

Whatever... you knew what I meant. Yes, I suck.
________________________
[quote came out wrong]

[This message has been edited by Jess (edited January 08, 2001).]

Spitfire · Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2001 12:56 am

I do, i do.

------------------
Sincerely yours, I�ve disowned us.

Strukture · Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2001 2:48 pm

faustgfx · Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2001 2:53 pm

where there?

i looked at 5 images randomly, and saw only tons of cliches and shitty effects everyone and their grandmother can pull off with their hands tied behind their backs, and typography with zero interesting aspects to it, zero uniqueness, zero effort, yadda dadda.

------------------
sky high with a heartache of stone you never see me 'cos i'm always alone/ministry
the law of lead now reigns!@#!/earth crisis

[email protected]
icq#35983387
http://faustgfx.0wns.org

Jess · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2001 4:44 am

I think my fat image is like my writing.. should be kept personal and not meant to be commented on. As a nice friend told me a couple days ago.

faustgfx · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2001 4:53 am

i'm not nice. i suck.

------------------
sky high with a heartache of stone you never see me 'cos i'm always alone/ministry
the law of lead now reigns!@#!/earth crisis

[email protected]
icq#35983387
http://faustgfx.0wns.org

ToasT 01 · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:09 am

My personal view ( like its gonna matter in this mad thread ) is that photomanipulation is a form of design and yes there is both good and bad forms of it and it does take skill BUT it can be learnt it is not something that speaks about your ability as an artist - I have do allot of it for work etc and can honestly say that it may look good 99% of the time its not like there arent a hundred other people that cant do it even as far as McKean and the likes shure you look at it and go damn thats pretty good but at the end of the day other people can do it, saying that there is only one Simon Bisley ( as an example ) - this may all be crap who knows ... play nice all

cant type more brain = mush

Strukture · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:58 pm

quote:
Originally posted by faustgfx:
where there?

i looked at 5 images randomly, and saw only tons of cliches and shitty effects everyone and their grandmother can pull off with their hands tied behind their backs, and typography with zero interesting aspects to it, zero uniqueness, zero effort, yadda dadda.

Hahaha, you wish. I think faust has way too much animosity thowards photomanipulation. Teen angst?