Sijun Forums :: View topic - why do people feel the need to talk about how long a picture

SonicRage · junior member Member # Joined: 16 May 2000 Posts: 2

Whew...Thanks sfr for clearing that little tidbit up. You saved me from further embarrassment in the future

And as for Dali again...I give him a lot more credit as a thinker as opposed to an artist. Thanks again!

------------------
-Stanley Chu

AliasMoze · Posted: Tue May 30, 2000 9:02 pm

Dali himself said he was too smart to be a great painter. Probably true.

The bull fighter is insane in a really brilliant way.

------------------
AliasMoze
:) :) :) :)
"That activates my hilarity unit."

Incarnatation · Posted: Tue May 30, 2000 11:06 pm

Im sorry i think i might have muddled my true meaning of this topic. I Completley understand time can play an important role in creating specific types of work, and im not disputing that fact.

What does irritate me is that ive noticed a lot of the proffesional artists around here clearly stamping the ammount of time taken, which is fine if there trying to show that they can work in a tight schedule when required. However a lot of the junior artists around here look up to them, and i think they are under the impression speed is the optimum asset for becoming a fine artist-which it isnt. These people stamp it on there postings like a self deffense mechanism, if anyone posts a negative reply "well it only took me 20 minutes" is bound to pop up.

All im trying to say is, maybe the fine artists here that the learning look up to should set an example by making it clear that acomplishing work at their level isn't going to come if they work at a blistering pace.

Or maybe im just speaking crap ?

-peace

------------------
Icarus. The man who decieved god to fly among the angels, but crashed among the devils.

Loki · Posted: Tue May 30, 2000 11:16 pm

Dude - that's clearly the question I get asked the most "HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO DO THIS?". That's why I usually include this in a post or state it on my page. That's all.

------------------
--
DigitalIllustrationOutpost - http://www.vigilante.net/~loki

Incarnatation · Posted: Tue May 30, 2000 11:26 pm

thats cool, im not trying to condemn anyone im just saying it would probably benefit the learning artist more if they were told that the time taken is always the best way to judge an image. I dont think ive actually seen an image posted here with someone saying " Here is my finished work, it took me a few weeks/days but i finaly got it done"

its always "here is a quick sketch i doodled out in 10minutes"

------------------
Icarus. The man who decieved god to fly among the angels, but crashed among the devils.

AliasMoze · Posted: Tue May 30, 2000 11:55 pm

I'm with Loki on this. "How long did that take" must be the number one question. For some learners (including me), the time tells allot about a piece. For example, if a Mullins took 4 hours, one could reasonably deduce that the blocking took about fifteen minutes to half an hour. If it's taking an artist 4 hours to block in a comparable painting, then he's probably doing something wrong.

Plus, when someone refers to a ten minutes sketch, it can prevent others from pouncing on them with a trillion inappropriate crits.

It is often, however, an excuse. My favorite is the "here's one a painted when I was a fetus" excuse. Oh well, who cares?

------------------
AliasMoze

"That activates my hilarity unit."

[This message has been edited by AliasMoze (edited May 30, 2000).]

Incarnatation · Posted: Wed May 31, 2000 2:15 pm

dali's work was less about his artistic abilities and more about his surealist views on life.

Did you know he ate his wife after she died ?

Tinusch · Posted: Wed May 31, 2000 7:40 pm

Are you serious??? Where can I find a bio on him?

AliasMoze · Posted: Wed May 31, 2000 7:51 pm

And that was before cannibalism got popular!

------------------
AliasMoze

"That activates my hilarity unit."

[This message has been edited by AliasMoze (edited May 31, 2000).]

Francis · Posted: Wed May 31, 2000 8:52 pm

I guess something wedded his appetite...

------------------
TeamGT Studios

Francis · Posted: Wed May 31, 2000 8:54 pm

Wonder if he used a marry nade on her...

------------------
TeamGT Studios

Francis · Posted: Wed May 31, 2000 10:07 pm

He coulda just had a bowl of surreal instead.

------------------
TeamGT Studios

dr . bang · Posted: Wed May 31, 2000 10:23 pm

i'd rather spent 10 years praticing drawing different things than just a pair of eyes.

Alan · Posted: Wed May 31, 2000 11:26 pm

Francis: Stop it! You're pun-ishing me.

Francis · Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2000 6:39 am

I guess he finally got fed up with her.

------------------
TeamGT Studios

Incarnatation · Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2000 6:57 am

yeah im serious, he loved his wife ALOT but he was insaine, like most genius's!

el tigre · Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2000 8:16 am

Genuii surely

------------------
Does anyone know the secret formula? :�

Incarnatation · Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2000 8:19 am

oh dear francis, what were you thinking

Incarnatation · Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2000 8:46 am

actually el tigre i wasnt sure about spelling so i put it into Ms Word and it told me genius's was the correct spelling

hell knows!

derPunkt · Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2000 6:40 am

Haha, I couldn't resist this really.
As much as I loved Dali 3-4 years ago, went to his museum in Figueras and did some studying on his life etc, I would now call him a goddamn fake.
And as for eating Gala, I never found that in any book. If you would please show me where you read it, I would appreciate it.

Now, more on Dali.
Art - more or less
craftsmanship - asskicking
his insanity - total lie
Do you know why he was so rich? Bcoz he licked every governments ass -----> his pictures got sold everywhere bcoz he became a GOVERNMENT painter not bcoz of his awesome ideas. Actually he commercialized his "insanity"

Just show me another WEALTHY artist (except maybe early Rembrandt) that was that rich.

dP