[lotor]

I have this strange feeling call it more of a bad dream more that all of the great art that is being produced these days will all be forgotten.

Why is it that a fine artist can smear some paint on a canvas and that piece will go down in history as a work of art of the year 2000? And I have to go all the way to New York to see piece of art by my favorite artist Dean Cornwell?
Not only that but Dean Cornwell's art has to be fished out of a warehouse of other fantastic illustrators work just so I can see it. You see at illustrators museums they don't display all the art. You have to convince the people that you are thinking about buying the art in order to see it.

I guess my point that got lost a few paragraphs back is that if the kind of art we are doing is illustration and the fact that it is digital makes our art more worthless to everyone else than just plain illustration. So the great art of our time is going to be known in the future not as fantastic illustrations but a piece of crap on canvas.

I mean do people really buy Kandinsky's paintings because they like them or is it just to show off a name of an artist that couldn't paint better than a two year old kid?

I don't know you tell me?

[Eudoxus]

lotor, hmmm ya' just might have a valid point there...

But look at it from a different angle, with digital art(illustration) and the advent of the world wide web, more people have access to this great art.

No longer can one person own a piece of art, but with the internet everybody can see it.

Take this great Forum for example. The artists here come from all corners of the globe, the beauty is we don't have to get off our butts to see each others work.

My point is that, unless you were to destroy technology, our (digital) art remains eternal...

Get my drift?

[DeathbyDuplicity]

I agree.

[Rinaldo]

All through highschool Teachers would always ask, what does this drawing mean, why did you do it. I would calmly reply that "I like drawing monsters and cartoon characters, I did it becase I wanted to".

SORRY WRONG ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

for art to be valid, one must have a bevy of developmental work, notes, and be able to bullshit for about an hour on what exactly it means and why it deserves to be labled "art".

I find it agonizingly funny that the people who condemn "Illustration" always talk about the "great masters" like Leonardo and Michelangelo. "But" I always protest, "these artists were Comercial Illustrators". They didn't do stuff becasue they wanted to. they did it becase they were paid. They didn't even sell the paintitngs, they were commissioned to do them!
I don't think they would have had any freedom at all. If old Michal decided he wanted to start an abstract movement. not only would he be out of employ. but he'd be burned at the stake for un-Christian behavior.

When I finaly graduated out the hell-hole that was Highschool I was faced with very few choices (due to Australia SA's fantastic education oppertunities) I could go do Graphic design or I try my hand at "Fine art".
I chose GD. And fortunatly too.
I had a good friend who went to do fine art (at "North Adelaide School of Art" for anyone in Adelaide). A year and a half later he is doing music (has been for half a year). And has literaly not put pen to paper more than a couple of times since he quit NASA.

THE BASTARDS MADE HIM GIVE UP

He used to do these fantastic manga drawings. he was full of imagination, all he needed was more anatomy training and he would be wowing you all today.

"One has to be new and endevour to create freely". Or so say the people who run these sort of courses. But at the same time one cannot do anything that is not creative. You must do abstract stuff. the first drawing class gives you a huge piece of paper and some sort of drawing impliment, and you have to "create strokes that you have never used before"..."I don't want you to create anything recognizable" chimes the burnt out and rather depressingly un-original teacher.
Life drawing prohibits any renderings which are in the slightest bit realistic.
And it's apparently downhill from there.

In the art world I have met only contempt for Illustrartion. and in the Illustration world I have met almost total contempt for Digital Illustration.

But....... How many people do you think actuialy see these post-abstratcofutirist-foveacubistc-prepiecesofshitonacanvas.
Not that many, I'd imagine.
How many people do you think see an Illustration done for some advertisment. Lots! How many people are going to see the work that Fred and Francis (among others im sure) have done on myst3. Millions I think. even the budding artist can make a model/skin/animation for Quake/Unreal, and have it seen by a shitload of people.

Most Importantly how do the people who view the art see it. Would you rather have someone admire your painting from om a wall with a bottle of expensive beverage in hand, saying something like "I like it because of what it doesn't say". or would you rather a bunch of fans telling you that they think your "lowly Illustration" is cool.
Most people who become famous through their shit-on-the-canvas style, do so after they are dead and buried.

I'm not saying that What we are doing is equal to a "Kandinsky" (whoever he is). I'm saying it kicks the fucking shit out of that sort of thing. and all the related fanfare and status.

I'd rather have one person. just like the people on this forum, say that they like my stuff. As opposed to it going down in the Art-hall-of-fame after I'm dead.

If my art is not remembered after I'm dead, should I care? If it's not rememberd a couple of years after I compleate it, do you think I should care?

Forget all the status and fame that "artist's" get. It's all uptight fanefare.

With the advent of computer to press printing and Digital paper. the likelyhood of more artists getting forgotten is becomeing less and less. how many not-so-famous artists have thier own art book?

I'm sorry. I really have a thing about the "you don't count becase of blah blah blah"

Grrrrrrr...........

[lotor]

You guys know where I'm coming from but let me tell you something.

Do you know who Dean Cornwell is? How about Harvey Dunn? Or Howard Pyle, N.C. Wyeth, Frank Schoonover, Saul Tepper, Robert McGinnis or J.C. Leyendecker. You probly never heard of half of them if any. If you have I applaud you.

These guys were the elite of the illustration world in the early 1900's. Many people (non artists) knew who they were.

But today its different. I just wish they would put some of these illustrators works in the Metropolitan Museum of Art or someplace where they deserve to be. Not locked away for nobody to see.

Your right Leonardo was more of an illustrator than he was a fine artist.

[synj]

why worry? what happens, happens. eheh

it's all who you know now. not what you do.

-synj www.synj.net

[Nightime]

...as far as Howard Pyle..and N.C, Andrew and Jamie Wyeth (famous family of illustrators)... If you lived in Maine (New Jersey), you'll be in luck :)....

ok..pointless post to a good thread.. I just thought it was very cool you mentioned them since the other day I bought a book of their wonderful paintings, Wondrous Strange, ....Highly recommended!

JJ / Nightime http://members.home.net/jeremy12/web

[samdragon]

Some interesting stuff in here. As far as school goes, I felt the same way. I still do to a point.
Most schools only give you the basics and it's up to you to take it from there. There is a reason for that, they can't possible teach you everything you need to know in that short amount of time.
If your friend is doing music now and not art, that is his fault for not pursuing art further. I know plenty of people who say the same thing; It's the schools fault for not preparing us. That's the wrong answer. If you feel the school is not preparing you, then get off your butt and prepare yourself. I'll be the first to admit, my school sucks when it comes to keeping up with current trends, but I've taken it onto myself to find out. I have emailed countless people for any shred of advice I can get. I refuse to let some half-ass art department ruin my goals.

Viewing art today is nothing like it was hundreds of years ago. You have to remember, back then they had no radio, no tv and the main forms of entertainment where art and theater. People would line up to visit a solon that had paintings in it. People loved to see paintings that depicted historical events. And guess what they were looking at...illustrations! Big huge illustrations, as big as life.
Today, we can watch tv and go to the movies for our fun. And we have been conditioned to expect realistic images, we have become more sophisticated and we are harder to fool. You were probably looking at comic books before you even knew who Norman Rockwell was. So you would probably compare all other artwork, to your impression of what art is, based on comic book art.

If you meet someone with contempt for digital illustrators, you'll soon find that person with out clients. People said the same thing when the computer was introduced to graphic design. Now, almost all graphic designers use a computer, it's quicker and can produce the exact same copy over and over with out loss of quality. So just think how that will help with digital illustrations.

Rinaldo, are you still in school? if so, what level? Your first 2 years in a 4-5 year program are your hardest, because you are having to give up what you think is art and learn from the ground up. this is the cause for many drop outs and failures later on. Art is a life long learning process. You can learn many things when doing abstraction, if it's real abstraction. It will also help you loosen up and become more familiar with the use of colors in your design. It all comes together in the end I promise.

Many artists, illustrators are jaded about their school. Some will not even mention the name of their school, and say they are self educated. It's not like your career will based on what school you go to, or your grades. I for one will not work for anyone that requires me to have a high grade point average. If they can't hire me for my talent then the hell with them, they will not last long anyway with that attitude.

Ok, I guess I got off subject there...sorry..

I agree that some artwork is just a hunk of shit. They say they are making a statement, but they really want money so they can buy more crack. I can't remember who it was, but this one so called "artist" shit in a bottle and sold it for over a million dollar. This was a 20th century artist!


When an illustrator is making an illustration, is he thinking the whole time, "oh boy! I can't wait to see this baby hanging in a gallery" If they have the time to complete it yes, but if not it's more like" oh hell! I hope I can crap out another one before the deadline hits" but in the end, do they end up on gallery walls? na, they end up where they where meant to be, on magazine covers, video games,movies etc, These are the new galleries the 21st century galleries. More people probably see artwork in those than do in traditional galleries. But, do you stick around at the end of a movie to see the credits? What about a video game, so you look for the artists? Here's an example, I just saw the "X-men" movie, and at the end as always i waited around to see who the matte painters where, guess what..I was the only one in the theater scanning the credits. Did anyone here ever look at the credits for Spooges name? I always look for his name, then i go back later to see if i can spot where his work was, and usually can't. EVEN IN BI-CENTINIAL MAN, I thought the stuff was great, but spooge didn't. To me, seeing spooges name or anyone I may have heard of in the credits, it like seeing the artists signature on the painting.

Ok, I�ve rambled on enough, probably confused everyone here including myself

Just because you can paint or draw doesn't automatically make you an artists. Neither does having a degree. You have to pay your dues and put your time in.

[psi burn]

lets take dhabi for example. every single painting of his is better than the mona lisa. so why is the mona famous? there is absolutely nothing revolutionary about it, no matter what people say. it didnt open new worlds for people to view women. it was a portrait of an ugly women, and the guy painted her eyes centered so it looked like they watch you. the painting in my opinion, sucks. if a newer person here posted it (lets say they made it), people would say it merely looked good.

look at craig mullins. his stuff blows away paintings ive seen of famous artists. he's more unique and original then any of them.

i remember seing a painting valued at 2,503,000 dollars. thats nearly 3 million dollars. it was a painting of a sqwiggly line with several blue dots around it. it was supposed to mean something important that a "smart artist" would realize. what a load of crap. tell me why that can go down in history as a famous painting.

[This message has been edited by psi burn (edited July 16, 2000).]

[spooge demon]

One of the more widely accepted methods of determining the value of art is how influential it is to art done later. Also if the art exemplifies a culture or period in history it is remembered. That it may be intrinsically beautiful is seldom brought up. When people have different ideas, the more objective criteria must prevail. Beauty, as much as it may be relevant to you and I and our pursuit in art, is irrelevant to history. Ironic, eh.

I don't share the idea that the marketplace soils creative work. This has been the tradition for hundreds of years. The romantic ideal of starving artist living outside the corrupting influence of the philistine trader is a pretty recent idea. The renaissance artists all had patrons, and worked in essence as illustrators. Not to say they were happy about it, but the work endures(for whatever reason).

I really enjoy 20th century art. It has inspired me and influences my work constantly. It has given me the freedom to see the process and culture of art a lot more clearly. There are charlatans to be sure, but there always have been. Their work is forgotten.

Lotor, don�t expect others to agree with or subsidize what you feel is beautiful.

I know this may sound harsh, and I am not flaming you at all, I understand your frustration, but understanding how subjective reality can be is the most beautiful trip of all.

Probably it�s a little weird having this coming from me, a very traditional illustrator, but that�s the way I feel.

BTW, I am looking at a Cornwell poster right now on my wall. He is a god.

[SaltyDog]

Well I'll step up to the plate on this one, although following Craig will be a toughie!
The topic of illustration and media is a very complex one and yet it's easy to slip into a heated discussion over it. 5 or more years ago, the topic of "digital" illustration would have been scoffed at and illustrators would die before trading their paintbrushes for mice. But that was then, this is now. And as some people have already said, the arena in which we display our goods has changed too. Gone are the days when we could travel a short distance and see a wealth of illustration on display. We've substituted that for checking out .psd files if the artists will allow us.
Granted, the Net isn't the most breathtaking place to show off our talents, but it is the biggest. I do empathize though at losing touch with some of the past and present masters originals. But remember what C.F.Payne said Lotor...he cared not for his originals. He did them to get paid, end of story. Just a thought.
NOW...onto the chump who was talking about the Mona Lisa. I probably shouldn't even touch on this because it's so pathetic.
First off..the "guy" who painted that was Leonardo Da Vinci. THE Renaissance Man. Da Vinci influenced the way things worked more in his lifetime than many people have been able to accomplish in centuries. And for the record..he never sold the Mona Lisa. He kept that painting with him always. More than likely there was some deep sentimental connection with the work or the subject of the portrait so he didn't do it to effect how people viewed women.
I think this actually illustrates Lotor's fear better than anything. The next generation to leap into the realm of art and catalog our lives and times haven't a clue of what preceded them. Go back...hit the books..hit the museums. LEARN!

Okay..enough ranting.

[Fred Flick Stone]

I have pondered this subject too many times and have given up on it. It makes no sense to me to concern my precious time on a trivial question. If you think about it, most everything in life has gone unnoticed. Mostly taken for granted. We live in a very wasteful society, where the new things intice, the old things, if they belong to someone else, intrigue, and I want my MTV...

throughout most of art history, art was never really catagorized as art. 19th century industry created labels for these things.
From what I have learned, the first commercial pieces of art were created by the Church, who was the legal governing body of the time, to depict what heaven and hell might actually be, and to reproduce for the church, images that would frighten people into doing what the church wanted. All those beautiful images that still exist today from hundreds of years ago were tools, devices, that the popes and(I am not a church guy so I don't know what you call all the higher ups)bishops, deacons, whatever...

Art for a very long time was actually considered a science, and not "art" at all. Back in those days, the artist would mix his own paints, make jis own grounds, create his own painting surfaces. Mix the wrong paints and you could mix poison.

The concept of picture making is a flexible tool, that conforms to what ever the times need. Today we have digital. THere will still be traditional.

Swinging back to the point of the thread, do you remember who made the first car? Who created the movie projector? Who made it better? And who bettered that? Point here is, as artists, we see what we do as an art, and thus think of ourselves as exclusive, or genuinely special compared to the rest of the humanity. But if you look at all jobs in general, there is an artform to them as well. And the best at each of those types of jobs, or careers are considered artists at what they do. Micheal Jordan is an artist, Nicolai Tesla was an artist, shit Clinton is an artist in his own right. He is the master at the art of lying...THey will be remembered, because they were the best.
Unfortunately for us the artist, we all want to be considered the best. And for what you do, maybe you are. But if you didn't make a big impact with a large body of people, and if you didn't revolutionize art to a whole new level, or you didn't make some epic peice of art that depicts history at the moment, but was done so well will that it will transcend its time, then you just wont be known as one of the greats.

If you know who Alma Tadema is then you can understand this...His art was basically dead in the water until just a few years ago when novelty stores began recreating beautiful art for the average home at no major price. Alma Tadema's work had all the candy coated goodies these novelty stores wanted. THrough the reproductions of this work generated a curiosity for who the artist was, and a new book was produced, more posters and post cards than there are trees in a forest, canvas transfers, etc. I garuntee you, that in a few more years, if you ask someone who is fairly hip with the times who Alma Tadema is he wont know. Mucha was the same way. People would reproduce his work for posters and advertisements for their businesses because of their elegant appeal, charm, and damn good design. Through all those interesting reproductions generated mass appeal, and the public grew curious as to who this guy was. And now he is popular again. Ten years from now, his work will all but disappear. Trends for these guys, because they had such a huge body of work that remains in galleries to this day, weren't destroyed by war, fire, or stollen from public view forever.

We like to consider ourselves great because we do something quite special. But for the most part, please yourself, and yourself alone. MOst of the art that you do is going to be for commercial purposes, will more than likely get tossed to the wayside. Get use to that. Remember why you took the job, you need to survive. THink this way for most of the time that you produce your art and the ugly truth that you aren't doing what you want wont haunt you so much. And get used to knowing that you arent going to be a big god someday in the art community because of the body of work that you did. When you are gone, it wont matter anyhow. This is the one and only time you have, go for the dreams that you aspire to, and don't let thoughts like this affect your work or attitude with art. It is just another career of the millions of careers that history has brought us, and history will silence.

I don't know if this at all makes sense or not, but it is the two cents I am adding to this. Most all that is relevant to this thread, Craig so spoke ever so elequently of. I jsut wanted to add a bit more, less philosophical and more gritty.

Dean Cornwell was the best for what they call illustrators in my opinion. If you can ever afford to get his one and only book published, now going for $1000 on the book trade market, you will be in for a special treat. And yes, unfortunately you have to travel to New York to see his work in person, or go to Serge Micheals house and see three of them for free. Or go to George Lucas' house and see the few he has, with his Leyendecker collection Lucky Bastard
THere is a book called in the Trenches. It is a WWI military history art book. All gritty black and white paintings, ink drawings and charcoal sketches of the War behind the scenes. It has I believe 15 Harvey Dunn illustrations that would blow your mind. Good stuff...

Craig er Spooge-I can't get any images to the forum, but Joseph Clement Coll was a pen and ink illustrator around the time Charles Dana Gibson was doing the same. His stuff I think is better, rougher, darker, and the emotion he captures is just compelling.

As for Gregory Manchess- http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/9609/depart/b013.html is a link to some step by steps and a few images of Mr. Manchess. He is a great illustrator, doing mostly these days, illustrations for the National Geographic Society.

And Ilya Repin was a Russian Painter 1844-1930. Was the premiere artist for Russia, Painted the Tzars, Leo Tolstoy, Portrait artist for the russian elite, etc. He was absolutely brilliant. Kinda tight at times but absolutely beautiful stuff.

Going to go work now, have a good night...

[lotor]

Fred do you hire an assistant to type for you? Makes me tired just looking at that.

[Freddio]

haha

[Kebab]

Gwahaha!!!

Freds hands must be hurting now!

Kebab

[DuKEZ]

cmon folks its the 00's (err millenium - if you believe so) Today we have voice recognition.. (somewhat) :P and imma take a wild guess.. but fred is quite a talkative guy .. it must helps heeh :P

back to the topic.. i dont know any of the illustrators that has been mentioned.. but when i was in Jr. High, all i wanted to do was basicically draw comic books and characters..(at the time being) My interest led me to search for schools and whatnot that would suite my needs (to become a comic artist) but there was no catagory that fit for comic artist. :P Closest i think.. was in fact illustration.. and being it or not.. this is still the same fact thats been previously brought up a while back ago (in another thread obviously) but same way how people dont condone comic art or artists as any real art :P

Also lets mention computer (digital) art is reffered to as "graphics" only :P and 3d animation is special effects :P

[Rinaldo]

Samdragon-

I started out writing a huge post about how crap my course is. But decided that it was a bit self-serving.

I will however defend what you said about my friend. He is Japanese and quite timid in his willingness to tell people to stick it. They treated him like shit. (I went there as well for a few lessons and got the same).
The school was only interested in fostering its impossible contradiction in terms. It's "instructional creativity". They abused the ethic of Education, which is to bring out of the student their own inner skill, and to nurture it. I have heard professional artists say the same thing about fine art courses (Alan Lee describes a mirror match to this situation).
Whether abstract principles will be of help I can only guess, as I mentioned I am doing Graphic Design and not Art. I can say however that no artist whom I have seen has produced good abstract art unless his or her draftsmanship was of a high standard. And I don't think I was ever referring to the "teaching of abstract principles" in the first place I am talking about them only accepting the latest art phase, and shunning everything else.

I will still say though, that I have been lied to by my lecturers. Subjected to arcane principles. I think to keep certain lecturers in employ when they have no other skills to impart.

I do agree with you on, and engage in, looking outside studies to learn (so much so that the studies have become obsolete). But I do not appreciate having to learn Photoshop in second year when I am already well versed through my own exploits. It is 4 more hours of obsolete crap per week that I shouldn't have to deal with. At least the studies shouldn't hinder you.
I have also talked to graduates who have said the same thing.


I have got a ton of rubbish to back up my whingeing if anyone want's to start a flame thread


Anyway, I won't take up anymore of your time.

[SushiMaster]

This discussion is pretty complex and there seems to be a lot of pent up anger in there, but I'll try to give it a go.

quote

Quote:

I find it agonizingly funny that the people who condemn "Illustration" always talk about the "great masters" like Leonardo and Michelangelo. "But" I always protest, "these artists were Comercial Illustrators".

I disagree. I don't know much (enough) about Michelangelo's life, but Leonardo was far more than an illustrator. Painting was only one side of what he did. He was an inventor, a genius in almost every area that you could be a genius in, in those times. He drew a lot because he had to in order to represent his inventions and ideas. He painted complex stuff on commission too, but I am pretty much certain that he would still have painted stuff (although perhaps not in the same style) if he had not been getting paid for it - so long as he could have afforded to spend the time and paint and canvas and all.

I think a goo definition of art is that it's "something you do for your own sake". It's not something you do because you're getting paid for it. If you're doing it just because you're getting paid for it, it's not art. That might explain spooge's reluctance to finish the pictures - he likes to do art, not commerce. In his case perhaps making the picture is the "artful" part. Expressing the message, getting the point accross. Once that is done, the rest might be extremely skillful and amazing, but it's not art anymore, and that's why he loses interest.

To decide if you're artists, just ask yourself - would I still be painting this if I wasn't getting paid for it? If not, then what you're doing is not art. It might rely on much the same skills, but it's not art. As someone pointed out there can be art in everything, even if it's not 'artsy'. Similarly something 'artsy' can be something very different from art.

Art is not a commercial thing. Art is not something you do because you're getting paid for it. Art is something you can't help. It's like a scream rising in your throat - you could stifle it, but it would take a lot of effort. Art is something you just have to express. You can't help it. You might get paid for it, of course, but that's incidental.

Daniel

[Pigeon]

As trite as this conversation is, I think it's an important one for us young'uns to read and parttake in, so that we better understand the world that we're contributing to.

Allow me to take the "pro-Kandinsky" point of view, and explore a broadened section of visual communication. I actually have not heard of the illustrators that you have mentioned, but I ask, have you read Kandinsky's book "Concerning the Spiritual in Art"? It explores visual art making as a parallel to music-making, music being almost an entirely abstract artform. Understanding Kandinsky's whole way of thinking is important to understanding his art. It's more than just images marketed at the local poster store. However, even not understanding Kandinsky's whole philosophy,you can still partake in the art by having a reaction to the abstract visual imagery, allowing it to invoke feelings and reactions, much as a piece of music might.

Regardless of what art was prior to the 19th century, it has now become a way of looking at and interpreting the world, and communicating your view to others, rather than just recording it. While all art forms continue concurrently today, many artists are really trying to communicate through their work, often in a subversive fashion. To use a common example, look at Andy Warhol. Many people look at his work as a toungue-in-cheek critique of the art world (and it is), but on a critical level, it really brings into question what the purpose is of art imagery vs. popular imagery. Much fine art is self-reflecting in this manner. It brings into question what we are doing with the media.

The media today is in a strange condition. The fine art object is disappearing while the reproduced image is expanding exponentially. In this world of Mona Lisa mousepads it's no wonder we don't appreciate that original for what it is - an exquisite unique object, never meant to be reproduced. We have to look at and create with our medium - the digital image - in a different light, taking into account its reproducability. I would recommend reading Walter Benjamin's essay "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" and try applying what he says to our digital medium.

Also, I would recommend reading Marshall McLuhan's "The Medium is the Massage." Suffice to sum up for now by quoting the title of his previous book "The medium is the message." What the piece of art is made of and how it is made is as important and communicative as what the image represents.

Basically, to fully understand a work of art, you have to understand it's historical context. But, looking at a work of art from beyond its own historical context is the stuff art is made of. Next time you look at a Kandinsky, or a Dean Cornwell, or even a Craig Mullins, think of the whole picture behind the work. What is Kandinsky without music, what is a commercial illustration without its product, what is Craig Mullins' matte paintings without the movie they are part of?

Peace

------------------
-Pigeon
http://www.darklight.org/dunakin

[Danny]

Hehehe... yes.. I think Fred used to be a secretary before he churned out his cool artwork! MAN you type fast..

Interesting topic btw... Not that I have anything worthwhile to add to it..

Danny


------------------
[email protected]

Trust in Trance

[Frost]

I agree with what you said Fred, which is why its sort of depressing in a small sense, where everything you do won't be remembered even after your death. I just consider myself lucky that people appreciate the little I can give and encourage me by liking them.

It gets me to think of people like you and Craig, which are very great artists in my oppinion. Your works and lessons are definitely inspiring, and your knowledge is something I have the utmost repsect for, yet, even though you are on much higher grounds, it seems unfair that your efforts and works should go unnoticed after long. The same with Steven Stahlberg (3d modeler/animator) who is one of the most respected and sought-after people around in his field will be forgotten in no time. It's sad to dedicate your life to something and have it all result to nothing in the end, if not for the small pleasures brought to you by your peers and locality -- but I guess the same applies to everything in life, as you are meaningless in the global sense of things, the whole history... I guess that's why you have to take things lightly at times, and do things for your own pleasure (while not starving).

Also, I firmly beleive that "art" is a technique, nothing more. If "art" were "art", we could all be "artists" from the day we were born without learning anything. I don't beleive in art. Drawing/painting for me is just portraying to the best of my abilities my visions.

Blah.

[SushiMaster]

I guess that's why there's a different word for Art and for Skill (technique). Art is not skill. Art is communication. You can draw the most realistic picture of a .. hand, ever seen, and yet it can be as useless as a photo of that hand if it doesn't have any message...

Daniel

[Pigeon]

Well said SushiMaster (sounds like a sentence from a bad kungfu movie). That's why artists can be musicians, performers, writers, painters. But painters aren't necessarily artists.

As far as being forgotten with the passage of time, that's no big deal. Think of the billions of people that go around every day that we will never hear of. Is any single famous person really more important than any of those billions? Is our goal to be superstars? We're all just blips, whether we like it or not. May as well get used to it.

On the other hand, six degrees of separation. . . We are probably more likely to contact everybody on the planet through a networking structure than a hierarchical "superstar" structure.

------------------
-Pigeon
http://www.darklight.org/dunakin