Retro Uprising is supported by donations. We have minimal ads and no membership fees.
Donors receive a few perks such as no ads and access to hidden areas of the site. Please help us stay 100% free and growing by making a donation. Thank you. List of Donors
Register to enable more features such as high score recording.
Because art is totally about technical ability, not expression and all that crap.
Seriously, who cares if his technical abilities are perfect? They are the kind of flaws that no one sees unless they are looking specifically at those aspects of the work.
I'm not into art all that much but I was pretty impressed with how he made it look so 3D. I can see what steven's saying about his technical ability but DM has a point too. I disagree about you only seeing it if you're looking for it though. I would say the flaws make it better because it's different. Lots of expensive art looks like crap to me but for some reason people love it. I dunno, not really my thing either way.
Because art is totally about technical ability, not expression and all that crap.
Seriously, who cares if his technical abilities are perfect? They are the kind of flaws that no one sees unless they are looking specifically at those aspects of the work.
I wouldnt have mentioned it if it wasnt obvious that it is what he's striving for.
Like I said I'm not really into this kind of thing. I just mean it looks like some stuff could be done better, hard to explain. It could look a little more lifelike, if that makes sense.
I'm with Tenser, these drawings look amazing, and they look sort of abstract, so why would the laws of real lighting be the right way to go. I get it if it is some glaring flaw, like a circular shadow for a cube or something, but I see nothing wrong.
You don't need a strong foundation in drawing to be an amazing artist.
Regardless of personal taste, the bottom one is totally convincing, it has life. To be honest the top one really has nothing correct about it as far as the rendering is concerned. I should be obvious what I mean, just by comparing the 2.
People usually don't understand the importance of shading spheres like this one below. This is an excellent diagram showing how a properly rendered sphere can translate to anything in the world.
Meh, if you say so. Seems like art snobbery but what do I know. I just know to my untrained eye his art seems to pop off the page which looks really cool while the bottom one looks boring and amateurish. I don't get a lot of "art" though.
You see, now that you've explained yourself a bit better, I can see what you mean.
Though, I find that bottom one is unappealing to my untrained eye, it is well done and all, but I don't really like the focus on realism, I'd just look at photos if I wanted to see a realistic rendering of a real person.
I do agree with you that shading spheres is pretty important.
To me, the top one looks like the subject is completely separate from the paper.
Whatever, I don't get "art" in a traditional sense. I like it and all, and I can appreciate the masters, for the most part. I just don't understand what all the fuss over DaVinci and Picasso is all about. Especially surrounding the Mona Lisa, I just don't like that painting.
Also too, the only thing I'm talking about is the technique, I can absolutely understand if someone likes the kids image more than the proffessional portrait. The kid has more exciting content than boring old portraits for sure. The reason this kids stuff looks so 3d is because in almost all of them the actually are, he is using real life depth, and strategic placement so that his images are actually taking up space in 3 dimensions. (not a fan personally, seems a little too "arty" for my tastes.) Now the reason I mentioned it in the first place is that if you take the skilled hand of portrait artist, and combine it with what the kid is doing you would really have something banging. And like I mentioned, it comes fast for some people, so maybe in 2 or 3 years this kid will have it mastered.
Picasso does suck btw DM, Divinci was one of the greatest thinkers to walk the planet, his art is secondary to that imo.
That second piece you posted is really impressive Steve. After really looking at the 17 year old artist's work, I am going to agree with you that he needs some practice in order to really push his art to his fullest potential.
@Tenser: It's not really about being a snob when breaking down the art. Yes, to the untrained eye it has little to no flaws, but when you study art it's just something you tend to notice. I have some training in drawing and painting, but I didn't notice those little details as quickly as Steven. But even with those little errors, I still think he's a great artist...and how the hell is the second picture Steven posted boring? It's got great shading and looks very realistic. Loved the smoke effect whoever that was did.
Linear Mode
