igorgetmeabrain wrote:

Unlikely wrote:

igorgetmeabrain wrote:

I think they're really good.  They have a lovely simplicity yet there's a lot more to them too.  Eloquent, I think.

I really don't want to single you out but it's this kind of meaningless drivel that I find, frankly, abhorrent.  I quite like both of those pictures.  They make my retina ping things to my occipital lobe and those things are then processed further.  I don't feel the need to be pretentious about it.

You clearly do want to single me out - as usual - otherwise you wouldn't. Anyhoo, I don't see how my description is meaningless or drivelish.  They are both simple pictures.  They are both lovely.  There's more to them than the obvious simplicity of their form, such as the nice interplay of colours and textures in the wave one particularly, which I think is pretty nicely executed and thus eloquent.

Would you like to explain how "pretty nicely executed" equals "eloquent"?

Fixed them

They is far away

Lord_Griff wrote:

How the fuck can a painting be eloquent? This isn't Harry fucking Potter.

His use of fewer than fifty shades of grey elicits a discordant circus of unlikely composition.

Oh yeah, good point, thanks.

Don't be shooting a bunker brother, Gorsy.

I think I'm right in thinking that some folk here like cats so here's a few pictures whose detail is ever so slightly enhanced from my own daubings, oh, I almost forgot...

...these are drawn using a mechanical pencil.

three1ne wrote:

Those pencil drawings are brilliant in so much of the craft and talent but when youre focusing on that rather than the picture itself then its missing the whole point of art isnt it?

That's my take on them.
The technical skill and ability are outstanding but artistically I see them as no more than an pointless exercise.
The reason being to slavishly copy something exactly is a bit if a waste of time when you can just photograph it and get the same result instantly, especially as the artist was probably working from a photo anyway as that type of pencil work takes an extremely long time to produce.
There is nothing of the 'artist' himself/herself in those drawings.

BUT here we hit the thorny issue of what is art bollocks. All you need is the creator to say something like "I am exploring mans redundancy in an increasingly mechanical world, blah, blah, blah" and all of a sudden they are art again.

Don't argue about art. No one can win.

All you need is the creator to say something like "I am exploring mans redundancy in an increasingly mechanical world, blah, blah, blah" and all of a sudden they are art again.

igorgetmeabrain wrote:

The Tate Modern is rife with blurbs like that.

I try to never look at these. Helps that they tend to be really small. Haven't been to any kind of gallery for ages mind.

If we accept the wow factor of shmup skillplays on Youtube - and very few do I suppose - we can accept a guy who draws cats like a machine.

Sunflowers are shit too.

I am really impressed with the skill displayed in photorealistic painting. That is all.

Strictly, the zoom level is pretty specific, not to mention the monochrome.

This is also on my wall.  My dad painted it.

Nah he's alright.