pouët.net

Really? Is that a good picture? It's obviously a lot of effort but I find it very lacking in a whole bunch of aspects. The texture around the eyes is interesting but you need to get up real close before it doesn't look extremely, well, "early eighties D&D" I suppose. The shading on the rest of the face lacks depth, especially for the very busy surroundings, and the face itself lacks character. The expression on the face seems emotionless, which in this "portraits 101" pose makes the whole picture look as if it has nothing to say. I can't find any recognisable symbolism anywhere, I don't know who this girl is and there are no clues in the picture either, I don't know what's with the blank stare, or any of it, I can't relate. Also, of course, the way the neck joins the head stands out suspiciously, the lower lip likewise, the flat chin, the size of the nostrils vs the width of the nose, and so on. In other words, while I can marvel at this artists patience, I don't see extreme character drawing skill expressed in this picture either. And of course pastel colours look dated and cheap.

There. Keep your friends close and your enemies numerous. Right?

It might be because of his wacky trolling efforts.

http://www.romancortes.com/blog/test-de-arte/

This is an art knowlegde test. A random selected famous paintings from all times/styles are shown, as original and mirrored. You have to click in the original version for 15 rounds, then the result of right answers is shown.

I'm sorry I've not translated it. I've thought the same concept could be applied for famous demoscene art, maybe... if you want the source... just ask for it.

Texel, nice. It helps to know that the light usually comes from the top-left. ;) (I got 11/15)

hmmh i got 12/15 and i have to confess i only recognised like 3 of the paintings :-)... i guess it helps a bit if you know something about composition and stuff. Would've been fun to see the paintings which were wrong.

Battle Droid: Are you referring to Ra's pic? I find that summary really quite shocking and I'm starting to think you have quite a shallow way of looking at art. On one hand, you like subjects that show meaning and expression, yet you seem to get nothing from the artist's techniques, style and presentation.

Like in literature, poetry, music, and so on, sometimes the depth is in how it is created rather than what is created.

For me, Ra's picture has so much depth to it, the strokes and waves make it feel energetic and chaotic, perhaps even symbolising some kind of madness. The colours feel soft and delicate, which could signify the woman's meek and fragile character. Only Ra can really confirm what's behind it all, but I personally get a lot of feeling from it and can read a lot of significance from the techniques alone.

I also find that the style gives it character, like a personal trademark. Artists like Van Gogh, Cezanne and Munch, for example, were all about the style and technique, and critics continue debating their brushstrokes and technique to this day. A LOT of the old art masters specialised in portraits, but it's how they painted them that gives them such depth and keep fans and critics hooked.

i think we have to regard doom's opinion in the light of his preference for entirely subjective judgment of art...

Ra's pic is awesome, didn't see it before.

+ What Wade said.

i'm completely with Battle Droid on this. Ra's picture couldn't be a better example of empty, bland, oldschool kitsch art that you wouldn't spend 5 euros on at a fleamarket but that is still worshipped beyond reason in the demoscene. it's funny: at a demo party you can have the most advanced, original and avantgarde works in a 4k compo and you will still see (mostly) the same old naive trash in the graphics compo that you've seen more than 10 years ago. how incredible innovation and stale standstill can meet at the very same event without anyone noticing (or caring) still puzzles me from time to time.

monroe: but isnt those two factors meeting what makes it so beautiful?

wade: the difference between the examples of old art masters you picked and the work displayed and artists discussed here, is that, fundamentally, the first were actually developing radical never before seen styles (and therefor ways to look at the world) while most of the latter are way too caught up in the struggle to get it to look right (means: as realistic as possible) to actually come up with something fresh ... as a matter of fact, i'm afraid they don't even feel the urge to.

gargaj: :) ... beautiful and cozy, yes!

you cannot possibly blame bad quality in modern day demoscene graphics competitions on people who are not competing anymore... so apparently newskoolers are just as capable of producing tripe.

btw, i'd like to see a recent example of *true* design innovation in 4k's...

the appreciation of such a piece of art is so subjective that it's almost pointless to debate about it...

i really liked this one because ra didn't emphasize what is generally seen as sexy feature in a girly portrait, other feelings are coming out like strangeness, coldness, complexity, strong will, piquancy... and sweetness :)

dr.doom: i enjoy your curvy hotties but sometimes those are just too easy :P

Monroe: I disagree. I think style and technique is a form of expression in any artform and any age.

I.e. in literature, you can choose just to read the story and take it at face value, but many writers use varied sentence structure, changes in rhythm, metaphor, and many other features as a way of getting the reader to feel something beyond what is in front of them.

Painting is the same and technique shows the artist's way of looking at the subject and can give a view into his subconscious.

Pixel perfect copies and photorealism are a technical challenge and I agree that they have no real expressive value, but Ra's picture is a different case altogether.

the cheesy kitsch aspect of ra's picture could be the cliché of blending nature and human beings (ra's goddess is both mineral and lively in the wind), but i don't mind it as it's a such a classical and eternal theme in human arts.

The nice thing afterall is that you can so marvelously disagree on creations. One thinks it is cheesy kitch, while the others see a deeper meaning and consider it great (digital) art.

While only the one who painted it tell the real intention of a creation, all the others just interprete and take it and put in in their drawers they already created for things they like and things they don't like.

Even nowadays there are artists painting in oil or chalk like great artists did a hell lot of years ago and create great things. Even nowadays there are artists painting with limited C=64 colors or Amiga resolutions or whatever . I really can't see why demoscene artists should be judged differently. Innovation is not imperative to create art and it never should be. Experiencing and inventing new techniques is a nice thing and can lead to new artworks. But it shouldn't be a absolute prerequisite to classify a creation as artwork or not.

havoc: I believe you will disagree, but I'd have to say "Texas".

You know, I've been looking at this thread and it begs one question: why does everything have to be artistic and meaningful anyway?

What's wrong with artwork just being cool? The demoscene isn't the Tate Gallery. It's a bunch of talented people making cool stuff and saying to the world "look what I can do!"

I'm not sure why I fall into the trap of justifying mine or other artists' work. Hell, I'm a heterosexual guy and I like looking at women, I like painting women and I like showing off my painting techniques. Call me shallow, but I get a kick from high impact artwork that jumps out of the screen and grabs my attention just like I enjoy in-your-face demo effects!

Wade: what you describe for your own artwork is actually a definition of artistic work to my eyes and tastes :)

wade: get revenge, demand meaningful cube effects!

chapeau!!

wade: word!

calexico: "texas" is way cool and innovative, but not in the design aspect.. or i must've overlooked something.