3 ms·

> he has a great eye and fantastic mechanical abilities - but 'once in a lifetime genius' may be overselling it just a bit. Hyperrealism is just being able to

> he has a great eye and fantastic mechanical abilities - but 'once in a lifetime genius' may be overselling it just a bit. Hyperrealism is just being able to exactly copy impressions or photos. If he would now start to copy images he first make using Photoshop (with weird-looking watches all over it and other stuff), it would be certainly considered ingenious art. Most parts of art are mechanical in their core and can be automated. I don't think there's any reason to assume that he isn't a gifted artist while people who do nearly the same but just use other source material e.g. draw realistic images of dragons are considered as creative or those that just put some blots on a canvas - just look at images like "Violet, Green and Red". What's considered as genius in the arts is ridiculous compared to other fields. And because of that, I don't see why it's necessary to criticize this boy for lacking artistic genius; this stuff is so extremely subjective that it says more about you than anything else. The next step - mixing interesting ideas and concepts to create creative new art - can also be automated IMO. > Artistic genius is about synthesizing multiple styles and histories and creating something novel, or re-presenting something old and tired in a new way. Many modern (and also classic) artists who get the recognition of being "geniuses" are not doing something novel or insanely creative IMO. There are not many who I would consider to be geniuses in the field. And something like this [1] is more creative IMO than many of technically demanding works or those blots on a canvas. I would say that the commercialisation of arts destroyed the appeal of it. It's ok if a work is "just nice" or creates a small feeling and nothing more. The expectations are too high if an image costs $168 million - those prices communicate that those images are somehow "more genius" than something a 13y/o can draw. They're not and this is why art (without all that money) is beautiful. It can be a beautiful place of creativity and egality. [1]: https://www.boredpanda.com/bad-celebrity-portraits-tw1tterpicasso/ https://www.boredpanda.com/bad-celebrity-portraits-tw1tterpi...

coldtea 8y ago
>Hyperrealism is just being able to exactly copy impressions or photos. If he would now start to copy images he first make using Photoshop (with weird-looking watches all over it and other stuff), it would be certainly considered ingenious art. No, it wouldn't. It would be considered at best derivative. There are tons of hyper-realist artists. Some even do it at street corners for handouts. And copying cliches of previous artists/periods doesn't buy one much (just like writing some derivate polka tunes in 2018 doesn't mean much to music fans). >What's considered as genius in the arts is ridiculous compared to other fields. It's not supposed to be compared to other fields. And it's not even supposed to be considered "genius" (as in super smart), but "artistic genius" which is something else (e.g. uniquely expressive). >Many modern (and also classic) artists who get the recognition of being "geniuses" are not doing something novel or insanely creative IMO. It's the opinion of the art scene and art crowd that decides though, not some individual personal opinions (which could also be totally uniformed or look for things that aren't important artistically). >The expectations are too high if an image costs $168 million - those prices communicate that those images are somehow "more genius" than something a 13y/o can draw. They just convey that someone is thinking that the painting is a good investment (or be good to launder money) and can be resold. Says nothing about the genius of the painter. Some critically trite images by famous painters are sold for tons of millions as well.
- mockingbirdy 8y ago
  Addresses all my points well, but I feel misunderstood in the first paragraph. If he's able to create creative sceneries using Photoshop and then proceeds to copy them using his techniques, I think this could lead to recognition of artistic genius. And I would like to know how artistic genius gets recognized. I think it's still highly subjective and just the aggregated opinion of all people in the art crowd and their subjective opinions - so it's still difficult to say that someone has definitely artistic genius because it's dependent on the crowd, the time, the society etc.

coldtea 8y ago

>Hyperrealism is just being able to exactly copy impressions or photos. If he would now start to copy images he first make using Photoshop (with weird-looking watches all over it and other stuff), it would be certainly considered ingenious art. No, it wouldn't. It would be considered at best derivative. There are tons of hyper-realist artists. Some even do it at street corners for handouts. And copying cliches of previous artists/periods doesn't buy one much (just like writing some derivate polka tunes in 2018 doesn't mean much to music fans). >What's considered as genius in the arts is ridiculous compared to other fields. It's not supposed to be compared to other fields. And it's not even supposed to be considered "genius" (as in super smart), but "artistic genius" which is something else (e.g. uniquely expressive). >Many modern (and also classic) artists who get the recognition of being "geniuses" are not doing something novel or insanely creative IMO. It's the opinion of the art scene and art crowd that decides though, not some individual personal opinions (which could also be totally uniformed or look for things that aren't important artistically). >The expectations are too high if an image costs $168 million - those prices communicate that those images are somehow "more genius" than something a 13y/o can draw. They just convey that someone is thinking that the painting is a good investment (or be good to launder money) and can be resold. Says nothing about the genius of the painter. Some critically trite images by famous painters are sold for tons of millions as well.

mockingbirdy 8y ago
Addresses all my points well, but I feel misunderstood in the first paragraph. If he's able to create creative sceneries using Photoshop and then proceeds to copy them using his techniques, I think this could lead to recognition of artistic genius. And I would like to know how artistic genius gets recognized. I think it's still highly subjective and just the aggregated opinion of all people in the art crowd and their subjective opinions - so it's still difficult to say that someone has definitely artistic genius because it's dependent on the crowd, the time, the society etc.