4 ms·
A simple and perhaps intellectually disappointing explanation is rarity: plenty of CGI with unnatural lighting, we value CGI that gets it right. Plenty of photo
by usrusr 6y ago
A simple and perhaps intellectually disappointing explanation is rarity: plenty of CGI with unnatural lighting, we value CGI that gets it right. Plenty of photographs with natural lighting, we value the photograph with an artificial tweak.
- neilpanchal 6y agoGood point. I think it’s a little more than that. Given a rare exceptional work of CG artist and an analog photographer’s rare works - vast majority of the people would gravitate towards the latter. It then leads me to think ease of access to tools (drone vs Photoshop), expediency in creating the works (a weekend shoot vs. 3 hours) and the costs ($400 trip + $800 drone vs. $29 Adobe subscription) is what makes it worthwhile? Is this type of art boiled down to the grunt work one has to do to achieve a result? I personally resonate with conceptual art that abstracts away the physical processes and work on an ideological space (Francis Bacon, Milos Sobajic, Vladimir Velckovic, Shahabuddin Ahmed, etc). But that’s just me, and I certainly am not in a position to criticize anything in art. Just want to inquire and understand.