4 ms·
I've noticed that 2D artists/non-sculptors who engage in strange mediums or techniques generally only make realistic closeup portraits of people. I saw the head
by kdheiwns 8mo ago
I've noticed that 2D artists/non-sculptors who engage in strange mediums or techniques generally only make realistic closeup portraits of people. I saw the headline, thought "neat, but I bet he just makes normal expressionless faces." Opened the page and it seems like that's the vast majority of his work. As an artist myself, I'm always like ehhhhh when I see this. Feels a bit like the kind of stuff you see for sale in tourist areas.
The technique is cool though.
- d--b 8mo agoyeah it’s definitely a genre in itself. It’s like there are 2 axes: - cool technique and - cool picture. The second is way more important than the first, which is way painters are still on top of the 2D art world. Some people can do both though. And i’d say even in these cases the art world tend to dismiss the weird technique as gimmicky.
- BLKNSLVR 8mo agoAnd the reason 'cool picture' is way more important than 'cool technique' is because the technique is essentially no longer part of the art / picture at completion. You've just got the sausage, and there's (not necessarily) any indication of how it was made inherent to the sausage - even if the way the sausage is made is cooler than the sausage itself. (that analogy got tiresome quickly)
- steezeburger 8mo agoI'm not sure it's so fitting. You can see hoe this technique was done and how it's different from painting. Or like, a portrait made of pennies, or string and nails, etc, etc.
- baby 8mo agoAnother way to see this is that most obsessed artists live within constraints they created years ago, and their art stands out as it is something never seen before: the best someone has ever done within the constraints they took decades to explore and master.
- 4dregress 8mo agoYou may still end up with the sausage but the meticulously prepared one will most likely be the most delicious.
- hn_throwaway_99 8mo agoI don't understand this at all in respect to the actual topic at hand. The "cool technique" in this case is creating 2D art by means of cracking glass. It's quite obvious at completion, just by seeing the art, what the general technique was. It's not like people are mistaking this for a watercolor.
- NedF 8mo ago[dead]
- yojo 8mo agoThere are a few modern artists who mix cool techniques to great results and get recognized. Olafur Eliasson and James Turrell come to mind. Damien Hirst is a more polarizing third contender. Edit: also Yayoi Kusama
- rhplus 8mo agoPerhaps they find more acceptance due to the effects of pareidolia, where the viewer is more inclined to say, “Oh yeah, I see it - that’s a face!” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
- nandomrumber 8mo agoThe introduction on that Wikipedia article needs to be updated to include digital compression artefacts. Cheap 4K dash cams are awesome at creating the wackiest noise in suboptimal lighting conditions.
- harimau777 8mo agoSome image artifacts are even common enough to have entered pop culture. For example, if you are a fan of Dungeon Meshi, Marcille's "Sky Fish" familiar is inspired by cryptids stemming from the "rods" that often show up in pictures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(optical_phenomenon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(optical_phenomenon) https://cryptidz.fandom.com/wiki/Air_Rods https://cryptidz.fandom.com/wiki/Air_Rods
- WesolyKubeczek 8mo agoOnce you stretch boundaries thin enough, you could argue that all art is about inducing pareidolia. After all, it’s all just cracks on glass/smears of paint on canvas and so on. It matters little whether there was artistic intent or not, if the result looks like a face, it looks like a face. ;-)
- mejutoco 8mo agoFigurative art is only part of the vast possibilities of art.
- ralfd 8mo ago> Feels a bit like the kind of stuff you see for sale in tourist areas. Yeah, art is only real if it is unpopular and elicits a “I don’t get it” /s
- colinb 8mo agoArt is only interesting if it elicits an emotional response in the viewer. Otherwise it is illustration. And the wonder of it is that we can all have different responses to the same thing. (The Mona Lisa is a waste of canvas and oil - a hill I will die on).
- Zobat 8mo ago> The Mona Lisa is a waste of canvas and oil - a hill I will die on Seems like Mona Lisa elicits an emotional response in you as a viewer ;) I get what you're saying though. I always "correct" people that claims some piece of music is "bad", there's no bad music, only music you don't like.
- F-W-M 8mo agoI think I read here on hackernews that the Mona Lisa doesn't look at all like it did when it was freshly made. If I look at the restored copy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado)# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado)#, I at least find the silk very nice.
- ginko 8mo agoThe Mona Lisa is a panel painting and doesn't use canvas.
- g8oz 8mo agoI cynically believe that many people will force themselves into having an emotional response if the art piece matches with what they understand as having currency with the type of people they seek to emulate and the rarified scene they want to be a part of.
- miramba 8mo agoThis feels like something Oscar from Duolingo could say.
- coolius 8mo agoagree. shallow and uninspired
- bayindirh 8mo agoI'll kindly disagree, and put out an offer. If it's shallow and uninspired, why not make a better version? The medium is freer than Free Software. A sharpened hammer, a pane of laminated glass, and some time. How hard can it be?
- nightfly 8mo ago> The medium is freer than Free Software $$$$$ for supplies, you could probably take up oil painting for cheaper.
- bayindirh 8mo agoA simple hammer you'll sharpen, maybe a bog standard angle grinder. These are the cheap ones, and all you need. Bigger panes of laminated glass is expensive, but you can start small, no? I'd go to the local glass shops and ask for their scraps, for example. However, the point is not the cost of the supplies, but supporting the argument by putting out something better than the thing being criticized.
- iainmerrick 8mo agoThey said "shallow and uninspired" but that's separate from "requires immense skill and patience". The point is, whether or not the process is cool and impressive, is the end product really very interesting? It can be valid to criticize something as uninspired even if you're not capable of doing it yourself. Movie critics would have a hard time otherwise. In this case I wouldn't be quite as dismissive, personally. But if you've seen one, have you seen them all? Probably yes.
- ChrisMarshallNY 8mo agoLike when someone that clearly needs more exercise, is yelling at a sports star to “not be lazy,” or “practice more.” It can easily be said that this makes no sense, because the yeller has no idea of the tremendous work that even the lowest-tier athletes put into their vocation. On the other hand, they are a “customer” of the athlete, and have a “right” to criticize the “product.” They are probably out of line, suggesting root causes and solutions, but they aren’t out of line for complaining about their experience with the product. I wrote a short piece about this mindset, some time ago: https://littlegreenviper.com/problems-and-solutions/ https://littlegreenviper.com/problems-and-solutions/
- norome 8mo agoagree and I'd venture we tend to see more uninspired art because most success in the art world is more about business acumen than experimentation and uniqueness.
- portly 8mo agoSpot on. Interesting methods always seem to be popular with engineering folks. But results are soulless.
- stinkbeetle 8mo agoAll commercial art is soulless. Music, movies, professional painting and sculpting. One thing I'm hoping for if AI destroys much of the value of soulless art, is human actual art reverting to the motivation of the desire people have to share things with those they love.
- mstade 8mo agoI saw some of these works in Stockholm and then in Miami, and you 100% captured my thoughts. Cool technique well utilized, but beyond that I'm not sure I felt any particular connection to the art. It just felt bland. That's ok, not all art affects all people the same and to me that's the wonderful thing about art – it really is ok to have different opinions and taste, no one is wrong. I'll just move on to the next piece and hopefully enjoy that more. :o)
- kraig911 8mo agoAs someone who also loves to paint esp portraits I was wondering in your opinion what looks like a good portrait? Because every time I go out on a limb and do what I think is neat the subject/audience seems less than interested. It's like people like a good photo.
- cs702 8mo ago> I saw the headline, thought "neat, but I bet he just makes normal expressionless faces." In this case, that's not true. See the examples shared by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47163837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47163837 on this page. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47162666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47162666 for context.
- bartread 8mo agoI also properly hate this guy's website. Too much clicking around and exploring to find good, in focus, photographs of examples of his work. Maybe I should blame OP for not submitting a page with examples of the work but, whatever, I did not enjoy the hunting and pecking.