It seems to me that if it isn't drawn while a person is looking at the model in real life, or has themselves in front of a mirror, it's suddenly deemed "worthless."
Which again sets off this bad assumption that everyone cannot use references at all to build on the imagination that will serve to be of use to them in the future (Because unless someone has extraordinary visual prowess and seeing things spatially, this "imagination" will not be enough unless they learn through examples).
It's as if trying to go through the process of trying to make a "copy" is so wrong, as if the artist will not gain any kind of experience in understanding depth, realism, spatial recognition, and such.
What this man has done is impressive, but not from an artistic stand point.
If you really wanted apply it from an artistic stand point, you would be cognizant that each type of art (Traditional graphite drawing, digital drawing, Abstract photography...and the list goes on and on) each have their own scale the makes them distinct from each other, which means factors such as creativity and genuine intentions will not always be applicable, because that introduces to one's own desire of conforming each type of art with few rules and exceptions rather than taking it subjectively.
So what I'm really getting at, is that, what he is doing, is impressive in the same way, as a savant memorizing a thousand books is.
If you took it at an artistic stand point, every form of art, will be sustained digitally or through traditional manners (paper, etc.) in some manner. If someone just looks at the drawing, it's obvious to question the means of how they accomplished this, and then based on how they did it, it's suddenly "boring."
And not only that, this is deeming that the tools the artist utilized to accomplish this is not valid, or a "cheat."
It may be boring when you just look at it (and the process that created it), but again, as Xei declared, unless someone has actually performed something better or as worthy for a "job well done", you cannot use what you think it would feel like and suddenly declare that it's not creative or genuine.
You'd have to try and achieve this same feat to really understand the process behind it, and if you cannot even come close to it, assumptions are going to be your only way of "experience."
Each art should be taken subjectively, and if it's something that "looks" like it's done by a robot or mechanically, it should be considered a waste of talent and effort?
Sure, creativity itself is important in "art" in general, but to deem something such as this as not creative is simply not understanding this from an artistic stand point. Creativity is not the only factor. Originality should not be the only factor.
Does anyone not acknowledge how they were able to make it seem as if they drew and shaded in every strand of hair, but didn't?
Did you take into consideration that they focused on tones to create the illusion that it looks like a photograph? Not many people can pull this off without being pressured that seeing everything is the only way to finish it.
Did you take into consideration of the tools that they were limited to achieve something like this?
Did you take into consideration of the tools they could've used instead (digital painting through tablets) to pull off the same realism? Is the fact that they can pull off this with just a pencil and a few blending stumps not constitute as enough merit from an artistic stand point?
So what I'm getting from this, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that the process itself isn't really important in seeing if it's "creative"?
The artists' visual prowess in picking out those small details that makes all the difference (such as showing a big contrasts in single strands of hair from an already complex form of shading and stroking gently to create other hair-like structures) is suddenly not a form of respect and merit that shows that they are creative enough to make use of the tools they have?
Does anyone take into consideration on how perseverance was important in achieving art such as this? It's not just for a "pat on the back."
Isn't creativity sustained through the efforts, the process, perseverance, and so many other attributes?
If not, then how does creativity become apparent? What sets the limit for determining creativity?
Is being able to create realism without reference (even though to achieve that kind of imagination involved looking at references in the first place (and I don't mean only limited to reference photos)) is so crucial?
|
|
Bookmarks