art is dead!

fallen_nemesis · 14th December 2006, 8:54pm

it dawned on me over the last few days (in between the crazy illness induced hallucinations of being a human tetris block), that really, what's the point in traditional art anymore? By that I mean paintings on canvas etc.

If the point in art - as my lecturer describes it, really is to express thoughts and feelings that you can't put into words, then surely this can be done more effectively and far more thoughts/feelings conveyed in a far less time consuming manner by simply photoshopping and drawing things with a graphics tablet then colouring?

Is there any real use to say a painting anymore?

Do people still want to buy them?

In light of computers, TV's films, paintings don't really shock like they used to, so maybe that horrible horrible installation art Britain seems to hate so much is the way forward.

Anyway, discuss.

I'm bored, and intruiged.

0x21 · 14th December 2006, 8:59pm

you can't really recreate paintings digitally in such a way as to properly replace them without far more effort (I mean things like textures when you're viewing the actual canvas).

Purists will always much prefer paintings. I know I'd probably much rather buy a painting than digital art to put up on my wall.

Screenager · 14th December 2006, 9:04pm

Isn't art perceptual anyway... In that repspect won't that always leave a place for traditional art. To say it can be done more efficiently in another fashion really doesn't mean that somebody is going to want to utalise a set of tools to create something does it?
Hmm the ramblings of somebody with no sense of asthetics at all

Dec · 14th December 2006, 9:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallen_nemesis

Is there any real use to say a painting anymore?

Yes, there is.

Art is art, regardless of how it's presented. It's not the medium which shocks or conveys anything, it's the content. Painting may fall out of fashion, but it still remains a perfectly good artistic medium.

russianfaerie · 14th December 2006, 9:42pm

do people still buy them?

hell yes and its a good thing too otherwise i wouldn't get extra money every now and then when asked to do big-ish canvas'

i enjoy doing them, drawing them out in small scale what ever they ask for and using certain paints. sometimes is simple things but its still enjoyable.

**Ghostsuit** · 14th December 2006, 9:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallen_nemesis

If the point in art - as my lecturer describes it, really is to express thoughts and feelings that you can't put into words, then surely this can be done more effectively and far more thoughts/feelings conveyed in a far less time consuming manner by simply photoshopping and drawing things with a graphics tablet then colouring?

A dead fish rotting or a messy bed will always be a dead fish rotting and messy bed to me and they don't enspire any thoughts or feeling in me other than "Thats not art" to me.

Art will always be different things to different people. I like some paintings and I think some are utter rubbish, much the same as some people will consider the dead fish rotting and the messy bed art while I don't.

So yeah painting's not dead it's just not as popular as it was before now that we have new tech's which people will use and experiment with, there will be still some who love the idea of a brush stroke, trowel, oils, water colour.

Connor O'Bain · 16th December 2006, 12:53am

Art is not dead

kinda drunk, kinda sleepy but will make my point tomorrow.....if im not drunk or sleepy

**Ghostsuit** · 16th December 2006, 4:14am

Arts drunk and sleepy

Hammer · 16th December 2006, 10:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallen_nemesis

In light of computers, TV's films, paintings don't really shock like they used to, so maybe that horrible horrible installation art Britain seems to hate so much is the way forward.

Anyway, discuss.

I'm bored, and intruiged.

I have a half size print of Dali's Christ of St John of the Cross in my lounge (yes, my house is a happy place), and the original is still striking to me.

The same thing happened when I saw Whistler's Mother at the Hunterian a few years ago. Classic painting can still shock and awe with ease, since seeing a flat, lifeless print is one thing and seeing a full size oil canvas is completely different. It's dammed near impossible to see textures and so on in a print.

Of current painting, I can't say I've seen much that I like, but Art is like that. Just now artists are all about being up their own arses so thay can get into the Tate Modern and get Saatchi to buy their works [/cynical]. Give it a while and painting will come back into vogue.

sjonit · 16th December 2006, 10:31am

I don't think traditional art is dead either.

Sure, computer generated art is extremely popular these days. Thats not surprising when digital media is all around us and such crazy things can be done to the subject in question. Not forgetting the ability to produce such lifelike appearances almost as crisp as photographs, but in 3D form!!

I personally however stick to my pencil and pens (probably due to the fact I havent mastered AUTOCAD and photoshop yet). I like the idea of producing work solely through your own skill, rather than ripping premade blocks, colours. templates and relays from the intrenet and jumbling them together to produce an outcome.

severinskiss · 16th December 2006, 10:34am

I only own original art, and it matters nought to me if it be a tradional or digital medium, I work in both , I prefer digital because its cleaner but sometimes trad art forces me to be a bit more decisive, and just get the bugger down, which is a good thing too.

Connor O'Bain · 16th December 2006, 11:00am

I did actually try to type this out last night but my drink addled brain would not articulate....anyway, i don’t believe art to be dead simply evolving and using the tools/media of the day, 100 or so years ago they would use paints to create their visual mediums, they made a mistake, they would paint over it. Today you make a mistake you “ctrl +z”. you still need an understanding of traditional skills to make the best of digital mediums.

Again probably not the best reply…meh

MarkMono · 16th December 2006, 11:03am

musics far deader than painting is as an art form.

0x21 · 16th December 2006, 11:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer

The same thing happened when I saw Whistler's Mother at the Hunterian a few years ago. Classic painting can still shock and awe with ease, since seeing a flat, lifeless print is one thing and seeing a full size oil canvas is completely different. It's dammed near impossible to see textures and so on in a print.

I worked at the opening of the Exhibition, and seeing it up close was amazing. I doubt I'll ever get the same reaction from seeing a digital image than I did with that (or in fact most of the rest of the Hunterian

Obsidian · 16th December 2006, 12:11pm

I have original artwork all over my home.
I still buy it surely i can be alone?
Personally i'd rather fork out a fair bit of money for something that's taken abit of time to produce than a bit of mass produced tit tat that was created on a computer anyday!