|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 12, 2010 23:53:33 GMT 1,
Of course, the image doesn't have the signature (most important) and edition number (2nd most important) added yet.
Left and right eyeballs marked '4th most important part of the artwork' and fifth, respectively...
Of course, the image doesn't have the signature (most important) and edition number (2nd most important) added yet. Left and right eyeballs marked '4th most important part of the artwork' and fifth, respectively...
|
|
pointblank
New Member
Posts โข 518
Likes โข 0
August 2008
|
The Rules of Art..., by pointblank on May 15, 2010 0:09:00 GMT 1, I think its great, its that good i have even spent several mins trying to remember my password to log in.
Seriously great concept.
I think its great, its that good i have even spent several mins trying to remember my password to log in.
Seriously great concept.
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 15, 2010 19:39:55 GMT 1, Thanks! I just got a proof back from the printers - and it looks even better in person! The blacks look solid-black - it's not until you look at it from a different angle that you see that there's actually lettering in there (and you need a magnifying glass to read the writing in the eyeballs). And, of course, now that it's signed and numbered, the bit at the bottom makes more sense... ;o)
Liked how it turned out, so I tried another in the style:
Thanks! I just got a proof back from the printers - and it looks even better in person! The blacks look solid-black - it's not until you look at it from a different angle that you see that there's actually lettering in there (and you need a magnifying glass to read the writing in the eyeballs). And, of course, now that it's signed and numbered, the bit at the bottom makes more sense... ;o) Liked how it turned out, so I tried another in the style:
|
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 15, 2010 22:28:41 GMT 1, Well, obviously. If I wanted it to look all rough and hand-written, I would have done it by hand (my largest hand-painted text-based painting is on fifty individual 2-foot square canvases, btw, and took months to complete). But, I didn't want it to look all rough like that AT ALL (and I didn't want to spend three weeks painting this - plus I wanted something your style can't do: shading within the writing). I wanted the piece to look sleek and professional, so I used a computer to do the typesetting...
Text ALWAYS looks better when done by computer. Human beings can't physically paint sharp text (as you can easily see in your pictures).
So, tell me, what exactly is the point of doing it all by hand - if the final product takes 10 times as long AND doesn't look even half as good??? Seems kinda pointless to me...
You gotta love artists who think that their way is the only possible (and legitimate) way of doing something...
Well, obviously. If I wanted it to look all rough and hand-written, I would have done it by hand (my largest hand-painted text-based painting is on fifty individual 2-foot square canvases, btw, and took months to complete). But, I didn't want it to look all rough like that AT ALL (and I didn't want to spend three weeks painting this - plus I wanted something your style can't do: shading within the writing). I wanted the piece to look sleek and professional, so I used a computer to do the typesetting...
Text ALWAYS looks better when done by computer. Human beings can't physically paint sharp text (as you can easily see in your pictures).
So, tell me, what exactly is the point of doing it all by hand - if the final product takes 10 times as long AND doesn't look even half as good??? Seems kinda pointless to me...
You gotta love artists who think that their way is the only possible (and legitimate) way of doing something...
|
|
etched
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,302
Likes โข 72
February 2008
|
The Rules of Art..., by etched on May 16, 2010 0:09:01 GMT 1, 'Text ALWAYS looks better when done by computer. Human beings can't physically paint sharp text (as you can easily see in your pictures).
So, tell me, what exactly is the point of doing it all by hand - if the final product takes 10 times as long AND doesn't look even half as good??? Seems kinda pointless to me...'
E I N E
'Text ALWAYS looks better when done by computer. Human beings can't physically paint sharp text (as you can easily see in your pictures).
So, tell me, what exactly is the point of doing it all by hand - if the final product takes 10 times as long AND doesn't look even half as good??? Seems kinda pointless to me...'
E I N E
|
|
|
etched
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,302
Likes โข 72
February 2008
|
The Rules of Art..., by etched on May 16, 2010 0:12:21 GMT 1, STEVE POWERS
STEVE POWERS
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 16, 2010 0:20:22 GMT 1, Sorry, I should clarify... Hand-written text works for your pieces. Perfect text would detract from the images, and accentuate how flat they are. You need the little discrepancies in the text to give it some texture. Razor-sharp, homogenous text would ruin that effect and they'd look awful...
But, you are also implying that your pieces are more legitimate as art, simply because they were hand-painted - without looking to see if that style would actually work on these pieces (it wouldn't, by the way, in the most heinous of ways). If I hand-painted the text on these, it would completely change the whole concept - into a concept I don't want or like. Hand-painting would completely ruin these pieces. They would look entirely different, much less sharp (and I'd have to get rid of the nice gradients, the transparent text AND the micro-printing - all things that are of immense importance).
These pieces COULDN'T even exist in the first place if they had to be hand-painted...
To help illustrate my point:
Cheers!
Sorry, I should clarify... Hand-written text works for your pieces. Perfect text would detract from the images, and accentuate how flat they are. You need the little discrepancies in the text to give it some texture. Razor-sharp, homogenous text would ruin that effect and they'd look awful... But, you are also implying that your pieces are more legitimate as art, simply because they were hand-painted - without looking to see if that style would actually work on these pieces (it wouldn't, by the way, in the most heinous of ways). If I hand-painted the text on these, it would completely change the whole concept - into a concept I don't want or like. Hand-painting would completely ruin these pieces. They would look entirely different, much less sharp (and I'd have to get rid of the nice gradients, the transparent text AND the micro-printing - all things that are of immense importance). These pieces COULDN'T even exist in the first place if they had to be hand-painted... To help illustrate my point: Cheers!
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 16, 2010 0:22:56 GMT 1, And, no, Eine or Steve Powers DON'T EVEN COME CLOSE...
Edit: I'll be waiting for someone to post ridiculously large text that looks perfect FROM A DISTANCE from either of them (not tiny text that looks perfect close-up)...
And, no, Eine or Steve Powers DON'T EVEN COME CLOSE...
Edit: I'll be waiting for someone to post ridiculously large text that looks perfect FROM A DISTANCE from either of them (not tiny text that looks perfect close-up)...
|
|
etched
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,302
Likes โข 72
February 2008
|
The Rules of Art..., by etched on May 16, 2010 0:34:42 GMT 1, point illustrated-
point illustrated-
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 16, 2010 0:45:34 GMT 1, Actually, I went easy on you... I didn't add a drop shadow (which would make everything an order of magnitude more difficult) or mention that the finished product has to be 2 inches by 3... ;o)
Actually, I went easy on you... I didn't add a drop shadow (which would make everything an order of magnitude more difficult) or mention that the finished product has to be 2 inches by 3... ;o)
|
|
etched
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,302
Likes โข 72
February 2008
|
The Rules of Art..., by etched on May 16, 2010 0:53:23 GMT 1, 'Actually, I went easy on you... '
thanks so much
'Actually, I went easy on you... '
thanks so much
|
|
etched
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,302
Likes โข 72
February 2008
|
The Rules of Art..., by etched on May 16, 2010 1:04:11 GMT 1,
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 16, 2010 1:27:29 GMT 1, Yes, of course, there's beauty in the organic, in the wavy lines, the hand-made... But, there's also beauty in mathematics, repetition, razor-sharp lines and intricate repeating patterns (things that humans can't do without electronic help)... If you say that one isn't art - you're excluding a massive area (all fractal art disappears instantaneously, for instance).
And, as someone who's painted a lot of text, I have a rather good insight into HOW some of those artist created their works - and I can't think of one that actually free-hands anything (they all use stencils, letraset or computers at some point in the process)...
Cheers,
Yes, of course, there's beauty in the organic, in the wavy lines, the hand-made... But, there's also beauty in mathematics, repetition, razor-sharp lines and intricate repeating patterns (things that humans can't do without electronic help)... If you say that one isn't art - you're excluding a massive area (all fractal art disappears instantaneously, for instance).
And, as someone who's painted a lot of text, I have a rather good insight into HOW some of those artist created their works - and I can't think of one that actually free-hands anything (they all use stencils, letraset or computers at some point in the process)...
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 16, 2010 1:36:04 GMT 1, Actually, the more I think about it.... All fractal art disappearing instantaneously wouldn't necessarily be that bad a thing...
Actually, the more I think about it.... All fractal art disappearing instantaneously wouldn't necessarily be that bad a thing...
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by schlomo on May 18, 2010 13:56:34 GMT 1, I really like the top piece, very clever.
I really like the top piece, very clever.
|
|
lifeonwalls
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,407
Likes โข 173
September 2007
|
The Rules of Art..., by lifeonwalls on May 18, 2010 18:26:16 GMT 1, So, tell me, what exactly is the point of doing it all by hand - if the final product takes 10 times as long AND doesn't look even half as good Seems kinda pointless to me...
I personally think CR's work looks better than your photoshop. The effort and time put in to each work shows - the subtle differences are what make it unique and interesting. Whereas anyone with an above-average knowledge of the CS5 suite could probably recreate your work in about an hour or so.
You gotta love artists who think that their way is the only possible (and legitimate) way of doing something...
Do you not realize that this is exactly what YOU are doing by stating that text should only be done via electronic means because it "always looks better"?
So, tell me, what exactly is the point of doing it all by hand - if the final product takes 10 times as long AND doesn't look even half as good Seems kinda pointless to me... I personally think CR's work looks better than your photoshop. The effort and time put in to each work shows - the subtle differences are what make it unique and interesting. Whereas anyone with an above-average knowledge of the CS5 suite could probably recreate your work in about an hour or so. You gotta love artists who think that their way is the only possible (and legitimate) way of doing something... Do you not realize that this is exactly what YOU are doing by stating that text should only be done via electronic means because it "always looks better"?
|
|
Pahnl
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 408
Likes โข 364
July 2009
|
The Rules of Art..., by Pahnl on May 19, 2010 10:45:26 GMT 1, *sidesteps the debate of hand vs digital*
On the topic of the typeface, I'd be more inclined to use a fixed width typeface, to perhaps reinforce the notion of formulaic art. I would also make the blocks of text repeat so often less visibly; if you scan down any part of the piece, you can quickly see a telltale pattern.
*steps back into the fray*
First off, it's impossible to say what's universally 'bad' or 'good' and different methods are appropriate for different situations. For me, and for the majority of people, I appreciate things that I can't do. If someone believes they can create a piece of art themselves, they're probably less likely to be appreciative.
Personally, I can understand how you've produced the pieces and I think anyone who has used Photoshop for a year or so could manage this too. They call it 'art' because there is an art to it and I can't say I subscribe to the notion that everyone is capable of producing art. I think the realization of your concepts is important because as it stands, they're digital images.
You may not want to write the text out by hand but there are many ways to tangibly produce these pieces whilst maintaining the "mathematics, repetition, razor-sharp lines and intricate repeating patterns": screenprint, stencils, letraset, making use of the typebars from a typewriter, linocut, embossing, exposing onto photographic paper, selectively rust-proofing certain areas of a sheet of metal that will then rust your design into existence et cetera...
*sidesteps the debate of hand vs digital*
On the topic of the typeface, I'd be more inclined to use a fixed width typeface, to perhaps reinforce the notion of formulaic art. I would also make the blocks of text repeat so often less visibly; if you scan down any part of the piece, you can quickly see a telltale pattern.
*steps back into the fray*
First off, it's impossible to say what's universally 'bad' or 'good' and different methods are appropriate for different situations. For me, and for the majority of people, I appreciate things that I can't do. If someone believes they can create a piece of art themselves, they're probably less likely to be appreciative.
Personally, I can understand how you've produced the pieces and I think anyone who has used Photoshop for a year or so could manage this too. They call it 'art' because there is an art to it and I can't say I subscribe to the notion that everyone is capable of producing art. I think the realization of your concepts is important because as it stands, they're digital images.
You may not want to write the text out by hand but there are many ways to tangibly produce these pieces whilst maintaining the "mathematics, repetition, razor-sharp lines and intricate repeating patterns": screenprint, stencils, letraset, making use of the typebars from a typewriter, linocut, embossing, exposing onto photographic paper, selectively rust-proofing certain areas of a sheet of metal that will then rust your design into existence et cetera...
|
|
Cedric Mnich
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,158
Likes โข 98
June 2009
|
The Rules of Art..., by Cedric Mnich on May 19, 2010 11:24:48 GMT 1, cuencajc.free.fr/
Check that, guys... it's painting.
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 19, 2010 19:20:35 GMT 1, "Do you not realize that this is exactly what YOU are doing by stating that text should only be done via electronic means because it "always looks better"?"
I never said that! In fact, I said the exact opposite (that hand writing worked way better than typesetting on the pieces he posted).
And, text DOES always look better when electronic - that wasn't a statement of subjectivity, it was a statement of fact! Human beings can't draw straight lines or circles (just look up the world-champion circle drawer to see just how bad we are at it). That's why EVERY artist that does text does massive 8 inch high text - because humans CAN'T do smaller text that looks right (well, not without going through a ridiculous amount of hastle anyways).
"Do you not realize that this is exactly what YOU are doing by stating that text should only be done via electronic means because it "always looks better"?"
I never said that! In fact, I said the exact opposite (that hand writing worked way better than typesetting on the pieces he posted).
And, text DOES always look better when electronic - that wasn't a statement of subjectivity, it was a statement of fact! Human beings can't draw straight lines or circles (just look up the world-champion circle drawer to see just how bad we are at it). That's why EVERY artist that does text does massive 8 inch high text - because humans CAN'T do smaller text that looks right (well, not without going through a ridiculous amount of hastle anyways).
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 19, 2010 19:27:23 GMT 1, Oh, I've never seen a Cuenca close-up in order to be sure, but I have an idea of how he did those paintings (it's a trade-secret that I've figured out, and have only seen the very best text-based artists use it, so I'm not going to say exactly how it's done and let the cat out of the bag). But, needless to say, the text was almost surely done by a computer - even though it was ultimately painted by hand...
Without going into detail... Notice how all the text in all his different paintings is pretty much exactly the same size?... There's a reason for that...
EDIT: This ISN'T how he's doing it, but to give you an idea: think letraset! You might lay down each letter by hand, but it's still a computer that created that letter...
Oh, I've never seen a Cuenca close-up in order to be sure, but I have an idea of how he did those paintings (it's a trade-secret that I've figured out, and have only seen the very best text-based artists use it, so I'm not going to say exactly how it's done and let the cat out of the bag). But, needless to say, the text was almost surely done by a computer - even though it was ultimately painted by hand...
Without going into detail... Notice how all the text in all his different paintings is pretty much exactly the same size?... There's a reason for that...
EDIT: This ISN'T how he's doing it, but to give you an idea: think letraset! You might lay down each letter by hand, but it's still a computer that created that letter...
|
|
Riley
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 181
Likes โข 80
April 2009
|
The Rules of Art..., by Riley on May 19, 2010 19:36:18 GMT 1, "And, text DOES always look better when electronic - that wasn't a statement of subjectivity, it was a statement of fact!"
sorry, not true. for years, typographers used hot metal and woodblock before it was replaced by the Mac as it was easier to use a mac than train for years on hot metal. but as convenient and as wonderful as computers are, it doesn't have the same organic irregularity as the old methods, and when time and budget allows, a lot of professional typographers I know will go back to using the old methods. And if you really want to see beautiful hand drawn and old school typography check out one of the greatest masters ever, Saul Bass.
"And, text DOES always look better when electronic - that wasn't a statement of subjectivity, it was a statement of fact!"
sorry, not true. for years, typographers used hot metal and woodblock before it was replaced by the Mac as it was easier to use a mac than train for years on hot metal. but as convenient and as wonderful as computers are, it doesn't have the same organic irregularity as the old methods, and when time and budget allows, a lot of professional typographers I know will go back to using the old methods. And if you really want to see beautiful hand drawn and old school typography check out one of the greatest masters ever, Saul Bass.
|
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 19, 2010 19:42:59 GMT 1, I own many pieces of Saul Bass actually.
And, you aren't getting my point. I'm saying humans can't draw straight lines - and you're saying I'm wrong, because people can draw wavy lines!... If you're trying to draw a straight line, a wavy line might look 'artistic', it might even look 'better' - but, it's NOT a straight line. It's NOT right. Simple as that. I want straight lines. You might prefer wavy lines, but I don't, and since I'm the creator of the piece - what I want wins...
I own many pieces of Saul Bass actually.
And, you aren't getting my point. I'm saying humans can't draw straight lines - and you're saying I'm wrong, because people can draw wavy lines!... If you're trying to draw a straight line, a wavy line might look 'artistic', it might even look 'better' - but, it's NOT a straight line. It's NOT right. Simple as that. I want straight lines. You might prefer wavy lines, but I don't, and since I'm the creator of the piece - what I want wins...
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 19, 2010 19:53:27 GMT 1, Oh, and how is the old way of typesetting NOT electronic??? Sure, they may not have used computers, but ALL the typesetting was done with the aid of machinery (kerning, spacing, fonts were all homogenous, spacers, the perfectly horizontal tracks the letters went into, etc...). Heck, hot metal involved making basically a stamp and using that over and over again in a printing press! That sounds a hell of a lot closer to a computer than to hand-painting....
Oh, and how is the old way of typesetting NOT electronic??? Sure, they may not have used computers, but ALL the typesetting was done with the aid of machinery (kerning, spacing, fonts were all homogenous, spacers, the perfectly horizontal tracks the letters went into, etc...). Heck, hot metal involved making basically a stamp and using that over and over again in a printing press! That sounds a hell of a lot closer to a computer than to hand-painting....
|
|
Riley
Artist
New Member
Posts โข 181
Likes โข 80
April 2009
|
The Rules of Art..., by Riley on May 19, 2010 20:07:24 GMT 1, I don't own any Saul Bass, so that makes me kinda jealous. But it's all subjective in the end, and it depends on the objective, as you say, you wanted perfect lines, and you are the creator, so that's what you created, and it's not my place to tell you what you should or shouldn't create. And I agree, no human hand can create a truly straight line, but typography is a craft which I have great admiration for, from the Victorian sign writers to the Lindisfarne gospels, and who knows, if they had had computers back then, they probably would have used them and the effect would have been totally different and probably just as wonderful. But seriously, I wish you good luck with you art and look forward to seeing more.
I don't own any Saul Bass, so that makes me kinda jealous. But it's all subjective in the end, and it depends on the objective, as you say, you wanted perfect lines, and you are the creator, so that's what you created, and it's not my place to tell you what you should or shouldn't create. And I agree, no human hand can create a truly straight line, but typography is a craft which I have great admiration for, from the Victorian sign writers to the Lindisfarne gospels, and who knows, if they had had computers back then, they probably would have used them and the effect would have been totally different and probably just as wonderful. But seriously, I wish you good luck with you art and look forward to seeing more.
|
|
rsj
New Member
Posts โข 492
Likes โข 34
January 2010
|
The Rules of Art..., by rsj on May 19, 2010 20:13:19 GMT 1, Mr Hollywoodnorth's comments have been rather insulting to other members. I don't know what he is trying to achieve apart from saying his pieces are better than the others.
To say "Text ALWAYS looks better when done by computer" and ""And, text DOES always look better when electronic - that wasn't a statement of subjectivity, it was a statement of fact!" is naive and absurd. It is an opinion, not "fact". Ultimately it seems that Mr Hollywoodnorth has this idea in his head that text equals computerised fonts, with straight lines, sharp edges and all. That is not the case. (And now he changes his mind from "computer" to "electronic" and furthermore to include "machinery".)
Saying to CR "But, I didn't want it to look all rough like that AT ALL ... I wanted the piece to look sleek and professional, so I used a computer to do the typesetting" is insulting. It's like saying "you can do that, but I like mine done properly".
I too prefer the "organic irregularity" described by Simon Riley, in most forms of arts, but of course that is a personal preference, not "fact".
Mr Hollywoodnorth's comments have been rather insulting to other members. I don't know what he is trying to achieve apart from saying his pieces are better than the others.
To say "Text ALWAYS looks better when done by computer" and ""And, text DOES always look better when electronic - that wasn't a statement of subjectivity, it was a statement of fact!" is naive and absurd. It is an opinion, not "fact". Ultimately it seems that Mr Hollywoodnorth has this idea in his head that text equals computerised fonts, with straight lines, sharp edges and all. That is not the case. (And now he changes his mind from "computer" to "electronic" and furthermore to include "machinery".)
Saying to CR "But, I didn't want it to look all rough like that AT ALL ... I wanted the piece to look sleek and professional, so I used a computer to do the typesetting" is insulting. It's like saying "you can do that, but I like mine done properly".
I too prefer the "organic irregularity" described by Simon Riley, in most forms of arts, but of course that is a personal preference, not "fact".
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 19, 2010 20:22:12 GMT 1, Sorry, forgot to reply to this one...
"You may not want to write the text out by hand but there are many ways to tangibly produce these pieces whilst maintaining the "mathematics, repetition, razor-sharp lines and intricate repeating patterns": screenprint, stencils, letraset, making use of the typebars from a typewriter, linocut, embossing, exposing onto photographic paper, selectively rust-proofing certain areas of a sheet of metal that will then rust your design into existence et cetera... "
You didn't read my requirements very carefully (transparent text, micro-text, razor sharp text and with a smooth gradient)! Screenprinting can't do 2, possibly 3 of those things. Stencils can kinda do three of them (if I had a year to cut out 10,000 letters) - but not well at all. Letraset can only do 1. Same with linocut and rust-proofing. Embossing can't really do any of them at all. And, exposing onto photopaper is really no different than printing from a computer (where do you get the image, if not from a computer in the first place).
As I mentioned before, DIGITAL WAS THE ONLY WAY I COULD DO THIS PIECE THE WAY I WANTED. So, you can slag it all you want for being digital. But, again, if it was anything else IT WOULDN'T EXIST... In fact, I had to wait months to create this piece, as there was no place near me that could print archival digital prints until just recently.
Oh, and by the way, I work in the film industry - and it's MUCH harder to create good digital art than to create good 'normal' art! MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH harder. How do I know this??? Because, every single talented digital artist I've ever known is now making millions in Hollywood (or the video game industry) - yet virtually every normal artist I know is dirt poor, despite being more talented as artists! Oh, and I'm not a digital artist (I'm a regular artist), btw, these two pieces were my first forrays into digital art.
Sorry, forgot to reply to this one...
"You may not want to write the text out by hand but there are many ways to tangibly produce these pieces whilst maintaining the "mathematics, repetition, razor-sharp lines and intricate repeating patterns": screenprint, stencils, letraset, making use of the typebars from a typewriter, linocut, embossing, exposing onto photographic paper, selectively rust-proofing certain areas of a sheet of metal that will then rust your design into existence et cetera... "
You didn't read my requirements very carefully (transparent text, micro-text, razor sharp text and with a smooth gradient)! Screenprinting can't do 2, possibly 3 of those things. Stencils can kinda do three of them (if I had a year to cut out 10,000 letters) - but not well at all. Letraset can only do 1. Same with linocut and rust-proofing. Embossing can't really do any of them at all. And, exposing onto photopaper is really no different than printing from a computer (where do you get the image, if not from a computer in the first place).
As I mentioned before, DIGITAL WAS THE ONLY WAY I COULD DO THIS PIECE THE WAY I WANTED. So, you can slag it all you want for being digital. But, again, if it was anything else IT WOULDN'T EXIST... In fact, I had to wait months to create this piece, as there was no place near me that could print archival digital prints until just recently.
Oh, and by the way, I work in the film industry - and it's MUCH harder to create good digital art than to create good 'normal' art! MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH harder. How do I know this??? Because, every single talented digital artist I've ever known is now making millions in Hollywood (or the video game industry) - yet virtually every normal artist I know is dirt poor, despite being more talented as artists! Oh, and I'm not a digital artist (I'm a regular artist), btw, these two pieces were my first forrays into digital art.
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 19, 2010 20:30:39 GMT 1, "Mr Hollywoodnorth's comments have been rather insulting to other members. I don't know what he is trying to achieve apart from saying his pieces are better than the others."
Umm, EXCUSE ME!!! I started a thread in a forum for artists to post their new work. Then, someone comes along and posts something of his (in a similar style) AND denigrates my work in the process! How would you like it if every time you posted a piece of art, someone came along and posted all theirs, saying they're better than yours?!?!? Now, that would be a dick-move in the first place - IF the artwork was actually better than yours. But, now imagine if someone did this, and their art was only better in one specific way (and much worse in others)... Then, imagine that they implied that your whole TYPE of art (digital) wasn't even art in the first place!...
And, despite what you think, text does look better when it's sharp! Otherwise, IT'S NOT A GOOD REPRESENTATION of what it's supposed to represent! Again, you might prefer wavy text - but, that's NOT PROPER TEXT! It's wrong. It might look good to you, but it's still wrong. It's not the way it's supposed to look (despite whatever you might think subjectively). It's wrong. Text has straight lines and perfect curves WHEN DRAWN PROPERLY. Text looks better when drawn properly (otherwise books, tv shows and newspapers would use hand-crafted type). It still may look good when drawn by hand - but it doesn't look RIGHT...
"Mr Hollywoodnorth's comments have been rather insulting to other members. I don't know what he is trying to achieve apart from saying his pieces are better than the others."
Umm, EXCUSE ME!!! I started a thread in a forum for artists to post their new work. Then, someone comes along and posts something of his (in a similar style) AND denigrates my work in the process! How would you like it if every time you posted a piece of art, someone came along and posted all theirs, saying they're better than yours?!?!? Now, that would be a dick-move in the first place - IF the artwork was actually better than yours. But, now imagine if someone did this, and their art was only better in one specific way (and much worse in others)... Then, imagine that they implied that your whole TYPE of art (digital) wasn't even art in the first place!...
And, despite what you think, text does look better when it's sharp! Otherwise, IT'S NOT A GOOD REPRESENTATION of what it's supposed to represent! Again, you might prefer wavy text - but, that's NOT PROPER TEXT! It's wrong. It might look good to you, but it's still wrong. It's not the way it's supposed to look (despite whatever you might think subjectively). It's wrong. Text has straight lines and perfect curves WHEN DRAWN PROPERLY. Text looks better when drawn properly (otherwise books, tv shows and newspapers would use hand-crafted type). It still may look good when drawn by hand - but it doesn't look RIGHT...
|
|
|
The Rules of Art..., by stencilbeast on May 19, 2010 20:44:04 GMT 1, Actually, let me put this all another way...
Say you want to draw a painting of a cube. Now, if that cube doesn't look square after you're done painting it, are you going to be happy?... It might look subjectively nice, it might be a beautiful painting - but are you going to be happy with your square that isn't square?... If your goal in creating the piece was to portray a perfect cube, a wavy box just isn't going to cut it (no matter how nice it looks).
So, you can argue all day that the wavy cube still looks nice. But, that doesn't stop the fact that it doesn't look like a cube (the human brain picks out the flaws immediately, we're so good a pattern recognition). The human eye will know something's wrong with it, unless it's perfectly straight.
It's not at all naive, rude or condescending to say that an imperfect square is lesser than a perfect square - it's just reality...
Perfect text looks better than imperfect text, just as a perfect square looks better than an imperfect one. Of course, there will be exceptions to every rule. But, in the great scheme of things, humans prefer smooth to lumpy, perfect to imperfect, straight to crooked. It's not insulting, it's just a fact. I'm shocked that so many people have chosen to argue the opposite....
Actually, let me put this all another way...
Say you want to draw a painting of a cube. Now, if that cube doesn't look square after you're done painting it, are you going to be happy?... It might look subjectively nice, it might be a beautiful painting - but are you going to be happy with your square that isn't square?... If your goal in creating the piece was to portray a perfect cube, a wavy box just isn't going to cut it (no matter how nice it looks).
So, you can argue all day that the wavy cube still looks nice. But, that doesn't stop the fact that it doesn't look like a cube (the human brain picks out the flaws immediately, we're so good a pattern recognition). The human eye will know something's wrong with it, unless it's perfectly straight.
It's not at all naive, rude or condescending to say that an imperfect square is lesser than a perfect square - it's just reality...
Perfect text looks better than imperfect text, just as a perfect square looks better than an imperfect one. Of course, there will be exceptions to every rule. But, in the great scheme of things, humans prefer smooth to lumpy, perfect to imperfect, straight to crooked. It's not insulting, it's just a fact. I'm shocked that so many people have chosen to argue the opposite....
|
|
stenev
New Member
Posts โข 560
Likes โข 36
December 2009
|
The Rules of Art..., by stenev on May 19, 2010 21:01:17 GMT 1, This thread is hilarious.
I like the concept but you really should improve your PR !
This thread is hilarious.
I like the concept but you really should improve your PR !
|
|