http://www.artworld.si/index.php?act=module&module=gallery&cmd=si&img=1982 yes, you are as talented as magritte, and you're making such a strong statement... i don't mean to put down this artist in particular... it's almost all lousy. a few random actual works of art thrown into a sea of lousy rip offs. pseudo meaningful... i really hate photoshop; it's degrading the amazement and magic of true works of art. especially surrealism. it's fun to look at... it's pretty... but it's like when disney makes a crappy series or sequal to a great classic... suddenly the classic doesn't hold the same value, because it can be cheaply reproduced to be just like the original. except you know it's not... it's lacking love. you can tell. or maybe i just have a stick up my ass.
I have to disagree Katie... beauty is found in anything, depending on the will of reception of the individual who is seeking this particular beauty. The people (photoshop geeks) who create those things are most likely not gonna be able to sell their art (hopefully)... they do it for the pleasure, and somehow, they sometimes end up pretty nicely... Cause really, anything can be beautiful to an completely empty mind with no principals... our judgements and our personality will affect the beauty of things around. I believe you have to look at art like this with an empty mind, and not think of the way its been done... for how many of us will fall in love with a forest or a beach or a particular place in nature... when none of us really knows how its been made, the mystery of it all. If we were to know that trees and lakes were the result of something cheap, we would not find them ugly for what they vibrate, but for the "cheap" attribute thats behind it all...
I think its pretty neat.. photoshop could be a bad thing, but in this case, i see nothing but originality....using photoshop as a whole new medium. i think it is exciting, and cant wait to see what kind of art will come out of it. remember: The Impressionists were detested. The Fauves, with Matisse at the head, were hated. Picasso and Cubism...not well recieved.....at first. Munch was laughed at at his first showing....every major art movement was not well recieved at the onset
while I didn't like that one in particular, there are tons of photoshopped images I really like. I dunno, it just seems really... awful to be that despairaging of an entire art field (not you in particular, I've heard some verrrry nasty, critical opinions of photoshoppery lately that are much worse than wha tyou said). I mean, photography wasn't counted as an art for a hella long time, lots of art formats are not readily accepted but that doesn't mean they're any less valid.
oh, i'm not saying everything made in photoshop is bad. i've done tons of graphic art, i've used photoshop for some of it, i respect artists in all mediums. i just don't like blatant rip offs, or when someone uses another person's idea that they know isn't well known to a certain crowd, to pass it off as their own. i find THAT disrespectful and lame. maybe i shouldn't have said "i really hate photoshop", because that doesn't make sense... it's just a program. and there are tons of really thoughtful, beautiful things that have been made by using it that i would consider art. but it is incredibly easy to copy and paste and add some effects and make something look nice, when it took no love and no effort. it can turn the original into a cliche, and we become numb to it. i don't know, i see it as... microwave dinner vs. food you actually prepare yourself a plastic plant vs. something you grew yourself following a formula to create music vs. doing it organically and listening to your emotions... if the first things become too prominent we're going to completely forget about the second, and i think that's sad. but i probably shouldn't have been so harsh.
Oooooooh k, you were talking about copying something, cliche-ifying something, very different than being anti digital art I concur, copying anothers work is pretty fuckin sketchy
