An art question: Is it ever too much?
IL Ruffino
26-11-2007, 20:26
In my free time I like to lurk around deviantART and either bitch about how my photos are better or try to figure out how they did something neat. Usually, though, I just bitch a lot. Sometimes I wonder why certain styles are so popular while I think they're ugly.
Example: http://angelreich.deviantart.com/art/Bloody-Tears-52986069
Sure it's nice, but it hardly even looks like a photo! The colours are too.. much.
Am I the only person in the world who thinks that's ugly?
I think it looks really cool
That's a photo? I thought it was a matte painting.
That's a photo? I thought it was a matte painting.
Yeah, how did they get that effect? And I don't really like it, it isn't ugly, but not beautiful either.
Small House-Plant
26-11-2007, 20:45
I actually like it, but didn't they just take a photo then invert the colours and up the contrast?
The_pantless_hero
26-11-2007, 20:50
That's better than most of the crap that gets ranked high on DeviantArt.
That's better than most of the crap that gets ranked high on DeviantArt.
Which says little. I don't care for the image, it looks CG rather than photographic. If I want to see pretty CGI shit I'll load up a game on my computer.
Kryozerkia
26-11-2007, 20:53
It's not bad for visual art. I've seen better and worse.
Smunkeeville
26-11-2007, 20:57
Which says little. I don't care for the image, it looks CG rather than photographic. If I want to see pretty CGI shit I'll load up a game on my computer.
exactly. That's why I like Ruffy's pics, they are interesting views of real things, I especially like his crayon photos and the ones of bubbles.
Call to power
26-11-2007, 21:09
That's a photo? I thought it was a matte painting.
savages!
it clearly shows time (the water with bubble bath added) washing away all memory of the tortured past (the red sand) whilst the beautifully bright (yet uncertain) future looms overhead, ready to provide the means and the light for the next generation until the sea comes to claim its prize once more...
I'm far too good at this and it needs a sandcastle with a flag to add effect to my commentary :p
It is a nice computer generated or heavily edited image, but it is not a photograph anymore.
Egh. I can take it or leave it. I'll probably leave it.
Amor Pulchritudo
27-11-2007, 01:58
I actually like it, but didn't they just take a photo then invert the colours and up the contrast?
Perhaps. This is it with the colours inverted and contrast turned down.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/gracejulia/pics/Bloody_Tears_by_angelreich.jpg
[Copyright © Marcin Stawiarz etc.]
Nevertheless, I think it's an interesting photograph.
In my eyes it certainly does not fall into "ugly", and it is undoutabley "art". The composition is well done and the colours are striking, and while I would never consider it my sort of thing, I do think it has some beauty lurking within it.
Whereyouthinkyougoing
27-11-2007, 02:13
Ugly and a lie. But someone forgot to make the poll multiple choice.
Oakondra
27-11-2007, 02:29
It looks moderately nifty, but it doesn't even look like a photograph. It seems to me more like a drawing, perhaps a manipulation of a photograph. Thus, I picked a "lie". Though, the Crocker choice was tempting.
It's fascinating, but far too busy. I can't really look at it for long.