• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Good art tutorial

PureX

Veteran Member
It seems you are unaware of what can constitute are, probably not your fault.

Of course a pleasing creation can be seen as art, and silly attempts to strawman it are just silly attempts. Pleasing is an emotional response not a colour or a sound. But maybe to you... Who knows
Emotional responses can be deliberately generated, and then used to facilitate a far more profound experience. I think the problem here is that you have never been taught how to articulate an art experience beyond it's being "pleasing" or "not pleasing". And of course, there is FAR more to it then that.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Emotional responses can be deliberately generated, and then used to facilitate a far more profound experience. I think the problem here is that you have never been taught how to articulate an art experience beyond it's being "pleasing" or "not pleasing". And of course, there is FAR more to it then that.

Ouch. Did you really just tell a 30 year artist that?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Emotional responses can be deliberately generated, and then used to facilitate a far more profound experience. I think the problem here is that you have never been taught how to articulate an art experience beyond it's being "pleasing" or "not pleasing". And of course, there is FAR more to it then that.

Dont be so f****ing consicending.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Emotional responses can be deliberately generated, and then used to facilitate a far more profound experience. I think the problem here is that you have never been taught how to articulate an art experience beyond it's being "pleasing" or "not pleasing". And of course, there is FAR more to it then that.


And of course i have provided a wiki and a link to question with answers by many professional artists who agree with me and use mu wording "pleasing"

While you have provided your typical foot stomping incredulity.

It seems while you have been learning words i have been doing art.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Graphic/set design isn't art, it's graphic/set design. It could be a platform upon which an artist(s) creates art. But your tutorial is none of that. It's just a "how to" course in digital mechanics. Art is not defined by it's mechanics, or by the skill sets involved, or by the subject matter, or by the degree of appreciation it receives.
It does make me wonder if , hypothetically of course, Alexander or Bob Ross would have been just as popular had they had a computer screen instead of a canvas to work on.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Just because someone plays a guitar doesn't mean they learned to read and write music.

Just because someone uses a physical paint brush instead of a digital one hardly makes them an artist either. Why the snobbishness regarding digital creations? I tend not to like much of 'modern' art but I hesitate to describe it as 'not art' rather than the rubbish (and just my particular taste) I often see it as. :rolleyes:
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Just because someone plays a guitar doesn't mean they learned to read and write music.

Stick to the subject and stop throwing in straw men.

Just because someone says they know big words about art does not mean they know squat about art
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
It does make me wonder if , hypothetically of course, Alexander or Bob Ross would have been just as popular had they had a computer screen instead of a canvas to work on.

And does that apply to David McLeod and Sara Ludy but the other way round?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
It does make me wonder if , hypothetically of course, Alexander or Bob Ross would have been just as popular had they had a computer screen instead of a canvas to work on.
I think Bob Ross was popular mostly because of his personality. His shows were kind of a homey, 'how to' version of musak. A gentle man with a lot of skill. I'm not familiar with Alexander.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Just because someone uses a physical paint brush instead of a digital one hardly makes them an artist either. Why the snobbishness regarding digital creations?
I have nothing against digital imagery. I was merely pointing out that mediums and skill sets do not define art, and neither does popularity.
I tend not to like much of 'modern' art but I hesitate to describe it as 'not art' rather than the rubbish (and just my particular taste) I often see it as. :rolleyes:
Art isn't about pleasing our sensibilities, so it's not surprising that much of it doesn't. And that's really neither here nor there. Like going to a sporting event and judging it's merit on how pretty or ugly the uniforms are.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I have nothing against digital imagery. I was merely pointing out that mediums and skill sets do not define art, and neither does popularity.
Art isn't about pleasing our sensibilities, so it's not surprising that much of it doesn't. And that's really neither here nor there. Like going to a sporting event and judging it's merit on how pretty or ugly the players are.

More strawmen, can you not keep the discussion to art or have you always got to include sport or whatever else you can use to divert?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I have nothing against digital imagery. I was merely pointing out that mediums and skill sets do not define art, and neither does popularity.

I'm not sure I know what defines art - do you? (I knew popularity didn't necessarily of course)

Art isn't about pleasing our sensibilities, so it's not surprising that much of it doesn't. And that's really neither here nor there. Like going to a sporting event and judging it's merit on how pretty or ugly the uniforms are.

As if that is news to me. So what does define art and who gets to decide?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I'm not sure I know what defines art - do you? (I knew popularity didn't necessarily of course)



As if that is news to me. So what does define art and who gets to decide?

It seems @PureX gets to decide to the extent of belittling any art he does not like!
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
da Vinci is foaming at the mouth in his grave - and desiring of the latest Photoshop version for a Christmas present. :oops:

Photoshop has its place but i am sure Da Vinci would have a field day with Maya, 3DS Max, even Mudbox and zBrush.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Photoshop has its place but i am sure Da Vinci would have a field day with Maya, 3DS Max, even Mudbox and zBrush.

I'd like to think he would have considered stereograms and Op Art gifs as art too. I'd bet he would have been fascinated with stereograms. :dizzy:
 
Top