I've noticed that 2D artists/non-sculptors who engage in strange mediums or techniques generally only make realistic closeup portraits of people. I saw the headline, thought "neat, but I bet he just makes normal expressionless faces." Opened the page and it seems like that's the vast majority of his work. As an artist myself, I'm always like ehhhhh when I see this. Feels a bit like the kind of stuff you see for sale in tourist areas.
Some image artifacts are even common enough to have entered pop culture. For example, if you are a fan of Dungeon Meshi, Marcille's "Sky Fish" familiar is inspired by cryptids stemming from the "rods" that often show up in pictures.
Once you stretch boundaries thin enough, you could argue that all art is about inducing pareidolia. After all, it’s all just cracks on glass/smears of paint on canvas and so on. It matters little whether there was artistic intent or not, if the result looks like a face, it looks like a face. ;-)
I saw some of these works in Stockholm and then in Miami, and you 100% captured my thoughts. Cool technique well utilized, but beyond that I'm not sure I felt any particular connection to the art. It just felt bland.
That's ok, not all art affects all people the same and to me that's the wonderful thing about art – it really is ok to have different opinions and taste, no one is wrong. I'll just move on to the next piece and hopefully enjoy that more. :o)
It’s like there are 2 axes: - cool technique and - cool picture. The second is way more important than the first, which is way painters are still on top of the 2D art world.
Some people can do both though. And i’d say even in these cases the art world tend to dismiss the weird technique as gimmicky.
And the reason 'cool picture' is way more important than 'cool technique' is because the technique is essentially no longer part of the art / picture at completion.
You've just got the sausage, and there's (not necessarily) any indication of how it was made inherent to the sausage - even if the way the sausage is made is cooler than the sausage itself.
I don't understand this at all in respect to the actual topic at hand. The "cool technique" in this case is creating 2D art by means of cracking glass. It's quite obvious at completion, just by seeing the art, what the general technique was. It's not like people are mistaking this for a watercolor.
I'm not sure it's so fitting. You can see hoe this technique was done and how it's different from painting. Or like, a portrait made of pennies, or string and nails, etc, etc.
Another way to see this is that most obsessed artists live within constraints they created years ago, and their art stands out as it is something never seen before: the best someone has ever done within the constraints they took decades to explore and master.
All commercial art is soulless. Music, movies, professional painting and sculpting.
One thing I'm hoping for if AI destroys much of the value of soulless art, is human actual art reverting to the motivation of the desire people have to share things with those they love.
I also properly hate this guy's website. Too much clicking around and exploring to find good, in focus, photographs of examples of his work. Maybe I should blame OP for not submitting a page with examples of the work but, whatever, I did not enjoy the hunting and pecking.
As someone who also loves to paint esp portraits I was wondering in your opinion what looks like a good portrait? Because every time I go out on a limb and do what I think is neat the subject/audience seems less than interested. It's like people like a good photo.
"Normal expressionless faces" to quote OP have been a big part of the foundation of "art" for ages. Hammered in marble, paint brushed on canvas, made with tiny mosaic pieces, and any other possible medium. What makes "hammered in glass" shallow and uninspired compared to any of those?
The exhibitions section [0] has examples of abstract pieces of art too.
I’ll understand what? We have a plethora of established artists of incontestable value. If I need to check one out in particular to understand expression, excitement, inspiration, then all others have failed. You name exactly one. Why not Rodin? Or Henry Moore?
I bet nobody here saw the art from the submission in person but look at how many opinions around.
Every time I hear armchair critique of someone else’s “boring uninspired art” and “expressionless faces”, or “art connoisseurs” giving snippets of wisdom, I know they’re fuller of hot air than a desert on a hot summer day.
If it's shallow and uninspired, why not make a better version? The medium is freer than Free Software. A sharpened hammer, a pane of laminated glass, and some time.
They said "shallow and uninspired" but that's separate from "requires immense skill and patience". The point is, whether or not the process is cool and impressive, is the end product really very interesting?
It can be valid to criticize something as uninspired even if you're not capable of doing it yourself. Movie critics would have a hard time otherwise.
In this case I wouldn't be quite as dismissive, personally. But if you've seen one, have you seen them all? Probably yes.
Like when someone that clearly needs more exercise, is yelling at a sports star to “not be lazy,” or “practice more.”
It can easily be said that this makes no sense, because the yeller has no idea of the tremendous work that even the lowest-tier athletes put into their vocation.
On the other hand, they are a “customer” of the athlete, and have a “right” to criticize the “product.” They are probably out of line, suggesting root causes and solutions, but they aren’t out of line for complaining about their experience with the product.
The athlete is in a no way a product a dude behind the tv bought. Tv watching guy is not a customer of the artist. Like, first of all, the dude behind the tv did not paid the athlete nor the athlete employer.
> but they aren’t out of line for complaining about their experience with the product.
They are just as asshole, as much valid as me mocking random people on the street.
I agree with that last part but the people watching the athlete are definitely the customer. The athlete gets paid because people watch them on tv (and in person). If no one watched them on tv, then they quite literally would not get paid. Their employer is selling their talent and abilities (the product) to the watchers (the customers). The watchers are literally paying the athlete and the athletes employer, if not through subscriptions or tickets, then just by watching the ads on tv.
1.) It is not even true that all athletes you watch on TV would be professionals. A lot of them are supposed amateurs, not getting actual salary at all.
2.) Like common, it is even fairly common for people to pay literally nothing to anyone and watch professional sports for free.
3.) Those who are paid are NOT paid by the watchers at all. Not even by the TV itself. Their actual employers are multiple steps away from broadcaster.
> if not through subscriptions or tickets, then just by watching the ads on tv.
That makes them products themselves. They are not paying by watching ads, their time is sold to the real customer who is whoever paid for ads.
There is no obligation for a critic to produce better work than what is being criticized and it is a cheap and dishonest rhetorical tactic to imply otherwise.
I 100% guarantee you have criticized things without trying to produce better work yourself. It is a deeply dishonest standard.
agree and I'd venture we tend to see more uninspired art because most success in the art world is more about business acumen than experimentation and uniqueness.
Art is only interesting if it elicits an emotional response in the viewer. Otherwise it is illustration.
And the wonder of it is that we can all have different responses to the same thing. (The Mona Lisa is a waste of canvas and oil - a hill I will die on).
I cynically believe that many people will force themselves into having an emotional response if the art piece matches with what they understand as having currency with the type of people they seek to emulate and the rarified scene they want to be a part of.
I think I read here on hackernews that the Mona Lisa doesn't look at all like it did when it was freshly made. If I look at the restored copy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado)#, I at least find the silk very nice.
The technique is cool though.