+++CONTENT & VALUE+++
When a person creates an image of a robot its quick to get slapped generally with the concept art or sci-fi art label. I think its safe to say people won't qualify a drawing like the one I'm sharing with you as legitimate art, or yet even valuable. I can share an image like this and the prop/praise value is in most cases next to zero. Now...why is that? I can easily draw a person, and 10 times out of 10, I'll have an immediate response from the viewer. Its my understanding people respond to figurative work as something gasp able. Most people like to see themselves in things, so when a human form is displayed it gives the viewer relative value to respond.
But what makes a robot secondary or even at times valueless? I know it's somewhat bias for me to speak on the behalf of robots considering its role in my upbringing (80s transformers/raised in Japan). Sorry for this rant, but the point I'm getting at is really this:
Content and its value
What makes a content valuable? How does this affect your choice in the content you chose to create?
Its something I think about from time to time.

8 comments:

  1. whoa.
    I dig the verbage as much as I dig the robot.

    Well played Bags.

    *you should write more

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think people can recognize the figure being drawn well because we all know what it looks like. When you draw a specific line to describe a small indentation from our shoulder muscles, whether the viewer consciously knows there's a muscle there or not, we recognize that it should be there because we see it all the time. Robots or any completely made-up objects are a little harder to get that response because we have less of a reference point. But! rendering skills can and should be celebrated regardless.
    that's my opinion.
    good piece baglady
    sidneyewell_myfacehurts

    ReplyDelete
  3. bags,

    i agree. your writing is unmatched. the points you touched on were highly valuable. thanks. grand post. stay grand...

    sincerely,
    _b
    *dumpster funk bags.

    holler

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Jimmy, Yeah I'm working on the writing skills, I'll diff try to write more.

    Most of the other guys should too considering how lengthy convos can get when exchanging thoughts, ideas, and views with the other guys.

    Si- Agreed sir. Its funny how many different way we can branch off of this. Like another thought that's pretty relative is "style, content, and value" Like for example the maturity of how a figure is depicted in most artist progression. I've noticed, at least it seems a natural progression, that the more we deal with the figure the less stylize it becomes and the more technical it seems to get. I understand/see the value and need to progress in this sense but what makes us lose interest/abandon figurative work that's a bit stylize. But yet stylize work can be just as technical but yet I've noticed I have a hard time going back to that. I know a bit has to do with the creator's preference in style, but what do you think shapes that preference you know? Like for example, I remember you were a big Joe Madd fan back in the day, and so was I, but its funny how my interest for it is not there like it used to. I still think his work is amazing and I think I developed my personal taste toward something else but it makes me wonder how value plays a role in this. Like the value of Joe Mads's art, well its comic art right, true, but its good comic art and yes context has to do its value as well (considering its art placed within the comic world, the art is valued accordingly) But I guess the point I"m drivng at is if you were to take Joe Madd's line art, render it with skill and craft of say Sir Sargent, would the art be legitimate/value as the art of someone today who can replicate what Sargent can do?

    Figurative+Stylized+Refined craft vs Figurative + Technical+ Refine craft

    No set answer here, just throughing thoughts out there haha

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think dynamics is what makes Joe Mad so amazing. Dynamic action, composition, and a drawing style that accentuates the form in a dynamic way. I think there are two different topics here. Stylized and Realist, Fictional and Non. But I see your point. You would like Spectrum work to be appreciated as a Rockwell or a painting of flowers.
    (I am kind of fascinated by interests in general. Music, food, art, why isn't what I think is good good to everyone else? Don't they see, hear, taste what I do? I think we all wrestle with that when we share our preferences)
    Lots of questions.
    good post.
    IV

    ReplyDelete
  6. these words are the good kind.


    _DT

    ReplyDelete
  7. yo Bags, Ben said you wear size 8.5 shoes...is this true? i got the ill vision street wears in the box..old-new. they need a home.


    _DT

    *dt at awesomeincorporated dot com *

    ReplyDelete
  8. 43,

    whoa, i just caught up on this post. this is that other level of thinking. kinda like the level we talk on the phone. really questioning things. SI's last words were pretty amazing. yeah i can totally relate to what your talking about. i almost like things more when its done by someone who doesn't know what it is. i think once someone graduates highschool i dislike their artwork.

    bags don't sleep on those shoes they are rad. holler at the d-triz.

    sincerely,
    _b
    *dumpster funk talk-boy.

    holler

    _b

    ReplyDelete

░░░░░░░