seeking

thats because kids now a days dont know their history. CHINO is ny legend. you wouldnt be writing if it wasnt for people like him.

i would think in times of war, people would be more drawn to figurative stuff. in times of confusion and chaos, people want answers and leaders and safety and to be told what to think. none of which are the selling points of abstract. not saying that im right, just seems to make more sense to me.

so?

which first line? that we all thirst for concrete images? i think we all thirst for things we can relate to, i doubt most people would intentionally limit their search to a finite criteria. as for the rest, that abstract art is only good for restoring the virginity of figurative art, im honestly not sure i understand what he means. that abstract art will eventually go so far that it cancels itself out, thus bringing about a revival of figurative art? if that is indeed his point, i'd almost say the opposit. abstract art ushered in the idea that art neednt be contained within the confines of accepted 'form', something like that can never be pushed back inside a small box and resealed. i think dali kind of needed to feel that way, as do all figurative painters, to justify their existence. to explain why their laborious effort can not be undone by a single brush stroke. then again, i really know dick all about art, so who knows.

when i think of 'multi media' i think of monitors playing tape loops and stupid sound effects and shit. basically, real self indulgent bullshit. for sake of my arguments here, im considering 'digital art' to be something that is created, maintained and displayed on a computer or other similar monitoring device. maybe that's a pretty narrow view, but its also semantical (is that even a word?) and allows me to judge a whole lot more stuff without fear of tainting it with the preconceived notion of it being 'digital'. i feel like im saying the same things over and over. i apologize if that is the case. i like this thread. and tussin. whoop whoop.

i dont disagree with that, i just wouldnt classify something like that, or anything similar as 'digital art'. it might utilize computers and digital technology to facilitate it, but it's used to create a physical manifestation. that's much different than the rave flyer graphics that sparked this debate. i recently came across a lamp on the internet. it had a panel on it that you'd touch, and it would begin pulsing its light in time with your heart rate. obviously technology was controling the effect, but i wouldnt call that 'digital art'. maybe its just the way i look at it though.

yes, i have heard of 'you have to start somewhere'. i think it's right around the corner from 'we don't want to look at it', behind the old 'learn some fucking respect, son'. you're just starting, fine, we all start someplace. most of us have the common sense to not put our first attempts at graff in everyones face though. either learn a bit of humility, learn to take criticism, or don't post. if you can't do that, i'll just make it so you cant. that's one of the perks of being a 'senior moderator'. ;)

im not dismissing the possibility of it one day being relevent, but you cant very well put a piece of coal in a ring and say 'well, one day it might be a diamond'. the burning man thing sounds interesting, but it also sounds more like traditional art, facilitated by computers, than 'digital art'. its taking an idea, using technology to achieve it, and spitting it back out in physical form. the entire thing could have been done by hand, it woud have just taken longer and required a team of people. maybe im just limiting myself in what i chose to view as 'dgital art'. simply using a computer in the process does not making something digital to me. im too high on tussin to articulate things, but im glad you got involved in this mams.

no you arent. please dont post your pictures here. they arent good.

why do you let your friend look like such a total faggot?

that spot has been a 'legal' for 15 years. none of this matters.

good riddance.

hogarth, i was a bit misleading with my 'a photo can never convey a mountain top' or whatever i said... i wasnt trying to say that nothing can ever convey the emotion of something else, just that there are certain things that can not be replicated in a truly effective way. taking a picture of the grand canyon is not seeing the grand canyon, just as fucking with the liquify function on photoshop is not making art. 'art' is (yes i said it) the attempt to convey an emotion, and/or an attempt to recreate nature in a controlled setting. you can do that with film, you can do that with photographs, you can do that wiht painting, and you can do it with digital stuff, however i maintain that it is very difficult to accomplish and extremely limited i think. futuras site worked because it was a maze of images, thoughts and ideas. it was using the limitless expanse of the internet for it's strongest suit. however, find me 5 examples of something as equally interesting, that do not rely on that one factor. i agree that his site is brilliant, but ive yet to come across something else that equalled it. then again, i only look at 12oz. IMO the sites posted are interesting (for atleast 30 seconds anyway) and i dont devalue their existence as a whole, but as far as 'art' is concerned, they're just hollow to me. art that is facilitated by technology will always be controlled by it. things like that are meaningless and flash in the pan. you draw some lines, some shit happens, you erase it, its done. there is no effort, no commitment, no risk, no reward. i suppose the people coding it are doing something, and theres an art in that, but its the art of science more than the art of....'art'. all of these things are my opinion, and im not saying them to be 'right', im saying them to spark discussion. i want to understand how digital stuff like this can convey emotion, i just dont right now.

dope, but the patterns are mad distracting. id rather it be textrued color, than the patters. it makes it difficult for me to even look at the paintings, cause my eyes bounce around inside the circles. and i dont believe it's 'closeminded' at all. i think that the computer, and the internet, is a HORRIBLE way of experiencing things. its so detached and unaffected. its a good way to connect on a basic level, get ideas and information, but to think that its at all possible to 'experience' life via the internet is a gross perversion of the word 'experience'. there is no picture, no matter the size, that can convey the feeling of standing on top of a mountain, and abslutely no picture on a 15" screen can even come close. things need to be tactile. they need to be tangible. its just how the senses work. any relatively intelligent person can look at a photo of something and imagine what it would be like to be there, but imagining is never ever the same as being. it cant be. if you have some examples of the interactive fantastic world, by all means, please post them. maybe im misunderstanding your vision. i just cant imagine it as being anything i could find any kinship with.

i dont thnk its necessarily 'conservative', i just think its... ive never been able to connect 'emotionally' on any level with some 'multi media' art. its just souless IMO. it can be cool looking, but the only stuff ive ever found interesting at all were the things that relied on gimmicy technology to wow you. they'd be cool to look at for about 2 minutes, then you realize there's just nothing there.

no need to delete it. just because it's not my taste, that doesnt mean i think it's worthless. well, kind of i do, but who cares what i think. heres a question for you though. why do it? what do you get out of it? do these images actually speak to you? to they cull some sort of emotion? what is it about them that you relate to? as for my own work, everything i do boils down to the relationship between the colors, and more specifically, the point at which they meet. the entire painting is constructed to facilitate the seam where colors colide. the fields of color exist in order to give weight, importance and emotional backing. different color combinations extoll different levels of intensity. balance works to narrate the oppositional forces. crushing weight, stagnation, isolation, excapism etc. oh, alot of the time they deal with things falling apart, or being torn apart as well. i'm kind of a 16 year old girl.

SB, personally, id like to see more playing with negative space. maybe thats just because i tend to gravitate towards work like that, but i think it would be interesting to see some aspects more blown out and extended than others. always like seeing it though, regardless. digital stuff...ehhhhh, not so much.

i like those. first one especially. i did ceramics for a couple years. never got too wacky with it, pretty standard bowls and stuff, but i liked it alot. definitely something id like to revist again. even 'bad' ceramics are fairly useful.

rock&ryku Today, 02:39 AM be low the belt - yo I reported you for that one it is called a PRIVATE MESSAGE for a reason NOT COOL you reported me to myself, nitwit. who you think runs this shit? (also, 'below' is one word.)

personally, i cant stand anything done on the computer. it feels so cold and dead. even jer's computer stuff, ive never been a fan of. just too far removed for me. im not into comic books at all, but when i look at them and they're colored in photoshop, i want to piss all over them. P, painting would be from stations of the cross. either 'first' or 'fifth station'. one bar down the back of one leg, one bar down the other. (not sure if you have access to the pics, i know fifth is online.).

shit is definitely not good at all. go simpler. characters look a lot like they want to be mode2. not that i care, but people will tell you that. id rather this thread not turn into some big writers wrokshop. if you want help on your stuff there are plenty of threads in paperchase.

second one is rad. spent a decent portion of the night trying to decide if i want a barnet newman tattoo. im thinking i do.

rock&ryku 09-04-2007, 03:51 AM long time no see - o seeking how I have missed you and your salty smut magazine we call 12oz detroit graffiti I really can not believe you have let people be so fucked what eve me and you should get some coffee some time I realy want to hear your 2 cent consider that my '2 cent'.

punc, just because someone talks, it does not mean they know what they're talking about. it takes more than 'getting close to the wall' with stock caps. also, i highly doubt you can do it just fine on paper, but then have problems transfering it to the wall. i imagine the paper versions suck as well. no offense, just saying. learning takes time, nothing wrong with that. i appreciated the wine reply. keep a sense of humor, theres no reason getting bent over the comments on the internet.

i recently replaced my million dollar home with a one bedroom apartment, and my quarter mill sportscar with a hand me down whip from a deceased relative. it's kind of my attempt to get 'back to basics' and see how the common folks live. im trying to tap into that 'primal' sort of art. you know, that real base level shit that speaks to factory workers and machineists. im thinking of calling it 'porn', and featuring titties. i smell a hit.