Show what you do in Photoshop
category: gfx [glöplog]
Quote:
You know, I've been looking at this thread and it begs one question: why does everything have to be artistic and meaningful anyway?
Nobody says everything has to be artistic, but artwork does. A picture can be pretty and still pointless, that's fine. It can be technically excellent and aesthetically pleasing without having any other meaning, that's fine too (although I value something just a little bit deeper, personally). My point about Ra's picture is that it isn't pretty, either. It's lacking in "objective technical aspects" too, such as composition, colour balance, depth, anatomy, as well as the less objective ones (it really does look kitsch to me).
There's absolutely nothing wrong with liking the picture despite of that, and (you need to underline this sort of thing on Pouet) I'm not claiming my work is necessarily any better, subjectively or objectively, but I don't get why it's hard to understand that the picture didn't do well in the compo.
Quote:
but I don't get why it's hard to understand that the picture didn't do well in the compo.
yes, it is not strange at all that ra's picture was placed below artistic masterpieces such as these:
...
havoc: Yes, the "Wildlife" one is especially impressive, though I personally like the original stock image more, but whatever:
Oh, I forgot the comparison maraz did back in august:
You're right, it's not. Those pictures are more pleasing to look at than Ra's picture. They're not good, mind, and the second one (if not the first one, too, hard to tell at that resolution) is incredibly cheap, but they have much of what Ra's picture lacks. I.e pleasing colours, some attempt at composition, etc.
Battle Droid: Mind you, it appears that most people at Assembly thought that "Wildlife" was pixeled/drawn in Painter/Photoshop. There was a bit of a ruckus when it turned out to be a stock image with a 3D font added. Sure, the final image might have some attempt at composition (though the original photographer would have to get that credit), but it's not even close to the Ra image when it comes to technical challenge, which is why people like demoscene art to begin with :)
stock photography used in the other pic is contained in it's release archive. both pics are total non-achievements in the sense of originality, it's just a composition of generated or plain stolen content...
i guess i have to enter my 15min photoshop jokes in democompos too... the audience demands it!
i guess i have to enter my 15min photoshop jokes in democompos too... the audience demands it!
IMO Wildfire's merit is in clever compo-rule loophole use.
But of course, it's only clever the first time it's done, so havoc your plan may backfire.
no it is ART!!!!!!111
jesus christ magic...
I refer you to:
;)
Yes, it's fucking lame to pass a stock photo off as a painting, and photo collages are incredibly lame too. If I were an ASM compo organiser I would have disqualified BassBoost's picture and probably banned him from entering for a few years. For the other picture I would've made sure it was emphasised in the compo that it's just a bunch of photos stuck together, or better yet, insisted on a "no copy" rule.
The end result in both cases, however, no matter how much I do think of it as (fucking) lame cheating, is more pleasing to look at than Ra's picture. And as far as "professional graphics artists" go, this is the sort of thing you'd do as a professional, because you're only interested in the end result, and the less of a challenge it is to get there, the better. All the more reason to distinguish scene graphics from professional graphics.
I would've voted for Ra's picture before either of those two, because Ra's picture is clearly painted, which in itself gives it higher artistic value (for me), which outweighs its technical shortcomings (but that's not to say Ra made anything that's easy for me to relate to, or to even look at, or be especially impressed by).
In many ways it's a lot like making crowdpleasing effects. You can make cheap effects look good with design, graphics and music, and you can make really awesome effects look unimpressive the same way. If you're going to put shitloads of effort into a picture, the audience isn't going to absorb that unless it's done in the framework of things like a good colour scheme, interesting composition, and so on and so on. An even better way would be to put all that effort into producing an interesting motif. Something meaningful and expressive, or sexually suggestive, or paradoxical, or dynamic, whatever. Could just be me, of course. ;)
Quote:
What's wrong with artwork just being cool? The demoscene isn't the Tate Gallery.
;)
Yes, it's fucking lame to pass a stock photo off as a painting, and photo collages are incredibly lame too. If I were an ASM compo organiser I would have disqualified BassBoost's picture and probably banned him from entering for a few years. For the other picture I would've made sure it was emphasised in the compo that it's just a bunch of photos stuck together, or better yet, insisted on a "no copy" rule.
The end result in both cases, however, no matter how much I do think of it as (fucking) lame cheating, is more pleasing to look at than Ra's picture. And as far as "professional graphics artists" go, this is the sort of thing you'd do as a professional, because you're only interested in the end result, and the less of a challenge it is to get there, the better. All the more reason to distinguish scene graphics from professional graphics.
I would've voted for Ra's picture before either of those two, because Ra's picture is clearly painted, which in itself gives it higher artistic value (for me), which outweighs its technical shortcomings (but that's not to say Ra made anything that's easy for me to relate to, or to even look at, or be especially impressed by).
In many ways it's a lot like making crowdpleasing effects. You can make cheap effects look good with design, graphics and music, and you can make really awesome effects look unimpressive the same way. If you're going to put shitloads of effort into a picture, the audience isn't going to absorb that unless it's done in the framework of things like a good colour scheme, interesting composition, and so on and so on. An even better way would be to put all that effort into producing an interesting motif. Something meaningful and expressive, or sexually suggestive, or paradoxical, or dynamic, whatever. Could just be me, of course. ;)
Quote:
The end result in both cases, however, no matter how much I do think of it as (fucking) lame cheating, is more pleasing to look at than Ra's picture. And as far as "professional graphics artists" go, this is the sort of thing you'd do as a professional, because you're only interested in the end result, and the less of a challenge it is to get there, the better. All the more reason to distinguish scene graphics from professional graphics.
Isn't that a bit contradictary? First you say that pictures that look good but are cheats is the way of the professional, and then you say that we have to distinguish between such "professional cheats" and demoscene art? Well, what distinction should that be, if not to appreciate the work behind it? Because you keep telling us that Ra's picture isn't up to "professional standards" (lack of composition, yadayada), but then you say we should try to disregard that? I'm having trouble understanding what it is you're actually telling us here :)
i thought there were a jury at assembly !
more pleasing to look at?!?!
srsly, even maali's 5min photoshop jokes are of higher quality than this...
There's many ways of looking at this. To me, doom's art is definitely more 'professional' (not sure of how to describe it, but technically and artistically it's in some ways a higher standard), but ra's work has more personal style to it.
If I was in an art shop buying a picture, I'd chose ra's work over doom's, it has more feeling (which is subjective anyway). Not that I'd hang either on a wall at home mind, neither are quite my taste ;)
If I was in an art shop buying a picture, I'd chose ra's work over doom's, it has more feeling (which is subjective anyway). Not that I'd hang either on a wall at home mind, neither are quite my taste ;)
what the flush is this discussion ?
it's like you're comparing rock'n'roll with techno music.
it's like you're comparing rock'n'roll with techno music.
Havoc: check ff je email. dank u ;-)
rock'n'roll + techno music = big beat (which is cool :)
i wonder how some people can STILL in 2008 try to justify the lameness/cheating/stealing of the past...
Elmore/boris and co. should have gotten a large part of all the money earned in these parties.
Are you sure you can really judge the pixel technique on a big smurry screen?
as for ra's last pic I think it's ok, made with taste in a demoscene-style, but I enjoyed more his past logos.
Elmore/boris and co. should have gotten a large part of all the money earned in these parties.
Are you sure you can really judge the pixel technique on a big smurry screen?
as for ra's last pic I think it's ok, made with taste in a demoscene-style, but I enjoyed more his past logos.
Appreciate the effort AND the skill with which that effort is applied. In a cynical sort of way, in this particular context BassBoost is a better graphics artist than Ra because he managed to impress the audience. What he impressed with was a stolen stock photo and the false impression that it was an intricate painting, but none the less, the audience saw both pictures and most of them went "I like the forest one better". I'm not saying that's as it should be, and it's largely up to the organisers to prevent that sort of disaster, but considering their failure the audience's reaction isn't hard to understand.
It's not entirely wrong for an audience to ignore a massive amount of effort put into a picture if it's not done in such a way that it shines through. To accomplish this you need those "professional standards" (meaning "skill", not to be confused with professionalism as in the effort=time=cost attitude). So when I say I would vote for Ra's picture before the other two, that's not to say we should disregard skill and only focus on effort. Effort is important because the artist has to put some soul into the picture, and there is no other way than by effort, but without skill (and actually considering things like motif, composition and colour, which if you will is also effort) it won't translate into a compelling picture.
Hope that's clearer.
It's not entirely wrong for an audience to ignore a massive amount of effort put into a picture if it's not done in such a way that it shines through. To accomplish this you need those "professional standards" (meaning "skill", not to be confused with professionalism as in the effort=time=cost attitude). So when I say I would vote for Ra's picture before the other two, that's not to say we should disregard skill and only focus on effort. Effort is important because the artist has to put some soul into the picture, and there is no other way than by effort, but without skill (and actually considering things like motif, composition and colour, which if you will is also effort) it won't translate into a compelling picture.
Hope that's clearer.
Quote:
Are you sure you can really judge the pixel technique on a big smurry screen?
if i recall correctly the compo organizer did zoom at the most striking parts of the pictures.
it's rather the fault of the jury who didn't disqualify the prods against the compo rules... weren't the standard drawing steps required ?
havoc: Admittedly, it sucks even more up close. :) Where do you get those? I can never seem to find party releases anywhere, except for productions that invariably end up on Pouet and such.
But yes, there's more to see in that picture, and in a number of technical aspects it's better. It's clearly a cheap and repulsive patchwork of stock photos that makes my stomach twist in uncomfortable ways (and I'm already quite sick after catching SARS at Sundown) because I know how cheap and easy it is. Fairness would make me like Ra's picture more (and I did say I would vote for it), but it's like comparing bland and boring techno music made with two or three keypresses in some techno generator to an intricate and emotional piano solo played on a piano that isn't properly tuned and by a guy who can't keep the rhythm. I'd prefer neither but I'd have to choose the techno. Although I hope that metaphor isn't too offensive to Ra who is after all a very talented artist whom I respect and admire. ;)
But yes, there's more to see in that picture, and in a number of technical aspects it's better. It's clearly a cheap and repulsive patchwork of stock photos that makes my stomach twist in uncomfortable ways (and I'm already quite sick after catching SARS at Sundown) because I know how cheap and easy it is. Fairness would make me like Ra's picture more (and I did say I would vote for it), but it's like comparing bland and boring techno music made with two or three keypresses in some techno generator to an intricate and emotional piano solo played on a piano that isn't properly tuned and by a guy who can't keep the rhythm. I'd prefer neither but I'd have to choose the techno. Although I hope that metaphor isn't too offensive to Ra who is after all a very talented artist whom I respect and admire. ;)