>_> k

well anyway heres my first realism piece.

Corbo: Meet Pablo Picasso. Arguably one of the best painters in the world, he used Cubism.
I wouldn't say cubism is realistic, but it is still art.

Although Picasso is supposed to be good I think he's overrated.
You people talk about picasso because you don't know other artists
I rather stick with Dalí. But I'm really into surrealism or desconstructivism not cubism.

I was just pointing Syphon that the pencil quality was NOT good I don't know why you ignorants are making such a big deal about it.

>>Stickified

Corbo, you're clearly the ignorant one in matters of artistry.

Sure, photoshopper.
What does artistry even mean? link me to wikipedia, please.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 27 2008, 1:29 am by Corbo.

No, you can't just attack me to get away from this. Aside from the fact that I'm definitely more knowledgeable and skilled than you in all manners of art, you're also going against people like Wilhelm, HolySin, and Hercanic, who are leagues above and beyond you artistically.

Huh. I find the choice of time to sticky this thread to be... mildly ironic.
Well... I'd have to say it has a lot to do with...
"So... you draw a sketch and the basic rules & concepts of design & drawing don't apply just because you drew an sketch?"
Really now.
His drawing was made to serve a function - it's at the point where further time spent on details would do little to further its purpose, while costing a relatively significant amount of time that should instead be used for other purposes, such as developing the concepts illustrated in the later pictures he posted.
Maybe architecture really is different. Maybe the people you know ( "architects would laugh at me so bad." ) are just crazy. Maybe you don't know them as well as you think you do. Some combination of all the above, possibly.
...
Oh, and the "2. I'm not silly, saying that there's no rules in art's just stupid," doesn't help. I may have a slightly unusual definition of art ( currently, though I've been attempting to revise it: "Anything made with the intent of aesthetic appeal," ) , but most others' ideas, so far's I've seen, agree with it. And by my basis, the only "rule" is that 'good art' should be pleasing.
It's like watching people go "OMG HALO3 R SUCH GOOD GRAPHICS," when it's in large part just higher-res textures and fancier lighting effects that end up making the unrealistically sharp corners and lack of geometric detail on surfaces more noticable than in its two prequels...

Ya rly.

Btw, I agree that Corbo's view of art is too strict. I imagine writing music with him would get rather annoying -- having to follow all the proper scales and keys when sometimes you need to bend and even break those rules to produce new music that still sounds good. Although, I still respect his opinions and knowledge. He does know what he's talking about, but I think sometimes he misses the bigger picture.

Hopefully we can let this topic get back to rating people's artwork (like sie's). In the mean time, a topic on the definition and purpose of art may be appropriate.

No he doesn't.

You know, this argument reminds me a lot of a debate I had in a music class, where basically the same points apply. The question was simply enough what is music? Well, in this case, we can just ask, what is art? Truth is, it's going to be the broadest definition because what one person finds to be masterpiece may be a pile of shit to another; which has been clearly demonstrated in this thread. Personally, I think the "rules" only apply in realism or any sort of applicable art; other than that, they clearly don't mean much in abstract art, impressionism, etc.

i really hate you guys you know -_-

K then he doesn't (if you're just talking about drawing and that area of art you would know better than I). I already had a feeling you were going to say that after I posted.


Music is just a compilation of noises -- anything you want to consider music can be music in this regard. Ever listened to John Cage? Art's definition should be just as broad.

What..? You don't follow scales?
If you don't follow scaled you'll get really odd sounds and some out of tune you need to be very experienced to achieve that to perfection.
And Syphon, I do know what I'm talking about and I'm not going against anyone, everyone else is going against me. And to me you're not better than anyone here, you just happen to be extremly arrogant, I haven't seen anything from you that has convinced me besides photoshopping. I'm stating what I have been taught and they do teach us to analyze if what we are taught is correct or not, have you ever actually taken classes in an art school? If by art classes you mean the one in your probably public school then it doesn't count and sit back.

And Dapper, composing with me is actually fun because I'm really weird and crazy.

So does anyone actually have something smart to say rather than flaming without any reason or work to serve as defense? The only one that can pretty much bash me right now it's Hercanic

I don't use keys or scales to as the basis to write my music -- any of it-. And I would hope so.

Pot calling the kettle black?

I haven't posted any photoshopping in this thread, only 1 drawing I think. You haven't posted anything.

Sooo... by what standard is this? >_>
Hey, I didn't flame; and my arguments are based on disagreements with your statement, unrelated to the original drawing in question. =P

The flaming part was pretty much directed at Syphon I believe.

Some Old Work I used alot as well. Rate Please.

Well. I got bored today and threw this together in ~10 minutes.

Be kind it's my first drawing.

My Drawing