Unbelievable Pencil Drawings

Discussion in 'Films, Music, TV & All Things Artsy' started by fishhead, Apr 6, 2012.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. That's what I call an artist, unlike this rubbish by Tracey Emin.


    I mean what the hell is all that about!
  2. That is indeed top-notch stuff fishead, very impressive and talented, but rather technical to me.

    Art is about imagination and interpretation of sound, colour, shape and other stuff. Making exact copies of real life is, in my opinion, moving away from the real meaning of art. Understanding and appreciation of art (in all its forms) is a basic building block of human society, and from the works of Michelangelo to Banksy, Chaucer to Faulks, Blake to John Cooper Clarke, and Mozart to Carter The Unstoppable Sex Machine something to behold and relish.

    Slagging off Emin is all very easy and, dare I say Fink(?), Daily Mail. Everything should be taken at more than face value, and some of her work is quite incredible for those that will open their minds and look beyond that picture of the Brazilian bird in the rain forest or the swan with some bint sat in one of its wings. I'm sure Arena has a place in most council houses though - right next to the big telly on the wall.
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2012
  3. Nah.

    It's all bollocks.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    I like some of the pencil drawings of cityscapes that some of them autistic kids do. The detail is amazing. The minds a funny thing eh, mines piss addled but they've got alot of talent.
  5. Pistols at dawn.

    Bring yer bloody 45 :razz:
  6. Dawn? 8-O

    How about lunchtime?

    Bring yer stapler :laughing8:
  7. "Making exact copies of real life is, in my opinion, moving away from the real meaning of art"

    I could not disagree more, for millennia art has been the only way for people to record images, from crude stick paintings in caves to The Mona Lisa to The Laughing Cavalier, for said millennia until very recently the masters where people that could provide the best and most realistic representation of that image. Had someone been commissioned to do a painting of Henry VIII and had invented cubism he would have been swiftly beheaded. Had someone been commissioned to make a sculpture of a Pope and they sculpted a messy Papal chair because that’s how they interpreted him they would have been excommunicated and then beheaded. Real art is exactly what this man is doing and every silly colour block painting, dada-esque urinal and dirty tampon bedroom is a bastardisation of the name.
  8. You have, of course, a valid point. Visual art gives us invaluable evidence of history, but I maintain that it should also allow freedom of expression and interpretation. Art is never black and white (no weak pun intended) and its use is very much in the eye of the beholder. Your point above hardly supports your argument though does it? A king or religious fanatic doesn't like something so he kills people.
  9. Dead man walking.
    • Like Like x 1

  10. Well Guzzler I have opened up my mind and had a good look at a broad selection of TE's work and have come to the same conclusion, it's all shite.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    I couldn't disagree even more than you disagree more!

    Art is about imagination, creativity, intelligence and of course skill, to be attractive it requires a fair spattering of all 4, I like this guys work. it's easy on the eye and easy to understand although it is unexpected and technically very difficult, at the end of the day it could just be copying although he obviously chooses subjects that work well for his particular process which is why they are attractive and some thought goes into that. Tracey Emin in contrast is brilliant, her art is about creativity, imagination intelligence and skill but curiously Damien Hirts's work is utter shite - as he recently said "I hate art that makes you think" it show Damien!

    Beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder and I'm a huge fan of art that makes you ask why rather than coo, ahh and say lovely!
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2012
  12. I was just being a bit tongue in cheek to highlight the fact that years ago art was only a representation of real images so to say realistic drawings are going away from the true meaning of art is something I do not agree with. That is another point about art, only in modern times when artist with no discernible talent (Damien Hirst) has art seen through the eye of the beholder become an issue. All art used to be judged widely and by everyone for its realism, how accurately the human form was portrayed and how well a scene was captured. That is why all major art works and masterpieces (apart from "modern art") are of the same style and widely accepted as excellent. That general consensus of what art was (and is still in my opinion) is what made it art and not just pictures, it wasn’t designed to be confrontational, thought provoking or statement making it was purely and simply the only method of accurately recording images for posterity and inherently then the best was the most realistic. This was appreciable to everyone Prince and pauper alike, regardless of whose eyes behold it. I do not disagree that the meaning of art has now, unfortunately, changed. I just disagree with your statement that realism is going away from the origin of art, I think the very opposite. I also think it is very poor form to describe the Pope as a religious fanatic, not just because I’m Catholic and its Easter but because it lowers the tone of what was an interesting debate. Even you who I am sure has a genuine appreciation for all art must admit that without such “fanatics” the world of art would be a far less beautiful place. Sorry guys I edited the post for spellng and it will no longer allow me to put it in paragraphs. Apologies for the block of text.
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2012
  13. Apologies for any offence given by my view of the pope, and more so for devaluing the debate.

    Off to kick Ballistic now so will no doubt be more offensive later on. =)
  14. (granny)

    (granny) War Hero Book Reviewer

    Art, to me, is so subjective that it's impossible for anyone to agree/disagree with the opinions of others. I can appreciate 'good' art, ie the Old Masters, but that inner feeling that I experience when studying say, a Monet or Van Gogh, is in a different class. The point being is, what moves me. Thank god we're all different or Art would be so boring.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    A man after my own heart, I regret the fact that I discovered art late in life, I was 38 when I really started to appreciate that art could literally move me and it all happened at a eureka moment in the Prado, I realised it was about how it made me feel and the questions it raised in my head rather than how 'nice' it looked. Scarily it happened because I was moved by a very religious painting called Deposition by Rogier Van Der Weyden - although I have no interest in religion whatsoever - it all started when I asked myself the question 'why has he made that priests clothes so vividly red and why is it still so red over 550 years later ?" from that very classical moment I became a Joan Miro fan when I realised that colour could alter my mood, then came Emin much later............. not to mention Dali, Picasso, Matisse et al.......

    Art is in your head and it's about how it makes you feel not what other people have to say about it :thumbleft:
  16. I agree with your last sentence certainly, however look at this hyper-realism chap. I would say that 100% of people would view his work and see that this man is very talented. Whether or not you like it, or it evokes a gut reaction or makes you think the skill cannot be doubted. Look at Tracey Emin and tell me the same could be said? I have a simple yard stick for what I consider art; if I could replicate it, it is not art. Personally my opinion is it is not the imagination or the inspiration that makes it art, it is the execution. I again agree that this is very subjective. The reason I had to pipe up in this thread is really not to debate what art is and especially what good art is. I just really think all people should have a consensus that whatever wonderful direction art has taken now, originally art was a representation or what people saw and for over a thousand of years they strived to make that as realistic as possible. That is the origin of what we call art. It is interesting to consider that it is since the invention of cameras that make art as it was intended mostly redundant, that art has changed so radically.
  17. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    I'm afraid I disagree with much of what you've said, have a look at Deposition, although the artist has obviously tried to make the characters as lifelike as he could his intent was never to recreate an exact image of the crucifixion (too late by 1400 years), it is however peppered with messages and symbology, it is for the viewer to piece it together. Now look at Emin's "Everyone I've ever slept with' which incidentally is the work that made me realise how clever she actually is and a piece of work that sadly nobody will ever be able to view again, what exactly is the difference. Don't say it's just a tent and you could recreate that, it wouldn't be true, the execution may be very different but the reality is both pieces are genuinely art.
  18. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    Call me a heathen but what Tracy Emin does is bring everyday things into focus, the unmade bed etc.

    If you walk around with your eyes and mind closed everyday you'll appreciate what she does, if you've got you're eyes open you see it everyday. Both examples make you think.
  19. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    I think it's a bit more than that, when I went to see 'the tent' I was under the impression it contained a list of all the blokes she has ever shagged, but it didn't - well it does but it also contains her grandmother's name and some foetus's but doesn't explain why - it forces you to ask why. It's really all the people she ever loved, even the children that were never born, it's about her life which is why I nor anybody else (even her) could recreate it, in short it was a clever and moving tent!

Share This Page