I'd be mad too. . rad eate. The thing about Hitler's "artwork" is that the angles are all off-kilter, the shadows often face different directions, the detail only looks good from I'd be mad too rad eate The thing about Hitler's "artwork" is that the angles are all off-kilter shadows often face different directions detail only looks good from
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (181)
[ 181 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#3 - dashgamer
Reply +95 123456789123345869
(11/12/2013) [-]
The thing about Hitler's "artwork" is that the angles are all off-kilter, the shadows often face different directions, the detail only looks good from far away, and his paintings of people even in the background looked like horrific caricatures, so there was no "life" to his pictures. Since all he could paint were buildings, they recommended that he go to the school of architecture, but Hitler, being Hitler, didn't want to work for a living or be told what to do.
The thing about Hitler's "artwork" is that the angles are all off-kilter, the shadows often face different directions, the detail only looks good from far away, and his paintings of people even in the background looked like horrific caricatures, so there was no "life" to his pictures. Since all he could paint were buildings, they recommended that he go to the school of architecture, but Hitler, being Hitler, didn't want to work for a living or be told what to do.
User avatar #79 to #3 - masterqueefman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Source please.
#127 to #3 - kewwu
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Still,how robust and with a ****** composition they might be i still enjoy his works as i enjoy the works of other artists.(except -abstract,god i hate that ****)
User avatar #135 to #3 - madmario
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Hitler was off-kilter? I know there is a pun in there....
User avatar #22 to #3 - captainfuckitall
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
His paintings of Landscapes, from what I've seen, were actually very beautiful and were some of the best I have personally ever seen, even by today's standards. While I think people are overly harsh and bias against his work because he's Hitler, I can understand why people say his faces are bad with qualities like this, but his landscaping is second to none.

Just as well, it's not that he didn't want to work for a living, it's just that he considered himself an artist in every sense of the word, and considered it improper for him to do any other work. Edgar Allen Poe thought the same thing, H.P.Lovecraft thought the same, Vincent Van Gogh thought the same, the list goes on, and that's why they were nearly all impoverished (but after their deaths, they were recognized as geniuses). If Hitler didn't commit genocide, he would have most likely been seen as a genius of art to many as well.
User avatar #46 to #22 - mrevitcartta
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Vangogh didn't believe he should work? So that time he voluntarily worked coal mines was a lie? SMH
User avatar #47 to #46 - captainfuckitall
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I didn't say he didn't believe he should work, all of them did menial jobs instead of starving, what I said was that they considered themselves artists above all else and found it improper or unpleasant to do anything else.
#56 to #22 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I think it's time for a misquote from Mein Kempf
User avatar #58 to #56 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I'm not sure what you mean. In Mien Kampf (I haven't read it in a while, so bare with me here) I BELIEVE he said strictly that, that he first believed himself to be a born artist, but afterwards decided to devote himself to the people through politics. Is that not correct?
User avatar #61 to #58 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I was referring to that time you said Hitler was not racist
User avatar #63 to #61 - captainfuckitall
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
You're still on about that, are you? If I didn't know better, I'd assume you were infatuated with me by your constant attempts at seeking me out.

In any case, to explain myself, I do not consider Hitler a racist, because, as I even showed YOU, he did not hate people based upon skin colour. He employed numerous different races of Nazi's, including Black, Jewish, and Homosexual Nazi's, and even gave some of them high praise and personal honours. What Hitler was is defined as "Anti-semetic", which (although the reason for it escapes me) is not the same as sheer Racism.
User avatar #64 to #63 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
You just like Hitler, don't you?
User avatar #65 to #64 - captainfuckitall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
So, you seek me out in order to try and sway favour away from my comments by involving previous comments that had nothing to do with the current subject, then when I tell you why you are incorrect in these statements and why my claims were justified, you completely ignore them and go straight to making me seem like the bad guy.

Cute.

As a matter of fact, yes I do like Hitler. I think he was a good person who tried to do his best for his people and just didn't quite know how to; I think if he had better advisers or judgement, he could have been one of the worlds greatest beneficiaries.

Than again, you already knew this, didn't you? Because I told you so before. You're only asking it here because you want me to admit it in order to be justified when you next insult me, or do anything else that would involve as little work as possible and you still coming out on top.
#71 to #65 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
User avatar #72 to #71 - captainfuckitall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I'm not mad or upset in the slightest, I am mearly pointing out facts.
User avatar #23 to #22 - dashgamer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
No, you've just got no taste in art.
It doesn't matter that he was a tyrannical megalomaniac dictator, his "art" is absolute trash.
User avatar #24 to #23 - captainfuckitall
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
It's easier to be a critic than to be a creator though, isn't it?

My taste in art is just fine, thank you very much for asking; I just think he painted wonderful landscapes. I personally think you're letting your own bias and opinion shape your view into a negative light, which is not something you should ever do; his art is art and many people today still enjoy it.
User avatar #25 to #24 - dashgamer
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
His paintings aren't fit to adorn hotel walls. His landscapes are crap: the proportions, angles, and even shadows conflict with one another. The people in his panoramics are like crude caricatures. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, corroborated by the Art School of Vienna and every other authority, that his paintings are eyesores not worth wiping your ass with.
User avatar #26 to #25 - captainfuckitall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Your anger and crudity only proves my point about your bias. It's obvious he had talent, as looking at the pictures above they are much better painted and drawn then the artwork that was accepted. Regardless of any justifications you may have for it, they are only just that, justifications for what you believe to be correct.
User avatar #27 to #26 - dashgamer
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I've got no anger.
I've got no bias that isn't unanimous with every single art critic in existence.
Do you not understand what "corroborated by the Art School of Vienna" means? It means that you are wrong.
User avatar #28 to #27 - captainfuckitall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
That's not what your words suggest.
Not every single critic agrees, though; standards change through-out time, and there's a reason that having an "Art Degree" is akin to being called the "best at being a retard".
I understand very well what it means, but you don't seem to understand that there is no official standard of 'creativity', and many who were considered great after their deaths were also considered awful in life, justifying their opinions in the exact same way you are now.
User avatar #29 to #28 - dashgamer
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
If you're calling these poorly constructed facsimiles of buildings creative, then you truly have no clue what you're on about.
Discussion over, I've concluded that you're an idiot.
User avatar #30 to #29 - captainfuckitall
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
My, my, don't you have a high opinion of yourself.

It's cute how you go on to judge Hitler about his poor outwork when his faces are FAR better sketched than the faces below, his paintings are far better than sculptures of...poles, and bodies far better than fat people with shading.

Oh yes, we can obviously see how far the opinion of Art Schools is worth.

P.S. You're still letting your anger and bias cloud your judgment.
User avatar #31 to #30 - dashgamer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I present facts about his paintings, listing the inconsistencies and the flaws, and you call it justification.
That's the equivalent of refuting the idea of a consistent rate of gravitational acceleration for all objects because 9.8 m/s is a "justification."
No, I don't have that high of an opinion of myself, I just have a low opinion of you. **** off, good day, harumph, bah humbug!
User avatar #32 to #31 - captainfuckitall
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Would you like me to list the flaws of the other portraits and sculptures? I'm no critic, but I can name 6 off the top of my head.

No it's not, because that would be discussing something academic, while here we are discussing something based off of creativity. You can judge academia because there is a "right and wrong", but you can't say something is more "right or wrong" than something else on a subjective stand-point. Your example is just you desperately scratching at the bottom of the barrel to try and prove your point.

You do have a high opinion of yourself, evidence by the fact you believe YOU can call of the conversation despite the fact this is an equal one, YOU can 'conclude' something about me as if it were fact, and YOU believe you have a right to tell me to stop posting on content that isn't your own. Honestly, I could mention a million reasons why you being a brony is enough to give an awful opinion about you, but I don't judge you on that because it would be incredibly childish, kind of like how you're being now.
User avatar #33 to #32 - dashgamer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
You are wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Holy ****, you have just been wrong this whole time. I'm not going to pander to your sense of self-righteousness any more by arguing the point, because you're so damned dumb that you refuse to even attempt to comprehend your wrongness.
I say again: **** off.
User avatar #34 to #33 - captainfuckitall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Based upon what, exactly? Other than your insistence

I'm not self-righteous at all, I simply stated that I believe his artwork to be good and argued for why it could be seen as such, it is you who began degrading me and throwing insults.

And now you can't think of anything else other than "But they said..." and so you're trying to avoid the conversation all together. Pro-tip: If you didn't have such an ego that you had to have the last word, this conversation would have been ended long ago exactly like you wanted it.
#35 to #34 - dashgamer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
BASED UPON
THE ******* FACTS
OF THE PAINTINGS FLAWS
WHICH I HAVE LISTED FOR YOU
EXPLICITLY AND SPECIFICALLY
YOU ******* MORON
User avatar #36 to #35 - captainfuckitall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
See, you literally have nothing else constructive to put into the argument, yet you still insist on having the last word. You're only proving my point.

Furthermore: 'Conspirators Mindset', everything has flaws when you look for them, as said, I could name many from just looking at the graduated pictures and I'm not even a professional critic. You did list them off, and I am thankful for that, but all I said was that even given those flaws I do not consider his paintings 'worse' than the awful paintings and sculptures shown below, it is you who, again, continues to sling insults, ad hominems, and generally act like a raging child.
User avatar #38 to #36 - foliap
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
If I may interject. Hitler's paintings are and were nothing new, just landscapes and architecture. And the main issue with this is which needs to be taken into consideration is that his paintings aren't that outstanding compared to the many, many other paintings of landscapes and architecture. The reason and issue for why he was not accepted had nothing to do with lack of talent, but lack of expression and creativity. Art is a visual communications of ideas, which is something his paintings are lacking, they're less artworks than they are studies. BUT lets say he did something with them, something that made them stand out and more interesting,
take this piece for example. I say it's on par with Hitler's abilities, but what's different with this? It's use of brush stokes, the blend of blurred and finer detail, the stark vivid colours but most of all this painting achieves mood. People need to understand that art essentially has genres, and each genre produces different style and type. Simple doesn't mean bad, it's what is being communicated that matters first and foremost.
just to repeat, realistic landscapes and people is overdone as **** and there needs to be more substance, originality and vaster use of conventions.

And yes, a red and black square on a wall in a gallery is ******** and isn't true art in my eye.
#40 to #38 - foliap
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
pic to reflect on sorry
User avatar #41 to #38 - captainfuckitall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Certainly.

Thank you very much for that very detailed and thought out response. I can see your point now, and while I still believe Hitler was a good artist as far as skill goes, I can see why some do not consider him a good artist and also why he wasn't accepted. I guess just so much of the art I've seen in recent years has been awful 'modern art' (which tends to be just a broom and a rock placed near eachother) that I have really come to respect and admire subtle artwork, landscapes, and proper diagrams. Whether it is a matter of opinion of just a breath of fresh air to me, I still like his art, but thank you very much for explaining why others do not. I have seen the light, you may rest knowing you have educated me, and I will always appreciate it.
#73 to #41 - verbavolant
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I really don't like you. dashgamer said in his very first post " so there was no "life" to his pictures." and you started to troll him, then foliap pretty much said the same thing to you (except more detailed) and now you're all "oh thanks man at least someone can educate me".
I agree with you tho, art is subjective and personal, and you may like it or not (I personally don't care about hitler's art whatsoever), but your attitude was really bad in this thread.
User avatar #77 to #73 - captainfuckitall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
That's fine, you don't have to. Although, I respectfully ask that if you are going to dislike me, dislike me on something that's actually true.

1. Indeed he did say that, and I said that I disagreed, purely on a matter of opinion.
2. I did not 'troll' anyone. Through-out then entire conversation I was calm, organized, and willing to listen to anything that actually had basis.
3. Indeed, however he also explained it better, used multiple examples, gave other explanations as to why, and actually talked about why it was a fact his work wasn't poplar, rather than just opinion.
4. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. First you say that it's a point against me because I 'troll', then you say it's a point against me because I am polite and appreciate someone else's input. If you're going to make a point, make it clear.
5. I fail to see how my attitude has been bad at all considering I wasn't the one slinging an insult with every comment, I wasn't the one swearing, I wasn't the one using all capitals, I wasn't the one being belligerent, and I wasn't the one who essentially said 'everyone who has a different opinion just has bad taste'.
User avatar #83 to #77 - lasmamoe
0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I'm with you.
#8 to #3 - phatloaf
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Good Points, now why are the other artists considered to have better pieces? (I don't know much about art and it looks like **** to me)
User avatar #16 to #8 - foliap
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Because now with the availability of high quality photographs, realism and still life aren't as sort after or as needed any more. Art is now predominantly an non-oral expression of an idea or emotion. the over-simplistic post-modern stuff is BS I agree, but the substance of a piece does not come as much from accuracy and realism but more from visual impact, creativity and use of conventions. Simplicity is not bad, but its how is is used and what it achieves.

Hitlers works were generally were boring and like the comment said, had many inconsistencies.
#42 to #8 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
They're different styles. I'm sure all of those people can paint realistically if they wanted to.
For example, this is a painting by Picasso. Obviously this was not his preferred style, but he could do a damn good job at it if he wanted to.
User avatar #50 to #42 - homm
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
That's Picasso's mother in the painting. He painted that when he was 15 years old.
#7 - saxong
Reply +32 123456789123345869
(11/12/2013) [-]
Hitler was good at painting buildings in a time that nobody valued architectural painting.  Simple.  It's like being really good at training horses to pull carriages now, you may be ******* amazing at it but they're sure not letting you into jockey school any time soon.
Hitler was good at painting buildings in a time that nobody valued architectural painting. Simple. It's like being really good at training horses to pull carriages now, you may be ******* amazing at it but they're sure not letting you into jockey school any time soon.
#74 to #7 - verbavolant
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Admit it, you talked about horses just to use this .gif
User avatar #166 to #74 - saxong
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
It was actually 100% coincidental, I opened up my .gif folder and there it was in all its beauty.
#66 - gardel
Reply +27 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
i was bored lol
#147 to #66 - unbelievable
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
#82 to #66 - gnalde
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #98 to #66 - adu
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
This **** reminds me of Andre Herring...
User avatar #11 - hudis
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Art isn't about drawing accurately or perfectly depicting something, it's about originality and symbolism and emotion. Artists are praised for creativity first and foremost. Something that looks **** but that no one's ever done before is better than something that looks absolutely amazing but has been done dozens of times, when it comes to art. There are exceptions, of course, but there always are.
#12 to #11 - dramsted
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
yeah but in comparison the others look like utter crap, its like releasing a new album with **** lyrics and ******* quality , you know what, **** art! art can go burn in hell
User avatar #14 to #12 - hudis
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
If you think art can burn in hell, how does your opinion on what is good art and what is bad art matter?
#15 to #14 - dramsted
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
no previous art can stay its just all this I'm trying too hard to be original and I'm going to dip my balls in paint smear it on a newspaper and get it show in a gallery ******** that can go burn
#52 to #11 - anon id: fc426bea
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
********.
User avatar #51 to #11 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
So by that definition, anyone with good imagination and a pencil is a good artist?
I disagree. Being a good artist always meant being skillful, they may choose to deviate from the norm, but they can create realistic pieces if they want to.
User avatar #57 to #51 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
No, it's not a definition, it's a general idea of what makes a good artist, and I didn't say that anyone with a good imagination and a pencil is a good artist either.
#87 - chaost
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
User avatar #139 to #87 - hudis
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I don't understand why people keep thinking that effort and perfection is all that matters in art. It really isn't. Art is often supposed to be imperfect and occasionally sloppy as hell, because it shows vulnerability and depth that perfection doesn't.

Basically, if you want to carve a dragon, take a woodworking class. If you don't even try to understand the motives and symbolism behind meaningful art, don't take an art major.
User avatar #168 to #139 - chaost
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
how is the figure next to it art? yeah it's "shocking" but what does it show?
User avatar #169 to #168 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
My first impression was that it's a representation of the ugly naked man feeding off his narcissism to attain pleasure only for himself. He is the asshole who treats everyone like ****, the abusive CEO, the wife-beating husband, all of which figuratively suck their own dicks to make themselves feel good but no one else - "he" can also be a woman if you so choose, but the symbolism works better if it is demonstrated with auto-fellatio.
User avatar #171 to #169 - chaost
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
you can read stuff in everything, if we wanna go this way i could see that the dragon isn't real so for me this would mean we going extinct if we don't stop using all of the wood around the world, also kind of unreal and it shows us we aren't really here, dying. But what the artist really meant we can't know. Then again there is this saying "Art is in the eye of the beholder. "
User avatar #172 to #171 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Yes, it really is, and as I posted the other day in the same kind of discussion; there's a saying when it comes to literature that goes "The reader writes half the story." I believe the same is true when it comes to visual art.
User avatar #170 to #169 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
In other words, the sculpture is supposed to be ugly as much as it's supposed to be symbolic, as I see it.
User avatar #90 to #87 - jaxonnn
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I want to see the dragon
User avatar #21 - Underground
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
If I may.

I've always felt that realism will always be more valued than someone who uses their 'style' as an excuse for bad anatomy.

Realism can and does have style, it all varies from artist to artist. But theres one thing they all have in common and that's the skill to make a sculpture/drawing/painting what have you look so lifelike that you feel like you're looking at a photo. Now that's real talent.
User avatar #97 to #21 - ZeDoodler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
As the comment below mine shows, realism in a sense is just a first step in becoming a great artist. Legendary painters such as Van Goh and Picasso could draw a picture of you that was so amazing you'd think it was a photo.

However, realistic pictures had been done a million times over and the world of art needed something new.

After you learn the rules of art, the next logical step is to see how far you can bend them.
User avatar #137 to #21 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Is it real talent, though? As someone who draws a lot myself, I'm a firm believer that anyone who can hold a pencil can learn to draw realistically with enough practice and effort. It's not the same as creating something profound and thought-provoking, and it's simply not impressive to me, personally.
#37 to #21 - mkoala
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
User avatar #70 to #21 - angelusprimus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
If there is nothing but basic technique, no depth to the picture then whats the point of painting it?
You can just take a photograph.
Picasso was famous for doing this little trick. He would make a painting twice. Once in classical realist style, once in his style, and then set them side by side.
Great artists can do realism, but can also do more.
#44 to #21 - foliap
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I love realism, but but it needs to have something to it that isn't just a face. There needs to be complexity to the techniques that sets it apart from something that can't just be taken in a photograph.

To put it this way, you get bored of the same thing over and over again, so you have to do something new with it.
User avatar #105 - lowlifescarecrow
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Just because his paintings are more realistic doesn't mean they're better. The other artists had more creative ideas.

In saying that, Hitler was actually very good at art.
User avatar #109 to #105 - sirhyden
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Oh yes, so creative, a badly drawn fat women, and a collection of giant brass straws, really ******* creative, modern art my bollocks.
User avatar #165 to #109 - lowlifescarecrow
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Just because you can't see the meaning or symbolism doesn't mean it isn't there.
User avatar #178 to #165 - sirhyden
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/14/2013) [-]
Well why don't you explain it to me?
User avatar #179 to #178 - lowlifescarecrow
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/14/2013) [-]
I too, lack the depth and understanding to see it, but I'm not gonna start bashing the artist because I don't get it. Just because he paints this way, doesn't mean it's the only way he can, it just means it's the way he chose to.
User avatar #180 to #179 - sirhyden
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/14/2013) [-]
Prehaps no-one gets it, prehaps from the beginning of this **** no-one got it, prehaps they just said they did so they would appear smart.
User avatar #181 to #180 - lowlifescarecrow
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/14/2013) [-]
Some people probably do that, yes, but most people who say they see something in it probably do.
#69 - feistyoneyouare
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
There was nothing avante-garde about Hitler's work, it seems to show no expression or emotion, but granted he has talent in painting.
But what the hell is wrong with Egon Scheile? That guys stuff seems pretty good.
#84 to #69 - scruffyguy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I personally believe that a lot of emotion can be found in the world around us
User avatar #88 to #69 - Rockaman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
To me, that looks totally rubbish, whereas the painting of a castle by Hitler makes me feel awe!

I suppose it's every man to his own.
User avatar #75 to #69 - jefglv
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
So essentially, Hitler's artistic talent was remarkably unremarkable.
#78 to #75 - evanxzile
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
User avatar #76 to #75 - feistyoneyouare
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Well put
User avatar #107 - nucularwar
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Doesn't take much creativity to do photorealism
#114 to #107 - anon id: 1681085e
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
you spelled NU CLEAR wrong
User avatar #167 to #114 - nucularwar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I'll never get how so many people don't figure out that's a joke
#142 to #107 - hellfiazz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
It's not about being able to draw well, it's about capturing beauty, and adding yourself in some way to it, be it your drawing style, or adding something that you love to the content.

User avatar #108 to #107 - sirhyden
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Doesn't take much talent to do the other filth....
#112 to #108 - legodude
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
nucularwar yes it takes a lot of creativity. Take this painting, the artist has captured the feeling of speed and power, the raging heart of this noble locomotive working hard and the blazing inferno from the footplate as she powers through the night, if that's not creativity I don't know what is.
User avatar #117 to #112 - sirhyden
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Bullied Light Pacific Battle of Britain No21c151/34051 Winston Churchill. ;) I've seen the real thing, fabulous machine. A pity she isn't running....
User avatar #122 to #117 - legodude
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I've been lucky enough to get a cab ride in 34070 Manston at the GCR, fantastic machine! However the last time I was in york 34051 was away, I believe she is being restored.
#131 to #122 - sirhyden
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Lucky indeed! I was lucky enough to fire the Standard 4 80080 on the east lancs for a bit it wasn't organised or anything, the fireman just seen me with my head poking out in with the rain pissing down and brought me onto the footplate at the next station, that was a fantastic expierence. Only other work I've done is Driving and Firing on my home line in Ireland and Firing and Cleaning on Dolgoch, Edward Thomas and Tom Rolt on the Talyllyn.
User avatar #145 to #131 - legodude
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Very lucky indeed! I'm thinking about doing a driving course on the GCR or the seven vally myself, I've never done any firing/driving, but I did get a cab ride from crewe to euston in a pendolino Crewe to Holyhead in a 57.
User avatar #115 to #112 - nucularwar
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I think I meant to use hyperrealism instead of photorealism, but you're right. It just doesn't take much creativity to do still realistic pictures of static objects, like what Hitler was doing. He was talented, but didn't have much vision in his art.
User avatar #116 to #115 - legodude
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I really do thing it depends on the picture and the subject, someone could could paint a portrait of his lover, he could pour his art and soul into the work however another artist painting the same person and it could just be a painting.
User avatar #118 to #116 - nucularwar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Same with the painting you showed, someone else could do it just as realistic or more, but with less dynamic lighting or smoke, or speed blurring on the tracks and it wouldn't be as powerful.
User avatar #119 to #118 - legodude
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
exactly! I believe passion makes or breaks a piece of art, but without creativity no art, even bad art would be possible.
User avatar #120 to #119 - nucularwar
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Then Hitler didn't have much passion for his art. Or at least he didn't know how to express his passion in his art.
I guess he expressed his passion in his writing instead
User avatar #124 to #120 - legodude
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I would agree with you, however I remember when I was studying Hitler that he was very passionate about art, and that being denied took a huge blow on him.
User avatar #125 to #124 - nucularwar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Like I said, maybe he just didn't know how to express it actually in his art
User avatar #126 to #125 - legodude
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I have to agree with you about that.
User avatar #128 to #112 - vincentlaw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
looks like a train on fire to me
User avatar #133 to #128 - sirhyden
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Near half a ton of coal burning at 3000 degress within the firebox, moving at 90mph. The only thing stopping the whole thing exploding like a 500pound bomb from the pressure is that the fire is surrounded by water, if it wasn't the firebox would melt at half that.....
#130 to #128 - legodude
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
User avatar #129 to #128 - legodude
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Well there is a great big fire inside of her, you open the firebox door and the light makes the smoke around the footplate look like that. Like she was spawned in vulcans forge.
#18 - mcatheistnuggets
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
This "art style" **** has got to stop. Comparing this to music, would you rather have someone flawlessly recreate beautiful music by ear, or hear one "visionary" bang on some conga drums and tambourines in no particular rhythm or remote sense of order? Art styles are ********, and you know it. I've never understood people who would choose an art form of inferior quality simply because it embraces some pretentious new "style".

Hitler was a great artist, one with true talent. However, a bunch of pretentious pricks with their heads up their own assholes decided that his art wasn't inspired.

Today we literally have guy's wiping their ass with something and calling it art, I don't even ******* get it. Sure it's a ******* "symbol" and it makes a "statement", but how about I make a statement and wipe my ******* ass with your head? How about that you cunts?

I assure you I could pump out some of this same garbage, stick a fancy title on it, give some ******** story behind it's creation, and make a million.

I ******* hate society, gullible *****.
User avatar #45 to #18 - mrevitcartta
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
As pretentious as your idea of art being the only kind of art? Everyone likes looking at pretty pictures, and while I agree that some of the new modern art is a bit much, sometimes it's not about how pleasant to the eye the art is, but how it makes you feel.
#92 to #45 - mcatheistnuggets
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Yeah, no, I'm not gonna stop to think about how a piece of art makes me feel if it looks like a piece of **** (or is a piece of ****), and if I did, the answer would probably be "angry".
Yeah, no, I'm not gonna stop to think about how a piece of art makes me feel if it looks like a piece of **** (or is a piece of ****), and if I did, the answer would probably be "angry".

User avatar #55 to #18 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I agree with you, except I stopped giving a **** about "modern art" long ago. Let idiots have their fantasies, as long as they don't shove their "art" in my face.
#158 to #18 - meinfuhertroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Dis you mention "assholes"?
#20 to #18 - nimithecat
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
If I jizzed onto black cardboard, I could call it "A view of space and how small we are"
and I'd say every sprinkle of jizz is a "world full of living things" without lying.

How's THAT for symbolism?
User avatar #48 to #20 - Einsty
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
If you have graduated a prestigious art school, you can do that 30 times, present it as a series of pictures in a gallery, then sell 28 of them individualy for thousands of dollars each, donate 1 to charity and claim to sell the last one to anonymous collector, while hiding it, raising its price as the last piece, then have your friend sell it and split the profit. Also, this whole thing will just add to your publicity, raising the ammount you can ask for a painting in the future and adding to your reputation of visionary painter.

If you have not graduated or studied an art school, tough ****, you will have a black paper with jizz on it and if you try to sell it you will be considered a weirdo and risk jail in some areas for public indecence.
User avatar #121 to #48 - nimithecat
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
but I would be a rich weirdo.

An artist nailed his genitals to the floor,
so I should be able to do something
almost as ridiculous and get publicity.
User avatar #144 to #121 - Einsty
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
You would be only a weirdo, because noone would by that above solid fuel price.

The point is this: If you are a known artist already, you can do pretty much anything and people will take time to observe it and think about your motives.
If you are not, you will be sent to jail immediately for most of "artsy" stuff or laughed at at best. Artists don't sell art nowadays, they sell their fame and that brings them more fame in turn.
#146 to #144 - nimithecat
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Hm, I was actually taking this less seriously than you.   
But seeing as you're being serious;   
I'll admit that your logic can be agreed with, and you have a well-educated opinion,   
and your amount of empathy for the artists suggests that you may be one as well.   
   
Thus, how could I argue with a firsthand source?   
   
I myself am an animator. Nice to meet you fellow artist.   
   
I am in the ultimate quest to blend the medium of 3D and 2D animation together into a seamlessly fluid masterpiece.   
   
What's your goal?
Hm, I was actually taking this less seriously than you.
But seeing as you're being serious;
I'll admit that your logic can be agreed with, and you have a well-educated opinion,
and your amount of empathy for the artists suggests that you may be one as well.

Thus, how could I argue with a firsthand source?

I myself am an animator. Nice to meet you fellow artist.

I am in the ultimate quest to blend the medium of 3D and 2D animation together into a seamlessly fluid masterpiece.

What's your goal?
User avatar #149 to #146 - Einsty
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
I do not have a clear goal, just a vague idea about direction. My work suffers because of that, but I make do somehow. I am studying architecture right now, not sure for how long I will stay at it, but so far I have learned much and my progress is slow but steady.

Your quest is worthy. I wish you good luck on your way.

I have attempted 3D animation, but I am stuck at a simple 3 sec animation and an unfinished character rig. I have plans though.
#150 to #149 - nimithecat
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Lemme know if you need assistance.
I'm fairly new to 3D, but I'm somewhat profficient in blender.

<-- newest work
User avatar #154 to #150 - Einsty
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Nice work and thanks for the offer.

I too work with blender. After trying 3ds Max at school, I like blender even more. It has somewhat efficient workflow and I have spent a lot of time getting to know it.
User avatar #156 to #154 - nimithecat
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Ugh... it's a nightmare to get used to.
it's like having an incooperative girlfriend on her period, and
you have to negociate the controls to try to get something done.

It's crashed a lot of times on my Windows 8 machine, and its interface is a bit clunky for my tastes; unfortunately, I know nothing better.
User avatar #159 to #156 - Einsty
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
It has a largely customizeable UI with presets saving, Cycles GPU renderer, physical simulation, powerful constraint and modifier system and almost anything can be animated. And the mouse will focus on portions of UI on hover, not a click like Max.
It doesn't take ages to load, so when I wnt to mae something real quick, I don't need to bake a pie waiting for software to load. And its developement is based around improvement and stability, not adding a ton of useless features that make the whole thing slow and unstable. They care about it. And I love the grab, scale and rotate mechanics, where larger leverge actually means larger precision when rotating etc.

But I admit that first time I opened it, I knew nothing about how to operate it and some things like right click to select were pretty counterintuitive, but I got used to it and found that at the same level of skill, I could do a lot more in it than in Cinema 4D I used before. Blender seems a lot more transparent to me than other pieces of software.

I would blame windows 8, because it is an even number and even windows OSs were never good. 8 isn't good, Vista wasn't, 2000 wasn't. 7 or xp, on the other hand are decent.

tl;dr It is difficult sometimes, but it is powerfull and efficient as well. Can't say that about Max.
User avatar #152 to #149 - nimithecat
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2013) [-]
Tip:
Daydream a lot.