Jamie Lewis Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Does anyone know of a cool Gothic'esque painter, or maybe, photographer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Auner aac Posted May 8, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted May 8, 2008 Ive always loved this painting that looks insanely like a photograph. Called "Betty" by Gerhard Richter  Richter has lots of stuff like that. You look at it, first glance it's a photograph, no wait, it's a painting...no wait.... and it goes on and on. One of the very few painters in recent times to really produce groundbreaking stuff, IMHO.  Wikipedia on Richter  Cheers, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Damien Bhatti Posted May 8, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted May 8, 2008 Does anyone know of a cool Gothic'esque painter, or maybe, photographer? Â dont know whether you could class him as gothic, maybe neo gothic, but simon bisley is another illustrator who is the business...... Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Damien Bhatti Posted May 8, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted May 8, 2008 some more bisley i cant resist -- Â Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williamson Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 I was looking at Frank Frazetta's work recently, I think it was mentioned as an influence on the look of "Pathfinder", looks pretty gothic to me. www.frankfrazetta.org  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Damien Bhatti Posted May 8, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted May 8, 2008 I was looking at Frank Frazetta's work recently, I think it was mentioned as an influence on the look of "Pathfinder", looks pretty gothic to me.www.frankfrazetta.org  I think that Simon Bisley was obviously influenced by Frank Frazetta. It's interesting that this work could be perceived by some as being "lower," in arts heirarchy, but if it was angled with an ironic - knowing twist, and being presented in the right context - it would have been seen differently by the elites of the art terror dome. as this stuff stands though, I like it for reveling in being what it is and is all the more successful for not having to take the weight of stuffy criticism - which would invariably make it less fun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williamson Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 The sooner you can dispense with the idea that there's any meaningful difference between "high" and "low" art, the better off you'll be. It's an arbitrary distinction that doesn't have anything to do with the actual content of a piece of art, and at its worst can lead to people dismissing interesting work without giving it a chance. Â This is very much the same trap people fall into when describing something as "commercial", implying that something is automatically compromised or tainted because it was produced for profit. My feeling is that some of this comes from a romanticized view of how art was produced in the past and a naive concept that artists were at some point free of all commercial pressure, which is not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Damien Bhatti Posted May 8, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted May 8, 2008 The sooner you can dispense with the idea that there's any meaningful difference between "high" and "low" art, the better off you'll be. It's an arbitrary distinction that doesn't have anything to do with the actual content of a piece of art, and at its worst can lead to people dismissing interesting work without giving it a chance. This is very much the same trap people fall into when describing something as "commercial", implying that something is automatically compromised or tainted because it was produced for profit. My feeling is that some of this comes from a romanticized view of how art was produced in the past and a naive concept that artists were at some point free of all commercial pressure, which is not the case.  Hi Mike, personally I am not really concerned with what is deemed high or low art, I was trying to point out that there is a fine line between what can be considered bad taste by the art world, ie critics and the gallery dealers and the like, and what is not.  In most cases it tends to be an ironic knowingness that the work is in " bad taste ", that seems to be a way in which a perceived "lower," (for the elitists) art could operate in a contemporary gallery context, like the artist Glenn Brown;   Why is it that Glenn Brown's illustrative style, in a similar vein to "pulp" sci fi imagery it draws upon - venerated ?  And the original inspiration not so? - For me it's because Glenn Brown isnt just presenting images for pleasure (which is fine by me!), but knowingly playing with the context of the gallery system, and that particular system's taste...ie high brow and thus inverting it all for it to be deemed acceptable for that particular context.  I was thinking of Jake and Dinos Chapman as well because they like to play on the bad taste theme as well...  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sweetman Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 In the past couple days I've become immersed in anything I can find about David Choe: Â http://www.davidchoe.com/ Â really amazing stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Hildreth Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 (edited) um god where to start lol, my top artists have given me endless inspiration are:   Alex grey - www.alexgrey.com/  Robert Venosa- http://www.venosa.com/    Doré Gustave- http://dore.artpassions.net/  Dante- Inferno is one of my all fav books; Doré did the illustration most of Dante's The Divine Comedy. which have always blown me away I could sit and look at them for hours on end.  Edited May 9, 2008 by Matt Hildreth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Lewis Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Great suggestions for the darker Gothic look I was searching for guys! Thanks a LOT! I'm lovin' Gustave's work especially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mihai Bodea Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 don't you guys think this emphasis on painting as an inspirational source for cinematography is too much. I used to study graphic arts, I'm the son of an artist, and yet, when it came to shoot, it did not match. everybody seemed to forget that a work of art is staying on the wall for you to admire for hours, from any distance you want, as an object, while a movie passes by at 24fps, and you are fixed to a chair. try shooting a Vermeer (even 65mm), project it on the wall for half an hour an you'll get an empty hall just as quick. misu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerio Sacchetto Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 don't you guys think this emphasis on painting as an inspirational source for cinematography is too much.nope :P I used to study graphic arts, I'm the son of an artist, and yet, when it came to shoot, it did not match. everybody seemed to forget that a work of art is staying on the wall for you to admire for hours, from any distance you want, as an object, while a movie passes by at 24fps, and you are fixed to a chair.Actually we're all very aware of that. We look for ispiration and paintings are not only a mere reproduction of what an artist sees but also what he feels. If a particular painting gives you an emotion through an unreal use of light you may want to mimic it to get the same emotional response. Of course you wouldn't do it with paint and brushes but with what you know best: lights, lenses, filters etc. The point is that we're not copying we're interpreting. It's like when a musician gets inspired by another music or something totally unrelated to music like a landscape.try shooting a Vermeer (even 65mm), project it on the wall for half an hour an you'll get an empty hall just as quick.misu It's been done. And the format is not important ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Damien Bhatti Posted May 9, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted May 9, 2008 don't you guys think this emphasis on painting as an inspirational source for cinematography is too much. I used to study graphic arts, I'm the son of an artist, and yet, when it came to shoot, it did not match. everybody seemed to forget that a work of art is staying on the wall for you to admire for hours, from any distance you want, as an object, while a movie passes by at 24fps, and you are fixed to a chair. try shooting a Vermeer (even 65mm), project it on the wall for half an hour an you'll get an empty hall just as quick.misu   I think that the relationship of the visual arts as an inspirational source is completely important. I would like to think that at film's greatest ? moments it is an art form - so referencing from art is completely valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Damien Bhatti Posted May 9, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted May 9, 2008 It's been done. And the format is not important ;) Â Like Andy Warhol's Empire film lasting 8 hours,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mihai Bodea Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 it has been done. try it in an epic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now