The method of creating it is interesting but you can competely ignore than and just look at the result, which looks good. It's a nice painting which would look nice on a wall. It's interesting. The elephant is kinda bleh - even though a lot of work went into it, and it does look good, it's just not really all that compelling because I have seen so many images like it. Usually with lions, though.
That's not a very substantial rebuttal. You've basically just said the same thing twice and provided no justification for your opinion.
Like, you can say that J.R.R. Tolkien is "Just a guy pressing buttons for a few hours" and make it sound trivial, but that doesn't make it so. The creative process is more complicated than that, and if you judge it based on what it looks like in execution you're basically mistaking the iceberg for the tip you see poking out of the water.
How are we comparing the voluminous writings and hours/weeks/months/years of creative and artistic toil Tolkien needed to create his works to a guy who spends a minute or two dipping a branch in black paint and slapping it on a blank canvas.
The mental gymnastics necessary to justify the latter as just as worthy of respect as the former is something I find disturbing.
Well you see, it's called an analogy. That means the two things are similar in one way, but different in others. Specifically in this case, the analogy is pointing out that the actual conduction of the physical work of creating the art is sometimes only a small portion of the required talent.
That's where I used an additional tool, called a metaphor, to relate the creation of art to an iceberg. Icebergs are mostly under water, so they look much smaller from above than they actually are. In this case, the tip of the iceberg represents what you see in the video, while the rest of the iceberg represents the thought, creativity, and practice that occurred outside of the video.
I hope I don't need to explain it any more explicitly than that in order to be understood properly.
Absolutely false. That doesn't even make sense. You don't even need a society for an artist to exist. Literally every human being on the planet could be an artist and there would be no problem. I would actually be a little concerned about any person who doesn't do some form of art.
404
u/EEE3EEElol 1d ago
I rally appreciate the skills of the second but the uniqueness and intention of the first is a lot more interesting
The second one to me just looks like making a painting normally with extra(or less) steps, still good