Digital Painting

[Тютчев]

Digital Painting: Moscow show of Bee Flowers 01.09.09, W, 18:50, Msc

Three-dimensional computer graphics Dutchman Bee Flowers show in the center of Moscow from 3 to 15 September. Among the works of the project "Out of Time" You can see the three-meter descent from the cross (take off the cowboy, the blue men in yellow trunks) and six-foot serpent tempted Eve, more like the character of the Japanese pornomultfilma.
On Thursday, September 3, at the Moscow Center for Contemporary Art M'Ars, near Pipe Square and color Boulevard Pushkariov Lane, will host an exhibition of Dutch artist and photographer Bee Flowers (Bee Flowers). This exhibition is worth seeing fans of digital art, because in fact, all 18 of the first cycle of the project "The moment out of time» (Jetztzeit, literally "time now") - a three-dimensional computer graphics.
He was born in Holland in 1967, but in recent years, lives in Moscow, where his paintings were exhibited twice. In 2006, the Museum of Architecture. Schuseva could see his photos from the cycle Megastructure, on which Flowers against the backdrop of snow-covered gray apartment blocks in Moscow showed little colored spots marker lamps of cars and shop signs.
In 2007, the Moscow Museum of Modern Art exhibited quite his other works, more like "Out of Time" - three-dimensional graphics project Liberation! Here, Flowers testified Abu Ghraib prison and how the two sexes may be swapped. He drew a cartoon of neat, bearded, dancing, fashionably dressed and elegantly wrapped in explosives bombing. And the unthinkable, as if assembled from different parts of the Amazons. All the elements of U.S. military uniforms, along with swords, modern rifles and some very futuristic weapons. But the main thing - with a dildo and protective shells on the groin.
"As fashion turns to costumes of the past, present, looking for their roots in the past, and models himself on the archetypal past events and personalities, - says Flowers. - Data of rudimentary exploration of our cultural memory, connecting the iconography of modern interteymenta with archetypal images implanted in our consciousness. It creates a visual and conceptual framework that serves to identify cultural trends. "
At «Grand Illusions», which are not exhibited in Moscow, but in 2006 the work of this project can be seen in Yaroslavl and Astrakhan, Flowers did not hesitate to make of Tereshkova's Venus de Milo and paint her as one of the collages to put a quote from "No one do not mind "column. The exhibition "Out of Time" will run until September 15.
http://cnews.ru/news/top/index.shtml?2009/09/01/360034

[Meister]

interesting how the cost of digital art? It's such a thing, which is easily repeated, ie copied. Here, for example, video art, Matthew Barney's "Cremaster Cycle", sold for 350 thousand dollars at Christie in 1990. I understand that the buyer gets the original film to the byline, but if you vobete in Google "cremaster, download", it will be easy to download the same movie torrent absolutely free. So what if the value of the film and how to evaluate video art?

[Черномашенцев Владимир]

Originally Posted by Tjutchev

Digital Art

Where this term? Again wrote uneducated zhurnalyuga? The combination of the words "digital painting", I think, is not washed away. I'm not going to explain thermal "painting" - you know better than me, I'm sure. But why write?
Perhaps better to say, digital design, digital collage, computer installation?

AES F Group in 1995, became interested in the aesthetics of fashion advertising photography. If you take their series in 2003 Action half life and sculptures in bronze (plastic) Shpakovsky from the same series of 2005-2006, to connect them together - get something like what you write.
Bee Flowers - epigone?

[fross]

Originally Posted by Meister

It is interesting how the cost of digital art? It's such a thing, which is easily repeated, ie copied. Here, for example, video art, Matthew Barney's "Cremaster Cycle", sold for 350 thousand dollars at Christie in 1990. I understand that the buyer gets the original film to the byline, but if you vobete in Google "cremaster, download", it will be easy to download the same movie torrent absolutely free. So what if the value of the film and how to evaluate the video art?

But when you download image picture and thought why buy an original you will not have?
Since video art is as if everything is in order: and collections, and museums. In ART Auction recently had an interesting article about the museum Stoschek. It is interesting now to see, and it would be good with Munch, it is perfectly explains everything.

[K-Maler]

Originally Posted by fross

about the fact that you may download the image picture and thought why buy an original you will not have?

Painting all the same, media images, as in the case of "figure" it itself is (I can not think how to say ..)

[Тютчев]

Originally Posted by Meister

It is interesting how the cost of digital art? It's such a thing, which is easily repeated, ie copied. Here, for example, video art, Matthew Barney's "Cremaster Cycle", sold for 350 thousand dollars at Christie in 1990. I understand that the buyer gets the original film to the byline, but if you vobete in Google "cremaster, download", it will be easy to download the same movie torrent absolutely free. So what if the value of the film and how to evaluate the video art?

   Meister, a good question? But I do not know the answer. This seemed to me an interesting topic for discussion here I am, and laid out this story on the forum. Sam want to know more about it. Because many do not understand. I am also not clear as to maintain ownership of works of art created using video, photo, computer technology. I would like this to understand.

  Also interested in everything new happening in this area.

[color="# 666686"]Posted 6 minutes[/color]

Originally Posted by fross

In ART Auction recently had an interesting article about the museum Stoschek. It is interesting now to see, and it would be good with Munch, it is perfectly explains everything.

I'd love to!

[color="# 666686"]Added in 23 minutes[/color]

Originally Posted by Chernomashentsev Vladimir

Where did this term?
  But why write?
Perhaps better to say, digital design, digital collage, computer installation?
Bee Flowers - epigone?

Vladimir, I do not know myself I want to understand all this.

[Черномашенцев Владимир]

Originally Posted by Tjutchev

I'm also not clear as to maintain ownership of works of art created using video, photo, computer technology.

    My friend photographer explains it simply, they have all the legal issues have long been resolved. For sale original (film, slides or digital image format RAW). All the pros shoot only in RAW. JPG distorts and degrades the quality. For domestic use is not important, but for professional work - the main requirement. Of course, someone could shoot around their photos on a bar of soap and print for your home. But to use it in a professional deyatelnoosti not get - these are the technical requirements and standards. This is especially important for large format printing.

    The cost of rights to professional photo averaging 300-500 dollars. Rarely 1000. I am writing about the western prices. This may be the photo, the photographer himself has spent much more - climbed into the mountains, descended into the water, rented a balloon ... Another thing is that he has done some good photos (several hundred), which can be sold or exhibited at the exhibition. Sale of rights needed for the following customers: magazines and newspapers, printing companies, etc. You can sell just printed pictures at prices ranging from 50-100 ye to the same without the thousands of property rights. But it is for buyers of amateurs who are not oriented in the market. In addition, he receives little photographer - the basic eats the seller. I think mainly in retail trade is firm-holders, as the photographer would not bother with retail. A sort of photo gallery.
 
    Large and the mass market, because prices are quite real. The so-called "computer art" is not designed for a normal market - an "abnormal" the buyer can feed the whole year.
    I believe that the phrase "computer art" artificially invented themselves computer "artists" to somehow distinguish themselves from the photo-artists. Otherwise, have a reasonable vporos - but why so expensive? In fact, to use the word "painting" to their works can not.

     Reference to the fact that the "painters" picture is processed on a computer that is not relevant. Now all professional photographers use Photoshop. But not for the abrupt change in the frame, and for cleaning of unnecessary debris (wire, extra people to remove /add a cloud or the moon for the desired artistic effect) and for proper framing. But they considered to be bad, if computer processing is visible on the result. It is for them - an indicator of low level. They work fine.

[Jasmin]

Originally Posted by Tjutchev

Digital Art

Nothing can be done - a new kind of painting. A little scary, but effective.

[Черномашенцев Владимир]

Originally Posted by Jasmin

Nothing can be done - a new kind of painting

But this is not painting. Listen to the word "Madame of-Fiz" - it says it all. Not in vain for artists and lovers exist:
1) Painting
2) Sculpture
3) Figure
4) Graphics
5) Watercolor
6) Fresco
.....

Each word is in place and means kontretnoe concept. We must agree on the terms and speak the same language. But here everything is mixed for extra pathos to fool the head buyers of his art. Think, gentlemen, computer geniuses, his term - and to create! "Painters" herstovy ....

[Тютчев]

Originally Posted by Jasmin

A little scary, but impressive.

      Which is not earthly characters but also the heavens they will not name. I, too, as it is not by itself from the contemplation of these infernal pictures.
  Perhaps, therefore, effectively, that scary?