If you're a basic techie with little appreciation for the fine arts, watch a film called "Tim's Vermeer". It will make you want to go to this exhibition.
> So what does it lack? The film implies anyone can make a beautiful work of art with the right application of science. There is no need for mystical ideas like genius.
> But the mysterious genius of Vermeer is exactly what's missing from Tim's Vermeer. It is arrogant to deny the enigmatic nature of Vermeer's art. If this art looks "optical", it can also look abstract. It is an act of seeing nature, not a work of copying it. Whether or not he made use of optical instruments, Vermeer looked at the world with a uniquely penetrating eye. He was able to paint what he saw with a delicate hand. If you can't see the astonishing nature of his talent when you are standing in front of his paintings you should walk away from them – not make a film about how easy they are to replicate.
> Tim's Vermeer is the equivalent of someone hanging a painting-by-numbers version of a masterpiece over the mantelpiece and claiming it's as good as the real thing. At last, an art film for philistines.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2...
As far as "just use the right optical tricks and you can be Vermeer" -- sure, this is bullshit.
As far as showing that an optical method was a real possibility for how Vermeer created his work-- sure! A layman using the tricks was able to get very close, but lacked the artistry himself to put in Vermeer's unique magic in: this establishes that the optical techniques were a plausible way for the works to be created.
Why would interest in technology negatively correlate with interest in art?
That presumes a very specific correlation between chosen profession and cultural interests.
The document is very fun! But just trying painting will quickly educate a person of the pragmatics. Starting painting is really simple nowdays with IPad, Apple Pen and Procreate. There are tons of resources and courses available - and the problematics in digital art if using traditional art analogues map quite far into oil painting (even though physical medium does have it's specificities).
OP didnt write any such thing. I think you're reading too much into his comment.
However, this person seems very confused on what painting is. After their insensitivity accusations, they go on to claim that drawing on a iPad is equivalent to painting. That's like claiming someone plaing a golf game on iPad has insights on the skill of professional golfer.
Poor sentence building on my part, I get caught up on petty linguistics. No harm intended.
"However, this person seems very confused on what painting is. After their insensitivity accusations, they go on to claim that drawing on a iPad is equivalent to painting. That's like claiming someone plaing a golf game on iPad has insights on the skill of professional golfer."
No, really, modern digital tools are friggin awesome!
What I intended to convey that a person should really try painting once in their life, but they don't need to set up a studio with good lighting, get solvents and paints and brushes and so on.
I say this as a lifelong art enthusiast who loves his pens, charcoals, inks, acrylics and oils. And the IPad Pro with an Apple Pencil fits there actually really, really well. Similar experience can be had on a Wacom tablet and Photoshop, Clip Studio Paint, Krita or what ever program that takes into account artistic sensibilities in their tooling.
90% of the problematics constructing a painting can be investigated using a digital medium.
Oils bring in the pigments and their interaction with each other and medium, but that's kind of an added layer of complexity on top of the artistically critical elements - shape, color, detail reproduction and so on. Because when you paint, it's not an act of photography, but a process where one needs to decide on lots of these issues.
You can take what ever course or book that teaches oil painting, and apply it on a digital medium quite far.
The key tools are 1. a brush that maps pressure to size 2. a brush that maps pressure to opacity 3. a blend tool to blend the colors. Layers help in keeping things tight. It's really nice if the software attempts to provide realistic blending of colors, but it's not necessary - all of these have been available for decades on digital paint tools.
I totally agree a digital painting lacks the feeling of an actual oil painting, but the problematics are the same. As an example these include shape, tonal mapping from the scene to the canvas, choosing a palette, choosing which details to render and which not.
Leave off "basic", which I agree is polarizing / pejorative, and you go from assuming "basic techies" have low arts interest to just the fact of recognizing that n "techies" may have low interest, and then the film nicely connects those worlds. If you've read this far, there's a good chance you'll find at least the trailer interesting.
I've never understood this aversion to "basic" - it feels like vanity to me when people have a desire to be unique just for the sake of standing out. It seems like society would collapse if everyone was truly unique. Maybe you or someone else can correct me if this desire to be different isn't just vanity
Parent is saying "If you are a simpleton, who doesn't understand art, then ...."
Even the most upvoted urban dictionary definition has the first definition as: "Used to describe someone devoid of defining characteristics that might make a person interesting, extraordinary, or just simply worth devoting time or attention to."
Which says nothing about someones intelligence. Granted the next definition does mention being stupid, I hardly think it's fair to interpret a comment in this context as being hostile in the least.
If it doesn't apply to you, what's the problem?