[jaredigital]

i'm seriously curious as to what you all think of this artwork:

Mike Cina: Ornithology

Renown graphic artist Mike Cina found old prints from an ornitology book in a "junk shop" and drew over them with various media. they were then sold on Ebay for what i understand is a pretty good sum of cash. so can anyone be an artist? it seems that it may be possible.

*discuss*

*EDIT: i decided this would fit better as a CL debate chamber topic. moved to CL.*

[Ben Goulbourn]

anybody can be an artist because art has so many forms

ie music, drawings, singing is also an art form. and even self expression can be an art form (acting)

anybody can be one, including a criminal (con artist) a petty thug (grafitti artist)

ANYBODY

but as for those pictures?

i could find a book in the trash and splater paint on em
that dont make it art
allmost no creativity went into that shit
and art MUST have creativity

[SlashRaid]

I'm sure Mike Cina and his buddies got a good laugh at the snobby trend whores who gobbled those "works of art" up.

Using the acclaim of ones name based on "branding" they created for themselves in other fields to sell shit products has some in his field rallying to the battle cry of "sell out", I'm sure.

"One mans trash, is anothers masterpiece." <- That speaks volumes in and of itself... In more than one way.

[Ben Goulbourn]

*one mans trash is another mans treasure

[Quik]

Ben Goulbourn, on Nov 14 2002, 07:55 PM, said:

anybody can be an artist because art has so many forms

ie music, drawings, singing is also an art form. and even self expression can be an art form (acting)

anybody can be one, including a criminal (con artist) a petty thug (grafitti artist)

ANYBODY

but as for those pictures?

i could find a book in the trash and splater paint on em
that dont make it art
allmost no creativity went into that shit
and art MUST have creativity

Anyone can be a artist, Regardless of the fact that there are many 'art forms' as Ben mentioned.

Who said ART has to be a great peice of painting, or composition? It dosnt at all. ART is what the author creates. Regardless of how it looks, someone put heart and soul into the peice, and thats what makes it ART.

Aslong as it has a meaning within the authors perspective, its art.

[Quik]

?bump?

[objekt404]

Quik, on Nov 14 2002, 10:00 PM, said:

Anyone can be a artist, Regardless of the fact that there are many 'art forms' as Ben mentioned.

Who said ART has to be a great peice of painting, or composition? It dosnt at all. ART is what the author creates. Regardless of how it looks, someone put heart and soul into the peice, and thats what makes it ART.

Aslong as it has a meaning within the authors perspective, its art.

Agreed. But those 'works' are no more artistic than an afternoon jerkin' it in Photoshop (unless you can sell it, which makes it art?)

[MarkoDaGeek]

Quik, on Nov 14 2002, 08:00 PM, said:

Ben Goulbourn, on Nov 14 2002, 07:55 PM, said:

anybody can be an artist because art has so many forms

ie music, drawings, singing is also an art form. and even self expression can be an art form (acting)

anybody can be one, including a criminal (con artist) a petty thug (grafitti artist)

ANYBODY

but as for those pictures?

i could find a book in the trash and splater paint on em
that dont make it art
allmost no creativity went into that shit
and art MUST have creativity

Anyone can be a artist, Regardless of the fact that there are many 'art forms' as Ben mentioned.

Who said ART has to be a great peice of painting, or composition? It dosnt at all. ART is what the author creates. Regardless of how it looks, someone put heart and soul into the peice, and thats what makes it ART.

Aslong as it has a meaning within the authors perspective, its art.

i totilly agree with both of you .. but what is shown there isnt art ..

[klewlis]

Wow, I think that different people have different talents and abilities, and we can define just about anything as an artform...

but I think what Jared's getting at is the idea that anyone can pass as artistic (visually) just because they have a medium... It's pretty prevalent in graphic design these days... so many people think that if they own Illustrator they are automatically graphic designers... regardless of whether they actually possess any skill in the field. Anyone can buy Dreamweaver and call themselves a web designer... anyone can throw paint on a drawing and call it their own, but that doesn't make it good.

I agree with SlashRaid that it's a shame for someone with talent to sell out like that and produce junk.

[Quik]

klewlis, on Nov 15 2002, 01:27 AM, said:

Wow, I think that different people have different talents and abilities, and we can define just about anything as an artform...

but I think what Jared's getting at is the idea that anyone can pass as artistic (visually) just because they have a medium... It's pretty prevalent in graphic design these days... so many people think that if they own Illustrator they are automatically graphic designers... regardless of whether they actually possess any skill in the field. Anyone can buy Dreamweaver and call themselves a web designer... anyone can throw paint on a drawing and call it their own, but that doesn't make it good.

I agree with SlashRaid that it's a shame for someone with talent to sell out like that and produce junk.

Klewlis-

not that I disagree with you, but you stated that "so many people think that if they own Illustrator they are graphic designers".

Where is there a guideline stating what IS, and ISNT the qualifications to classify yourself as a 'graphic designer'?

I mean, I somewhat agree with you, that not everyone should call themselves a graphic or web designer, but who makes the decission of WHO Dosnt and WHO does quality work?

[klewlis]

Quik, on Nov 15 2002, 09:39 AM, said:

Klewlis-

not that I disagree with you, but you stated that "so many people think that if they own Illustrator they are graphic designers".

Where is there a guideline stating what IS, and ISNT the qualifications to classify yourself as a 'graphic designer'?

I mean, I somewhat agree with you, that not everyone should call themselves a graphic or web designer, but who makes the decission of WHO Dosnt and WHO does quality work?

A "real" graphic designer needs these things:
- experience
- skill
- talent (not to be confused with skill)
- knowledge of the industry
- knowledge of the tools
- sometimes formal education
- knowledge of print publication processes
- knowledge of marketing processes

Sure, there are people and companies who will pay for crap, but the fact remains that there are far too many unqualified people out there trying to pass themselves as graphic designers because they can make pretty pictures and simple layouts using filters and a program wizard... :P

And of course there are varying degrees of skill and talent, and most people fall somewhere in the middle, but I would say that the people who make the ultimate decision as to standards are marketing and design firms. Especially marketing firms.

The standards are a little different for web *developers*, because then it's all about how well you can write code, work with db's, think logically, create complex structures, consider usability, etc. And yes, I am saying that I have serious doubts about "web developers" who can't hand-code. But my biggest problem is with the ones who create a website or two with Front Page and then try to sell themselves as Web Designers. :P

[jaredigital]

*CORRECTION: my mistake, Mike bought these from a "junk shop". they did not come from the trash.*

the reason i posted this topic is because i really am interested in what others think of Mr. Cina's work, and because i am sort of torn as to what to think myself.

at first viewing, i almost had to laugh. i mean, Cina admits to buying these already-rendered prints and then scribbling, stamping, and splattering ink and paint over their surface. it seems so absurd, because the level of artistic knowledge and skill needed to execute such "art" seems so low. i mean, couldn't ANYONE tear a page out of a book and scribble on it?

of course they could. and it stands a good chance of being of equal quality to Mr. Cina's work.

but let's not forget that Cina studied fine art in school. let's also not forget that art is often less about the visible proficiency of the piece and more about conveying a message.

there's the idea of abstracting what is clearly traditional illustration; adding line and texture to a lifeless still image.

there's the idea that a name sells art. maybe Mike is thumbing his nose at those who would buy anything with his name on it (also note that one of the prints has the names of his websites stamped on it... hahaha!)

Picasso produced a number of collages by taking printed media and dissecting it and reassembling it. isn't this sort of the same idea?

anyone have more opinions to share?

[The Neoracle]

jaredigital, on Nov 15 2002, 01:37 PM, said:

*CORRECTION: my mistake, Mike bought these from a "junk shop". they did not come from the trash.*

the reason i posted this topic is because i really am interested in what others think of Mr. Cina's work, and because i am sort of torn as to what to think myself.

at first viewing, i almost had to laugh. i mean, Cina admits to buying these already-rendered prints and then scribbling, stamping, and splattering ink and paint over their surface. it seems so absurd, because the level of artistic knowledge and skill needed to execute such "art" seems so low. i mean, couldn't ANYONE tear a page out of a book and scribble on it?

of course they could. and it stands a good chance of being of equal quality to Mr. Cina's work.

but let's not forget that Cina studied fine art in school. let's also not forget that art is often less about the visible proficiency of the piece and more about conveying a message.

there's the idea of abstracting what is clearly traditional illustration; adding line and texture to a lifeless still image.

there's the idea that a name sells art. maybe Mike is thumbing his nose at those who would buy anything with his name on it (also note that one of the prints has the names of his websites stamped on it... hahaha!)

Picasso produced a number of collages by taking printed media and dissecting it and reassembling it. isn't this sort of the same idea?

anyone have more opinions to share?

I think that if you laugh at what he is doing, please please please don't consider yourself and artist, creative, a student of art, or a inteligent human.


Jared: "there's the idea of abstracting what is clearly traditional illustration; adding line and texture to a lifeless still image"
I'm glad you have a brain. That was the first intelligent, on topic remark I have read. And I agree, there is something there. BTW, they didn't go for more than $150 on ebay. That's really not that much.


Oh and for all of you who thinks this sucks, did you think of it? Could you do it better? Why does it suck? THINK!

[jaredigital]

RobotDeathSquad, on Nov 15 2002, 11:55 AM, said:

I think that if you laugh at what he is doing, please please please don't consider yourself and artist, creative, a student of art, or a inteligent human.

i think "intelligent human" may be going too far. art exists on many level -- not higher and lower levels, just different levels -- and not everyone sees the same thing in art. that's what makes it a very personal product, and controversial at times. my dad is highly intelligent, but he would think this is total crap. but he is admittedly not a student of art or an artist. sometimes art is for other artists, not for Joe Public.

[The Neoracle]

Ok, but I think that ANYONE that laughs at any kind of art is not intelligent. There's lots of art that I don't think is that great or that I just plain don't like, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's art. Like it or hate it, it's not "crap" and it's not, not art.