Discussing concept art...

[ohGr]

Recently I've been thinking deep and hard about concept art and this morning, I comprised the notes below and wish to share them with you to hear what another has to say on the topic.

---

Making art has become trivial to me, at least in my chosen field [Graphic Design]. There seems to be much less mystery than I first suspected, and more thought and planning than I would have liked.

This is disappointing.

My desire to be a conceptual artist still burns above everything else, perhaps because it’s so impressive to be able to envision something and bring it into the world. But is this my goal, to impress myself and others? It’s almost like playing god: inventing, altering, deleting. What more could one want than to be a conceptual artist? Surely this is what attracts, amazes people with art – not the still lives, life drawings, paintings or altering of things they too can see – though I’m not suggesting a Van Gogh is somehow less brilliant and original – but things they cannot see, never have seen and never will see without you acting as courier.

Perhaps conceptual artists are the only true artists. Though I’m aware I see the end result much more than the process with most art, and no matter how many times I tell myself it’s impractical for an artist to illustrate something he doesn’t or hasn’t seen in his own world such as the human figure or perspective illusory, I still cannot fathom the capacity, even more the patience, to learn everything he expresses in its functionality. To fully understand such complex systems as the human figure, light and shade, visual perception and aesthetics and then articulate them accurately and beautifully is an enormous accomplishment.

I know I’ve done exhilarating drawings from life and I understand composition, accent line and so on but I doubt I could ever depict my subject without it for a reference. I feel this makes me lesser an artist, surely not a conceptual artist but it brings me to my ultimate question, which is capacity: what is the limit and what is possible?

A part of me feels conceptual artists are the most rare and also most secretive kind of artists about their ways and methods. I have yet to come across a helpful book on conceptual art, despite how rare and needed it is in industries such as film, game development and probably, though I'm not sure, comic books [Any recommendations?].

---

The above is what I wrote this morning and what I particularly would like to discuss. What are your thoughts on my questions? I may be being too brief and vague in my asking but that's probably from the early hour.

[ohGr]

Wow, no one gives a damn?

[Pixeldragoon]

Mmm... To say that Concept artists are the only "True" artists is a bit narrowminded and offensive... I get what you mean, though.
The old masters always used reference, but I believe some people could do the same things they did without it.

I think to get better at drawing from memory, you must do it often. Almost as often as life drawings.

Just some tired specualtion =\

[Dizon]

for memory training, get a book of silhouettes, and start copying simple shapes, then without looking at it, draw it again then check if it matches the original silhouette. You can move on to complex shapes later on.

[IILooney]

The old masters always used reference, but I believe some people could do the same things they did without it.

I think to get better at drawing from memory, you must do it often. Almost as often as life drawings.


Actually the old masters drew mostly from memory. Also, to improve at drawing from memory it is essential to draw from actual observation.

To address the issue of this thread, I believe what makes concept artists elite in a way is that not only do they execute the art with a great deal of knowledge and technical skill, they do this while constructing an object that doesn't previously exist. It's comparable to the ability to play music versus the ability to write and play the music.:blahblah:

[egerie]

No art form is nobler then the next. Conceptual art is still very heavely driven by the drive to please the mass all the while being inovative of course. It's still a very commercial artform.

[k4pka]

Surely this is what attracts, amazes people with art – not the still lives, life drawings, paintings or altering of things they too can see



Im sorry chap. But you can't see what I can see. At all. You are not me, and you do not respond in any similar way to anything I respond to. And as such, what amazes people, is when an artist of such distinction can accurately portray how they see. Because this is not, and cannot be how the observer sees. What could be more amazing than that? To be shown something from another point of view, that can NEVER be carried through words?

Paintings, are ways to translate indescribable (via words) things to another human being, through our visual language. Van Gogh did this, and he is responded to. Despite its merits, I struggle to envision a future where concept art becomes "bigger" than traditional art.

[ohGr]

Im sorry chap. But you can't see what I can see. At all. You are not me, and you do not respond in any similar way to anything I respond to. And as such, what amazes people, is when an artist of such distinction can accurately portray how they see. Because this is not, and cannot be how the observer sees. What could be more amazing than that? To be shown something from another point of view, that can NEVER be carried through words?

Paintings, are ways to translate indescribable (via words) things to another human being, through our visual language. Van Gogh did this, and he is responded to. Despite its merits, I struggle to envision a future where concept art becomes "bigger" than traditional art.

I guess you're right but what I think I mean is I find any dependence the artist needs such as a reference a crutch and something that makes them lesser an artist.

Regardless, the perspectives everyone have mentioned are helpful and thought-provoking to me.

[ohGr]

for memory training, get a book of silhouettes, and start copying simple shapes, then without looking at it, draw it again then check if it matches the original silhouette. You can move on to complex shapes later on.

I'll have to try that, though I didn't realize a book existed like that.

[Dizon]

dover publishing has lots of those :)

[markwagner]

Making art has become trivial to me, at least in my chosen field [Graphic Design].

I had an experience last year (I have been making art everyday for almost 30 years - geez)... and that was I noticed that I was finding the 2D world of art becoming flat and boring. The illusion and magic of knowing I could paint and draw anything was not so hot. I found myself being more interested in music and dance (rave/trace).

What I also found is that I am interested in STORY. Bigger stories, the stuff of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung, and the shamanic world where the imagination is more that something silly and fancy, it's (real).

in t e r e s t i n g....

~M

[Fl3wk]

You say concept Artists dont need reference? How does one create a creature thats half elephant half Rhino? They NEED animal images to be able to draw all the things correctly. How do you think they draw the human body so accuratly? They 'think' of where the forms go, which is another reference, the human mind. EVERY artist uses reference, whether from images, others, or thier own knowledge.

[Pixeldragoon]

Actually the old masters drew mostly from memory. Also, to improve at drawing from memory it is essential to draw from actual observation.

I beg to differ about the old masters. They had bunches of studies for alot of paintings in their sketchbooks. That counts as "reference", I believe.

[Fl3wk]

On british television there is going to be a documentary about extroadinary people, one is of a man that can remember EVERY word he reads, so he can remember EVERY story he has ever read in his life. So its possible that someone can work purely from the mind, but they need to see those references before they can remember it perfectly.

My point is, there aren't that many of these unique individuals, so everyone else needs to use studies to create the perfect caption. Sorry needed to tell a short story ^^

[Flake]

I find any dependence the artist needs such as a reference a crutch and something that makes them lesser an artist.


Yeah man, all those old "master" guys who used studies, photography, live models and props, optical devices-noobs the lot of them.

You show 'em how it should be done right.

[ohGr]

As far as the whole no-reference thing goes, I think it's because I grew up around a lot of people pressured to draw without a reference and I was constantly asked if I did use one on something that looked particularly good and almost shamefully I'd admit it and they wouldn't seem to value the drawing very much after that. So I think it's just that I've grown up with a critical audience that didn't favor, perhaps understand the need for references. I understand visual perception and even how long things take to adhere to our memories but I just can't get past this preconceived notion that I should need a reference, especially from seeing some of the astonishing concept artists on here, ignoring the fact if they had to once use reference for their concept art.

Thanks for the responses.

[DavePalumbo]

sigh... another anti-reference thread? To each his own. The finished product is what gets the clients, not the path of approach.

[Mike Frank]

I understand what you're saying ohGr, I've grown up with an anti-reference mindset myself. Its pretty silly though honestly. Really its not reference thats the problem, its outright copying that is limiting. It has to do with what you're capable of I think.. just because you can copy something so well that it looks realistic.. doesnt mean you understand the aspects that make it look realistic. Being able to manipulate those fundamentals opens up more ways of expression.

For instance being able to use reference photos that all have different perspective and placing them in a single perspective. Or changing the lighting so it looks better compositionally, etc.. the more we understand how the fundamentals work, the better we are able to draw with and without reference. Drawing from life/reference and memory can help you understand it.. one for showing you what life really looks like, and the other to test and hone your knowledge.

[Mike Frank]

Making art has become trivial to me, at least in my chosen field [Graphic Design]. There seems to be much less mystery than I first suspected, and more thought and planning than I would have liked.

This is disappointing.




I also wanted to comment, maybe you're just hitting a rut in your design progress? I think that its important to always be on the lookout for new ways to look at things. Even if you've learned everything that can be taught in books, there are still things out there waiting to be discovered.. its up to you to keep pushing and find them. There's still a big mystery out there, always will be.. I dunno, you just make it sound like its so easy that its boring. Also would you prefer that it required no thought and planning? What would the point be then?.. If you advanced your level of thought, the work you do will be the mystery to everyone else..

[Main Loop]

everyone uses reference, period. whether they need in front of their face as they're making their artwork or not is another matter, also it donest matter where the refence comes from, be it from life, photo, another piece of art, music, etc, or if they see in front f them or they saw it last week, or 10 years ago. everything needs some point of reference that someone can relate it to, or else its not art.

[jca]

"Perhaps conceptual artists are the only true artists."


?????????

wow.

[SpazzoLemealn_99]

If i interprit what the starter once said, "perhaps concept artists are the only true artists" correctly you mean that they think more creatively, creating they're own world, creatures, objects.... if so, how many people do you know that give a second glance at a tree, a small pond, an animal trail winding its way through the brush? i live in oregon, very green but no one even notices. like someone else said earlier, "what could be more amazing than that? to show something from another point of view?" i agree, but more than that, what could be greater than showing someone they're own world which they never give thought to? i completely understand where you come from though, conceptuals can lay out some amazing things, but a patch of grass with a bird feeding on it can be just as amazing, you might not see it if you dont pay attention.

[ohGr]

"Perhaps conceptual artists are the only true artists."


?????????

wow.

I'm surprised how much attention this comment has gotten but I'm glad as it's something I've not made my mind up on yet. I think calling conceptual artists elite as mentioned by an earlier post is probably the best way to describe how I think. But if my comment has gotten so much attention about how concept artists are the only true ones, maybe people also battle a similar struggle in their own attempt at concept art.

I don't know. I just find a lot of concept art utterly amazing, more so than anything you could point me to that was drawn with a live model in front of.

[Ruinangel]

Would anyone consider concept art more of a work in progress or a finished work? For me it seems to be an idea that keeps growing and evolving.

[capt underoo]

if you've found graphic design to be boring or trivial you should explore different avenues to incorporate into graphic design...like 3-D modeling and rendering, or original oil paintings, or something...I'm sorry but no one area of art should be looked upon as better than another...maybe you find conceptual art more interesting than anything else, and that's perfectly fine, but someone else out there may find graphic design more interesting than conceptual art...I don't think it really matters what the field is or what the medium is, if it envokes a thought or emotion from the viewer then it is good art (critiques and technique aside)...I also don't think that it matters how you get there, using reference or not, it's the end result that truely matters...unless it plagerism...then it's a problem...I think that people should look at the art for what it is, not what field it comes from or whether the artist had a reference book next to his/her table while making it...if the artist expressed his or her idea/thought/emotion in whatever form, then they succeeded and every thing else is personal opinion...

[Carl Dobsky]

The argument of "reference " or "no reference", to use Ca terminology, is far older than many would think. It has its roots in Humanist theories about art that date back to around the time of the Renaissance. They belived that there were certain elements that needed to be present in a work of art. Two of these things were Imitation and Invention. For both of these things, Nature was the starting point.

The idea is that these two things feed off of and inform one another. The whole thing takes an essay the size of a novel to totally explain. Long story short, It's ridiculous to think that one of these is better than the other or that one can exist without the other.

[Carl Dobsky]

By the way, the idea that concept artists are the only true artists is absolutely absurd. Sheesh......the nerve of some people.