Join 500,000+ artists on ConceptArt.Org.
Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!
I just got into a debate with my mom.
u see the problem is that she thinks that leonardo da vinci is better then anything modern.
i find this to be totally not true.
pretty good right? well ya sure they are, i agree. but how long did it take for him to make these? 2-3 hours? ( ediot: put up last supper )
my mom says there are emotions in his work, u can see what his characters are like, what they are thinking. ok great, but she implies that in modern art such doesnt happen.
now lets look at today's art. i will use examples from forums.
this picture is SENSATIONAL. it is insane, and right there i feel that leonardo just got owned. this has all the emotion, details, anatomy, realism, and even colors.
amazing coloring, great idea. everything is there.
this beats a lot of leonardoes sketches by far.
and lastly this. this is breathtaking. nothing iv seen by leonardo is.
therefore i believe that modern art like this is far more sofisticated then old school museum type of stuff.
my mom calls forum art "fast food" while all the classics are "haut cuisine"
i will never understand, anyone agree with me?
Last edited by Pavel Sokov; May 23rd, 2005 at 08:58 PM.
i don't think you should pick on any style, i mean yeah, there are lots of thought that goes into every piece, well, sometimes...
What i mean is tis, you cant compare the two, i know, i like modern art over Da Vinci, but it's preference, and you can still learn from Da Vinci...
i cant understand why da vinci is labeled "genius" for his 5 minute sketches but those guys i showed arent.
i just dont think its fair.
that asian pic with the bridge and the red floating girl is sensational! i would give the "genius" title to that guy over da vinci any day
Well, you have to look at his works in context. Today's artists have hundreds of years of additional learning to draw from, and a totally different toolset. And comparing his sketches to finished pieces of work isn't exactly a fair comparison, either.
Pop music may be catchier than Beethoven, but it's never going to have the same importance.
ya but i mean how many times in ur life have u seen people post their lifeart, and be honest.. how many times did it look as good as da vinci? even though he existed a long time ago, why is he still better then all ur conceptart pros? u guys got the details, the colors, the realism, everything.
leonardo is pretty awesome, but he just never takes ur breathe like some forum stuff can.
spoken like a true 15 year old ;P. as flattering as it is to think that you put the artists you mentioned in such high regard, it makes you seem as close minded as you think your mother is being on the subject. leonardo was kind of the first concept artist. his ideas were 100s of years ahead of his time. while i might not think of leonardos characatures as untouchable, he was one hell of an idea guy, and one of the greatest thinkers who's ever lived. lemme put it to you this way, when i was young i hated monet. i thought simon beasley kicked the shit out of his bright ass shitty paintings. then i started painting, and realized i hadnt seen the genius in his shit. regardless of whether its your cup of tea or not, dont discredit the old masters. they spent a lifetime figuring shit out so you dont have to.-c36
simon bisley DOES own.
i dont think it makes u a better artist if u existed a long time ago and were ahead of the avergae talent.
its like taking a kid who scipped 2 grades and gets an 87% mark and taking a kid from the same grade who didnt scip who gets 95% and saying the first kid is better.
right NOW, the better intellegence belongs to the second kid.
the better talent right now belongs to all these dudes
i wont EVER understand u adults.
I second that sir.Originally Posted by 0kelvin
Manslauter, you have to understand that not only was DaVinci a revolutionary artist (again, for HIS TIME), he was also a great scientist, writer, and all around renaissance man (I know...that was lame).
The point here is this, while the artwork here may be immensely better, (not to discount it) it isn't by any means revolutionary.
Thanks for the great topic!
Just gotta say, that is one of the best quotes ever!Originally Posted by manslauter
i think most are missing what manslaughter's talking about. disregard everything you know about da vinci and just look at the art. is it better (more skillfully made, more accurate, more whatever) than anything done today by modern artists? if you didn't know that a particlular picture was done by da vinci, and you compared it to something done by a modern master, would you still think the da vinci was better?
i agree that he was "a revolutionary artist (again, for HIS TIME), he was also a great scientist, writer, and all around renaissance man" etc. etc., but i don't think that's the point manslaughter's trying to make.
...so what if i'm bored, and ordinary?...
currently playing: Super Mario 64 DS, ICO (grrrr....)
well yes nothing i have seen today is revolutinory.
but is it breathtangly talented? ya it is.
better art: modern
heres what it comes down to.
its like taking a 15 year old kid and looking at his art. pretty good. then take a 80 year old dude and his art is better. the second is the better artist, his is the genius. and the kid still is irelevent.
( NIL KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN )
ca seriously needs a 'comedy goldmine' section a la SA and stick this puppy right in there.
youre comparing leo sketches to concept art finished paintings...that doesnt help consistency.
also look at the last supper that took months of observing people and prep before he even began...
look at picasso it looked as if he mastered art at the age of 20 and then decided hmm iill just f*ck up everyones notion of art for about 20 years...context has a lot to do with achievements
Last edited by rodrigo!; May 23rd, 2005 at 09:09 PM.
i put up last supper.
well what kind of a revolution do u people want now?
i mean today there are pictures of the highest realism, badassness, and anything i could ever wish for.
there cant be a new style, or more talent, nothing new will ever happen.
I agree with the others about you not grasping the context of his works. You say that the latter four pictures "kick the ass" out of Leonardo. Well, compared straight on it might be true. But you just can not do that.
If you use the same context in this then Archimedes, with his basic principles of mathematics seems kind of dumb compared to the rocket scientists of today. But you must keep in mind that if he had not been born then we would not have those rocket engines for them to work on. A genious is a man that can make something original and fundimental. Leonardo experimented and created some of the rules and guidelines for his art that later led to the foundations of most modern art. You might say that your art would look slightly worse today if he had never picked up a pencil. How many modern artists today can say that they affected the way art will be thought of from now on. Oh sure there are some minor stars. But I think none of them will stick.
Also his genious was not only in his art. Check out some of the other stuff that he designed and created concepts for (thus making him a damn good concept designer). He created designs for things that people had not even started dreaming of in his day. Today you have endless references to use, however he had no such thing. He drew the first airplanes and many of the things he thought of are (in principle) being used today. His genious reached beyond art.
Sorry if my grammar is a bit bad. English is not my native language.
greg cappullo im sure has changed art. well for me he did, i would be trying to do what i'm doing if i didnt look at greg's work.
It's kinda like saying "Joe Satriani kicks Jimi Hendrix' ass!!"*, technically that might be true but without Hendrix chances are Satriani wouldn't be playing an electric guitar in the first place, the artform might not even exist.
*not as far as I'm concerned, it's just the best example my sleepy brain can come up with at 2am ok?
Agree with "Comedy Goldmine" comment btw.
I doubt his influence will still be felt in a couple of years. Leonardo will influence people for a long time from now.
Fifteen? Oh , thank God. I mean still, but...Originally Posted by el coro
On the bright side, this is probably far from the dumbest thing you'll say or think in the next few years.
**Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial
Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!
"Work is more fun than fun."
"Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
I know! A Greg Capullo vs Leonardo Tdome! Then when the time comes they have to post their work Leonardo will be late because he's dead. Then half of CA will defend him and say being dead is a legitimate excuse and the other half will think he's a pussy and deadlines are deadlines dammit...wait...no....I take it back...
Interesting. In the 1900's physicists generally agreed that the field was fully explored and they thought nothing new would ever be developed there that was not there before. And some patent offices in America stopped issuing patents on the grounds that nothing new would ever be invented, that was I think in the 1960's.
Watch you words.
Considering the materials at hand at the time and that he had very few rules to draw from, these are good. Very good. I kindof think Greg aint digging into dead people looking for references
Coro, you are too nice man. And too right.
Anybody who you list as superior to Leonardo (or any other Master, for that instance) has got hundreds of years of experience and discoveries that today, we just pick up on the drop of a hat. Back in the day people didn't understand draughtsmanship, anatomy, form, or color the way we do now, all because of thier discoveries. They didn't have the benefit of (as many) knowledgable teachers, libraries full of books, online forums filled with helpful tutorials and people.
To disrespect the masters is plain ignorance. Of course people draw better today, BECAUSE of Leonardo.
I self-published a book on the fundamentals of drawing from life.
i love how everyone conveniently ignores the point, and continues to point out that da vinci was amazing at the time and that he discovered all this blah blah...forget it's da vinci and just looks at the lines!
i agree with jetpack, the student only surpasses the master because of the master's own skill.
...so what if i'm bored, and ordinary?...
currently playing: Super Mario 64 DS, ICO (grrrr....)
I think I'm going to have to side with your mom in part. Leonardo WAS a genius. Have you seen his technical sketches of flying things? Submarines? I believe he was also the first man to render the baby inside the uterus. Although I'm not sure I want to know 'how' he did it. That "Sensational" picture you chose to show us was very good but was not the work of a genius. Just a talented artist.
However, I do think she is missing out on some great works in Modernism.
She does have a good point with Forum-art being "Fast food". Think of how many pictures you see on here that can't have been had more than 2-3 hours of work put into it. I'm more than guilty of that.
 DRAW EVERYDAY >
Maybe your mom means abstract and impressionism when she said modern art.
As for comparing da Vinci with the other artists you listed, well, the artists you listed are really good, they are awesome, I totally agree. But to me, they are still a bit away from da Vinci's level. They may not be too far away, but they are not up to his level. There's something that's captured in da Vinci's works that always fasinates me. It just looks a lot more "mature" in a way. And his works are more detailed in a way that he doesn't need to use excessive accessories and fancy gadgets to show that. And he shows excellent understanding in anatomy. On top of that, he's able to paint realism without distortion and yet still has his touch to it. I mean how often do you see realism work with styles but without distortion in the body parts?
Of course, everyone has different taste too.
Yeah, I agree. Sorry if I got overzealous. But I get frustrated when people start making unfair comparisons. In my mind the point of this is invalid since it is purely not possible to compare the two artists fairly. Throwing up an blow up thumbnail (the old man), minimizing a full size drawing (self portrait, which people are not sure he even drew) and the deteriorated "Last supper" before it was restored and comparing it with four fully realized images from four different artists is not fair. As people say, Context matters. Even if you dont aknowledge it or not. If you dont then you are missing a pretty big piece of the big picture.