Iâm most of the time designing software. It is kind of art if you consider chess games to be art (not all of them). There I appreciate clear ideas and simplicity.
Are you talking about the GUI? Actually the main reason I am not using Windows and Lightroom is the design of the GUI.
omg the don mitchell? seems to be a specialist? are you kidding?
Not really, typically Iâm avoiding work on GUI. GUI is usually implemented through highly hierarchical libraries, trees of classes, so simplicity and clear ideas are impossible. I am using Linux at home but unfortunately couldnât find job where I will work on Linux. Windoza comes with clear idea, let us introduce new features and force suckers to replace old version with new one, some minor licensing fee involved
Usually I do system/backend. Few years ago they come (.NET) with some âtasksâ what would be fire and forget threads, like runtime will manage those. It is nice for simple stuff but for something solid one needs control. It resulted in hundreds of threads were created and CPU started choking. Very innovative, should be avoided.
Is it art if you program in a forest?
Hard question to answer really. I could not say I have a favorite artist I donât really research that so I am not very well versed. What I can say that I am very passionate about environments. I love environmental art I am not so much a fan of portraiture. I like a lot of the stuff old masters did if it contains a environment. I could care less about the person in the painting depicted but the environment it takes place in really catches me. Even in something as famous as The Last Supper painting the shear lighting and detail of the environment is captivating.
From a technological perspective it is the same I love CG environments be it a still render, game, or movie.
For me environments pull on a lot of emotions, journeys, and tells stories. I guess that is why when I started photography as a hobby a couple months ago I was drawn heavily to nature as my subject.
Architecture while I really love Victorian style Architecture more then anything although some of the wild modern stuff is pretty inspiring as well.
@blj I think thatâs one of the the most useful answers here so far but what exactly do you mean by âenvironmentâ? I suspect you mean interior and exterior/landscape (including cityscapes, seascapes etc.), or âviewsâ. in Europen painting, there are several categories or genres such as history (religios/mytholgy, or in general the depictions of scenes with people, where something is happening), portrait, landscape, interior etc although some paintings are pretty much all of this. I also suspect you like in general the way space is rendered.
@betazoid Correct. When I say environment I am trying to encapsulate everything such as, landscape, interiors, cityscapes, seascapes, etc⌠The static views that encompass a particular scene and all the fine details rendered in them. For example in a town scene the buildings, streets, markets, barrels, clock towers etc⌠Or for instance in some of the European mythos paintings the buildings, vines crawling up the pillars grasses and mountains etcâŚ
Those things are the things I like more then the people that may be present because for me it is those views that really tell the story if not for the views you just have a notable subject against a blank backdrop.
come on guys, are you seriously telling me that nobody here likes or even knows Monet, Bosch or Rembrandt?
I enjoy Friedrichâs and Turnerâs landscapes, some Picasso pieces (such as the guitarist and some cubism) and some portraits from Waterhouse that are quite dreamy and hyper-realistic and easy to enjoy as well.
Now for photography, I have a weakness for Diane Arbusâs work.
The reason for my reticence is that I am sure that I donât know enough about artists and their work to say anything definitive. Of course I am aware of what has been discussed above but the problem with any forum is that I donât want the gatekeepers to bully me if I sound ignorant. Generally, this is a fun place to be; however, there have been examples of bad conversations.
For architecture, I like mid-centry modern, roadside Americana (large versions of things!), and postmodern(?) (Lucky enough to live in Los Angeles, with buildings like The Broad and Disney Concert Hall).
For art I like a lot of things. Photography in particular, I like Troy Pavia and Helmut Newton. I admire the classic masters. I also watch Thomas Heston and Nick Page on the YouTubes; their work is good and I enjoy that they share their process (though both could use some software freedom :P).
My schooling is mostly in the literary arts, so I enjoy Philip Levine, Thomas Pynchon, and other modern/postmodern American writers.
I also enjoy anything of a post-apocalyptic feel, such as the Borderlands video game series.
I think this is becoming an interesting discussion. You mentioned a few artists that I did not know so far.
So far I state a preference for modern (=after French Revolution) art which is not surprising.
Anyway @afre I am not quite sure what you mean but as far as I am concerned I am certainly not going to criticize anybody for their taste. Or fight with anybody about taste (wouldnât that be kind of absurd?). I know from experience that tastes can change.
Form follows function - 100%. I donât give a shit about design if it gets in the way of performance⌠and beauty is in simplicity. There are some âiconicâ designs that you simply canât improve: the Douglas DC3 aircraft, the Porsche 911 sportscar, the Lamy 2000 ballpen or the Laser sail-dinghy.
Next to that I lack respect for âartâ without a certain degree of craftsmanship. Salvador Dali and Keith Haring are where itâs at, Picasso an Van Gogh donât pass my test (I know - some might disagree, but who cares?). Anyway: music is the only real art, and the masters are Johann Sebastian Bach and Frank Zappa.
Any questions? None? Good!
I have a particular story about Monet and his influence on my imaging. 'Bout 12 years ago, we took a Baltic cruise, where one stop was St. Petersburg, Russia. We did a tour that included the Hermitage, and on that tour we saw their Monet collection. Iâm not a student of art or art history, but that collection and the associated backstory corralled my interest. Impressionism is one of the more abstract forms, but I think the soft notions of light are very correlatable to the stark process of photography and the scenes we capture. We had just acquired our first real digital camera, a Nikon D50, and I was just starting to look at it as more than a family documentation tool. A lot of what i saw in that hall influenced many of the images I subsequently captured on that trip, and really up until now. I havenât gone so far as to gaussian-up any of my images (well, none Iâd post, anyway), but Monet specifically showed me there was hope to find the gold nuggets in even a noon-lit sceneâŚ
We are still discovering his mastery, uncovering new works and stories about him. His works are even visually (and mathematically, for the scientists, engineers and coders) astounding.
Well Monet was also a photographer. Impressionist painters did use photographs as aid, although they made a secret of this and always denied that they used photographs. The relationship between photography and painting in the 19th century is very complex, it is quite a new research area. Anyway the influence went both ways and of course there kind of also was a competition between them.
I used to love Monet as a teenager. Later not so much but I think last year there was a big Monet exhibition at the Albertina, I saw it several times because I have a special ticket, and although the lighting was terrible I kind of rediscovered Monet. He was a âgreenâ spirit at a time when there were no green parties and he was certainly one of the greatest masters of landscape art.
Ahh, bless 'em.
I canât imagine where youâd get an idea like that???
PersonallyâŚ
Da Vinci - Banksy
Debussy - Bowie
Bessler - Brunel
Fisher - Carlsen
Pele - Zidan
⌠I donât care who painted, composed, designed, built or played it, if it moves me then itâs good. And I certainly donât give a piece extra credit just because the creator has a catalogue of great works.
âForm follows function - 100%. I donât give a shit about design if it gets in the way of performance⌠and beauty is in simplicityâ
The above statement means there is no good architecture. All modernist architects sacrificed simplicity for the appearance of simplicity or modernity.
Perhaps some of Hannes Meyerâs work could qualify but even with his work youâll find cultural ambitions complicating things.