Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll start by saying I've been drawing all my life, although I've never been especially knowledgeable in the subject of art. Most of my drawings are very mechanical in nature, almost like technical drawings but also a little different. I always get ideas for products, or designs, or inventions, and then I draw them out to kind of develop my idea. So really my drawings have always just been a tool I use to help me visualize ideas I have, usually for mechanical things like cars or bicycles. I've never really thought of them as art, necessarily, although I also don't think of them as blueprints either (although I've drawn blueprints as well; I used to be a drafter). So what do you think? Would you call this art? Or is this closer to a technical drawing?
I just wanted to add that, no matter what you call your drawing, i.e., "technical" or "art" it is very good and you are a talented illustrator.
As someone who has not a lick of drawing or painting talent I can say that I've always been envious of people like you who can draw so well. It always seemed to me to that to be able to create something like an awesome drawing or painting would be like having a special, inner haven you could escape to. I dunno, it's hard to put into words; my wife has it with her classical violin stuff. She calls this sort of passion for some sort of art "grace" but I'm not sure I understand that term used in that context.
Maybe only you artistic-types do?
Thank you sir.
In my case, I'm a little hesitant to ay it's a talent, but more like lots and lots of practice, and practice in that particular type of drawing, whatever it is.
Your drawing is good and it looks like art to me because I can get a sense of the context of the bike and the process of creating the drawing. It looks like you were trying to convey the spirit of the bike that only a human eye can appreciate: the saturation of the rear reflector, the depth of the shadows on the rim, the perfect clean green frame (including welds) - it looks to me that someone enjoyed making this drawing, so to me it's art.
In my case, I'm a little hesitant to ay it's a talent, but more like lots and lots of practice, and practice in that particular type of drawing, whatever it is.
Without talent, no practice will help.
You either have that gift or you don't.
Judging from your first picture you do.
What you might need at this point - a bit of help I suppose, the directions given to you on how to expand your potential; some ideas, good advise from people who are pros in drawing.
I'll start by saying I've been drawing all my life, although I've never been especially knowledgeable in the subject of art. Most of my drawings are very mechanical in nature, almost like technical drawings but also a little different. I always get ideas for products, or designs, or inventions, and then I draw them out to kind of develop my idea. So really my drawings have always just been a tool I use to help me visualize ideas I have, usually for mechanical things like cars or bicycles. I've never really thought of them as art, necessarily, although I also don't think of them as blueprints either (although I've drawn blueprints as well; I used to be a drafter). So what do you think? Would you call this art? Or is this closer to a technical drawing?
Yes, it is ART! And it is by all means, beautiful! Art is anything that people pour their heart and mind into that is in the form of a drawing, painting, doodle, decoration, or object, etc. For example; a car being 'pimped out' is art to the eye of the beholder at least, but a lot of times to everyone else. I draw pretty well but I wish I could draw as realistic as you!
I like it a lot, but I would not consider it art. That's not to be offensive, but it just does not evoke a feeling from me which is what I think art should do.
If there were no such thing as a camera what else would it be but art? Realistic art. If someone, back in the Roman Empire had drawn a chariot that perfectly, it would have been considered art.
Just because a camera can depict the same thing doesn't make it not art.
People could argue as to whether it's good art or bad art. The decisions get harder and harder due to cameras and photoshop. Today you almost have to add a little something extra--something a camera or photoshop couldn't do (?) to make it more art.
that is realistic painting. its a different critter. i know i know why not just take a photo. i agree i dont do it much. the practice of realistic art develops enormous skill. its a technical thing, not my bag.
i mostly do involuntary abstract, LOL.
Thanks for the additional comments, everyone. To be honest I had forgotten about this thread until today.
Huckleberry, I'm often envious of those who are capable of more abstract work. No matter what I try to draw, I always end up trying to make it look as realistic as possible, even when I don't want to. It actually frustrates me to no end.
The level of technical skill in portraying things realistically is extremely high but that doesn't do anything for me, by itself. I tend to think of realism as a medium, not an end goal.
The composition is great and that's what makes this great. Change the point of view of the artist and everything changes. Pick another bike and it's not the same. Those particular wheels, with those spokes, the height of the seat, the bag/basket on the front handlebars, the curve of the front fork, etc. when all combined just so, make this something that I want to look at. It's harmonious and balanced. It's also not symmetrical. You might think that because it's a bicycle that it is, but look at it again and notice that it's not really. Those asymmetrical elements are what make it compelling.
You said that you'd have attempted abstraction but haven't been satisfied with your results. Take this photo that you've posted here and play with it in Photoshop or some other piece of software. Use a tool that will let you make everything fuzzier and fuzzier. Get it to the point that if you didn't know that it was a bicycle that you'd still like to look at it anyway. Try this with some other realistic images that you like and I'll bet you still like them. Then try it with some realistic images you don't like. I'll bet you still don't like them. Now, as far as abstract work is concerned, composition is about all that matters. Yeah, color matters too, but I tend to think of that as part of composition even though many don't. Now, back to my point, and I do have one. Try all this fuzziness without the software. Just look at things you like and ignore what you think you're looking at. Reality isn't real. Your brain has spent years learning to process what you eyes see so that you can navigate the physical world to find food, reproduce and not get killed. It's learned to ignore most of what is seen. You need to let that ignored stuff come to the surface. When you do, you'll have no trouble making abstract work. If that's what you really want to do. I'm not sure if I understood that bicycle to be your work. If it is, then you might want to concentrate on that. You don't have to do it all. In your heart, you know what you're meant to do.
Now that I've done all that writing, let me say much of it again, but more succinctly. I don't see that piece as a bicycle but as geometric abstraction projected onto a real object.
OK, shutting up now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.