"This is the theory… that anything that is art… is presumably about some certain thing, but is really always about something else, and it’s no good having one without the other, because if you just have the something it is boring and if you just have the something else it’s irritating.”
**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."
Edward Gorey was the man!
I'm a beginner so I don't know whether I fully understand it (some naive user had to ask it). Does he mean that a picture (art in general) has to have both subject matter and an underlying story/approach/feeling?
I understand the "something" as the represented subject and all it involves (contour, shape, proportion, accuracy) and the "something else" as composition, story, reading, purpose. Like all those action films these days, with a beautiful wrapping paper but nothing inside, no essence.
Also, has anyone read (I bet you all have) Gorey's horror books? I would love to take a look at some. I'm afraid I don't know much about him because I am relatively new to fine art (before I started drawing and looking at paintings in awe I just loved literature and music).
Old screenwriting adage: If the scene is about what the scene is about, you're in trouble.
At least Icarus tried!
My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
I like it.
Wait, this thread...is an art DISCUSSION?
I agree with that.
It's speaks about the layers an image must have to be considered art.
Like the red dot in the middle of the canvas. If it was only a red dot in the middle of the canvas and not indicative of mankind's dominant rule, destructive habits towards the earth and blatant disregard of his fellow man, thus allowing the disintegration of the moral society and the perpetuation of self-aggrandizing, then the red dot in the middle of the canvas would just be a red dot.
But in all honesty I agree.
EDIT: So going by that statement, the implications then mean that concept art would not be considered art by Edward Gorey's statement because concept art is only showing the image itself without the added layers because those layers are added by other elements (the film it was made for tells the story, the commercial that sells the product, the voice-over, etc.).
Going by that statement, concept art is the equivalent of pencils before the painting, which at one time wasn't considered art because it was the artist's exploration of idea for the final painting and therefore disposable & without merit in the true sense of being art (and no, this is not about "what is art", it's about what that statement is saying).
Last edited by OmenSpirits; August 23rd, 2012 at 12:53 PM.
My SketchBook http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=139784
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=192127"Everything must serve the idea. The means used to convey the idea should be the simplest and clear. Just what is required. No extra images. To me this is a universal principle of art. Saying as much as possible with a minimum of means."-John Huston, Director