>>5899842you can go look at his old stuff. he clearly could paint photorealism when he wanted to so we can't dismiss his art as just talentless shit.
art is not just about being technically correct. it's a lot about experimentation and feeling. it seems dumb to have to say that, but i think we looks sight of that sometimes because those of us on this board are specifically trying to improve. and we are explaining mistakes.
musicians do this sometimes too. a band will eventually get a formula down. he will get a style, and he can crank out albums or years that are consistent, and i think that is soul crushingly devastating. I don't know, I'm not there yet. But eventually for people who really do master their craft I think it probably is like that.
I go back and forth on how I feel about David choe. I find him mostly annoying but he is a shit zillionaire so he just does art for fun. He is always experimenting. And while I've seen realistic paintings he's made, sometimes he just doodles or finger paints and it looks like a child.
It's like they say you have to learn the rules first before you can break them. They maybe have gotten to a skill level where they understand, not just what each rule is but also why that rule is important, and they are experimenting with seeing how far they can bend things.
Nowadays we have cameras and photoshop and 3d models. There is hardly a point in painting photorealism anyway. So visual art is going to require rule breaking.
Personally I think the way we should do that is by playing with the code in a 3d program so that perspective changes, and light reflects differently. But in ways that still follow some kind of logic.
Without 3d modeling and computers what else could picasso do? i think he was just trying to simplify the shapes to find the essence of things. it might take a whole other lifetime to make that look good, but people who like his art,
