Concept Art

Da_Elf · Mon 15/01/2007 05:26:50

this guys artwork looks awsome.
http://mv.cgcommunity.com/

Yosef Da Yoddler · Mon 15/01/2007 07:15:29

Yeah his stuff looks great, i wonder if its computer generated or hand drawn? it definatly inspires to be creative lol.

Nikolas · Mon 15/01/2007 07:48:22

Hand drawn!

And yes it does look amazing stuff! Didn't wait long enough to reach 2005 though LOL!

Fizzii · Mon 15/01/2007 08:29:23

No, it's digitally painted... he probably got the texture with lots of custom brushes and/or painter. Amazing number of quality works he has there, and I really like the motion blur he added in some images, not to mention colour and light.

Nikolas · Mon 15/01/2007 08:32:20

Sorry need to clarify.

Hand drawn: With a tablet or something, in a computer, but not modeled or anything.

That's what I meant. Sorry for that

Tuomas · Mon 15/01/2007 11:01:27

Agreed, the colour scheme is excellent. I was just wondering, most digital art I see are either sci-fi stuff or fantasy related. What's in it that excites, I mean, these pictures here are not based on anything but the artists imagination. I myself would draw real stuff or realistic stuff if I had the talent this guy's got, or the amount of practise.

my favourites from here are these
http://mv.cgcommunity.com/images/umbrella.jpg
http://mv.cgcommunity.com/images/plane.jpg

MrColossal · Mon 15/01/2007 15:52:52

I'd imagine it's because exercising one's imagination holds more appeal to him than drawing from life, maybe.

I don't know if that's what he thinks... But to me that's a weird statement, Toumas.

However I also desire to have the will power to work through my artistic short comings to be able to work like this artist.

Postmodern_Boy · Mon 15/01/2007 16:06:50

why does everyone seem convinced that this guy hand paints everything instead of using 3D models?Ã,Â I see lots of evidence in his gallery that he uses 3D models, along with extensive post processing and digital painting.
he even shows some of his 3D models by themselves with no texture.

incredible gallery and very inspiring work.

Da_Elf · Mon 15/01/2007 16:25:02

its definately a mixture in some images, but there are quite alot that are strictly painted no 3d. as for real stuff i guess he would need a firm grasp on drawing reality before he is able to draw fantasy and sci-fi.

Peder 🚀 · Mon 15/01/2007 16:39:53

This looks awesome, I really like styles like this!

It is really interesting.

vict0r · Mon 15/01/2007 17:54:16

Very cool drawings!

Even more impressive IMO: http://www.wrightair.co.uk/

Evil · Mon 15/01/2007 18:06:34

I think that being able to paint exactly what you think is a better skill then drawing from life.

Victor, sure it's impressive, but they're all drawn from photos. Anyone can learn to do that.

MrColossal · Mon 15/01/2007 18:52:59

Anyone can learn anything therefore nothing is impressive? I hate when people here dump on artists like the one victor linked too, ARGH

Nacho · Mon 15/01/2007 19:02:35

Envy?

loominous · Mon 15/01/2007 19:32:13

Looks like pure 2D to me (except the obvious 3D pics), though with some larger custom brushes, which is common for speedpainting, that can give a 3D look.

-

I think people put down art like the one linked to in contexts just like the one in this thread, basically:

A: "Bah, that's nothing, look at THIS guy! Now this guy's good!"
B:"But he just copied a photo, anyone can learn to do that!"
(A: "You're just jealous!")

So I think it's most often a reaction to ignorant over elevation of copying skills (which is indeed a skill that requires much practise, though comparably less). The idea of original creation's superiority over copies, which many hold, probably contributes.

-

Nice concepts though!

Evil · Mon 15/01/2007 19:42:51

I guess what I mean is that anyone can pick a photo an copy it. It's very impressive the quality that he has in his work. Assuming they are his own pictures and not someone else's. Even then, what's the point? If you can take really good pictures, great. If you can copy pictures, great. But why would you take a photo of your own and copy it to make it photo-realistic? Practice, sure, but he doesn't have anything else, really.

Over all, I find creative things (even some of the worst concept art) more impressive than some of the best copied photos.

Maybe there's a hint of jealousy. :p

LimpingFish · Mon 15/01/2007 19:48:33

Some really evocative paintings in there, which is really the point of concept art; to evoke a feeling or atmosphere which can assist towards creating a final "work".

The tools that someone may use to create art are irrelevant. I see little difference between a master of oils, a world class photographer, and a truly great digital artist.

To deride someones work because it wasn't created in a "physical" medium is very short-sighted.

Nikolas · Mon 15/01/2007 20:44:04

Limp:

While in theory this is true, I personally do tend to judge things based on some things that have to do with the creation: What tools on used, how much time he or she spent and so on...

In the end one needs to put a value on a piece of art, and this cannot be done solely on the art piece itself and the emotions alone.

How much time one spend counts, as it can mean more care and more detail.
The tools one used can count, as something impressive and professional done with cruppy tools means that the creator is a master of his/her tools.
Situation of the creator at the time of the creation also counts. One who just lost his child and manages to write an optimistc piece of music, is simply stanning (actually it has happened to someone I know, and it was...crushing. His child was 4 years old :'()
Financial situation counts, amateurs "tend to" love thier art more. Mostly to do with deadlines on the profesisonal world, but still there is this notion going around...

And so on...

LimpingFish · Mon 15/01/2007 22:40:05

Quote from: Nikolas on Mon 15/01/2007 20:44:04
Limp:

While in theory this is true, I personally do tend to judge things based on some things that have to do with the creation: What tools on used, how much time he or she spent and so on...

I couldn't have a more different view.

I can't see what time has to with anything. Two artists set out to paint the same picture, one managing to paint it in a day, the other taking a year. Should I automatically favour the artist who took the most time? There is such a thing as procrastinating, and spending too much time on a piece of "art" can be just as harmful as spending too little.

All that is moot anyway, as tools, time, effort, etc, are the last things that would enter my mind when I first see an artists work. Composition, ability, and technique would be far more likely.

InCreator · Tue 16/01/2007 06:55:43

I think that I'm gonna lock myself up and cry.

Concept Art

Yosef Da Yoddler