C64 Pixeling: Hires /Helmposted on: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:01:33 +0200
Decorative doesn't mean eye-candy. It means decorative. This can go either way though, because there's Art Deco, and there's Interior Decoration. The artistic intention weilds the signifier. If you look at art by mister Klimt you will see that the repetitive patterns he uses, of red and gold, have an extremely strong aesthetic effect. They (amongst other things, I am no art critic) flatten planes and diffuse the volume of what is otherwise the most multifaceted object in his works: the female form. This juxtaposition between flat patterned clothing and extremely rendered flesh is imperative in the appreciation of Klimt's work. Is this
http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/klimt/klimt35.jpg" target=_blank>
http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/klimt/klimt35.jpgor this
http://www.el-harmani.se/Gustav%20Klimt.JPG" target=_blank>
http://www.el-harmani.se/Gustav%20Klimt.JPGconcept close to what eye-candy could mean for most people?
Eye-candy is crowd-pleasing art, fan service. Things that you immediately understand, and enjoy. Like drawings of nude girls in suggestive poses, barbarians with huge swords, cyborgs or dragons spitting fire. All these things are fine. The artists that make these pictures, some of them have influenced me and I love them. Some of them are from the demoscene. Most of them copy their art from non-digital artists, but that's a whoooole different discussion. I wish these artists would flex their rendering methods and their years of experience pushing pixels, in drawing something that is infused with more meaning than gloss. You know, as a break between the cybog boobs and the dragons. Just a few times. But I can't make anyone do anything.
