Fantasy - Realistic art - what do you think?

[BryanG]

I don't know if Whelen or Parkinson could do what Mullins does, they are in different disciplines. I do think Mullins has a better understanding of light and color though.

Craig Mullins is a Concept Artist, and they have to be able to "bang out" many paintings in a very short time period. You can see that Mullins painting focuses on the quality of light, movement and architecture, but does not focus on detail, because it's not what movie directors need - they need an initial "look" of the world depicted in the movie. More detail makes the scene look more static or "posed" - that's a benefit on a book cover, not so in a concept painting.

The hardest concept to grasp in painting is the use of color depicting the effect of light, and Mullins really knows what he's doing there.

[JASKN]

My favorite aspect of Mullins' work is his play on the viewer's imagination. Many pieces look like a mess at a first glance, but after a few days as your desktop background you pick out the details that were there all along. A lot of the time he accomplishes these details with a single stroke, but I'd never seen it there before. It's almost like I'm continually discovering his work. Add that to, as you note, his incredible sense of light, color, and I'll add form, not to mention some of the stories he tags, and he is by far my favorite artist.

So do you think his style was developed first and directors were attracted to it, or the other way around? His personal work is painted in the same way, and in the interviews I've read, he never mentioned that he paints in a way predominantly to cater to concept work, like you describe. It could make sense, but I've never read it.

[BryanG]

I'm guessing that he always painted in this style and it was a natural fit for concept work. I say this because it is very difficult for an artist to change their style and not have it look stiff - it can be done but it takes a lot of time.

There are other concept artists who have a similar style, Syd Mead for instance. Mead is considered the "old master" of concept artists, though his style is more evocative of the sixties, and to me is a bit dated.

And it's very cool that he has large versions of his work available on his site!

Edited September 10, 2006 by BryanG

[JASKN]

I have had Syd Mead recommended to me before, but as yet I have a hard time getting past the dated look, which I personally do not like. I may check him out again later down the line.

Do you have any of your own work available online?

[Ifat Glassman]

You have to remember the context of what Whelen, Parkinson, Boris and Julie Bell are (were) doing for a living. They are book cover illustrators, they are concerned with pleasing the client (the book publisher) and hopefully get a book sold.

As book illustrators, Whelen and Parkinson were very concerned about getting the environment and setting of their covers correct, based on novel excerpts sent to them by the publishers. They were very good at it.

Boris and Julie Bell and the master Frazetta's approach was to basically knock out potential book buyers with images of hot women and muscle-bound men. You really can't tell much about a book by a Boris cover - the setting is almost always a misty swirl of color!

Just because their work sells does not mean they make it with the intention of selling.

There are many paintings of Boris Vallejo and Julie Bell, not all of them are designed for book covers. some are just regular paintings on canvas (with prints available).

I see selfish joy of creation in their work, and not a forced attempt to please the crowd. Maybe those two happen to combine nicely in their work.

There are also very obvious elements of Romantic realism in their work: Searching the sky.

Another important thing that I have to say about this, is that just because something is loved by the masses doesn't make it into a bad thing, or a cheap thing.

Some people make the mistake of automatically dismissing every artist that is popular, and turn to the more unfamiliar artists to search for beauty. If someone is popular it night be because they are able to touch on something very basic in people, and describe feelings like love or happiness in their work in a simple way.

I love it when an artist is able to portray things like love and happiness in a simple way. Often those things are looked at as "not serious" or "for teenagers". The reason for this is that people think that love and happiness only belong to teenagers, but not to the serious life of adulthood. They would treat great romantic realism works of Brian Larsen as "good as a poster for some 14 year old teenager, but not as art".

A lot of people might react to things that are life affirming and fun. This does not necessarily make the artists into second handers.

As for Mullin's work. Some of his stuff are appalling. I don't like the meaningless smears of color (Example,Example). But I did like some, like this.

[JASKN]

If you would look a little closer, you might notice that he does not paint meaningless smears of color, including the examples you gave.

[BryanG]

Ifatart, your reply to my post does NOT reflect my attitude about these artists. I have a tremendous amount of respect for what they do, and their artistic ability. I do not look down on them because they sell their art.

My bookshelf is crammed with books from these artists, and others.

I'm not sure if all of your post was directed at me, but I did not say their work was second handing, forced, watered down for the marketplace, or any other negative opinion you stated.

I don't look down on an artist because they are popular, and I don't elevate an artist because they are obscure. That would be a poor standard to judge an artist.

Jaskin,

I don't have anything online. When I was younger I had aspirations of becoming a book illustrator, but since I started working (since 1991) as a technical illustrator I have not seriously done any painting. Frankly, my skill level was nowhere near what was required to be a successful book illustrator!

[Ifat Glassman]

Ifatart, your reply to my post does NOT reflect my attitude about these artists. I have a tremendous amount of respect for what they do, and their artistic ability. I do not look down on them because they sell their art.

My bookshelf is crammed with books from these artists, and others.

I'm not sure if all of your post was directed at me, but I did not say their work was second handing, forced, watered down for the marketplace, or any other negative opinion you stated.

I don't have anything online. When I was younger I had aspirations of becoming a book illustrator, but since I started working (since 1991) as a technical illustrator I have not seriously done any painting. Frankly, my skill level was nowhere near what was required to be a successful book illustrator!

The only part of my post which was directly related to what you said was the part that answered the claim "they are concerned with pleasing the client" as a way to examine all of their work. This would imply second handishness.

I did not mean to say that you look down at artists that are popular, that part was not related to anything you said, nor does the part about how people tend to look down on Romantic realism because it is not "serious" enough. Your claim about their work just reminded me of other criticism on this type of paintings (which was also implied in this thread by comparing Boris Vallejo and Julie Bell to this... impressionist (??) artist, I really wouldn't know the types... ). This reminded me of the conflict between "serious" art (nihilistic, non-realistic) and realistic and romantic type.

[Though I do think that this artist is ( a ) not entirely nihilistic, and ( b ) belongs (partially) to the category of fantasy art, since some of his paintings are imaginative.]

I guess I should have made it more clear... Sometimes it's hard to communicate where one's ideas are coming from on the context of a forum (so I've learned). Something that might seem clear to me is not necessarily clear to others... so I'm sorry for not being clear enough .

As for you being an illustrator - (ooh yeah! I love seeing new artists) - Can you show some of it in the Productivity section?

Edited September 11, 2006 by ifatart

[BryanG]

Unfortunately, most of the stuff I do are proprietary concept renderings of our clients (auto) designs, and our clients don't give us permission to publicly show the stuff we do for them. There are a couple of the things on our web site I've done, one of which is here linkIt's the camouflaged truck in the background.

edit to fix link

Edited September 14, 2006 by BryanG

[JASKN]

Now, do you use 3d graphic design tools as well? If not, do you think there is still a market for 2d technical illustrations, given that it is easier and easier to produce good 3d work?

[Ifat Glassman]

Boris Vallejo (and Julie Bell) have the best technique I have ever seen. It's just amazing how well they know the human figure and how easy they make it seem to do the lightening correctly.

Licorne

Eahnahs window (Not sure if I got the name right)

Bronco

And here is a nice one by Julie: Bitch

What do you think are the ideas/ philosophy behind "Bronco"? Or behind "Bitch"?

[softwareNerd]

What do you think are the ideas/ philosophy behind "Bronco"? Or behind "Bitch"?

They both show a "take charge" woman in the extreme. Or, in other words, they both depict that man is efficacious with respect to reality, and has fun being so. In other words, they're examples of Romanticism.

[Ifat Glassman]

They both show a "take charge" woman in the extreme. Or, in other words, they both depict that man is efficacious with respect to reality, and has fun being so. In other words, they're examples of Romanticism.

Decided to give it a try, ha?

I agree with the '"take charge" woman in the extreme' observation. That is the very first description I would give for those two paintings.

But, I think there is more to it than that: "bitch" for example, says a lot about the meaning of woman's sexuality (about how the artist sees it). The artist obviously sees sex as a source of woman's strength. Her representation of a powerful woman is an emphasis of a woman's beauty and sexiness: her being desirable: a beautiful naked chick with the most daring dress (or pieces of fabric attached by strings?).

There is also the fact that the woman is a destroyer (rather than a creator), in this painting. But I think that she is a spy fighting for the good guys, and she is only wrecking the car of the bad guys, so it's okay.

I wouldn't exactly call a woman who enjoys destruction for the sake of destruction good ("I broke a thousand hearts before I met you, I'll break a thousand more baby before I am through"), but still there is something appealing about the concept "bitch", for me.

"Bronco" seems hedonistic to me. It presents the kind of enjoyment that a child would have when getting a new toy and constantly playing with it, only in this case, the toy is more dangerous, and the enjoyment belongs to a woman rather than a child. So I actually don't think that this painting represents "being efficacious with respect to reality", but more of a hedonistic kind of enjoyment.

The woman is very much powerful because she is in control of something dangerous and powerful, and more than that: she receives pleasure out of it, and she is the provider of her own pleasure. She needs nothing more than herself to have that enjoyment.

When I look at it I think that it is hard to imagine such a woman yielding to anything or anyone, because she seems fearless, and for me, an almost unyielding woman is the most feminine and sexy of them all.

(Did I say too much? or does anyone has anything more to add?)

[~Sophia~]

"Bronco" seems hedonistic to me. It presents the kind of enjoyment that a child would have when getting a new toy and constantly playing with it, only in this case, the toy is more dangerous, and the enjoyment belongs to a woman rather than a child.

The woman is very much powerful because she is in control of something dangerous and powerful, and more than that: she receives pleasure out of it, and she is the provider of her own pleasure. She needs nothing more than herself to have that enjoyment.

To me this image is symbolic of a woman taking charge during sexual act. I don't see hedonism but pure selfish, guiltless pleasure. I don't agree that she needs nothing more than herself to have that enjoyment as she is not alone in this picture, she is taking enjoyment from action involving another object. What I get from this image instead is that she is unappologetic about her selfish enjoyment. There is no guilt. She is not holding back. The message is quiet beautiful actually.

The mechanical horse she is riding is strong and muscular (not some wimp). A good match to her strength.

Of course this message, of how things ought and could to be translates to other aspects of life.

Edited November 11, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[Ifat Glassman]

What I get from this image instead is that she is unappologetic about her selfish enjoyment. There is no guilt. She is not holding back. The message is quiet beautiful actually.

Well said. I agree.

To me this image is symbolic of a woman taking charge during sexual act.

...

The mechanical horse she is riding is strong and muscular (not some wimp). A good match to her strength.

I might have a problem with this interpretation: What "sexual act" are you talking about? Because I don't find a woman being "in charge" during sex to be feminine. So if you are saying that this is like masturbation, I agree, but if it is a symbol of a woman being on top of a guy, taking advantage of his body... heh.. I don't know.... I rather think that this is not what the painting is about.

I don't see hedonism but pure selfish, guiltless pleasure.

Yeah, maybe I need to define better what I mean by "hedonism". What I meant when I used the word is being involved in an activity that gives immediate, short-term-only pleasure. She is not doing anything productive... But I don't consider it a bad thing. Doing something solely for the pleasure gained from it is good if it is not destructive in the long run.

I don't agree that she needs nothing more than herself to have that enjoyment as she is not alone in this picture, she is taking enjoyment from action involving another object.

I find the painting to emphasize that she is independent. Controlling a device to serve you is much less (up to zero) dependency when compared to trading with a human being, whom you have no control of as you would over a device. In the second case you depend on the man to agree in order to gain the value, on the first case you dictate the device what to do.

[~Sophia~]

I don't find a woman being "in charge" during sex to be feminine. So if you are saying that this is like masturbation, I agree, but if it is a symbol of a woman being on top of a guy, taking advantage of his body... heh.. I don't know.... I rather think that this is not what the painting is about.

To me it symbolizes a moment of guiltless enjoyment. This is the 'sense of life feeling' that I get from this image.

It caputures a moment that can be experienced during sexual act. I would not call it 'taking advantage' because the term indicates exploitation, mistreatment. I don't get that from the image at all. I would call it being in control; enjoying a moment of pleasure; without guilt. I don't find anything unfeminine about it.

Edited November 12, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[Free Capitalist]

To me it symbolizes a moment of guiltless enjoyment. This is the 'sense of life feeling' that I get from this image.

It caputures a moment that can be experienced during sexual act. I would not call it 'taking advantage' because the term indicates exploitation, mistreatment. I don't get that from the image at all. I would call it being in control; enjoying a moment of pleasure; without guilt. I don't find anything unfeminine about it.

I agree, even though I'm a guy. I see nothing wrong with "taking advantage", because at the same time the woman is, the man is also. And besides, though she not literally in charge, he can let her be in charge if he wants to, from time to time

Edited November 14, 2006 by Free Capitalist

[Ifat Glassman]

Was innocently browsing through Devianart when suddenly I found this most BEAUTIFUL, breath-taking digital painting!

So I thought I'd post it here: CG girl.

My advice is to see the full size image, the expression on her face is just beautiful, very relaxed and care-free.

I love what she wears, and I love the look in her eyes, combined with the hint of a smile. It is very life affirming.

I don't see anything that is "Fantasy" about it, but that's how the artist classified it.

Perhaps it is a fantasy to look as if one enjoys life so much?

[Grendel]

I admit the Vallejo's wokr is technically very sound but it seem to lack fire, the images are just that, images, they're realistic but don't seem to capture the human spirit.