| Author | Topic: Leonar|)0 |)@ \/1nci (Read 428 times) |
Ovi The Herald Team
     Duels Champ Season 3 member is offline
![[avatar]](http://beatleslane.com/avatars/beatleslane018.gif)
Joined: Aug 2005 Gender: Male  Posts: 3,087
|  | Leonar|)0 |)@ \/1nci « Thread Started on May 15, 2009, 12:28am » | |
I was just looking through Deviantart and marveling at some of the most beautiful stuff I've ever seen. I wonder if the best among them would be displayed in galleries and sold off for millions in auctions in a century or so. Maybe some of them will be the Michelangelos and Da Vincis of the future.
You think there is any possibility of that?
My personal opinion is that the inflation of great artists has made good digital art way too common place and it would never be cherished like oil paintings. But I'm interested in more perspectives on this.
| |
|
urbancinderella Administrator
     member is offline
Joined: Mar 2003 Gender: Female  Posts: 10
|  | Re: Leonar|)0 |)@ \/1nci « Reply #1 on May 29, 2009, 4:25pm » | |
I think it could be a possibility. It'd definitely be limited to the best of the best, but it could happen. I know there are a lot of digital artists, but that doesn't make them any less talented. I'd like to see this happen with photography as well.
| |
|
now uc it Full Member
   member is offline
![[avatar]](http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/3739/ucmagwc8.gif)
just wanted to be "unknown" gender so my posts are green.
Joined: Nov 2008 Posts: 141
|  | Re: Leonar|)0 |)@ \/1nci « Reply #2 on Jun 1, 2009, 5:39pm » | |
I think one of the biggest differences, though, is that many people don't bother getting their work produced. I could be completely wrong in the future, but aside from digital wallpapers, most people don't have a place to display their art unless it's printed-- and because there are still a large amount of computer illiterate people, it can go widely unseen otherwise. Perhaps if it were at least presented as a tangible display, it might be more recognizable to a larger amount of people.
And I definitely think there's a legitimate argument behind saying that art was more rare before... historically, there were less people able to dedicate their lives to art- and with those people gaining patrons who were not only given the means to publicize the artist, but also patrons who were entrusted to identify the best artists... they certainly had a structure more adapted to preserving what would become "famous" art.
|
my.work | my.home
![[image]](http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1655/ucmagbanmg6.gif) |
|
cypher Guest
|  | Re: Leonar|)0 |)@ \/1nci « Reply #3 on Jun 2, 2009, 5:54am » | |
I personally don't see current artists as Da Vincis of the future. Da Vinci had an obsession with knowing how the world worked. People these days are more off to spread a message (Marc Echo, Shepard Fairey, Banksy, etc) rather than gain knowledge.
I think the iconic artists of our past brought new genre's to the field of "Art" while today's artists merely bring there views to that created media.
| |
| |
|