Comment on Hunter by alexcherrypicks
this isn't art. this is a photo of Hunter S. Thompson that you didn't take, and you just overlaid an other image and applied some filters. It's not original or creative. This is an insult to everything that Thompson stood for.
Why don't you go ahead and try making something like this?
I believe you are missing the point of my argument. I have no qualms about digitally enhancing photographs that you have taken. It's that he didn't take the picture himself. My ability with photoshop is irrelevant.
Taking the picture himself would change nothing. Its the skills involved with producing the final product that matter.
hold on. take a step back and think about what you just said. let me set up a little scenario for you: you are a photographer, and you are a member of this site. one day your surfing through deviations and all of a sudden, you see one of your pictures, one of the pictures that you've taken and that you've spent time on and it's right there in front of you, being edited and messed with by someone who isn't you. now, does that seem fair? no, i don't think so. so yes, it does matter if you took the picture or not.
I consider the style to be akin to remixing a song. Yes, the original work was created by someone else, but another artist can add their own input to make something different, to make it more relevant to the current generation, or (dare I say it) make it even better than the original piece. That is what is going on here in this pic, and I think you should relax a bit. This is deviant art, not some art exhibit at MOMA.
yes, i do apologize for the.. ahm.. rather offensive comments that i have posted. i was in a bit of a bad mood. However, i do stand by my point. Personally, i am bias against digital art even if it looks amazing, and i don't think i can get past that.
u mad?
No I'm not mad i just think that the entire essence of Gonzo journalism is no censorship, and originality and i think getting a picture off of the internet, applying filters and adding bats isn't art.
^Doesn't know gonzo journalism from his ass. 'The entire essence of Gonzo journalism is no censorship,' hah. Hilarious. But I must applaud you, as all your art is 'original and creative.' I mean you're God and created octopuses right? Right. You also created the Eiffel Tower. I mean, you were the architectural genius who came up with it. . . Not like you used a PICTURE as a reference or anything. . .
Get off your high horse you swine, or have you been reading too much Horatio Alger?
AND since WHEN does gonzo journalism have anything to do with photography or digital art? Oh that's right, it does not, so your whole argument is retarded. That's like looking at a HST t-shirt and hating because its not journalistic enough.
Get off your high horse you swine, or have you been reading too much Horatio Alger?
AND since WHEN does gonzo journalism have anything to do with photography or digital art? Oh that's right, it does not, so your whole argument is retarded. That's like looking at a HST t-shirt and hating because its not journalistic enough.
Don't forget the bats, man.
Well how did you do the bats?
Magic.
I really agree with you, except for the insulting part. However It's important to note Ralph Steadman employed the same technique in a lot of his work, from which this is inspired.
I really agree with you, except for the insulting part. However It's important to note Ralph Steadman employed the same technique in a lot of his work, from which this is inspired.
Ralph Steadman did not get pictures off the internet and edit them in photoshop. if you want to be a photographer then take your own pictures or at least don't take credit for some minor editing of someone else's work.
That's subjective; maybe not the internet. Or Photoshop. But he cut images out of books and magazines then splattered some paint on them. How could it have inspired me otherwise?
But Steadman used those cutouts ironically, for the shear sake of artistic vandalism. The purpose of your editing was to glorify Thompson was it not? In my opinion, the only acceptable way to call other peoples work your own is if your jesting the subject in question.
That's a great point, and I definitely agree he used the style more aptly... but that's not my point. No, I'm not proud of this work. It's naive, I was eager to share my love for Gonzo. Yes, you have the right to disapprove of it.
I've drawn with a 2B pencil for my whole life, just as capable as Ralph, or you, even. Yet this technique, no matter how lazy and meritless you think it is, appeals to me. Insulting and uncreative? It may be. That doesn't seem to stop people from posting it all over image boards, or you from commenting on it, which is more than I can say about the images I see in your gallery.
[link]
I've drawn with a 2B pencil for my whole life, just as capable as Ralph, or you, even. Yet this technique, no matter how lazy and meritless you think it is, appeals to me. Insulting and uncreative? It may be. That doesn't seem to stop people from posting it all over image boards, or you from commenting on it, which is more than I can say about the images I see in your gallery.
[link]
View all replies