Uhm, yeah, so I had to do these in manual photography class... One of the first lessons in manual photography class, and let me tell you, it's not hard, it's not artsy, it's a developing test. If a bunch of 17 year olds who have ever held a manual camera in their hands can do this, then it's certainly NOT worthy of a DD. Just saying.
I understand why this is an DD. I think it's awesome. It's made with a camera, not with photoshop. It isn't as easy as it looks, I for one would not have a clue how to achieve this with a camera.
I like the color combination, I like the fact that it's not completely smooth. I think it's calming. I think there are abstract paintings/photo's etc. out there I don't get and they are marveled at. I think those pieces receive glory because of the name. And I think that unknown or less known artists who make abstract paintings are being thrown rocks at, which isn't deserved.
I'm kinda new here but I've don't think I've seen so much hate on a DD. Most of you guys need to chill. He is artist, and his work deserves respect. Art can be conceived in a few seconds, or can be polished in a year, it does not matter. A quick sketch made by a brilliant artist may be more valuable than all my works put together in understanding and respecting that lies the seed of greatness and personal growth. However, as much as I respect the statement and the quote of Rothko, I strongly dressage with it. Focusing on a subject is tragic? Here is what I think, and again its just a personal opinion. Subject is indeed crucial, because subject (object, person, light, line, shape.. whatever it may be) is what connects your art with your audience. For example by rejecting "the subject" you make the rejection itself a subject of your statement or art. Which to me as a viewer is little bit hypocritical and insulting (talking about Mark Rothko's statement not work published here).
I don't mean to seem rude or close-minded or anything, but I just didn't feel, well, ANYTHING, when I saw this in my DD box. What is it supposed to be? Then again, I was never a Rothko fan, either. This artist's gallery has pieces more worthy of a DD than this one. Makes me wonder what the selection criteria is for a DD... /shrugs
yeah...right, also philosophy is usually mistaken with art, in which we do not talk about it, about a point of view, so like in this case, we clearly talk about standards, for some, a puke on a wall is considered art, for some ones that puke is clearly not art, it takes 10seconds to barf on that wall, meanwhile Leonardo da Vinci's all known Mona Lisa portrait, for example, is quite hard to create, in which high quality skill is required, and that is truly a masterpiece Painting a gradient on a wall takes like 10 minutes, it is not art, it is ignorance and it kills modern art. That is why modern art is truly a big hunk of crap (in my truly opinion, in which I guess its shared with a lot of people who truly appreciate the value of art)
Just to play the devil's advocate (because I get your point, truly I do), it will take me approximately a year to knit a sweater. Can be a gorgeous sweater, and there is art involved, because knitting is part of deviantArt as well. But is the sweater a piece of art? Lots of famous modern artists will take no more than a few minutes a piece, but people will pay thousands of dollars to get it. Is that art? Some forms of art look like they have been done in a minute, but there has been a lot of work done beforehand in designing and think-process. Is that art? And finally, because it relates to this piece we are talking about. Some artists make hyper realistic oil paintings that look like photographs. It would have been easier and simpler to make a photograph. This artist here (Willko) didn't use a photoshop filter, but experimented with his camera to get this piece. Art?
BTW thanks for your lovely comments on my site of dA, really appreciated!
Indeed that is true, I can also "experience" with my cammera like this, set the apperture to low and move it from top to bottom on a colored wall , gonna get like almoust the same result as this young lad over here in a few tries...... I see dA promotes all kind of lame images and no credit is given to those that struggle to really create something wonderfull
Maybe some have alot of cool art on their hard disk and dont upload it because they think its crap
AND YES, painting a super realisting image that look like a photography IS art, its requiered a lot of skill as I said before ,takes time,skill,motivation and also cash can be taken into consideration to pain such great pearl .
Even if I didn't love this piece, I would support it for the concept of beauty in simplicity and the ability to see worlds in pure color. How beautiful our world of light it.
I'm also very happy that it's so different from so many of the usual DDs. I'm sorry. You can paint a portrait, and put a hundred hours into painting the most brilliant detail...and you can still be only an artisan or illustrator, versus an artist. Think about that line.
Sigh... I'm sad you got so many negative comments! Why do people always think their definition of art is the right one? Personally, I find it refreshing to have a different kind of art in the Daily Deviations, regardless if it's my cup of tea or not. Proves to me that not all of the dA community is the same.
I think the technique you used to obtain this image is intriguing, considering what I see is daylight (dawn or something) when you took this at night (or at least, that is what I'm getting from your description).
Well the photographer isn't too blame, first of all DDs are NOT awards for who is the best, the are not prizes of any kind, they are meant to promote artists and give them a small boost.
Second if this person got a DD it is only because OTHERS suggested his works. It doesn't matter how much you work on something or how pro you are if nobody suggests anything nothing gets featured it is that simple.
Not saying this isn't art but...a DD? Really? For a picture taken 5 years ago for a deviant who hasn't been active since 2010? Sure it's nice to get some older deviations nominated for DD's, but how about for a deviant that still goes on DeviantART...Or am I the only one thinking this?...
Really? Even Rothko's photos were boring and lazy. Just look at his normal paintings. A colored frame and 2-4 "blocks" of color, it is undeserving. It shows that it is not the quality of the work, but only riding off the fame of the creator. I would say congrats on getting a DD, but it appears that things like this [link] can allow anyone to get something.
There are a lot of negative comments on here. I will try to keep it positive. I originally came here because I saw that this piece was a DD, which I disagreed with. However, had I not seen this, I would not have gone to your gallery, which I thoroughly enjoyed. You have great talent and many pieces that are deserving of a DD. I just don't think that this is one of them. However, I must congratulate you nonetheless for receiving a DD! Continue with your good work!