Contest Week 19: Landscapes

Your goal this week is to artistically render a landscape.

You are welcome use any references, as long as you follow these rules:
- You must post a working link to your reference in your entry's description. If you are not sure how to upload an image you have on your computer, ask me for help.
- References that are not photographic can only be used loosely. Do not copy existing artwork!

Here are some additional guidelines:
-If you are using a photographic reference, try to draw it so that your picture has something the photo doesn't. This could mean drawing it in a different style, or different color scheme, or simply adjusting the composition. This does not mean that you should avoid realism. It means you should avoid directly copying your reference, either in part or in whole.
-Try to give your landscape a good sense of depth and space.
-Your landscape doesn't have to be pretty and peaceful; it could be very dark, foreboding or violent.
-You may include buildings or other structures, or cars, or people, etc. so long as they do not dominate the composition.

As always, do not copy other artists' work!

This contest will be open for entries until 6/24 11:59 PST.

CLICK HERE FOR WEEK 18 WINNERS

JUDGING CRITERIA:
Creativity: The amount of imagination, originality and expressiveness that was put into the entry. If using a reference, this will be gauged by your deviation from the reference and choice of reference.
Technique & Effort: The amount of style, skill and craft that was put into the entry.
Following the Theme: How well the entry followed the theme of the contest.

Please memo Cloxboy or Zack or post a comment on this thread if you have any questions about the Contest Board.

For more information about the 2Draw Contest Board and a record of past contest winners, please look at the 2Draw Contest Board Welcome Page.

WEEK 19 WINNERS:
1st: A dark and hazy forest by Kayos
2nd: Sky and water by Deino
3rd: Aracon 4 mining colony by Sweetcell

Can't wait to see Royjte's!

Well, this is a much easier contest, I was confused I thought the T-shirt idea was the contest I see it's seperate from the normal contest. Confusing. Well, I'll be sure to participate.

Silly question to ask but space couldn't be used in that context could it? If seen from a planet? I dunno if I'm making sense.

Why not? Its for a landscape..there's land in space!

My thought was being on a planet where you look up and see gas clouds or nebulae, a few huge moons, some stardust, maybe an advanced city in the distance. I just wanted to see if the rules were for basic landscapes in general.

Sure, no problem.

Great. Thanks Zack.

I have a question.... Is there some other reason besides having a personal dislike (assuming that you do?) of photorealism (considering that it is a highly respected, difficult to achieve, legitimate form of producing art), that you are discouraging it in the contest? (Many people do personally think it to be uncreative and boring, but there are those that do not.... so.... just curious) There are also people that look at wonderfully executed abstract art, don't get it, and say "looks like a second grader did it"

On a regular basis I love art that is more expressive and not photorealistic, and would prefer to see more of that than photorealism... BUT....
I am asking because when someone pulls it off, really pulls it off, which is rare, I am more floored by that than almost anything else, and enjoy it immensely.

Photorealism is a demonstration of skill, not creativity. If I wanted to look at photos I'd look at photos. Being that I am the judge of the contest I think it's more fair for me to be upfront about that. Besides, creativity is one of the three equally-weighted judging categories. While perfect photorealism would get a perfect score for skill, it would probably get a zero for creativity, and thus probably would not win.

That is exactly what I thought you would say, but I wanted to make sure. Thank you for responding.

To each their own! Good point to address for the contest Dba.

It is actually quite a controversial subject in the "art world" and because some do not consider it to be creative, and do not prefer it, does not disqualify it as art, thus my question.

(also because two or three of my favorite artists are "photorealists" (on canvas, not digitally... and I do think that digital art tends to be more sterile, regardless, maybe that has something to do with it) and work only from photographs... and all three of them are rolling in major dough. They don't bother arguing about it anymore, they are successful and people buy their paintings. (although I do see occasional articles in art magazines that mention the original controversy)

this one http://www.kqed.org/arts/people/spark/profile.jsp?id=4813 happens to PROJECT his photos onto a screen and trace them, and I still am in awe of what he does, consider it to be extremely creative as well as skillful... but I suppose that would be my.... opinion :)

edit: I used him as an example because he is one of my favorites, his photographs in themselves are art, and probably the most "extreme" example of a photorealism painter.

well, controversy aside, zack is merely stating the terms of the contest, I think that's fair.

Yep, gotcha cowboy, cause he's "the judge" I got that part. :) The judge calls the shots in any territory.
He clearly defined the rules, which is completely fair.

I do have to question how many people are aware and realize how many artists there are that take photographs and place them into "paint" programs of all kinds, modifiy them there with the program, and then copy the "painted" version of what they captured, after their paint program shows it in the painted version they choose and get away with being "creative". Happens alot, I have noticed. What is the difference? There isn't any, really, in my opinion. (edit: by that I meant "copying" and being so-called "uncreative" in doing so, not to be confused with "photorealism") You create a stellar piece of art that moves me, by any means, and you get a lollipop, REGARDLESS. :). I like to be moved. I don't care how you do it.

I did say that people can use photographic references though. It's photo copying that I'm discouraging, not the use of references. Realism and photorealism are different things. Consider this definition of Photorealism, the art movement:

photorealism, international art movement of the late 1960s and 70s that stressed the precise rendering of subject matter, often taken from actual photographs or painted with the aid of slides. Also known as superrealism, the style stressed objectivity and technical proficiency in producing images of photographic clarity, often street scenes or portraits

Definition from Columbia University Press, emphasis added. The act of changing a reference to be more pleasing is directly contrary to the desire for objectivity, and thus I suggest you reevaluate your understanding of what is photorealism.

To be clear: aiming for realism and using photographic references is encouraged, but try to avoid directly copying a picture, either in part or in whole.

I don't need to reevaluate my understanding of photorealism, I am very clear on what it is, (without having to look it up) (Robert Bechtle, whom I linked you to, was one of the pioneers of it, so yeah, I know) which is why I asked why you were discouraging photorealism in the contest. I did not ask why you discouraged realism, because you did not. I do still loosely use the term "photorealistic" to describe a painting that appears to be "photographic", whether it followed a reference photograph exactly or not. "Realism" paintings do not always appear "photographic", so for lack of a better term, I use that one. I may be incorrect in doing so, and if I am I stand corrected.

I still disagree with you on what constitutes creativity in art, but point taken. edit: I also understand completely your views now on the entire subject, and I am not trying to get you to change the rules of the contest. I was merely questioning them, and you answered my question.

edit:

Bechtle defines his own paintings as realist, since he works from, but is not limited by, photographic detail.

Article: California Classic: Realist Paintings by Robert Bechtle
Oakland Museum of California... emphasis added


there are those that still put him under the classification of "photorealism", although I think he has more accurately defined himself. Twelve of one, a dozen of the other.... it's still kick-ass, creative art.

Well, I was using the art definition of photorealism, which is the definition listed above. I listed the definition there not because I had to look it up but because it lends my argument credibility. I was not using the definition of photorealism that means "realistic like a photograph." Photorealism is a specific movement with specific characteristics, and the encyclopedia I consulted claims that the characteristics of the photorealism movement are objectivity and technical proficiency. If you disagree with this assessment you may want to contact the issuers of the encyclopedia and let them know they're wrong. Otherwise I don't consider it controversial to claim that objectivity and creativity are mutually exclusive, and therefore to encourage creativity one should discourage objectivity.

So Bechtle doesn't consider himself a photorealist, but you do? I don't understand the point of your quote.

The point is that even though this artist was one of the founders of the "photorealism" movement, and is generally classified by most in that category, he puts himself in a different category. (he would be following the definition you stated... and I did say that I believe he more accurately defined himself, on those lines) Obviously, though, regardless of the "definition" of it, there must be some disagreement in the art world as to what classifies an art work as "photorealism". The classification of his work by others than himself is a prime example of that.

I consider him to be a very creative, ingenious, skillful artist.

You can consider him whatever you want, but if he's not a photorealist then he doesn't belong in a discussion about photorealism. I would contend that he's not a true photorealist but has been mistakenly lumped in with them because of people who do not understand that photorealism is about more than just being realistic like a photograph. You can't object to my claim that photorealism is not creative by listing a creative artist whom I do not consider to be a photorealist.

And no, he would not be following the definition I stated. Objectivity is by definition limiting yourself to the facts. In the context of drawing from a photograph, that means limiting yourself to what is in the photograph, which Bechtle clearly claims not to do.

Yes, he would be following the terms of the definition you quoted by defining himself as a realist, that is why he defines himself a realist instead of a photorealist, because he does not limit himself in that manner.

Perhaps the definition should be made broader, so that one of the founders of the movement can classify himself in it. That in itself causes me to question whomever wrote the definition.

I still consider "photorealism" (in the most rigid of terms, as in the definition you quoted) to be creative as well as skillful, even if you subtract Bechtle from that equation. I can, and do object. The creation of an original piece of art, regardless of the means or methods, constitutes creativity.

Or maybe he's not a founder of the movement. Maybe it was Duane Hanson, Chuck Close, and other more widely agreed-upon photorealists who founded the movement, the ones that make it into art history textbooks as being photorealists.

Regardless of how you feel about the definition I listed, it's the one I used when I remarked that photorealism was uncreative. If you aren't going to use the same definition then all of your points regarding creativity and photorealism are moot, because we aren't talking about the same thing.

Yes, he is widely considered to be one of the founders of the movement. I still disagree on my point that the creation of an enjoyable piece of art constitutes creativity, so we are talking about the same thing, but we are never going to agree.

"Widely considered" and "is" are two different things. Additionally, I object to your classification of photorealism as original pieces of art. I consider the photographs they work off of to be the original art, not the paintings. The paintings are just copies of the photos in a different medium. Must you be so cynical?

uhm..i didnt read all of your love notes but, if i may be nitpicky..couldnt you take a portion of a rather uninspired, unbalanced photo and recreate it realistically to make a quite inspired totally different piece of art?


p.s. gooo realism!

You could do the same with Photoshop and the cropping tool and save yourself some time.

All of that to get to... here...

This does not mean that you should avoid realism. It means you should avoid directly copying your reference, either in part or in whole.

You can't object to my claim that photorealism is not creative by listing a creative artist whom I do not consider to be a photorealist.

He copies photographs (sometimes in part), and still manages to be creative, even according to you.

I rest my case.

I knew we'd get there eventually. :)

and paintings are copies of things, period, things we see, visions, dreams, things we conjure up in our imagination, photographs.... they are all creative art

Wrong. I made the latter statement for the sake of argument, not because I consider him a creative artist. The point was, even if he was a creative artist, if he's not a photorealist, then he proves nothing about my statement regarding photorealism. In reality I consider his work boring, and considering that he works off of photographs, spectacularly unimpressive.

The initial point of my starting this "debate" was about being able to be creative, while still working from a photograph and copying it in part, or in whole. Regardless of why you made the statement, you made it. :) You consider it to be boring, but countless museums and people who love his paintings do not. That is the other point, it is all a matter of opinion, really.

And finally, as I said, I rest my case. I'm gonna go copy a photograph or something.

The initial point of my starting this "debate" was about being able to be creative, while still working from a photograph.

You haven't heard a word I said, have you? I'm against copying photos, not simply working off them. Working off photos is fine. It's splendid. Copying them is not.

... using photographic references is encouraged...

What use does that second quote of mine serve you if I explicitly deny that I consider Bechle a creative artist in terms of his paintings? Perhaps you aren't familiar with the concept of hypothetical statements.

Yes, I have heard everything you said, and weighed each word of it very carefully. I quoted you because I was debating, and you tripped up there, and that's how it's done. :)

Now, since you're the judge you should probably bang your gavel and call for a recess, because I would imagine everyone else is becoming as bored with this as I am.

I didn't trip up. I was making a hypothetical argument, but you don't seem to understand what those are. Additionally, even if I did consider Bechle a creative artist, that doesn't mean that I had to consider his paintings creative. I could simply consider his photographs creative, and the paintings to simply be replicas of his creative photograph. Furthermore, if he is not a photorealist artist then he is irrelevant to the original discussion, which was about photorealism in particular, not the matter of using photo references.

art·ist ?( P ) Pronunciation Key (är?t?st)
n.
One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen

cre·ate ?( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr?-?t?)
tr.v. cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates
To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
To invest with an office or title; appoint.
To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

cre·a·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-tv)
adj.
Having the ability or power to create: Human beings are creative animals.
Productive; creating.
Characterized by originality and expressiveness; imaginative: creative writing.



Now, the latter definition might be the one that most people would apply to art, but if we are going to be anal here, there are two definitions above the latter that that can "technically, anally" outweigh the last one, simply because they apply and there are more of them. :)

Bang your damn gavel or I'm going to be in contempt of court by leaving, anyway. :)

If you're going to use those definitions, then photocopiers are artists too, because they too are creating copies. Intuitively this is not how we understand the word "creative" in the context of art.

I feel compelled to point out that when you are engaged in a debate you must pick a definition and stick with it. You can't just switch up which definition you're using in the middle of the debate. Such is called bait-and-switch, a logical fallacy.

Yes, I can. All is fair in love, war, and art....and debating. Oh, I left something out on the "artist" definition:

One who is adept at an activity, especially one involving trickery or deceit: a con
artist.

I used Bechtle to eventually get you to say exactly what I wanted you to say, which is a fair play in a debate, I didn't switch anything up. (you did trip up when you termed him as "creative", yourself. :D) I still firmly believe that you can take a photograph and copy it in part or in whole, and be a creative artist. (what staci said, I have done that many times (on canvas as well as here, and I have seen countless other artists do it) I don't argue that vehemently about something unless I believe in it.

I'm done here. :)

I cannot believe I just read all that.

But I didn't term him as "creative." Go look up 'hypothetical argument' and maybe you'll understand why. :P

hah.... you didn't say "hypothetically speaking" you said... "creative artist", point blank. (do you have any idea what a bad headache I got trying to get you to say that? ;) Find the nearest law school and enroll in it, you're wasted in art school. :) (not to say that you aren't a fine artist, but executing the law in a courtroom is a very challenging art form, in my opinion. Fierce contender, you are, but I still win. :)

Bluebonnets are pretty. :P

You'll note that I said, "a creative artist," not "this creative artist," the former indicating a hypothetical statement. Additionally, you haven't refuted any of my arguments that even if I did consider the man creative it would not affect my argument regarding photorealism.

haha... the gavel, darlin'... *sigh* :) It isn't fair that I have to argue my case with the judge. This is typically done in the judge's quarters, not in the court room. (you were clearly referring to Bechtle there, because you cited who I was referring to.... oooooh why can I not help myself?)

(since you are the judge, you can declare yourself right and I can go home now?) :)

I was playing devil's advocate. You kept saying over and over that he was creative, thus I decided to make the point that even if he was creative it does not change my proposition that he is irrelevant to the discussion. I was covering the hypothetical premise that he was a creative artist; I was not agreeing that he was creative.

ooooohhh, I KNOW!!!!!!, but I got you to say he is creative. Like it or not, I got you to say that. (Hypothetically or not!!!!) May I be excused now? :) That gavel is so much fun to bang, try it. :)

So, if I were to hypothetically say that I win, does that mean I win?

You're the judge, so yeah!!!!! Haven't you ever been in a court room? LOL

*dejectedly carries heavy boxes of files out of the court room with a sad loser face*
(beware that "happy hour" for all attorneys involved will require trashing the judge, but will not detract from the enjoyment of happy hour) :P

personally, I think nobody wins (except, of course the most creative artist in the contest....because, when this went from being a pleasant discussion to a "na na na na na!"...both lost by default...sorry. Court adjourned....let's go out for recess! it's more fun anyway! smiles, Donna

Glad to see you're above it all. I should aspire to be so humble.

I thought it was fun, and Zack probably did too, or he would not have continued it. Recess, happy hour, yeah, time for that.... :)

personally, I think nobody wins (except, of course the most creative artist in the contest....because, when this went from being a pleasant discussion to a "na na na na na!"...both lost by default...sorry. Court adjourned....let's go out for recess! it's more fun anyway! smiles, Donna

Debating is just sexy, I love it.

DBA, when you wash the kitchen FLOOR, it's no doubt sexy...lololol....but, sigh....I still think it's time to play outside of this 'let's not beat a dead horse' issue....let's go DRAW!! just one bride-to-be's opinion... ok...practice up-do tomorrow...time to sleep...get some rest you two.....but if you're going to continue...don't forget to breathe..love, Donna

See, I tried to impart that earlier... but... yeah, get what you're saying. dun dun tah dun... so you're in the windy city now. about to be married (again)..... :)

washing the kitchen floor... yes, so sexy that if anyone catches me doing it, I don't finish doing it... :)

I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO excited!! Hey, you probably have great handwriting, wanna do my placecards for me? haha...I WISH! Anyway...things are goin well..but omg there's so many last minute things to do!! AHHHH!!! but, amidst all of it, I happily took a long walk with my son tonight and that was real nice. well the countdown continues..! ps I've decided against the bridal march and am doing a slow, sexy steady walk to "THAT'S ALL' an old song I've always loved. It's very romantic...like me... :o)

You have wonderful taste, and this is going to be a beautiful wedding. :)

thanks Cindy! I think so too!! :o)

is anyone going to actually enter the contest?

uh, I thought I saw two entries already...?

It's only Tuesday Marcello, give them time. This is a pretty general topic. so it should bring in a lot of entries. Or at least I thought this theme was general, looks like I might be wrong, this thread is getting rather long. ;)
But yeah...less talking, more drawing! *snap goes the whip*

Did my piece. Yaaaaaaaa.

So if you do a protrait of an object in front of you and draw it realistically it's a piece of art, but by that token if you copy the same subject from a photogragh then it's just a copy of something that exists?

Just here to stir the pot.

oh sweetcell, you're such an instigator....lol...as if the thread isn't long enough already...hey, by the way nice draw lady!

Heh heh, spice spice, it be a variety.

No one's even said anything about real life references vs. photographic references. Where do you get that "so"? Additionally, you misused the phrase "by the same token." A better wording would have been "yet" or "however."

I hope to find enough time and energy to enter.

I hope so too Dave, this is your subject in my opinion.

Zack, your so funny to take things so seriously, I do was doing a little jibe but if you want to correct me and tell me I'm wrong hey, it's cool. I'll just sit here and hum to my favorite tune and smile at the silliness, because I've taken too many things in my life seriously and it lead to hard times. Smiling and humming, giggling at your serious reply and saying it's allllll good.

i'd correct your use of 'your' there. don't want poor grammar and misuse of idioms running rampant on a drawing site.

Glad to see that you, like MissDJ, are above it all. Clearly, I am the fool for trying to be serious at all ever. We should all follow your example and just hum to ourselves till the day we die since, after all, ignorance is bliss.

Ah! I see now. You would prefer a contest judge who doesn't take his task seriously? Very well, I'll just judge on whims this time, unlike the three hours I spent judging two weeks ago. :)

Just as long as you don't spend so much time judging that you don't have time to debate with me, you can take as much time as you like. :)

Oh no. I've learned my lesson. You act like you're serious at the start but after a while you act like you've been conning me the whole time and don't actually believe what you're saying. I won't let that happen again. :P

I did believe what I was saying.... and yes you will. :)

I think maybe I'll stop trying to joke around and just comment. (jk.) X)

Oh now Zack...dahlin...I never implied I was 'above it all' so please don't get the impression that I feel I am. I've just been in these verbal ping pong games before and after awhile it just starts getting old and tiring. Nothing gets resolved anyway, or agreed upon and it seems a certain obsession takes over to continue anyway...on and on and on...
So since I could sit back and see the futility of this banter, I just thought I'd try to make a lighthearted suggestion that we all stop and go out for recess instead. Unfortunately for me, I am SO not above it all. But, I must say that seeing the 'game' from this perspective, I sure hope to avoid playing it the next time someone challenges me to a duel. I wanna remember that it just ain't worth my time.
love Donna/Missdj

Funny, I can't see improper grammer in my sentence. I'll have to re-read that. Isn't I with a capitol?

It was well worth my time. Anyone ever seen the movie "Amazon Women from the Moon"? aaaaahahah
we would put on really tight silver body suits with false eyelashes, too much eyeliner, and frosty lipstick... and well, ... the men are just so "useful" in this movie from ... the late 60's, early 70's I think?.... watch it, it's hilarious.
(sweet, honey, psssttt... it's grammar... lol)

Damn my eyes, well, it is near 2:00 am. But I is still a capitol

Austin is the capitol here, I don't know where I is a capitol... hah. Get your silver suit and get crackin, darlin, there's work to be done here. :)

hey sweetcell.... "Zack, your so funny to take things so seriously" what was pointed out was the YOUR should be YOU'RE....fyi

ok...now on to EXTREMELY COOL AND EXCITING NEWS!! THEN I HAVE TO GO TO SLEEP!

THE TODAY SHOW IS FILMING OUR WEDDING FOR AN UPCOMING SHOW (June 30) called SECOND CHANCE AT LOVE!!!!
CLASSMATES.COM CONTACTED THEM AFTER HEARING ABOUT OUR WONDERFUL STORY!! They called me today! They will be interviewing Tom and I on Friday...then filming the wedding on Saturday...so Missdj's gonna be 'famous' lololol...aren't you proud? haha...I'm ecstatic...and I ALREADY WAS before they called...now I'm way too high to even see the ground...lol.. love
Donna

Okay.... *pulls on Donna Jean's lil ruffled ankle socks to keep her from floating all the way up....*What channel, what day... Is June 30 the day they are airing it? and what channel and what TIME????(sometimes the day aired is not the day filmed) I was on "Good Morning Houston" a few times and got the time filmed and aired all wrong... you gotta make sure if it isn't live..... what time, in *eastern, central, mountain, etc...* so we will all be able to find you. ) You better get this right or I'm gonna be madder than a wet hornet!!!!! I want to SEEEEEE!!!!!! :) This is funny... love, 15 minutes of fame, pretty lace and crystal.... the honeymoooooon oooooh.... nanananannalalalalla honeymoon! In my opinion, life should be a never-ending honeymoon... what bliss.... :) Just get us the dates/channels/times/ and I won't have to send out any paparazzi.

YES! We MUST see~~~

Yeah, and all 2draw bridesmaids must be attired in Amazon Women from the Moon costumes... hah... :)

Oooooohhh then cam can run round the reception drooling and mumbling .."boobehs boobehs"

Ok Donna, I realized when I was going over it, you are would be you're. Slap my wrist.

I starts with a captitol 8)

And congrats, wow, some power must be behind you guiding you along giving you this wonderful life. Yes time and date (DST) so we can see.

I want to to go as Barberella. It's already close to my own name.

I will find out all the stats tomorrow at the interview and let you know!!! CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? AAhhh!!!! As far as I know right now, it will AIR on June 30. It's a morning show that comes on about 7:00 a.m. Central Time. And, Marcello...if you're reading this...if I get the chance I'll mention that it's "all because of 2draw".....lol...

what's all because of 2draw?

The reason that I am marrying my friend from high school, after not seeing him for 30 years, is all because of 2draw. Of course, that's not really true, but if it's on national tv...then 2draw will be even more famous...lol..that's what I meant.

gasp, you'd lie on national tv? D:

Why not? Bush does it all the time.

Whoa that's cool! I shall tune in as well!

what!

Yep, don't tell anyone though.

She isn't going to lie... the world revolves around this place and we all know that. It's time the whole nation knew as well. ;) hah

Congratulations to this week's winners, and thanks to all who participated!

Yay, second! :D I was the first loser! Congratulations Kayos for the well deserved first place ^^

Hey I got third. Thanks.