lol that's cute, I call piece like this 'the Jesse Johnson protege' tribute art lol

herb4 said:

^^^that last one's really cool^^^

This one made me laugh. I thought a kid did it

[Edited 6/13/21 7:42am]

PHEW

OldFriends4Sale said:

by Kelvin Olkafor

AZStreet said:

PHEW

OldFriends4Sale said:

by Kelvin Olkafor

-

This isn't Prince anymore.

As if it's been so heavily photoshopped. Robotic uglyness.

The beard, the eyes, everything is pumped up as if it all is greased up with silicon filler and fake oil.

A botoxed manequin doll.

Even the chest hair had to match the frame.

Yuck.

Peace though. -)

-

Vannormal said:

AZStreet said:

PHEW

-

This isn't Prince anymore.

As if it's been so heavily photoshopped. Robotic uglyness.

The beard, the eyes, everything is pumped up as if it all is greased up with silicon filler and fake oil.

A botoxed manequin doll.

Even the chest hair had to match the frame.

Yuck.

Peace though. -)

-

R U saying it looks too much like the photograph session it came from?

I like the texture of this one

Vannormal said:

Vannormal said:

AZStreet said:

PHEW

-

This isn't Prince anymore.

As if it's been so heavily photoshopped. Robotic uglyness.

The beard, the eyes, everything is pumped up as if it all is greased up with silicon filler and fake oil.

A botoxed manequin doll.

Even the chest hair had to match the frame.

Yuck.

Peace though. -)

-

I think it's just an airbrush portrait but, yeah, we're getting into the uncanny valley here.

Otherwise I don't see any reason to take a photo into PhotoShop and paint over it. Back when I went to art school in the late 80's a large segment of the illustration majors were all about photo realism. People were astonished when a person could basically do nothing more than make a painting look just like a photograph. Except now it's easy and unneeded.

I wasn't that taken with it myself even back then. I remember doing a pencil drawing of the SPIN Magazine "Black Narcissus" cover - no tracing - and realizing what a waste of time it was. Making a painting look like a photo takes time, talent and patience. That's it. Why not just take a picture then? I wound up giving that drawing away and pretty much stopped trying to make my shit look as "real" as possible. That's what cameras are for. This was the photo I copied. It came out good but BFD, so my drawing looked like a photo.

[Edited 6/16/21 9:19am]

If you're going to use photos, I prefer collage

OldFriends4Sale said:

Vannormal said:

-

This isn't Prince anymore.

As if it's been so heavily photoshopped. Robotic uglyness.

The beard, the eyes, everything is pumped up as if it all is greased up with silicon filler and fake oil.

A botoxed manequin doll.

Even the chest hair had to match the frame.

Yuck.

Peace though. -)

-

R U saying it looks too much like the photograph session it came from?

-

If it's a real picture, which i doubt...

Photoshop is an application like botox and silicon fillers for photography.

It creates a desire for perfection in portraits that never was there in the first place.

-

herb4 said:

If you're going to use photos, I prefer collage

-

I like this one.

But it seems a photograph from a poster (reflection)

Who made this ?

-

Vannormal said:

herb4 said:

If you're going to use photos, I prefer collage

-

I like this one.

But it seems a photograph from a poster (reflection)

Who made this ?

-

Not sure. I found it on Amazon.


https://www.amazon.com/77...B01GQR41FK

So what is your take on these?

That last one was just a photograph that someone addded tattoes to that really have no relationship with Prince.

Do you think some do/do not work as 'Prince art'?

Vannormal said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

So what is your take on these?

That last one was just a photograph that someone addded tattoes to that really have no relationship with Prince.

Do you think some do/do not work as 'Prince art'?

Vannormal said:

These are all really interesting to me, including the last one which is more "art" than a finely crafted illustration. These days there is a big distinction between "art" and "illustration". Just walk into a contemporary art museum to see (or hear, smell, and feel in some cases).

[Edited 6/17/21 7:50am]

ufoclub said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

So what is your take on these?

That last one was just a photograph that someone addded tattoes to that really have no relationship with Prince.

Do you think some do/do not work as 'Prince art'?

These are all really interesting to me, including the last one which is more "art" than a finely crafted illustration. These days there is a big distinction between "art" and "illustration". Just walk into a contemporary art museum to see (or hear, smell, and feel in some cases).

[Edited 6/17/21 7:50am]

Within the discussion I asked for, how does that last one represent art? Do you think Prince would see it as art? What do you see about it that reflects Prince?

If you can, can you rate each one(or any post here) on how it does/does not reflect an expression of Prince?

OldFriends4Sale said:

ufoclub said:

These are all really interesting to me, including the last one which is more "art" than a finely crafted illustration. These days there is a big distinction between "art" and "illustration". Just walk into a contemporary art museum to see (or hear, smell, and feel in some cases).

[Edited 6/17/21 7:50am]

Within the discussion I asked for, how does that last one represent art? Do you think Prince would see it as art? What do you see about it that reflects Prince?

If you can, can you rate each one(or any post here) on how it does/does not reflect an expression of Prince?

For me, one thought is; it's creating a contrast between Prince's pop identity marked by an adoption of traditionally feminine styles, mannerisms, and behaviors, with what might lie underneath... an actually hyper masculine personality (and that could be meant as a funny contrast too). Art can be comedic. In this particular image with his sassy feathered Farrah Fawcett hair on top, the brutish tattoos are a humorous contrast, but they also, with the text, seem to support the fictional elements of his "Kid" character's world in the movie "Purple Rain"

The fact that I can talk about these ideas, inspired by this image, is what makes it art.

I have a feeling (based on things like the glammed up make up heavy image in the Lovesexy tour book), that Prince would have seen this and thought it was art. Whether or not he liked it, who knows? But he was surrounded by artists and exposure to art after his rise in the 80's, and bootlegs of some very uncommercial experiments, and knowledge of his shelved projects make me think he was quite open to ideas of contemporary art. The entire Lovesxy era with the design of the first two singles' packaging, and the design and narrative of the concert tour was quite conceptual and tinged with the idea of an awareness of art beyond commercial craft.

I like many of the other images as well, but that particular grouping was especially interesting. But I can also really enjoy the craft and simple joy of an illustration/painting like this too:

Prince did like when people took his photos and bedazzled or sparkled or edited his photos, I don't know if he would actually appreciate some of these. He was particular about his image. But that doesn't mean 'it's not art'.

.

I'm looking at a few of them, and I don't know if I get the flow or essence of Prince.

.

But that's why I wanted to do this thread, to really get a look at what people are doing and how it works or does not work.

ufoclub said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Within the discussion I asked for, how does that last one represent art? Do you think Prince would see it as art? What do you see about it that reflects Prince?

If you can, can you rate each one(or any post here) on how it does/does not reflect an expression of Prince?

For me, one thought is; it's creating a contrast between Prince's pop identity marked by an adoption of traditionally feminine styles, mannerisms, and behaviors, with what might lie underneath... an actually hyper masculine personality (and that could be meant as a funny contrast too). Art can be comedic. In this particular image with his sassy feathered Farrah Fawcett hair on top, the brutish tattoos are a humorous contrast, but they also, with the text, seem to support the fictional elements of his "Kid" character's world in the movie "Purple Rain"

The fact that I can talk about these ideas, inspired by this image, is what makes it art.

I have a feeling (based on things like the glammed up make up heavy image in the Lovesexy tour book), that Prince would have seen this and thought it was art. Whether or not he liked it, who knows? But he was surrounded by artists and exposure to art after his rise in the 80's, and bootlegs of some very uncommercial experiments, and knowledge of his shelved projects make me think he was quite open to ideas of contemporary art. The entire Lovesxy era with the design of the first two singles' packaging, and the design and narrative of the concert tour was quite conceptual and tinged with the idea of an awareness of art beyond commercial craft.

I like many of the other images as well, but that particular grouping was especially interesting. But I can also really enjoy the craft and simple joy of an illustration/painting like this too:

OldFriends4Sale said:

So what is your take on these?

That last one was just a photograph that someone addded tattoes to that really have no relationship with Prince.

Do you think some do/do not work as 'Prince art'?

I think it's art and call it art, just not really good art or anything I'm much interested in. For the most part, art is when the creator says it is. After that, it's left to the audience to determine if they're right or it it has any longevity. I didn't mean to imply that photo realism wasn't "art", just that I fail to see the point. Some of those examples are clever and interesting but so much of the creative process and its audience is subjective. Marcel Duchamp nailed a urinal to a wall and called it art. Warhol painted soup cans. Some people douse themselves in maple syrup and dead flies on stage.

Photo manipulation and collage are things I explore all the time but, for me, the process of just making something look real for the sake of it seems like a waste of time when one can just take a photo.

In art school, as I started to gravitate away from painstaking renderings and more into collage, a lot of my colleagues thought I was "cheating" or "stealing" by using cut up photos. My argument was that I found my medium in the GARBAGE (curbside magazines) and that I was using it to create something new. It's similar to sampling.

Done well you have a whole new song. Done lazily, you have "Ice Ice Baby" or "Can't Touch This".

herb4 said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

So what is your take on these?

That last one was just a photograph that someone addded tattoes to that really have no relationship with Prince.

Do you think some do/do not work as 'Prince art'?

I think it's art and call it art, just not really good art or anything I'm much interested in. For the most part, art is when the creator says it is. After that, it's left to the audience to determine if they're right or it it has any longevity. I didn't mean to imply that photo realism wasn't "art", just that I fail to see the point. Some of those examples are clever and interesting but so much of the creative process and its audience is subjective. Marcel Duchamp nailed a urinal to a wall and called it art. Warhol painted soup cans. Some people douse themselves in maple syrup and dead flies on stage.

Photo manipulation and collage are things I explore all the time but, for me, the process of just making something look real for the sake of it seems like a waste of time when one can just take a photo.

In art school, as I started to gravitate away from painstaking renderings and more into collage, a lot of my colleagues thought I was "cheating" or "stealing" by using cut up photos. My argument was that I found my medium in the GARBAGE (curbside magazines) and that I was using it to create something new. It's similar to sampling.

Done well you have a whole new song. Done lazily, you have "Ice Ice Baby" or "Can't Touch This".

I like this. It very much is subjective. It's kinda weird because there is a lot of stuff that just makes 'artists/art communities' look bad.

I remember in the early 90s in an Art Forum mag, there was a woman who would read her poetry while having plastic surgery done. And it was supposed to be deep. I'm an artist and just rolled my eyes. When everyone or any can just slap something together or take a crucifix, put a light behind it and throw a bucket of urine ie Piss Christ it's just.. ok man ok you needed to do that?

I judge art sometimes by my gag reflex. lol

I like some photo manipulations, and a lot of collages. I really enjoy a good collage. I've take my own art scraps and cut them up and created pictures

For me, being such a HUGE Prince fan, into the mythos and the fantasy and reality the background the style etc etc When I'm looking for Prince art I cannot help but look for respect and reflection of Prince and his sound/image/style/concept etc Purple Music, the Utopian Prince etc

So that is going to heavily dictate how I judge 'Prince Art'

OldFriends4Sale said:

Scott Laumann

@scott.laumann.9 · Artist

MUSIC — Scott Laumann :...raits.com)

I like this one. Catches his spooky electric side. Look at that long neck, P would hate that ha ha.

-

Yep. I think it's (all) art.

Art is in your head. It's what can you make of it, if you want to and if you are willing.

If it's good it'll shake and disturb your daily routine, feel, and look at things.

''Art Should Disturb The Comfortable And Comfort The Disturbed.''

Also, weird art is a ticket towards reality.

Sure I have opinions that are very specific.

But not to put in words. Certainly not her, not now.

I'm a contemporary artist myself (I'm on instagram, YOWANVICTOR)

That might explain some.

-

OldFriends4Sale said:

So what is your take on these?

That last one was just a photograph that someone addded tattoes to that really have no relationship with Prince.

Do you think some do/do not work as 'Prince art'?

Vannormal said:

I respect that

since the thread is here, it would be interesting to hear your take on some of the pieces you posted

Vannormal said:

-

Yep. I think it's (all) art.

Art is in your head. It's what can you make of it, if you want to and if you are willing.

If it's good it'll shake and disturb your daily routine, feel, and look at things.

''Art Should Disturb The Comfortable And Comfort The Disturbed.''

Also, weird art is a ticket towards reality.

Sure I have opinions that are very specific.

But not to put in words. Certainly not her, not now.

I'm a contemporary artist myself (I'm on instagram, YOWANVICTOR)

That might explain some.

-

OldFriends4Sale said:

So what is your take on these?

That last one was just a photograph that someone addded tattoes to that really have no relationship with Prince.

Do you think some do/do not work as 'Prince art'?

I bought this shirt from the artist. Currently commissioning one that has Prince (D&P era), Sly, George Clinton and James Brown. Sketches look FIRE.

OldFriends4Sale said: