This made the rounds yesterday but since people keep sending me links to it (and I do appreciate links - so keep them coming...except, you know, on something else now):
Yes. Ug. The iPhone New Yorker cover. Of all the amazing digital art in the world this is a revelation!?
“The best feature of it is that it doesn’t feel like something that was done digitally; quite the opposite,” said Françoise Mouly, the art editor for The New Yorker.
Again, I say: !?!?
12 comments:
I saw this yesterday.
allow me to recreate my initial reaction:
" .......... ...um.....what?"
I agree.
Ugh.
It woiuld have looked SO MUCH BETTER done by Briclot, Dan Santos, Foster, Giancola, Lockwood, Martiniere, Palumbo,Picacio, Sparth, etc.
I wasn't really sure what the fuss was about, considering how many magazine covers get digital art on them already. I guess it was the iPhone tie-in.
I didn't much like the look, either, but mostly I just shrugged. I was a little interested in the potential uses for a highly-portable digital sketchbook, but I couldn't possibly justify the expense. My phone still works fine for talking on, and paper works fine for drawing.
My thoughts as well. Its almost as bad as the Hockney digital masterpieces.
I've seen some super cute phone drawings -- notably the robot drawings of Goro. But those are A) better than these, and B) presented a quick studies and thoughts. When it comes to an actually Illustration, who cares what the hardware was. Make a great image - that's all. It's the artist's problem what tools he uses not mine.
Would they tout a mediocre story _written_ on the iphone as much!?
Speaking of stories written on cell phones, the New Yorker had an interesting article a few months back on the Japanese fad for keitai novels, which are written and read on mobile phones. But it's not like Dana Goodyear wrote the actual article on one of the darned things.
And by the way, hi to Irene! It was delightful to meet you at the AAU Spring Show last week, and I hope you had a nice visit to sunny San Francisco.
I think this was just a plot by the snobs over at the New Yorker to set back digital art by about 20 years.
Was this really the best they could come up with? I can think of about a dozen illustrators who could have given them a better digital cover. Some could have done it in a way that celebrates the digital medium, some could have done it in a way that would make people not know care what tools were used.
People are too obsessed with their tools these days.
I`m not sure why the comments regarding this being digital art - is it still a rare thing in the U.S. to use digital art, rather than traditional media ?
either way, this is just poor quality - end of story !
If it were done on the iphone, but better quality, I wouldn't have minded. The sketch-like, unfinished, feeling to it is what annoys me.
Kinda reminds me of way back, when people oohed and aahed about vector drawings made in Quark. Appreciated the effort (really, try drawing in Quark 4.0), but why?
I'm sure some Stone Age fella wowed the crowds by drawing with a ginkgo branch instead of a papyrus reed...
I love the quote from the New Yorker artist about working from his iphone: “Absolutely nobody can tell I am drawing.” It's not clear whether he appreciates the irony of his statement.
Steve Brodner has a funny piece about drawing with an iphone at his website: http://stevebrodner.com/2009/05/26/mastering-the-i-phone-brushes/
Post a Comment