I was browsing a few weeks of back posts on the yummy new blog musecrack, and this piece jumped out at me. The artist’s site is full of outstanding matte paintings and photomontage.
The image above is from the “sans nature, pas de futur” campaign at Fondation Nicolas Hulot. (You are supposed to be able to send an e-card with this and other images here, but it doesn’t work for me).
Wowsers! Looking at work by artists with chops as impressive as his, I always feel so small and silly.
It’s odd, though, that I don’t viscerally respond to the works; my excitement is generally related to his technique and drawing. This is certainly the sort of stuff that a lot of “high art” folks would deem “illustration” in the perjorative sense, and I take issue with that, but few of these images breathe, as I feel they would be in the hands of someone like Caravaggio, who seems to be an inspiration for this artist.
But maybe that’s just me suffering from pretension?
No, I think you’re right – I think appreciating his work is a pretty cerebral experience, not a visceral one. Which may be one reason why it’s used for primarily European, not US, advertising.
I do like nonvisceral work, like really good architectural drawings, or scientific illustration, or cartography, and I do think it can be “art,” although it depends on your definition of “art.” I tend to get a little loopy over the pure aesthetic of things, without needing a super-strong emotional connection, but that’s just me. One thing we can probably agree on: always better to be cerebral than syrupy sentimental (yeah, I mean you, Thomas Kinkade!)
I’d say I’m in your camp, actually, as there is nothing so appealing as some really well executed taxonomic drawing.