>>2256614>I like making conceptual pieces.Good for you, I guess.
>I don't see any creativity in photo representation.Well, you're probably not looking very hard. Even photography contains a considerable amount of creativity when practiced at a high level, and representational art, even at the realist end of the spectrum, allows for a great deal more creativity.
Really, it sounds more like you're not seeing something you don't want to see.
>I appreciate the talent.. but its just illustration."Just illustration," like that's a dirty word or something. But illustration carries the traditions and skills of the old masters far more than contemporary fine art. So, you know. Fuck you for that.
>To me art is about thought process.Sounds to me like you need to do more thinking then. Representational art came about and remains popular still today because it communicates so clearly and without pretentiousness. And the reason it has such clarity is because it uses a visual language that's familiar to everyone.
>Engaging the viewer, making them question the piece and try and work it out for themselves....and this is where conceptual art falls far short. It's why normal people don't get it, it's why comments like "my kid could do that" are so common. People have such varied experiences and knowledge that purposefully making things more obscure by abandoning the common visual language of reality just muddies things unnecessarily. Not to mention how pretentious it is and sounds. Might as well just say it's "deep."
Also, fuck you again for implying that representational art can't do those things. If anything, it can do it better. Viewers are more easily engaged with things that they recognize and can related to, not abstract concoctions, and being representational doesn't preclude leaving open questions for the viewer to work out on their own.
