CLASSIC, Mythic, Iconic;- - - Superman

. . . . . .odd segue . . .

I think we all know these are digital,.... I fail to see the quibble... ( they ARE 'Sculptural' ; 3D in nature ) I must have missed something.

Ah,....I did ask for Cast-sculpture additions to this set,.....no implication that these were "cast" was intended or implied....

I just wanted to see a 3D "Superman ; Best Of" encouraged,....not make a false representationn

The problem arises out of how the works are presented. While the models are indeed fully three dimensional, you the viewer have to be given the ability to see the works form every angle for them to be treated as such. While a 2D portrait is expected from these works through the internet medium, and thus we view them as such, if the actual viewing environment is planed to be a 2D rendering then the sculptural elements of the works are destroyed and it becomes a drawing.

Essentially if the viewer can engage the work in a 3D way, whether it's on a computer screen or not doesn't really matter; however if the work are 2D renderings of a 3D model then the case is different.

@Versasrev What is the point of going into the semantics of whether they count as sculpture or not? I don't that who ever posted was being dishonest but not specifying that it was a '3D digital sculpture'. Thats just picking a fight for no reason, appreciate the art for what it is. Art

I in no way was "picking a fight" as you call it. I personally just like clarification on the medium, as it brings a greater understanding of the nature of the works creation and allows one to fully appreciate the work for what it is. I believe my original post expresses this idea.

I should note that based off of the original image without delving into the link that the work could be seen an object, and as such made a statement of clarification to allow any viewer to have a fuller understanding of the work. I personally believe it speaks highly of the skill of the individual artist that this work has the ability to pass as an object if the viewer is not given the appropriate context.

So in essence by stating the medium, we empower the viewer to greater understand the work and time that goes into the creation of the work and thus greater appreciate it.

Speaking of my own skills and competencies in art making, it would be much easier for me to create an actual object versus a digital template, that this individual has created, and as such I appreciate it that much more for those reasons.

So I feel that my statement does indeed posses validity; however if you wish to define your descent with my argument, I am open to discussing it more to further clarify my stance and the nature of my opinion.

Should you seek validity in my competency in a particular medium I may supply a link to verify my credentials and images, although it would be through messaging and not posting on current. This is due to me wishing to keep some degree of anonymity on current.

I should clarify that I do indeed praise the skill of the artist.

My wish to more appropriately define them on this post was just a means of clarification and not meant as any form of insult. These works are highly skilled and if not given an appropriate context could definitely be mistaken for real world objects, and as such further speak to the skills of the individual.

On a tangent:
I am glad that apps and computer performance have advanced to the degree that one could accurately deceive a viewer, as this speaks highly to the further development and validity of computer based processes within the realm of Fine Art.

Works such as these illustrate a fuller potential for art making with computers as a medium, and as such I am overjoyed to see them.

On a separate note:
There is no need to designate with an @username on current as it is automatically generated when you post.... You may have figured that out already though.

Please do not take this as an insult, as I am simply clarifying the content format of Current.

I changed the tag to the LINK,....no misrepresentation was intended.

i think you nailed it. +^d.
Has a "Superman as shop foreman,....working man,....beat cop " grit to it.
His face doesn't reflect the "invulnerability",....it portrays the RESPONSIBILITY.
Now THAT shows strength. Who would "save private Ryan" ? The man who does his job because HE is the one thats there. That guy would hit the beaches if bullets COULD make him dead or blow his legs off. After a while,...that responsibility would leave a mark.

Anyone with any cultural sensitivity, or value themselves.

p.s.
---After some reflection,.... I am tempted to delete this response,...just because I feel I have been baited.
Hmmmm,....but I actually think my rational mind agrees with my reactionary cognition to a great extent on this.

Intellectual side has decided to amend / edit the statement to " Anyone with appreciable and commendable cultural interests and sensitivity,...and
- much - immediate or lasting cultural value themselves.

There,....I can live with that.