Craig Mullins - The best digital artist in the world?

pilou · 8 Sept 2008, 20:06

A goodbrush indeed

remus · 8 Sept 2008, 20:59

I admire his talent greatly, although im not a particular fan of some of his subjects (namely the giant robots, for lack of a more appropriate term.)

Cheers for the link btw, thats defintely going in the bookmarks.

kwistenbiebel · 8 Sept 2008, 21:30

How can someone be the best digital artist in the world?

But I agree, really cool things he makes.

toxicvoxel · 8 Sept 2008, 22:28

@unknownuser said:

How can someone be the best digital artist in the world?

If we reason this way then how can there be 'good' artists, and how can there be 'bad' artists.
And so our differing intuitive response to art or the 'skill' of a craftsman cannot be relied upon because it cannot be rationalised, and what we 'like' becomes self deception.

kwistenbiebel · 8 Sept 2008, 22:48

There are just 'artists'......and 'artists we like'.

toxicvoxel · 8 Sept 2008, 22:54

I think you'll find some are 'liked' more than others.

kwistenbiebel · 8 Sept 2008, 23:21

In that case, Craig Mullins won't make it.
I don't think he will be named most when the entire population would be asked to vote.
Hope you get my point.

There is no way to point out the 'best artist'. There are just no common standards to base judgement on.

gaganraj · 9 Sept 2008, 04:25

he's awsome. here are some more great concept / digital artists

http://www.thomlab.com/
http://www.dermotpower.com/
http://www.grnr.com/
http://www.artpad.org/
http://www.ghull.com/news/news_main.php/
http://www.ryanchurch.com

toxicvoxel · 9 Sept 2008, 06:58

@unknownuser said:

I don't think he will be named most when the entire population would be asked to vote.

Come on Kwisten, that's a silly argument.
If on the other hand, if his piers that work within the same genre were to vote, he may come pretty close:
http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/articles/craig_mullins/

gaganraj,
Thanks for the links, - some of which I don't know.
Hopefully there will be more posts highlighting artists (which we like!)
.

Ross Macintosh · 9 Sept 2008, 08:58

I note in that article about him that he uses a combination of photoshop & painter. The use of Painter really shows - so painterly! I also note that in his galleries he has some traditional media examples. The watercolours are inspirational.

Regards, Ross

pilou · 9 Sept 2008, 09:35

You will find some crazzy digital artists here
http://conceptart.org/ (maybe the best forum in the world?

toxicvoxel · 9 Sept 2008, 10:25

@unknownuser said:

(maybe the best forum in the world?

Pilou
There is no such thing as the best forum, only forums...
.

Edson · 9 Sept 2008, 10:47

i am always puzzled by statements like: the best small italian restaurant in the world, the best beer in the world, etc, and now the best digital artist in the world.

how so? do we know the work of ALL the artists out there?

perhaps mullins is the best among the ones published in english-speaking magazines, who knows, or maybe among an even more restricted circle.

i would leave it at: c. g. is an exceptional artist.

kwistenbiebel · 9 Sept 2008, 10:58

Hi Toxicvoxel,

I was teasing a bit off course by nitpicking on the title of the thread.
He's an exceptional artist for sure, and may be even the best in the world to your taste.

Personally, my favorite artist would be Panamarenko, but he has nothing to do with digital whatsoever.

Cheers,
Kwistenbiebel

toxicvoxel · 9 Sept 2008, 11:53

Kwisten,
I know what you are saying. The selected topic heading was selected in the hope of sparking some debate and comparrison with other artists.
(You may have noticed the question mark.)

If we agree that not all artists are equal , then it follows that there will be a small group on either side of that spectrum that vies for the position of 'worst' and 'best' based on whatever criteria you apply. The measure of that status relies heavily on the observer's knowledge and understanding of what represents 'good' or 'bad' in order to measure it, and where this falls short we tend to judge intuitively , sometimes wrongly based on our personal frame of reference. What I considered to be 'good' in my twenties I now think of as 'mediocre'. The object has not changed but my values and perception of it has.

So yes, the perception of quality is based on whatever personal measure we apply. The point is that our nature dictates that we gravitate to making comparrisons and we express that response in the value that we attach to the work and skill of individual craftsmen, artists and even sportsmen. To deny that such a response exists is to deny human nature itself.

kwistenbiebel · 9 Sept 2008, 12:07

I don't deny that.
We mean to say the same thing I believe. You expressed a personal feeling about this artist. Nothing wrong about that. In the end, experiencing art IS an emotional thing.
Some people make efforts to rationalize art (art critics need to make their living'), but in the end art is a matter of 'appeal', which in any case has an emotional component.

The US would rationalize this emotional factor to reaching 'the sublime', while the Europeans would tend to measure art to 'the power of concept'.

Chris Fullmer · 9 Sept 2008, 21:55

@kwistenbiebel said:

The US would rationalize this emotional factor to reaching 'the sublime', while the Europeans would tend to measure art to 'the power of concept'.

That doesn't sound familiar to me at all.

But I did want to throw in that somtimes one has to know some of the background to art before they can appreciate it fully. I speak from experience.

Chris

kwistenbiebel · 9 Sept 2008, 23:25

I shouldn't be generalizing.
The idea of 'reaching the sublime' was explained to me by my brother in law who teaches esthetics on a US university. We had long discussions on how to 'rate' art and which parameters to use when classifying a work as a piece of art ..
He explained me the meaning of the word 'sublime' and how it related to US culture.
But I guess the States is a big place with lots of other view points and approaches on this.