[kdheiwns]

I've noticed that 2D artists/non-sculptors who engage in strange mediums or techniques generally only make realistic closeup portraits of people. I saw the headline, thought "neat, but I bet he just makes normal expressionless faces." Opened the page and it seems like that's the vast majority of his work. As an artist myself, I'm always like ehhhhh when I see this. Feels a bit like the kind of stuff you see for sale in tourist areas.

The technique is cool though.

[rhplus]

Perhaps they find more acceptance due to the effects of pareidolia, where the viewer is more inclined to say, “Oh yeah, I see it - that’s a face!”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

[nandomrumber]

The introduction on that Wikipedia article needs to be updated to include digital compression artefacts.

Cheap 4K dash cams are awesome at creating the wackiest noise in suboptimal lighting conditions.

[WesolyKubeczek]

Once you stretch boundaries thin enough, you could argue that all art is about inducing pareidolia. After all, it’s all just cracks on glass/smears of paint on canvas and so on. It matters little whether there was artistic intent or not, if the result looks like a face, it looks like a face. ;-)

[mstade]

I saw some of these works in Stockholm and then in Miami, and you 100% captured my thoughts. Cool technique well utilized, but beyond that I'm not sure I felt any particular connection to the art. It just felt bland.

That's ok, not all art affects all people the same and to me that's the wonderful thing about art – it really is ok to have different opinions and taste, no one is wrong. I'll just move on to the next piece and hopefully enjoy that more. :o)

[d--b]

yeah it’s definitely a genre in itself.

It’s like there are 2 axes: - cool technique and - cool picture. The second is way more important than the first, which is way painters are still on top of the 2D art world.

Some people can do both though. And i’d say even in these cases the art world tend to dismiss the weird technique as gimmicky.

[yojo]

There are a few modern artists who mix cool techniques to great results and get recognized. Olafur Eliasson and James Turrell come to mind.

Damien Hirst is a more polarizing third contender.

Edit: also Yayoi Kusama

[BLKNSLVR]

And the reason 'cool picture' is way more important than 'cool technique' is because the technique is essentially no longer part of the art / picture at completion.

You've just got the sausage, and there's (not necessarily) any indication of how it was made inherent to the sausage - even if the way the sausage is made is cooler than the sausage itself.

(that analogy got tiresome quickly)

[portly]

Spot on. Interesting methods always seem to be popular with engineering folks. But results are soulless.

[stinkbeetle]

All commercial art is soulless. Music, movies, professional painting and sculpting.

One thing I'm hoping for if AI destroys much of the value of soulless art, is human actual art reverting to the motivation of the desire people have to share things with those they love.

[bartread]

I also properly hate this guy's website. Too much clicking around and exploring to find good, in focus, photographs of examples of his work. Maybe I should blame OP for not submitting a page with examples of the work but, whatever, I did not enjoy the hunting and pecking.

[cs702]

> I saw the headline, thought "neat, but I bet he just makes normal expressionless faces."

In this case, that's not true. See the examples shared by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47163837 on this page.

See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47162666 for context.

[kraig911]

As someone who also loves to paint esp portraits I was wondering in your opinion what looks like a good portrait? Because every time I go out on a limb and do what I think is neat the subject/audience seems less than interested. It's like people like a good photo.

[miramba]

This feels like something Oscar from Duolingo could say.

[coolius]

agree. shallow and uninspired

[close04]

"Normal expressionless faces" to quote OP have been a big part of the foundation of "art" for ages. Hammered in marble, paint brushed on canvas, made with tiny mosaic pieces, and any other possible medium. What makes "hammered in glass" shallow and uninspired compared to any of those?

The exhibitions section [0] has examples of abstract pieces of art too.

[0] https://simonbergerart.com/exhibitions

[bayindirh]

I'll kindly disagree, and put out an offer.

If it's shallow and uninspired, why not make a better version? The medium is freer than Free Software. A sharpened hammer, a pane of laminated glass, and some time.

How hard can it be?

[norome]

agree and I'd venture we tend to see more uninspired art because most success in the art world is more about business acumen than experimentation and uniqueness.

[ralfd]

> Feels a bit like the kind of stuff you see for sale in tourist areas.

Yeah, art is only real if it is unpopular and elicits a “I don’t get it” /s

[colinb]

Art is only interesting if it elicits an emotional response in the viewer. Otherwise it is illustration.

And the wonder of it is that we can all have different responses to the same thing. (The Mona Lisa is a waste of canvas and oil - a hill I will die on).