he wasn’t going into art for aesthetics, the art he was trying to get into was the equivalent of modern autocad renders.
and his perspective lines didn’t even converge, which is so basic he might as well present his work in crayons.
wether or not it was “pretty” was irrelevant.
it’s interesting that before computers, all “cad renders” were done by artist. Before photography, expeditions would bring painters to faithfully take “pictures”. You could take creative liberties in your work, but it was meant as a technical representation for work, not a pretty thing for someone to hang in their living room.
going into a Hitler art tangent.
his art was objectively bad.
he wasn’t going into art for aesthetics, the art he was trying to get into was the equivalent of modern autocad renders.
and his perspective lines didn’t even converge, which is so basic he might as well present his work in crayons.
wether or not it was “pretty” was irrelevant.
it’s interesting that before computers, all “cad renders” were done by artist. Before photography, expeditions would bring painters to faithfully take “pictures”. You could take creative liberties in your work, but it was meant as a technical representation for work, not a pretty thing for someone to hang in their living room.
Ofc I was making a polemical point more than an aesthetic analysis.
Side fact: all the “computer animation” in the original BBC Hitch-Hiker’s Guide was in fact drawn by hand by humans
when cgi started it was mostly wireframe animation. and a company came out which made incredibly smooth cgi wireframe animation.
it was eventually revealed that their cgi were actually painted models they filmed.
scene from escape from new York