|
Hello, everyone. This definitely doesn't justify a full thread, so...I have wanted to write beautiful, inspiring, personally meaningful and resonant lyrics for a while now. My general aesthetic is basically the indie folk thing that's so popular with the kids nowadays. However, I have crippling preemptive writer's block that is keeping me from going anywhere with it. I have a lot of trouble coming up with lyrics that are both completely original AND rhyme and flow with the music itself. I don't run into this problem when I'm writing prose or anything that isn't lyrical. I think I find it to be far more restricting than any other writing discipline - plus, it seems that the best approach is to be reductionistic, keeping it as simple as possible while still conveying your message, so that it's more malleable to the requirements of the rhythm of your vocal line. Is this normal? Is it possible to be competent at one form of writing and completely useless at another?
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 04:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
starfish prime posted:Hello, everyone. This definitely doesn't justify a full thread, so...I have wanted to write beautiful, inspiring, personally meaningful and resonant lyrics for a while now. My general aesthetic is basically the indie folk thing that's so popular with the kids nowadays. However, I have crippling preemptive writer's block that is keeping me from going anywhere with it. I have a lot of trouble coming up with lyrics that are both completely original AND rhyme and flow with the music itself. 1.) "restrictive" 2.) Yes, many people are good at one form of writing and bad at another. I, for instance, am a terrible poet. 3.) Writer's block is a crutch for writers who are either ill-prepared, procrastinating, or afraid of failure. You're probably biting off more than you can chew. Set aside "completely original" for now, and practice writing new lyrics to old songs. And get your big dreams out of your head. We all have dreams of glory, but they're of no use to you at your writing desk. You don't have an audience there. And forgive the obvious question, but you do play music, right? Normally songwriters plink out a melody and noodle around with it while they're coming up with lyrics. I know rappers tend to work with nothing but a notebook, but that's because they can imagine the beat in their heads. Indie kids usually write with a piano or a guitar. What are your basic elements here? Melody, rhythm, a hook, some central idea of what you want to say. Maybe try writing out the idea of the song in prose first, and see if any turns of phrase grab you, then build from there. And you know lyrics are usually revised a lot, right? The first time you put all the verses down not everything is going to be good. It's all about editing, same as any other art form. Keep what works and cut the rest until you've got something you're happy with. I worry that you're laboring under the common Millennial misconception that if you are ever going to be good at anything you'll be good at it right away. That's not how it works. Your first thousand songs will be terrible. If you like the work enough to keep at it that long good luck. If not, find something else to do with your time. Slashie fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Oct 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 05:11
|
|
|
quote:1.) "restrictive" Dammit. That's what I get for skimping on the proofreading.  quote:2.) Yes, many people are good at one form of writing and bad at another. I, for instance, am a terrible poet. I agree with you about writer's block. I think that I have a deep-seated fear of failure, or even mere inadequacy. I tend to equate writing vapid lyrics with having a vapid state of mind or personality, which I know is very irrational. Perhaps "writer's block" wasn't the correct phrase to use, though. I have actually put things on paper, but I've never gotten usable lyrics out of them. What I've done so far has mostly been stream-of-consciousness quantitative writing that produces pages and pages of uninteresting crap with some promising bits mixed in. I try to refine those into something useful, but they always lack cohesion. Perhaps I assume that every song or poem has some explicit theme behind it when, in reality, most themes are projected onto the work by the person experiencing it - I may be wrong about that, however. They also don't seem to have the same "punch" behind them as my songwriting influences. It's so difficult for me to discern whether I think my work is weak just because it's coming out of me, or because it's legitimately bad. Your last comment hit hard because it's so true. I've noticed it in myself and I've noticed it in my peers. We, as a generation, tend to impose silly restrictions and expectations on ourselves in everything that we do. So I will certainly try to be more cognizant of that in the future. I had the same problem when learning piano (my first instrument) and guitar (my first meaningful instrument), but I managed to power through it somehow. Now, regarding writing new lyrics to old songs - if you get something that you genuinely like out of that, how do you disconnect it from the original song? It would seem to me as though your new lyrics and the old song's melody would be linked forever, subconsciously at least. Apologies for taking everything all haphazardly. I'm a pretty disorganized person inside, I think. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 06:14
|
|
|
starfish prime posted:Dammit. That's what I get for skimping on the proofreading. Eh, with the caveat that I'm not an IP lawyer, many songs share rhythms or chord progressions or elements of melody. If you really write something you feel attached to, just tinker with it until you feel like it's your own. But that's really not the point. That was just a suggestion of an exercise you could do - practice. I think you would really benefit from putting yourself in a frame of mind where not everything you write is supposed to be For the Ages. You sound like you're still expecting to produce finished songs in one sitting. You won't. Find some songwriting "drills" that work for you, daily practice you can do just like playing scales, and focus on that for now. You don't get to skip straight ahead to knowing what you're doing. You have to put in the time. And think about your goals a little better. You keep talking about wanting to write things that are "deep" or songs that people will fall in love with. That kind of praise happens after the fact. There's a quote that's always stuck with me: "Rock and roll is the public expression of a private truth." All those songs you love weren't written to be crowd-pleasers. They were someone's true feelings. If you want to figure out what to write about you have to look at what you think about in total honesty. There's a reason it's easiest to write songs about heartbreak. Slashie fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Oct 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 07:40
|
|
|
Slashie posted:Eh, with the caveat that I'm not an IP lawyer, many songs share rhythms or chord progressions or elements of melody. If you really write something you feel attached to, just tinker with it until you feel like it's your own. But that's really not the point. That was just a suggestion of an exercise you could do - practice. Haha, I think I want to write songs that are crowd-pleasers BECAUSE they're true feelings, if that makes sense. Crowd-pleasers in a sort of liberal sense, not stadium rock but something that really resonates. I'm an unabashed indie kid and I love the poo poo out of Neutral Milk Hotel - stereotypical, I know. But everything about the lyrics feels right. It's very obvious that they sprang out of Jeff Mangum's bizarre, distorted imagination, and that makes them incredible even though they're very simple. I think you hit the nail on the head regarding my goals, however - the fallacious mindset of "okay, now I'm going to write something deep!" while sitting in front of a blank sheet of paper. This is all very good advice though, I think, so thanks. I'll definitely try to come up with some sort of regular exercises in addition to what I already do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 18:54
|
|
|
starfish prime posted:Haha, I think I want to write songs that are crowd-pleasers BECAUSE they're true feelings, if that makes sense. Crowd-pleasers in a sort of liberal sense, not stadium rock but something that really resonates. I'm an unabashed indie kid and I love the poo poo out of Neutral Milk Hotel - stereotypical, I know. But everything about the lyrics feels right. It's very obvious that they sprang out of Jeff Mangum's bizarre, distorted imagination, and that makes them incredible even though they're very simple. I think you hit the nail on the head regarding my goals, however - the fallacious mindset of "okay, now I'm going to write something deep!" while sitting in front of a blank sheet of paper. And I hate Indie music so helping someone make more of it is really a big sacrifice for me. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
Dunno if this deserves a thread; maybe there's one for it but I don't have search powers. I am looking to license Bobby Vinton's cover of Blue Velvet for a 2-minute animated student film on a budget of about 0$. I have all the contact information and have e-mailed the publisher and record label about the various licenses (Synch and Master Use) and all that, but what I'm curious about is how much money this usually costs. I'm actually more in it for the process- Even if nothing comes of this, it'll still be an experience worth going through- the only problem is that Sony apparently demands $200 in Administration Fees just to even CONSIDER granting a Master Use License. They don't state anywhere how much the License itself might actually cost; it's a pretty popular song, too, so my imagination is conjuring up all sorts of horrible figures with many zeroes on the end. They have a specific form for non-profit student work, but that still doesn't give me any indication of how much over $200 they're going to make me pay just to get this thing into film festivals. And I don't even know about the publisher. Meh, the admin fee is pretty steep as it is, but I'm still curious if anyone else has gone through this process and how much money they had to pay for Festival Use of a copywritten song. I have never done this before so assume I know nothing besides what I've just described.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
Automatic Jack posted:Dunno if this deserves a thread; maybe there's one for it but I don't have search powers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 20:56
|
|
|
Slashie posted:I've never done the festival thing, but commercial licenses for songs can cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. I would start talking to unsigned artists instead, or looking at songs with creative commons licenses. And not a big deal, but you mean "copyrighted." "Copywritten" is related to copy writing, not copyrighting. I know a fellow student who went through this process and managed to get away with $200 for a $2000 song due to her status as a student. I'm assuming that since Sony has a specific form for non-profit and student work that they're not going to ask for hundreds of thousands of dollars, but aside from that assumption I really have no idea what the bracket might be. They have separate channels for commercial work; I am strictly in the non-commercial category, thank god. I was just wondering if it was something like $2000 or what the range was for someone in my position. You said you never did the "festival thing", so have you done independent film projects then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 21:24
|
|
|
Automatic Jack posted:Oops, sorry, I must have drifted off while writing that sentence. I'm a WGA screenwriter. So I've had many a producer anxiously remind me not to get hung up on a song I mention in a script actually making it into the film. I've seriously sat in meetings where people debate whether a character could hum a song instead of singing it, because humming is cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 21:39
|
|
|
Slashie posted:I'm a WGA screenwriter. So I've had many a producer anxiously remind me not to get hung up on a song I mention in a script actually making it into the film. I've seriously sat in meetings where people debate whether a character could hum a song instead of singing it, because humming is cheaper. Welp, I guess I'll throw it out there that I'm looking for 40s-60s music with a similar feel to Blue Velvet. Maybe I'm going about it wrong but it's a little harder to find that specific style on royalty free and public domain sites, let alone composers today who emulate that type of music... It feels like I'm really close to finding something though, I just need to be careful where I step. Thanks for the info though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 21:57
|
|
|
Is there a general Illustrator/Photoshop thread? No. 9 fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Oct 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
Automatic Jack posted:Ah, cool! Yup, my teachers (effectively our producers) are telling me the same thing. Still looking for alternatives, but I guess it never hurts to aim for the top for as long as it's not costing me anything. Does your school have a good music department or a musical theater school (musical theater always has at least a few midcentury music nuts)? You can license sheet music for waaay less than a recording, and if you pull together a singer or two and a composer with a home setup or access to school recording equipment you could come out with something you like even better than your first idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 00:08
|
|
|
Don't know if this is the right place to post this, but figured I'd start here. Basically I've been working on a 2D game in my spare time that will be freely released (aka no money for anyone involved), and have gotten far enough to know that it's a project that will actually get finished. I'm not an artist and will eventually need one to help out (this is NOT a request for help post, I know those go elsewhere). For now I'm just looking for some information on the feasibility of quantity and quality when it comes to 2D art produced in an artists spare time. Specifically... 1. I realize it depends heavily on the skill/experience of the artist, but as a general guideline, how long does it take to produce a modestly detailed 2D color portrait of about 64x96 pixels size? 2. If I wanted say, 40 portraits of different human characters (half male, half female) 64x96 pixels in size, would that be a massive burden on an artist? I assume shortcuts like adding a moustache to an existing male face would allow you to speed up that process (and that's perfectly fine by me). Is this something that would take days, weeks, or months? Obviously a lot of variables affect this, but again I'm just looking for a ballpark. 3. How different are the skills between a general 2D artist and a pixel artist? My definition of pixel art is making things look identifiable and distinct while using minimal screen space, which seems like it could be a laborious process. If I wanted a 32x32 pixel tile representing a mountain, is that something most 2D artists could pound out in a few minutes? 4. Is creating basic UI elements, like borders for message boxes, and textures for buttons, about as fun for an artist as watching paint dry? The reason I ask these questions now is that for both this and future projects, various design decisions can be made to try to limit the amount of art required. I'm trying to get out ahead of this before making too many assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:Is there a general Illustrator/Photoshop thread? Not really, but you're welcome to create one!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 03:59
|
|
|
Simtex posted:Don't know if this is the right place to post this, but figured I'd start here. Basically I've been working on a 2D game in my spare time that will be freely released (aka no money for anyone involved), and have gotten far enough to know that it's a project that will actually get finished. I'm not an artist and will eventually need one to help out (this is NOT a request for help post, I know those go elsewhere). For now I'm just looking for some information on the feasibility of quantity and quality when it comes to 2D art produced in an artists spare time. Specifically... 1: Only speaking from personal experience, I would say half an hour to an hour depending on what style is wanted and how detailed it should be and all that jazz. 2: Should be possible to do within a day or two if you make four heads (both male and female) and two sets of every facial feature and mix them up. 3: Generally speaking I think they are roughly the same, the main difference is at what scale they are drawing at I suppose. It should take a couple of minutes for a moderatly skilled 2D artist to make a 32x32 pixel tile that represents a mountain. Obviously it might take longer depending on how detailed you want it to be and all that. 4: I'd say it depends completely on the artist and how detailed the basic UI elements is, it can be fun and it can be boring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 04:17
|
|
|
Slashie posted:Does your school have a good music department or a musical theater school (musical theater always has at least a few midcentury music nuts)? You can license sheet music for waaay less than a recording, and if you pull together a singer or two and a composer with a home setup or access to school recording equipment you could come out with something you like even better than your first idea. Would licensing the sheet music be something to talk to the publisher about? Would that be the Mechanical License? And do they provide the sheet music or am I going to have to hunt that down too??
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 15:20
|
|
|
Automatic Jack posted:Yup, there is also that option. We have a joint thing set up with another school's music dept., but that doesn't happen until later and sometimes you end up with a musician who doesn't hold up their end of the bargain... although I do hear there's some very talented people in that bunch. I would like to have a back-up plan in case nothing comes of it. The musical theater idea is good, I never thought of that. According to this you'd need a sync license, but you may also need mechanical and public performance and god knows what else. That article includes a link to some public domain sheet music resources, which you might consider. Some music from the era you're interested in will be in the public domain, although probably not any of the more popular songs. When contacting a publisher I believe they'll send you the sheet music - at least that's the way it works for musicals. Speaking of musicals, here's the link to sync licensing for the Rodgers and Hammerstein library. Yes, Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals are corny as balls, but the company has a huge catalog of other works right now, and some long-forgotten musical from the forties or fifties might have just the sound you need.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 17:07
|
|
|
I just finished making a collage consisting of semi-glossy low-budget magazine paper (from a university publication), aluminum foil, and electrical tape on a piece of cardboard about as thick as the back cover of a typical softcover notebook or sketchbook. I'd like to coat it with something to protect it since the last time I've tried to make collages the stuff started to fall off after a while. Is it possible to laminate something like this? Will it make the tape and foil look really weird? What other options are there that, again, won't make the tape and aluminum foil look like they've been coated in something? Also does anyone else ever get really existentially afraid about artistic failure or mediocrity? I'm young still but I get scared that I will never be able to create things I'm satisfied with and that other, discerning people are also satisfied with; and it seems like creating something NEW out of the materials we have lying around in this world is the only thing I consider really important, philosophically (as opposed to practically: I am going to look for a job after graduating). In short, is anyone terrified by the thought that they will never produce quality art?? Maybe this should be in a new thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 05:05
|
|
|
Radio du Cambodge posted:Also does anyone else ever get really existentially afraid about artistic failure or mediocrity? I'm young still but I get scared that I will never be able to create things I'm satisfied with and that other, discerning people are also satisfied with; and it seems like creating something NEW out of the materials we have lying around in this world is the only thing I consider really important, philosophically (as opposed to practically: I am going to look for a job after graduating). In short, is anyone terrified by the thought that they will never produce quality art?? Yeah there should definitely be a pretentious art house discussion thread. I love being a smug art cocksucker sometimes. Contemporary art baby. Anyway, to answer your question in a short way I will say that if your motivation in creating stems from some kind of need to please others, like any other endeavor which you might seek to please others, you are setting yourself up for failure. In creating art you cannot expect to please people and you cannot expect to make money. Those things might happen in time if you work your rear end off and do the right things, but they might not. Personally my motivation in creating is internal. I do derive a certain satisfaction in interacting with others and my environment, but for me that is always a secondary thing - more of some "oh, thats nice" moments here and there. The fiscal element of art is a completely different and large discussion, but for someone just starting out I'd suggest doing ones best to remove the need of creating being tied to your livelihood (not quitting your day job) until it's something that is clearly self sustainable. Unless you have a trust or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 07:48
|
|
|
^What he said. Also, it's best not to invest all your hopes into one piece or song or painting. If there's one thing my fancy schmancy art school education taught me, it's that it's easier to move on than it is to make something perfect. I honestly don't know what lamination is going to do to foil: you know how you figure that out? You do it, and then you say "Oh, that's not working for this collage, but now I have another technique in my pocket for if I ever want something to look that way". Create, then edit. Create as much as you can without thinking about how it's going to look to others. Just let it follow your inspiration or its own internal logic. Once you have enough of a backlog of work that you don't feel so personally attached to each and every piece, then you can show somebody. But asking for criticism right at the start is a great way to sabotage yourself and make it impossible to work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 13:24
|
|
|
Thanks. I don't worry that much about how things will look to others while I'm actually making them. And I'm sorry if I implied that it was my major motivation. My main concern is not being satisfied with my own output. I think I do tend to place a lot of importance on what other people think of my stuff though so I should work on that. And being too attached to things I make: that's also a problem for me. I see what you mean about just amassing a large body of work, just working from what makes sense to me and putting the effort in. Internal motivation. I guess I'm just afraid that I'll be doing exactly that for 50 years, wake up with a job and kids and whatever and a basement full of paintings that have consistently not pushed boundaries and I'll die without having brought anything really new into the world.... This has been on my mind for months by the way. It comes and goes. This is kind of "e/n," I just wanted to know if people can relate. About lamination, I think I'm going to create a couple test runs by gluing the same components onto cereal box cardboard and seeing how lamination/other finishing techniques turn out. I was planning on doing this anyway but I thought I'd ask if anyone knew for sure a technique that'd work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
Greggster posted:Thanks Greggster, I appreciate you taking the time to answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 03:19
|
|
|
How is the backwards compatibility of Illustrator CS5 to CS3? I know opening InDesign CS5 documents in CS3 is impossible without CS4, and I'm really hoping this isn't the case with Illustrator. I don't want to buy a new round of software!  That's part of why I do almost everything with Ubuntu and open-source software, because I don't like Adobe all that much to begin with, and it's not worth the price to me right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2010 07:11
|
|
|
Radio du Cambodge posted:Is it possible to laminate something like this? Will it make the tape and foil look really weird? What other options are there that, again, won't make the tape and aluminum foil look like they've been coated in something? Have you tried a non-glossy lacquer spray? It's become my best friend for collages, but then again I use almost all magazine clippings and not a lot of mixed media, so your results may vary. Do a test run first, for sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2010 07:16
|
|
|
Is all Poser "artwork" the retarded step-child of the art world or is any of it good?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2010 17:02
|
|
|
do you mean poster artwork, or what
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
Beat. posted:do you mean poster artwork, or what Poser, the 3D program. Its most often used to render NSFW stuff like this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
GonzoRonin posted:How is the backwards compatibility of Illustrator CS5 to CS3? I know opening InDesign CS5 documents in CS3 is impossible without CS4, and I'm really hoping this isn't the case with Illustrator. I don't want to buy a new round of software! I don't know about the backwards compatibility of native Illustrator CS5 files to CS3, but I do know that under the Save As menu you have the option of saving to multiple legacy (older) versions. If you have to work across a bunch of platforms, getting in the habit of saving as an older version is a pretty good habit to have. So basically your workflow would go like this: Create document in CS5 > save as CS3 or earlier > Open in CS3 and do whatever > Save >back to CS5, etc etc
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
Iron Squid posted:Is all Poser "artwork" the retarded step-child of the art world or is any of it good? I think it's totally acceptable to use Poser for what it was originally designed for - virtual mannequin software. In other words, just to lay out scenes, place figures, and roughly get proportion right. Also I guess it's fine to use it in architectural rendering and similar applications where you need to place a bunch of people that don't necessarily have to look good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 00:04
|
|
|
Iron Squid posted:Is all Poser "artwork" the retarded step-child of the art world or is any of it good? I use Poser very, very occasionally if I need basic animation of people moving, which I will then turn into outlines/shapes/etc later. Don't ever actually use the final renders for anything, though. Edit: Like this, but less poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 00:22
|
|
|
So I've started working on my final project for the program I'm enrolled in this semester a little early, it's hopefully going to be a ~20 page zine\design doc type thing dealing with concepts relating to 'place'. I just wanted to know if anyone knew of any (preferably visual) artists who's work I could draw some inspiration from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 10:40
|
|
|
Humboldt squid posted:So I've started working on my final project for the program I'm enrolled in this semester a little early, it's hopefully going to be a ~20 page zine\design doc type thing dealing with concepts relating to 'place'. The second approach I thought of is the installation piece. These works are specific to the space they occupy. An obvious example is Christo & Jean-Claude. A personal favorite is Truman Lowe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 17:57
|
|
|
Arriviste posted:Two things came to mind when you said. “…concepts relating to place.” The first is environment(al) photography—portraits taken in a place reflecting (or contrasting) the subject's life and/or work. These run the gambit from trite and arbitrary to sensitive and mysterious. Photographer Diane Arbus might be a good starting point. Awesome, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
drat. Just realized I typed “gambit” instead of “gamut.”  I should flog myself with a wet roll of film attached to a developing reel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
I'm looking into creating some high-quality giclée prints based on oil paintings. The paintings are mostly around 20" by 24" in size. I've got some decent photos taken with a DSLR, but they're nowhere near the 360dpi or so that seems to be required. So... what's the best way to get files of the required quality? Is scanning the best option, or do I just need to find someone with a better camera? I presume I'd need to spend some money and get them scanned at a place, rather than slapping different parts of the painting down on my ancient scanner and trying to stitch the resulting images together. Also... can anyone recommend a good printer for this sort of thing, preferably in the London or South-East UK area?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 18:29
|
|
|
I'm currently slogging through my pedagogic studies and now I have to hold three classes in high school concentrating on visual art analysis. Do you guys happen to know any great sites that've archived many works of art by renown international artists from different time periods? The image files should be large enough to be shown on a projector or printed on an A4 without turning into a blurry mess. I guess something in the 8XX x 8XX resolution and upwards would do. Please help me out if you've come by such sites. Even sites with unknown younger / contemporary artists would do as long as they offer more room for interpretation and use a wider range of mediums than Conceptart.org's digital paintings of wood elves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2010 13:19
|
|
|
There are some great pay sites that you can probably get access to at any university library computer, if you have one locally, like ArtSTOR, which is probably the biggest. They have hundreds of thousands of images and you can zoom in to a crazy degree, etc. with all the provenance, origin, etc. in image info. Thats worth checking into if you have a lot of stuff to do. For free images and info a good place to start is with museums with online collections. Victoria and Albert have the best (I think) online images and categorization. The images are not super high rez, I don't know of any free services that offer anything like that but they're good enough to do a presentation or report on. You could upsize them in photoshop because they're all pretty high quality. http://collections.vam.ac.uk/ I also like Kyoto National Museums images a lot but their database/search function sucks. But their images are really good. Thats mostly asian stuff. http://www.kyohaku.go.jp/eng/syuzou/index.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
Aside from the Powerpoint slides stored on my professors' personal sites and the aforementioned ArtSTOR, I frequently visited Art History Resources on the Web index by Prof. Whitcombe of Sweet Briar College, VA. —512 is the max size available on this site: (AICT) Art Images for College Teaching. —For Medieval artwork, check out NetSERF. Sizes and image quality vary greatly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2010 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Thank you both! Those links are just the things I was looking for. Thankfully I can stick to whatever art movements and periods I want to since the basic beef is to learn how to interpret and analyze visual art in the most basic ways. I'm actually teaching Finnish and literature (they're combined here in Finland as one subject) and writing about art is part of that. That's sadly the reason why my uni doesn't have access to any online art archives, not at least in my major. But as I said, the stuff you linked will probably do great. Thanks again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2010 23:29
|
|