What would the old masters be doing today?

FatAssasin

The Kenneth Scott thread got me thinking, what profession would the old masters be now if they were born, say 30-40 years ago?

Here's my list:
Rembrandt: Director on par with Cameron or Spielberg
DaVinci: Arist/Programmer working on next-gen game engines.
Michelangelo: High end 3D creature creator for feature films.

hawken

they would all be frustrated. theres the reality.

Moz

Rembrandt would be obscure dutch artist no one cares about because no one gives a shit about europe.
DaVinci would be one of those wackos with the conspiracy theory sites.
Michelangelo would be accused for having a political agenda and being too conversative.

I hate this planet.

FatAssasin

Damn, what's with all the doom and gloom? I think they'd be excited by all the opportunities we have now for creative expression. But that's just me.

ElysiumGX

I don't think either of them would degrade themselves to that level (referring to your list). Never under-estimate the timeless qualities of traditional art. They would escape the formulaic, assembly line, mechanical digital world that we've accepted and perfect their talent through mediums held at higher esteem. I think they would do what they always have since film and games are rarely a center for creative thought and experimentation, or gaining greater knowledge, but more for profit and entertainment. Not to sound so depressing, but now that I've put thought into it, I can't place film directors, special effects, or game artists/programmers any where near the achievements from the masters of our history.

milla

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think either of them would degrade themselves to that level (referring to your list). Never under-estimate the timeless qualities of traditional art. They would escape the formulaic, assembly line, mechanical digital world that we've accepted and perfect their talent through mediums held at higher esteem. I think they would do what they always have since film and games are rarely a center for creative thought and experimentation, or gaining greater knowledge, but more for profit and entertainment. Not to sound so depressing, but now that I've put thought into it, I can't place film directors, special effects, or game artists/programmers any where near the achievements from the masters of our history.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you took them out of their own time and put them into ours that might apply, but if they were our contemporaries why would that be 'degrading'? You're assuming that they will even be aware of their artistic talent, let alone what they could have been in another century. To be honest there's no way to know whether they'd do anything artistic. They probably wouldn't get the training or patronage now that they had then, so anything from chalk pavement artist to advertising copy writer are plausible.

JO420

Id love to have a "Degrading" position at Dreamworks working for Speilberg

now if you said Rembrandt was working as splooge rag boy at the local peepshow that my qualify as degrading

jzero

I think that creativity finds it own outlets, no matter what form it takes. The Renaissance masters were working in a dynamic period of development in thought, technology and history. Their education was centered around Classical material. They were blazing new trails, kicking out the jams.

But if you popped one of those guys forward and made them be born in, say, 1945 instead of 1545, you'd still end up with someone who was a creative innovator. The artists would find their path in whatever environment they were placed in. DaVinci would end up like Frank Lloyd Wright. Rembrandt would be like Milton Glaser.

Elysium, I think you're putting the masters on too high a pedestal. It's not like they were born with an instinct to raise Art to a Higher Level, it was that they were in the right place and time, and they just did it. Given the modern environment, they'd just have made out differently, there'd be none of this 'degrading' stuff. They were great artists, but the only reason people think of them as the Old Masters is because they've been dead for so long.

They weren't gods. DaVinci was a tinkering pouf. Picasso was a womanizing egotist asshole. Pollock was an Oedipal drunk. Marcel Duchamp, now there was a demigod among men...

/jzero

sundance

daVinci would be a photographer, michaelangelo would be an architect, raphael and donatello would be comic book artists...

Mishra

they would all be ninja turtles of course

ElysiumGX

Given the modern environment, would be more like asking "who are the masters of today"?

My answer is more along the lines of Bill and Ted bringing them to the modern day in a phonebooth. What is all this sillyness?!?! I can't brush paint onto these foolish liquid crystal displays. How much are they paying you?!?! Of course they are the masters because they've been dead for so long, and inspired many after their time. There are many traditional artists today that blow their works away. Digital artists as well. I think the Davincis and Michealangelos of today would be found in books like Expose.

Now the big question. If the masters were around today...would they photosource their work? :P After we explain what a photo and google is of course.

I think Dali would have the most fun designing assets for games.

swampbug

Davinci would be playing pro baseball.

oXYnary

If your saying born? Saying they have the same genetic structure as the masters? They wouldnt be the same people. Its like clones, and the old assumption they would be the same person as the orignal (BEEEEP WRONG!). Nuture VS nature is a oxymoron. They work together to make a person.

One might have shot himself at 16 if born into a southern babtist family? (Leonardo I would guess given his sexual outlet if it is indeed nature).

Anyhow, if your saying what field is the same idea of what each master represented. None of them would be under anothers "thumb". So someone in the sciences would be Leonardo (maybe like Hawkins). Rembrandt could be a makeup artist, a interior decorator (maybe Like Martha Stewart), or lighting director for concerts. Michelangelo would be represented by architecture.

If your trying to limit to our field (which really wouldn't work).

Leonardo= Technical Art Director
Rembrandt= Lead Level Designer or possible Concept.
Michelangelo= Lead Character Artist.

flaagan

they'd be getting useless crits from n00bs on art boards like cgtalk and conceptart

Moz

you are also forgeting the history about them, they all had radical ideas for their time. That is what made them stand the test of time. They went outside the box.

swampbug

follow up