not logged in
| re: A Very Interesting History Of Art Thread | |
Posted by:  |
rockfenris2005 02:34 pm UTC 05/20/11 |
| In reply to: | re: A Very Interesting History Of Art Thread - Wilbury 04:55 am UTC 05/19/11 |
> To set you straight on one big snafu of mine, me accusing > the program cover of Ryan's as being a photo manipulation > was a lazy assumption on my part, Ryan's right it actually > appears to (amazingly) be a different original by Whelan. How did you think that wasn't an original by Whelan? Is it because it looks so different to the other versions? I think it must have been an early draft. > > The only photo manipualted version is the ADVERT that Ryan > posted, which is obvously the VBO cover overlaid with the > Bat on the Chrysler building from Bat2.. > > I also hasten to add that the reason I added my > craptacular sketches of the Bat2 cover was to try and > explain why I appear so down on everything all the time. I > don't pretend to be able to paint at ALL, much less as > proficiently as the best guys there are (like Whelan). But > rather it annoys me no end that they can't art direct > their own work, and that nobody from the record label is > art directing them either. You've really brought this to my attention now LOL I love the cover art for Bat 2 and now it's annoying me! > > It's sloppy. And it's a very expensive and time consuming > thing (the painting) to get wrong once you've finished. > It's not like a photo shoot where you can take a few > safety shots, a few portrait, a few landscape etc etc. > > > > > This is a very interesting history of art thread. Maybe > > Michael Whelan would enjoy reading the various posts > > discussing his work. Someone should tell him. Does he > > still do album covers? I seem to remember someone saying > > that he no longer wants to do them. Maybe because Meat > > used computers to change his work. I'm not sure. Ryan, > > when you talk about it evolving, is it Whelan doing the > > different versions or are Meat's people manipulating an > > original painting? In another post you say that Wilbury is > > not a fan of the art but didn't Wilbury say that he is a > > fan of the original painting? Also, the following from > > Wikipedia made me wonder: "The cover art was illustrated > > by sci-fi/fantasy artist Michael Whelan, following the > > style of Richard Corben's cover for Bat Out of Hell. It > > features the biker from the first cover flying on his > > motorcycle towards a giant bat perched on top of New York > > City's Chrysler Building. Echoing the gravestones of the > > first cover, partially destroyed skyscrapers inhabit the > > lava landscape. Also like the first album, it features a > > 'Songs by Jim Steinman' credit, although smaller and > > located at the bottom of the cover." Does Richard Corben > > deserve credit for the Michael Whelan painting? And Jim? > > Jim has the "concept" credit for the Bat 1 cover. How much > > influence did Jim have on the original painting that > > Wilbury posted? The "partially destroyed skyscrapers" and > > the Chrysler Building sticking out sound like something > > from Jim's imagination. Its very Obsdian (or > > post-apocalyptic New York). Its actually more relevant to > > Jim's "Neverland" vision than the Bat 1 cover is. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: A Very Interesting History Of Art Thread - Wilbury 04:55 am UTC 05/19/11 |
| Next: | re: A Very Interesting History Of Art Thread - Wilbury 02:54 pm UTC 05/20/11 |
| Thread: |
|