Artist who “paints” portraits on glass by hitting it with a hammer
256 points
1 month ago
| 19 comments
| simonbergerart.com
| HN
kdheiwns
1 month ago
[-]
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.

reply
rhplus
1 month ago
[-]
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

reply
nandomrumber
1 month ago
[-]
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.

reply
harimau777
1 month ago
[-]
Some image artifacts are even common enough to have entered pop culture. For example, if you are a fan of Dungeon Meshi, Marcille's "Sky Fish" familiar is inspired by cryptids stemming from the "rods" that often show up in pictures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(optical_phenomenon)

https://cryptidz.fandom.com/wiki/Air_Rods

reply
WesolyKubeczek
1 month ago
[-]
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. ;-)
reply
mejutoco
1 month ago
[-]
Figurative art is only part of the vast possibilities of art.
reply
mstade
1 month ago
[-]
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)

reply
d--b
1 month ago
[-]
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.

reply
yojo
1 month ago
[-]
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

reply
BLKNSLVR
1 month ago
[-]
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)

reply
hn_throwaway_99
1 month ago
[-]
I don't understand this at all in respect to the actual topic at hand. The "cool technique" in this case is creating 2D art by means of cracking glass. It's quite obvious at completion, just by seeing the art, what the general technique was. It's not like people are mistaking this for a watercolor.
reply
steezeburger
1 month ago
[-]
I'm not sure it's so fitting. You can see hoe this technique was done and how it's different from painting. Or like, a portrait made of pennies, or string and nails, etc, etc.
reply
baby
1 month ago
[-]
Another way to see this is that most obsessed artists live within constraints they created years ago, and their art stands out as it is something never seen before: the best someone has ever done within the constraints they took decades to explore and master.
reply
4dregress
1 month ago
[-]
You may still end up with the sausage but the meticulously prepared one will most likely be the most delicious.
reply
portly
1 month ago
[-]
Spot on. Interesting methods always seem to be popular with engineering folks. But results are soulless.
reply
stinkbeetle
1 month ago
[-]
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.

reply
bartread
1 month ago
[-]
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.
reply
cs702
1 month ago
[-]
> 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.

reply
kraig911
1 month ago
[-]
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.
reply
miramba
1 month ago
[-]
This feels like something Oscar from Duolingo could say.
reply
coolius
1 month ago
[-]
agree. shallow and uninspired
reply
close04
1 month ago
[-]
"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

reply
portly
1 month ago
[-]
If you visit Rome and see a Bernini in person you will understand.
reply
close04
1 month ago
[-]
I’ll understand what? We have a plethora of established artists of incontestable value. If I need to check one out in particular to understand expression, excitement, inspiration, then all others have failed. You name exactly one. Why not Rodin? Or Henry Moore?

I bet nobody here saw the art from the submission in person but look at how many opinions around.

Every time I hear armchair critique of someone else’s “boring uninspired art” and “expressionless faces”, or “art connoisseurs” giving snippets of wisdom, I know they’re fuller of hot air than a desert on a hot summer day.

reply
portly
1 month ago
[-]
The examples you name are also fine. Just stuff that makes you feel something.
reply
bayindirh
1 month ago
[-]
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?

reply
nightfly
1 month ago
[-]
> The medium is freer than Free Software

$$$$$ for supplies, you could probably take up oil painting for cheaper.

reply
bayindirh
1 month ago
[-]
A simple hammer you'll sharpen, maybe a bog standard angle grinder. These are the cheap ones, and all you need.

Bigger panes of laminated glass is expensive, but you can start small, no? I'd go to the local glass shops and ask for their scraps, for example.

However, the point is not the cost of the supplies, but supporting the argument by putting out something better than the thing being criticized.

reply
iainmerrick
1 month ago
[-]
They said "shallow and uninspired" but that's separate from "requires immense skill and patience". The point is, whether or not the process is cool and impressive, is the end product really very interesting?

It can be valid to criticize something as uninspired even if you're not capable of doing it yourself. Movie critics would have a hard time otherwise.

In this case I wouldn't be quite as dismissive, personally. But if you've seen one, have you seen them all? Probably yes.

reply
ErroneousBosh
1 month ago
[-]
> Bigger panes of laminated glass is expensive, but you can start small, no? I'd go to the local glass shops and ask for their scraps, for example.

Go to a scrapyard and see if you can pull the windscreen out of a car. It's just a contaminant when it goes in the fraggie anyway.

reply
ChrisMarshallNY
1 month ago
[-]
Like when someone that clearly needs more exercise, is yelling at a sports star to “not be lazy,” or “practice more.”

It can easily be said that this makes no sense, because the yeller has no idea of the tremendous work that even the lowest-tier athletes put into their vocation.

On the other hand, they are a “customer” of the athlete, and have a “right” to criticize the “product.” They are probably out of line, suggesting root causes and solutions, but they aren’t out of line for complaining about their experience with the product.

I wrote a short piece about this mindset, some time ago: https://littlegreenviper.com/problems-and-solutions/

reply
watwut
1 month ago
[-]
The athlete is in a no way a product a dude behind the tv bought. Tv watching guy is not a customer of the artist. Like, first of all, the dude behind the tv did not paid the athlete nor the athlete employer.

> but they aren’t out of line for complaining about their experience with the product.

They are just as asshole, as much valid as me mocking random people on the street.

reply
nomadygnt
1 month ago
[-]
I agree with that last part but the people watching the athlete are definitely the customer. The athlete gets paid because people watch them on tv (and in person). If no one watched them on tv, then they quite literally would not get paid. Their employer is selling their talent and abilities (the product) to the watchers (the customers). The watchers are literally paying the athlete and the athletes employer, if not through subscriptions or tickets, then just by watching the ads on tv.
reply
watwut
1 month ago
[-]
1.) It is not even true that all athletes you watch on TV would be professionals. A lot of them are supposed amateurs, not getting actual salary at all.

2.) Like common, it is even fairly common for people to pay literally nothing to anyone and watch professional sports for free.

3.) Those who are paid are NOT paid by the watchers at all. Not even by the TV itself. Their actual employers are multiple steps away from broadcaster.

> if not through subscriptions or tickets, then just by watching the ads on tv.

That makes them products themselves. They are not paying by watching ads, their time is sold to the real customer who is whoever paid for ads.

reply
jerf
1 month ago
[-]
There is no obligation for a critic to produce better work than what is being criticized and it is a cheap and dishonest rhetorical tactic to imply otherwise.

I 100% guarantee you have criticized things without trying to produce better work yourself. It is a deeply dishonest standard.

reply
norome
1 month ago
[-]
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.
reply
ralfd
1 month ago
[-]
> 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

reply
colinb
1 month ago
[-]
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).

reply
Zobat
1 month ago
[-]
> The Mona Lisa is a waste of canvas and oil - a hill I will die on

Seems like Mona Lisa elicits an emotional response in you as a viewer ;)

I get what you're saying though. I always "correct" people that claims some piece of music is "bad", there's no bad music, only music you don't like.

reply
g8oz
1 month ago
[-]
I cynically believe that many people will force themselves into having an emotional response if the art piece matches with what they understand as having currency with the type of people they seek to emulate and the rarified scene they want to be a part of.
reply
ginko
1 month ago
[-]
The Mona Lisa is a panel painting and doesn't use canvas.
reply
F-W-M
1 month ago
[-]
I think I read here on hackernews that the Mona Lisa doesn't look at all like it did when it was freshly made. If I look at the restored copy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado)#, I at least find the silk very nice.
reply
smusamashah
1 month ago
[-]
In Exhibition section Lasting Moment is showing 4 glass sheets standing parallel to each other.

It looks like the cracks are same on all 4 sheets. That is amazing. Their are only 4 pictures though. I want to see them more closely.

Edit: while looking for more photos found more work here. The 3D effect by layering sheets is so cool. https://aurum.gallery/simon-berger/ I like the sphere more than the skull.

Edit: Found some more pictures of those sheets with same cracks in his Instagram https://www.instagram.com/p/C_34-G0K-Qm/?igsh=MWtzY2FydWQxa2...

reply
ortusdux
1 month ago
[-]
Reminds me of the artist that shipped glass cubes via FedEx, letting the box throwers make the art for him.

https://museemagazine.com/features/2018/10/15/walead-beshty-...

reply
nkrisc
1 month ago
[-]
This is a refreshingly pragmatic approach to modern art and I love it.
reply
rippeltippel
1 month ago
[-]
Minecraft art
reply
halapro
1 month ago
[-]
I was hoping it would look cool but they just look lifelelessly damaged. Meh.
reply
nkrisc
1 month ago
[-]
He says that he encourages the pieces to only transported by re-shipping them through FedEx, so as they change owners and travel the world they will become progressively more damaged.
reply
drsalt
1 month ago
[-]
sorry, this isn't "art" because it actually conveys information. art has to be useless.
reply
WaitWaitWha
1 month ago
[-]
I cannot tell if this is /s or real. there is an entire genre of art that specifically about functionality - functional art. Chairs, tables, buildings, vases, textile, and so on can be beautiful art yet functional.
reply
BLKNSLVR
1 month ago
[-]
reply
nomel
1 month ago
[-]
Sheesh, this makes me realize how boring "modern" interiors are, even though 3d printing makes means this is now much easier.
reply
slumberlust
1 month ago
[-]
What an artful comment.
reply
nkrisc
1 month ago
[-]
This is the worst take on “it’s not art” I’ve ever read. You can look through any art history textbook and it’s filled to the brim with classic art that convey lots of information.
reply
biztos
1 month ago
[-]
I’ve seen a lot of his work IRL, he was one of the artists at the now (sadly) defunct Aurum Gallery where I was a regular visitor.

For better or worse, he’s mostly know in the “street/urban art” world (which is much bigger than graffiti). And one of the features of a lot of the art in that scene is high technical mastery paired with “low” / populist motifs and composition.

Seen up close these works are really quite amazing, and I respect the artist choosing to make the things that can make him a living. Even Brice Marden, at some point, just kept making those trademark squiggles and cashing those checks.

reply
iainmerrick
1 month ago
[-]
For better or worse, he’s mostly know in the “street/urban art” world (which is much bigger than graffiti). And one of the features of a lot of the art in that scene is high technical mastery paired with “low” / populist motifs and composition.

That's an interesting distinction. I hadn't really noticed that but it makes a lot of sense.

I suppose Banksy would be close to the crossover point between those two worlds? The ideas and the chutzpah are the main attraction, but generally 'low' populist motifs, without high technical mastery. Someone you could either look up to or sneer down on from either side.

reply
biztos
1 month ago
[-]
It's a good question whether Banksy really is a crossover, or only a crossover in market terms. I would definitely call him a high master of stencil technique though, some of that stuff is pretty hard to pull off.

As clever as his art is, I think he's still very much an outsider in the capital-W Art World, which for his part he's often trying to prank. (Which they richly deserve, see Exit Through the Gift Shop.)

Things like the self-destroying painting were high-concept but also completely staged. For another artist getting rich off his contempt for the Art Market, but solidly on the Art World side of the fence, see Maurizio Cattelan.

One person with a foot in both worlds is Alex Face but he's mostly known in South-East Asia. I have a feeling it'd be easier to find examples in Asia than in the West.

https://www.artsy.net/artist/alex-face

reply
downboots
1 month ago
[-]
Is it all it's cracked up to be?
reply
yesitcan
1 month ago
[-]
It certainly didn’t disappoint me. Granted that’s N=1 anecdata.

(stereotyping a HN commenter that doesn’t understand humor)

reply
harimau777
1 month ago
[-]
This could be a really cool practical effect in a movie. Imagine the protagonist of a horror movie walking through their house when suddenly a mirror breaks and it's a face watching them.
reply
victor871129
1 month ago
[-]
Yep, in The Exorcist deleted scene. They removed that scene because demons are not ugly
reply
tamimio
1 month ago
[-]
I did notice art as a profession, or people calling themselves artists, are usually within Europe, but rarely in North America. Whenever I stumble upon an art or artist portfolio online, I assume they are in Europe, and most times it turns out to be true. My theory is that the system in Europe allows people to nurture their creative side, meanwhile in North America it's a hyper-capitalistic system and society where you are always running away from some beast -if not debt, it is rent, if not taxes, it's something else- making people run like hamsters on wheels with zero space for disconnection and solitude. And if you managed to make something cool, suddenly you are pressured to grow and expand and look for investors and whatnot. Even job-wise, in the US for example, there's this hustle culture where you are somewhat expected to keep grinding after work, and if you don't, you are either seen as less productive, a slacker, or even terminated for performance issues. If you decide to quit, you might end up homeless, so you are in this never-ending cycle where your life is about grinding and being busy with what's considered "productive".

Not to dismiss the rest of the world, but my focus was on the western side, not so sure how it goes in other parts of the world.

reply
RyanOD
1 month ago
[-]
Our world is full of creative, inspirational people. Bravo!
reply
aquir
1 month ago
[-]
I would like to be wealthy enough to commission even a small piece for my home! Looks amazing. He must be using some special kind of glass
reply
elephant81
1 month ago
[-]
In terms of artistic merit, it reminds me of https://gillieandmarc.com/collections/sesame-street-drop

Technique is undoubtedly interesting, but content....

reply
computator
1 month ago
[-]
Although I liked the video of the artist working, I didn't appreciate that they took away the controls to pause, play, seek. Is there a workaround to get back the playback controls on websites that disable it?
reply
simonhamp
1 month ago
[-]
Fascinating! Thanks for sharing
reply
password4321
1 month ago
[-]
Could this be automated, some type of "printer" that breaks layers of glass?

Interesting to consider how different mediums are mechanically reproducible to varying degrees as AI and automation grow more capable.

reply
royletron
1 month ago
[-]
I went into this fully expecting that I was going to be outraged that someone can trash glass and call it art, but it actually is!
reply
indubioprorubik
1 month ago
[-]
Could you do this in 3d? Like a iceblock, with cracks running through it, the cracks forming a 3dimensional statue?
reply
aakresearch
1 month ago
[-]
Fictional artist Feofan Kopytto, who was immortalized in "The Little Golden Calf" [0] used oats and other cereals for his paintings. On the back of the book authors' talent it became customary to refer to his artistic endeavours as "charlatanism". Having internalized it through my Soviet upbringing, I struggle to see why the same wouldn't apply to the art being discussed. LLM kindly helped me to generate hypothetical ad copy for Kopytto in the same style [1] - I honestly see no reason to not relate to both with the same reverence (or, rather, lack thereof!). I'd appreciate a human explanation (re: why?), if anyone has a minute or two. It would help me (and maybe others) to guide understanding why AI slop of all kinds may or may not deserve the same treatment as intent-driven human "output".

Interestingly, I think this HN topic is very relevant to understanding of contemporary LLM hype, as it illustrates the power of language (and propensity of human mind) to create an appearance of substance and meaning even where there is absolute emptiness (or, worse, manipulative fraud) underneath.

- [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Golden_Calf

- [1] https://pastebin.com/j7wsXQxe

reply
jama211
1 month ago
[-]
Ok that’s awesome
reply
vstm
1 month ago
[-]
That dude hits the nail on the head with those portraits.
reply
peddling-brink
1 month ago
[-]
When all you have is a hammer…
reply
dev1ycan
1 month ago
[-]
AI bros in the comments criticizing a real artist, lol.
reply