>>1367030>these artists are obsessed with the "ooohhh, so dark, soo coool" bullshitYou do know you're sounding like an art neanderthal?
Art is not always meant to be photorealistic, but is
meant to evoke emotions, and dark and brooding pix
are popular at the moment because people generally
are not happy and optimistic.
Look back at the 50s and 60s and sci-fi was the happy
bright, shiny stuff you're craving because people were
still VERY optimistic about their modernist dreams of
the future, in which *SCIENCE*!! would solve all the
world's ills and bring about the utopia people have
craved for millenia. Now, people know better. Science
isn't going to solve the world's ills, at least not soon,
for reasons I won't bother exploring right now. And
folks are sad about that, pessimistic.
My point is this: don't be a troglodyte. Of course you
can prefer one or the other, but you should not be a
dick about it, nor should you fail to appreciate why so
much future-art is pessimistic.
>even post-apocalyptic themes can be bright, colorful!Of COURSE future-art of dystopia can be positive and
sunny, but that's usually because the artist is usually
a earth-firster, saying "Y'know what, shit's gonna fall
apart, the world's gon' end, civilisation will be reduced
to rubble, but, meh, that's okay. The earth will go on."
/rant