Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover

Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover

In which, for a fleeting moment, Nathan Drake is convinced he's the other Drake.

The above image, and everything below, are the work of Frank Tzeng, an artist at Naughty Dog who we've actually featured before for his uncanny Walter White portraits. But you know, since he works at Naughty Dog, Frank also gets to work with dudes like Drake as well.

You can see more of Frank's work at his personal site.

Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover
Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover
Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover
Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover
Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover
Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover
Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover
Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover
Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover
Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover
Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover
Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover
Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover
Nathan Drake Thinks He's On An Album Cover

Comments

    How is this not art!!??

      Because they're just 3D models, very very good ones, but that's it.

        I mean how is a 3D generated image not art? I look at amazing worlds created by hand but that's not considered art but throw a paint bucket at a chair and it will sell for millions..

          I don't think anyone has ever said just because it's created digitally it can't be art, there's plenty of works of art that aren't paintings.

          A lot of it is to do with context, who did it and why etc.

            Naw you're missing my point, I know anything can be art but to me it seems because it's in a game no one considers it art.

              As I said, context is important. Just because something looks cool doesn't really mean it's 'art'. Sure it's cool and looks amazing, takes a lot of skill and years of practice, but if it just looks cool then there's nothing beyond the aesthetic and that's not what art is.

              There are many interactive experiences that have game-like elements that are created as works of art, but the context in which they are created (the how,why etc) is fundamentally important it's purpose and function.

              You can make a chair as a work of art, but that doesn't mean every single chair you see in ikea is art. The difference is the depth to the work, who it's made by, why it's made - what is it's purpose?, what is it related to?, how is it exhibited?, is it in reference to anything (this is especially important in relation to other art created throughout history as the art world is very self referential)?, when was is made - is the time period important? is it related to a specific art movement that preceded it?

                All I am saying this this:

                http://www.sumthing.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/DA-FIELD.jpg

                Should be classified as art.

                  Just because something looks cool it doesn't mean it's art.

                This makes no sense. A lot of art is specifically the absence of meaning and ONLY aesthetic where the meaning is attributed by the viewer. No, nothing says something is or sin't art. The word "art" is not a measure of quality. Art is created not only by the craftsperson but also by the viewer, player, reader etc. and their interpretation or reaction to it. Furthermore "depth" is not something quantitative, it's subjective; what someone says has "depth" someone else will ignorantly fail to see and deem it "not art". I mean if we took the weird explanation above to be true then who decides what has "depth"? THAT guy?

                There's legit "depth" in Transformers that is irrespective of the plot, script, acting and even direction. The decisions made in character design and photography all have a purpose and are likely very hard to work out but just because we don't like the film itself do we consider this "not art"? No, because art is not a measure of quality or one person's perceived value. Franco describes it perfectly well in "This is the End".

                Art - the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power

                Last edited 23/12/14 4:42 pm

                  I see what you're saying, but you're completely missing the entire point of what I'm saying in that CONTEXT is incredibly important. I think you are also missing the point about about some types of art by saying "A lot of art is specifically the absence of meaning and ONLY aesthetic where the meaning is attributed by the viewer" because that in itself is about SOMETHING, they way in which the viewer reacts, responds and interacts with the piece or experience could be part of the piece, so maybe there's not an absence of meaning, you just missed it.

                  That quotation you provided is suitably vague and doesn't really take into consideration anything to do with context as i mentioned many times above. This one (from the wikipedia entry on art) is better, but obviously it's hard to define something so complex in one sentence. "Art is a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities. In their most general form these activities include the production of works of art, the criticism of art, the study of the history of art, and the aesthetic dissemination of art."

                  Furthermore including transformers (as much as I love them) in a discussion about art is very disingenuous as I don't think anyone would agree that toys of transforming robots designed purely to make money should really be held at the same level as something like an incredible master work such as The Winged Victory of Samothrace. The amount of work that has gone into something does not automatically qualify it as 'good' or 'bad' Just because a painting is photo-realistic doesn't mean it's 'better' than an abstract painting.

                  Disclaimer: I am not trying to troll anyone and I am clearly trying to show that I am firmly on BOTH sides of the fence, I love Transformers, Frank Frazetta, videogames, metal and tattoos, but I also love and have studied for many years Fine art, helenistic sculpture, abstract expressionist painting and critical thinking and writing around fine art. I can see both sides of the argument.

                  I do believe that in videogames form as it stands now, the medium has the POTENTIAL to create great works of art, particularly from more of an indie side of things, but it just hasn't happened yet. Much amazing work has gone into many AAA releases and it's incredible (i am really getting sucked into Destiny's world at the moment), but the Art is a whole different realm altogether. I believe that until videogames can truly break free of the commercial and stagnant confines that have been built up over the years (think COD etc) and really explore the medium in different ways then it will always be stifling the potential it has to create great works of art.

                  There's a lot of stuff to add to the discussion, but I don't have time right now, maybe it could be a proper article and discussion further down the line? Kotaku staff? anyone listening?

    I have been swooning over that closed eyes photo of Drake for weeks. Goddamn.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now