The pics thread

[SweptbackFlame]

Nice dude.

 

[mutantllama]

Cool

 

[Satanstoenail]

They're both pretty great, but the top one is extra great. Nice work.

 

[Eligos]

Those were equally dank shit.

 

[Sinel]

Looks like sperm.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yeah the top one is better. More fleshed-out and organic-lookin'. There's a whole lot of nice layering on it too.

Though I must admit Andy, when you first posted those my reaction was just like "oh great, more random scribble art, big deal", and I only really took a careful look after people started commenting on them and I was like "okay, how the hell could one set of scribbles be better than the other?"

I'm only saying that now since I at least came up with something constructive to say before it.

 

[mutantllama]

South Park has made quite the resurgence in the past 3-5 seasons, highly recommend everyone start watching it again. And every episode is online, legally for free

Random much? Also everyone knows they are online for free.

 

[mutantllama]

Yeah the top one is better. More fleshed-out and organic-lookin'. There's a whole lot of nice layering on it too.

Though I must admit Andy, when you first posted those my reaction was just like "oh great, more random scribble art, big deal", and I only really took a careful look after people started commenting on them and I was like "okay, how the hell could one set of scribbles be better than the other?"

I'm only saying that now since I at least came up with something constructive to say before it.

Scribbles too deep?

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

my nephew does stuff like that

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Nah, he doesn't. He doesn't take monotyping class or know what plexiglas is, nor does he know about different paper media, how to blend inks, how to properly work a press, etc. Art is (most of the time) equally about the process by/through which the art is created than merely about the final work as a "piece of art." Oftentimes, process can glean greater insight into the workings of the artist than the final product itself can. Food for thought (which I know is hard for you).

Thanks guys...both took around an hour to fully develop until I was happy with the overall composition (or decomposition, as it were). My prof liked them too...one of the funnier things is that most people in the class were using stencils to do imagery (fish, etc....that kinda thing) and after a couple people saw how she reacted to mine, they started going a little more abstract.

I think that the layering in the first one is more dense but I don't think it is more interesting. There are more layers in 1, but they are shallower...the parts where the lines (tentacle looking curved ones, that is) cross each other and themselves on the second one are probably the most interesting part. My main problem with the second is the "figure" in it, even though I originally thought that was a good idea. What's funny is that was actually my first one (out of the two), so you can see I made a conscious decision to remove the amoeba/cell-like figure from it the second and go with a more Terry Winters-inspired, line-drawing/intersecting style.

Grant: I think that is an unfair judgment on my work. When creating non-graphic design work, I certainly stick with more abstract expressionist style stuff both because I am not technically skilled enough to do more "realistic" work and fully realize this fact and because it is coincidentally what interests me on a deeper level and influences me more. My graphic design works obviously tend more towards the structured, as I wouldn't make it very far in the future doing Pollock-esque pieces for every client What is also interesting is that I find the idea of abstraction more "realistic" than the most photorealistic painting...you could put me in a gallery with the greatest Renaissance-era paintings ever and I'd find not too much actually viscerally interesting about them. Sure, they're nice, but I don't connect with them on the same level. I actually don't know too many other art majors who appreciate a good large-scale drip-painting piece, so I guess I'm in the minority

edit: sorry for the rant...TLDR VERSION: krigloch is dumb and his nephew might just be my monotype prof, thanks everyone!, and grant, fuck you and thanks

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So do you have a favorite of the two?

edit: n/m you edit-ninja'd me

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Art is (most of the time) equally about the process by/through which the art is created than merely about the final work as a "piece of art."

I'm not sure if you meant to say process is as important as product or more important, but I find both statements rather peculiar. You'll have to explain what you mean by "what art is about" in order for me to understand this better. Obviously art can be "about" several different things - conveying the beauty of a real or imagined subject, making a social statement, expressing the nonverbal/nonrational aspects of the artist's personality, etc. The last of those is probably where process comes in the most, though personally I've never found 'understanding the artist' to be one of the more interesting ways of experiencing art.

Oftentimes, process can glean greater insight into the workings of the artist than the final product itself can. Food for thought (which I know is hard for you).

Certainly, though art isn't always about expressing the inner workings of the artist. It may be more so in the case of abstract art where there's not necessarily an identifiable 'theme' going on, but with things like portrait or landscape paintings it's more about capturing the inherent beauty of the subject, or perhaps conveying the 'magic' the artist sees in the scene/subject which may not be accessible to the average person, but isn't necessarily a sensation entirely exclusive to the artist himself (which is presumably why he would attempt to capture it on canvas for others in most cases).

I think that the layering in the first one is more dense but I don't think it is more interesting. There are more layers in 1, but they are shallower...the parts where the lines (tentacle looking curved ones, that is) cross each other and themselves on the second one are probably the most interesting part.

Yeah I think I get what you're saying there. The interactions between the lines/tentacles do seem more complex in 2, and maybe that gives it more of a sense of depth, though I still think 2 feels more disjointed on the whole, whereas 1 has a very tight composition that makes the visual impression much stronger to me.

My main problem with the second is the "figure" in it, even though I originally thought that was a good idea. What's funny is that was actually my first one (out of the two), so you can see I made a conscious decision to remove the amoeba/cell-like figure from it the second and go with a more Terry Winters-inspired, line-drawing/intersecting style.

It does seem to dominate more of the canvas than it really warrants the attention for, though the presence of cell-like 'organisms' still creates a neat effect.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I'm not sure if you meant to say process is as important as product or more important, but I find both statements rather peculiar. You'll have to explain what you mean by "what art is about" in order for me to understand this better. Obviously art can be "about" several different things - conveying the beauty of a real or imagined subject, making a social statement, expressing the nonverbal/nonrational aspects of the artist's personality, etc. The last of those is probably where process comes in the most, though personally I've never found 'understanding the artist' to be one of the more interesting ways of experiencing art.

It is more important to understand the process by which a lot of modern art is created, than to see the art and take the piece itself for what it is worth. Modern art is often more for questioning and dialoging with the artist rather than being someone on the outside being privileged to enter the artist's "world". It goes hand in hand with there being multitudes more avenues of contact with artists in the "modern art" world whose art may or may not be instantly recognizable as beautiful or even interesting. I suppose it is not as true for older art where more things were being painted realistically (or closely as such), but I've (personally) always found watching painters utilize signature techniques whether it be certain expressive brushstrokes to paint mixing to throwing paint on a canvas to be quite interesting (especially because I look to appropriate and draw influence from various techniques to create stuff like the above works).

Certainly, though art isn't always about expressing the inner workings of the artist. It may be more so in the case of abstract art where there's not necessarily an identifiable 'theme' going on, but with things like portrait or landscape paintings it's more about capturing the inherent beauty of the subject, or perhaps conveying the 'magic' the artist sees in the scene/person which may not be accessible to the average person, but isn't necessarily a sensation entirely exclusive to the artist himself.

There is always a touch of the personal, of the creator, in the art (whether recognizable or not). Otherwise, it isn't art, as far as I can tell. It is true, however, that the entirety of the artist's mind and working, creative brain is not always laid bare (very seldom, practically never I assume).

Yeah I think I get what you're saying there. The interactions between the lines/tentacles do seem more complex in 2, and maybe that gives it more of a sense of depth, though I still think 2 feels more disjointed on the whole, whereas 1 has a very tight composition that makes the visual impression much stronger to me.

Precisely. I'm glad even you can glean some kind of worth and critical judgment about "random scribbles"

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It is more important to understand the process by which a lot of modern art is created, than to see the art and take the piece itself for what it is worth. Modern art is often more for questioning and dialoging with the artist rather than being someone on the outside being privileged to enter the artist's "world". It goes hand in hand with there being multitudes more avenues of contact with artists in the "modern art" world whose art may or may not be instantly recognizable as beautiful or even interesting. I suppose it is not as true for older art where more things were being painted realistically (or closely as such), but I've (personally) always found watching painters utilize signature techniques whether it be certain expressive brushstrokes to paint mixing to throwing paint on a canvas to be quite interesting (especially because I look to appropriate and draw influence from various techniques to create stuff like the above works).

Yeah, I've never really had much interest in art as a "dialogue with the artist". At least, not when it comes to painting/illustration. Music is an entirely different story - I can become totally fascinated with the minds of musicians depending on their style and how expressive they are. Music generally seems to provides a much more accessible doorway into an artist's mind, so maybe I just don't have the dedication to make that connection in the case of abstract art, but I also think it's often more "art for artists" than anything else. Your account seems to back this up considering how much of your interest in abstract art seems to come down to observing an artist's techniques and exploring new ones for yourself.

There is always a touch of the personal, of the creator, in the art (whether recognizable or not). Otherwise, it isn't art, as far as I can tell. It is true, however, that the entirety of the artist's mind and working, creative brain is not always laid bare (very seldom, practically never I assume).

Right, I didn't mean to suggest that art can be totally devoid of the artist's interpretation or imagination. It's more a question of whether that creative energy is focused upon something interior or exterior to the artist's own personality.

 

[Eligos]

Nah, he doesn't. He doesn't take monotyping class or know what plexiglas is, nor does he know about different paper media, how to blend inks, how to properly work a press, etc. Art is (most of the time) equally about the process by/through which the art is created than merely about the final work as a "piece of art." Oftentimes, process can glean greater insight into the workings of the artist than the final product itself can. Food for thought (which I know is hard for you).

Damn dude. Krig got pwned.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

ok. It still looks fucking dumb. nice mess.

 

[Eligos]

I forgot how well-read you are on aesthetics.

 

[diddykoi6]

http://johnhbradley.com/pictures2.asp?var=070707darvaza

Hells gate - a crater in turkmenistan that was dug by soviets for gas and they lit it shortly after they found it and its been burning 40 years

 

[SweptbackFlame]

Dude...that is fucking kool.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

whoa. that's awesome!