definitely a pc person, but i've had to work a lot on macs... they are definitely overrated (and i can build a pc for $300 less than retail). is it just horses or do women just have an inclination to like animals in general? anyway, great work with the anatomy - the front legs look almost human in their bases, and the back legs have a little more of the horse elements with the pelvis more like a cat. It is a very fun drawing to look at!
Yessm I mean the virus thing is very nice but I feel like there's a ton of stuff I miss out on by having a mac (games, software, etc etc etc) and pay more besides. That and some people wanna pay x amount more for its minimalist design. Whatev. I think the instinct to nurture tends to make girls more fond of animals, although I think in art school there's a higher fondness of animals in general. Most girls I dont know dont make Salorse-type creatures, they tend to be a bit cuter. I think evolution and the capabilities behind it spur my creativity. Perhaps also why I still heart dinos so much?
I'm watching Planet Earth right now woohoo
I'm watching Planet Earth right now woohoo
Ye, I know several people who have just simulated windows on their macs to attempt to get access to some of the other programs. It seemed like at the start mac's didn't have much access to programs, but then for a while they started to have things being released at close to the same time as pc - now it is pretty hit or miss as to whether or not a company will release something for mac at all. Artists definitely do have an affinity towards nature and animals in general, I agree. I think artists, as a general rule, personify animals to emphasize their character, so a fondness sort of develops in the observation of the quirks and mannerisms of varying species. The fact that you don't cutify (yea, that's a word...) a lot of your things makes you awesome. Plus, you do really seem to have a thought process behind your concepts and other designs - which is a huge part of being communicative in art. You have an individual way about your work - unique thoughts that are interesting are unusual to see.
Discovery channel = greatness. Totally random, but for more greatness in nature check this out: [link]
Discovery channel = greatness. Totally random, but for more greatness in nature check this out: [link]
Even when I went to the Mac store there was hardly any games available. On the glass half full side at least it'll be less distracting when school starts back up. I already have a problem with the internet, Youtube + ADD is a hell of a thing. I got up at like 7AM today only to watching dancing shows for like 4-5 hours.
If animals personify aspects of our character than I'm curious what a lot of the weird things I draw implies. Maybe its the whole idea of seeing beauty in things other people cant, that's sort of a big part in being an artist, right? I always thought frogs were adorable by default and never understood why they were supposed to be gross in storybooks. If I saw a frog with a crown on its head I would totally be its friend and perhaps prefer it to a douchey prince trying to marry into mah family's money. Perhaps part of it is animals are wired to think differently and I feel often the same about myself in several respects.
If animals personify aspects of our character than I'm curious what a lot of the weird things I draw implies. Maybe its the whole idea of seeing beauty in things other people cant, that's sort of a big part in being an artist, right? I always thought frogs were adorable by default and never understood why they were supposed to be gross in storybooks. If I saw a frog with a crown on its head I would totally be its friend and perhaps prefer it to a douchey prince trying to marry into mah family's money. Perhaps part of it is animals are wired to think differently and I feel often the same about myself in several respects.
Yea, I know what you mean with the internet, youtube and ADD - I've had it so bad sometimes I've been watching an episode of friends, music on, drawing in a sketch pad and attempting to play a game at pretty much the same time. When so much is at your fingertips it can be such a pain to not get sucked into it for a few hours. I've been getting a lot better at these days, but I had a year or two where I was into it beyond what anyone ever should be. I am still terrible at focusing on one thing at a time, but at least I'm off the computer most of the time.
Haha, I wouldn't worry too much about the implications, but I definitely see a lot of personality in your work. You tend to take serious subjects and throw a little twist on them for your own amusement (and consequently, your audience's enjoyment as well). You have a great eye for the rhythm of form, and you definitely have an interest in the peculiar. I definitely agree that being an artist means being able to see the beauty other people can't. Personally, I do a lot of portraiture and observational work, and I much prefer an obscure, irregular face or form to a perfectly proportioned, normal person or object. There is something more intriguing about an obscurity or peculiarity that invites a person to wonder why something is the way it is or how it came to be. I think that is a little of what the definition of an aesthetic is, and I think your work shows a genuinely interesting aesthetic. It is like having an interesting conversation. Some people are just capable of engaging and understanding a subject in a way that most can't, and those are the people who are most interesting to talk to. Whereas many just reiterate the same opinions and suggestions they've heard from someone else or just reused from a previous encounter for every problem they have. I tend not to be as interested in this formulated way of drawing and most definitely not interested in this formulated way of engaging a conversation or problem.
Haha, I wouldn't worry too much about the implications, but I definitely see a lot of personality in your work. You tend to take serious subjects and throw a little twist on them for your own amusement (and consequently, your audience's enjoyment as well). You have a great eye for the rhythm of form, and you definitely have an interest in the peculiar. I definitely agree that being an artist means being able to see the beauty other people can't. Personally, I do a lot of portraiture and observational work, and I much prefer an obscure, irregular face or form to a perfectly proportioned, normal person or object. There is something more intriguing about an obscurity or peculiarity that invites a person to wonder why something is the way it is or how it came to be. I think that is a little of what the definition of an aesthetic is, and I think your work shows a genuinely interesting aesthetic. It is like having an interesting conversation. Some people are just capable of engaging and understanding a subject in a way that most can't, and those are the people who are most interesting to talk to. Whereas many just reiterate the same opinions and suggestions they've heard from someone else or just reused from a previous encounter for every problem they have. I tend not to be as interested in this formulated way of drawing and most definitely not interested in this formulated way of engaging a conversation or problem.
Ha interesting correlation between conversation and artistic aesthetic. After mentioning that I have to at least partially agree. When I think about the people I know who I consider to be highly creative, especially regarding visual art, many of them are not highly normalized personality wise. I know instead of saying "I'm going to the store to get food", I'd be more likely to say "I'm trekking to fetch some snackeroos". I forget with new people that they arent familiarized with my speech quirks and I think it thwarts some people. But honestly I get bored with talking normally. Which is maybe why I find a lot of people boring and have a hard time paying attention to stuff I'm not remotely interested in. ADD doesn't help with that either.
I haven't done many portraits (well besides quick sketches and doodles) lately but I find myself studying people's faces all the time. Whether someone is beautiful, hideous, or peculiar, I try to determine what it is that makes me regard their image that way. Its made me pretty good at recognizing actors/actresses. If you go online they have studies to compare which proportions are considered more attractive by slightly altering the proportions/sizes of various facial features. Pretty interesting stuff!
As far as formulated drawings go, I would not be happy being a still life painter professionally. I disliked the process of doing those Grid portraits. It doesnt show how much of an artist you are as much as how good you are at measuring tiny squares. Whenever we had to do those assignments it seemed like kids who did so-so the rest of class did really nice on them. I guess there's exceptions like Chuck Close but that's because he took it to another level.
I haven't done many portraits (well besides quick sketches and doodles) lately but I find myself studying people's faces all the time. Whether someone is beautiful, hideous, or peculiar, I try to determine what it is that makes me regard their image that way. Its made me pretty good at recognizing actors/actresses. If you go online they have studies to compare which proportions are considered more attractive by slightly altering the proportions/sizes of various facial features. Pretty interesting stuff!
As far as formulated drawings go, I would not be happy being a still life painter professionally. I disliked the process of doing those Grid portraits. It doesnt show how much of an artist you are as much as how good you are at measuring tiny squares. Whenever we had to do those assignments it seemed like kids who did so-so the rest of class did really nice on them. I guess there's exceptions like Chuck Close but that's because he took it to another level.
Yea, I’ve never liked the concept of copying from nature. I guess it really comes down to an issue of semantics (meaning of copying), but I tend to prefer the term representation or observation to describe how one works from nature. When I first started out seriously investigating drawing I had to do a lot of still life work, but we didn’t really use grids or any form of measuring. My school was not very good, so the instructors typically just took a pile of old objects and dumped them on a table and told us to draw. I guess it was a pretty good exercise in reinventing the wheel, but it did allow a lot of mobility in the expression of line, form, etc. (presuming you could figure out how to place objects correctly on a page in relation to other objects). I think it is important to exercise the eyes by having them draw comparisons, but I have to say I do not like the idea of gridded drawing. I guess if I could compare this to something it’d be writing. You can know all the rules of grammar and not be able to write an interesting story, exposition or rhetorical, persuasive essay, but without knowing the rules of grammar it is pretty much impossible to write at all. In other words, what I think you are getting at (and I agreeing with) is that a still life can’t just be a formulation of the rules but an exploration of a greater ambition within a foundation of those rules.
I think this is one of the oddest things about me as a person. I actually don’t find women, and people in general, who fit that perfectly geometric proportion attractive. I do think they are beautiful, and I would not insult them by saying they are not – honestly though I really can’t see it. I always prefer slight irregularities, but I may just have a functional retardation of the pupils. I do think the goal of the artist is to try and explicate what in particular they are finding interesting or beautiful about a particular individual, but traditionally, perfectly beautiful people are much like a perfectly gridded, mundane still life to me – lifeless. Maybe that sounds a bit shallow, and I don’t really want to come across that way. I’m not really trying to say that people are traditionally beautiful are not attractive at all, but just that I am not so interested in drawing or painting them.
I think a person’s mannerisms and quirks register in the way they work with artistic mediums, so interesting people will, given the right training and guidance, tend to make more interesting work. At least this is true so long as the person retains their uniqueness with their process, and do not get sucked into a completely formulated approach. Plus, I think artistic people probably just enjoy the individualities of other people – their imperfections as well as intrigues. As you put it, you try and determine the thing that makes you regard their image in a particular way. In this way you discover what is or is not interesting about a person, and although the opinions and aesthetics vary how effectively the observation is communicated more often determines the quality of the composition. Ultimately though life is just too boring always trying to act like everyone else - people need to be surprised and taken aback once in a while!
I think this is one of the oddest things about me as a person. I actually don’t find women, and people in general, who fit that perfectly geometric proportion attractive. I do think they are beautiful, and I would not insult them by saying they are not – honestly though I really can’t see it. I always prefer slight irregularities, but I may just have a functional retardation of the pupils. I do think the goal of the artist is to try and explicate what in particular they are finding interesting or beautiful about a particular individual, but traditionally, perfectly beautiful people are much like a perfectly gridded, mundane still life to me – lifeless. Maybe that sounds a bit shallow, and I don’t really want to come across that way. I’m not really trying to say that people are traditionally beautiful are not attractive at all, but just that I am not so interested in drawing or painting them.
I think a person’s mannerisms and quirks register in the way they work with artistic mediums, so interesting people will, given the right training and guidance, tend to make more interesting work. At least this is true so long as the person retains their uniqueness with their process, and do not get sucked into a completely formulated approach. Plus, I think artistic people probably just enjoy the individualities of other people – their imperfections as well as intrigues. As you put it, you try and determine the thing that makes you regard their image in a particular way. In this way you discover what is or is not interesting about a person, and although the opinions and aesthetics vary how effectively the observation is communicated more often determines the quality of the composition. Ultimately though life is just too boring always trying to act like everyone else - people need to be surprised and taken aback once in a while!
I think I know sorta what you're talking about regarding classically beautiful people. I remember thinking both the "most handsome boy" and most beautiful girl" for our senior superlatives were good looking yes, but not "interesting" looking. Its like with a lot of hollywood actors/actresses, they're classically good looking but there's so many of them they arent interesting to look at. What is more irksome to me is the people trying to seek a high level of beauty and suffering a huge fail. This ranges from people getting orange tans and tarantula eyeliner to fucked up plastic surgeries. Its rather sad that we live in a society where so many women feel they cant age gracefully and end up looking like skeletor rather than a sweet old woman. Or, young women who have nothing wrong with them but our brainwashed society tells them otherwise. The same I know is true of men but women actually suffer a downsizing in status by not being "hot". If you cant tell, I tend to go on a lot of feminist rants.
Speaking of rants, I hate andy warhol. But he would probably just enjoy being talked about. Bastard
Speaking of rants, I hate andy warhol. But he would probably just enjoy being talked about. Bastard
View all replies