how do you respond to this?

[Tash]

i was messing around in photoshop yesterday, my latest fave button being the brightness/contrast thing, and i did it to my signature pic, with this result

https://tinypic.com/5xoqrl

and i was like hey that'd be really cool as a huge painting, or 3 of them, make it a tritych, for my artworks next session. except i need a concept of some sort for them. so tell me how you respond to this image, like imagine it's about 90x60cm. what does it seem to be conveying? do you find it appealing, or does it annoy the hell out of you?!
all comments are most appreciated like seriously say absolutely anything you want about it!

[ted]

Without looking at the original I couldn't tell what it was, but perhaps that is the idea ?

[lagin]

it's very good, but kinda provocative

[Siberian Husky]

it's very good, but kinda provocative

provocative isnt always a bad thing..dont let your behavioral and social cleansing and conditioning deprive you from exploration of new interpretations and perceptions..because then your only robbing yourself of growth


tash..i love it..its what that piece needed..it adds ambiguity to it

[greyrune]

i don't know why but when i saw it this immediately brought religion to mind.  It has connotations maybe of the fall of eve (or is it adam, can't really tell).  I don't know i think it's that the style is used in religious art a lot or something, but then i really know very little about art all i can say is what sprung to mind when i first looked at it.  Very cool though, you should piant it, and post some more of your art what i've seen is wicked, i'd love to see more.

[asyncopated]

I think it is subtly interesting with very strong dark undertones.  Somehow because of the way the figure's head is positioned and its posture, I identify the figure as female, although I really cannot tell.  I can't make out her breasts.

She is kneeling and her head thrown to the side as if in shame or guilt.  Her hand covers her lower abdominals, which could suggest what she is guilty about.   Although her figure prostrated, it is far from being reverent.  Her thighs are clenched together, with right leg protruding uncomfortably.  She stays prostrated in a slightly awkward position and seems as if she has been there for a while.

I am not able to make out details on her face and so it leaves the interpretation of what she is feeling open, which is a nice feature.   The darkness engulfs her and she seems to be fading out of existence.  It really makes me wonder -- what happened to her?

Technically, the picture is well balanced.  Her body is slightly off center.  The focal point is her hand.  Colour-wise, it is very cold with a lot of white, black and blue, but just enough red tones to balance the coldness -- to make the picture feel human, so that I can empathize. I'm won't comment more about the structure.

Very nice job.

Al.

[Torp]

My .02...

Try it as a triptych, but don't get married to the idea.  There are some wonderful forms and a flow of line in the image that may get lost if it is tri-sected.  Won't really know unless you try it thought.  Unless, of course, you were talking about doing three of the same images as the triptych, each with a slightly (or radically) different interpretation.  That may work quite well, as long as each individual image can stand on its own and also add continuity to the piece as a whole.

The addition of extreme contrast  brings about a certain amount of ambiguity.  Try going the other direction now and decrease the contrast and reach a point where the image takes on a more ephemeral and ethereal quality.  See what you think.

Jef

[tds]

the word "theatricality" comes to mind. posture essences itself to the fore.

" what does it seem to be conveying? " tash

what r you trying to convey with it, tash? tds

[Tash]

wow cool responses! ok firstly the image is from a book of these fantastic photos a photographer took of artists of the australian ballet- this one she's jumping in the air, but as if you can tell- it doesn't really matter!
but interesting thoughts on it.
in reference to the triptych i meant having 3 different pics of different images but in the same kind of way. but doing the complete opposite is quite a nice i dea i might try it.

what am i trying to convey?! who knows- the one thing that annoys me about art is that i'm expected to have some kind of inner meaning to it, and in most cases i really don't, or otherwise i don't think the audience needs to know, i'd rather they make up their own mind, like what you're all doing now.

like tell me, does that audience really care what you really mean, cos the chances that you'll sucessfully convey it is not highly likely so that just dissapoints the viewer. i'd rather they made their own mind up about it

[tds]

what am i trying to convey?! who knows- the one thing that annoys me about art is that i'm expected to have some kind of inner meaning to it, and in most cases i really don't, or otherwise i don't think the audience needs to know, i'd rather they make up their own mind, like what you're all doing now.

like tell me, does that audience really care what you really mean, cos the chances that you'll sucessfully convey it is not highly likely so that just dissapoints the viewer. i'd rather they made their own mind up about it

you are talking about two different things here, tash:

1. inner meaning
2. whether or not the audience need to know. and according to you: no.

i cant think of any great artists who dont him/herself understand the "inner meaning" or the "fundamental concept" of his/her works. excuse my most limited knowledge in art field and please correct me if i am wrong.

in my opinion, this fundamental concept, or inner meaning, or vision, whatever else you call it, IS necessary. often times it is what distinguishes between truly great artists and say, craft workers. i might be wrong here. again, please correct me when i am. ( still, honestly, i believe those who expect you to have some kind of "inner meaning" are right(er).

btw,  i totally agree with you as to point no. 2. no, artists dont have to verbalize their concept of their works to their audience. often times the works does it for him/her ( often in abstaction, as art itself fundamentally is )

".......cos the chances that you'll sucessfully convey it is not highly likely so that just dissapoints the viewer" tash

this discrepancy needs too be narrowed down. aint it what all artists or musicians are striving to do, i.e. pour "it" down as imagined, as felt, as heard, etc, etc.

all the best, tds

[Tash]

yes but i think sometimes the concept can be subconscious. like why do you do half the things you do? who knows, you might not even know, consciously anyway. sure every artist is trying to express something but if they're anything like me they're not actually thinking of it whilst drawing it. eg. say i decide to draw a pic of a dancer. why did i pick that picture and use the technique i did? chances are i'll say i don't know, it just happens. i don't think out what i'm doing before i do them. and if i do they usually end up being completely different from what i was intending anyway.
and in that respect it's hard to acturately portray exactly what you want- like say you're drawing a face, they're bloody hard to do, so if you do one tiny little line in the mouth or eye wrong then it can create a completely different expression from what it was meant to be. and there goes the whole concept to a degree, if you had one.
basically i don't like to work within a specific idea because i find it restricting which frustrates the hell out of me!

[tds]

yes but i think sometimes the concept can be subconscious. like why do you do half the things you do? who knows, you might not even know, consciously anyway. sure every artist is trying to express something but if they're anything like me they're not actually thinking of it whilst drawing it. eg. say i decide to draw a pic of a dancer. why did i pick that picture and use the technique i did? chances are i'll say i don't know, it just happens.

whether the concept is conscious or sub/unconsious, whether it is concrete or highly abstract, i believe, it should be there and underlying it all. concept is what makes art powerful AND meaning-ful; is what gives a work its breath; and most importantly, what strongly unites man and his art. without concept, inner meaning, or vision, the work has little to no purpose. the 'it' factor, if i may, is likely be void ( no matter how much flashes of superficiality have tried to take over ). yes, the goal of creating art becomes as vague as the lack of concept itself.

what about trying to develop a concept before starting the work? this is to say that you can experiment as much as your fantasy is capable of, as much as time allows you, and as much as your heart is pleased with whatever you are fondling with. what i am trying to say is that with concept you know where you are, and you are surer where you are going. a lighthouse analogy is prolly rather appropriate here. again the question " what are you trying to convey (with it)? " is probably not of no use, to say the least.

i don't think out what i'm doing before i do them. and if i do they usually end up being completely different from what i was intending anyway.
and in that respect it's hard to acturately portray exactly what you want- like say you're drawing a face, they're bloody hard to do, so if you do one tiny little line in the mouth or eye wrong then it can create a completely different expression from what it was meant to be. and there goes the whole concept to a degree, if you had one.
basically i don't like to work within a specific idea because i find it restricting which frustrates the hell out of me!

after all, is it more of a technique problem?

much respect, tds

[Tash]

exactly. my primary problem at the moment is what is the point in art? i find no reason to create any artwork that would justify me spending time doing it. you say concept is the point, but what concept is actually worth painting? sure it's an expression of yourself but who cares? i'm finding that i'm painting more out of obligation than anything- just to get decent marks at uni, and when i thought this i was like this is so wrong. but overall i can't justify myself painting for the sake of it- it has no point!
and yes there is a technique problem- i have no set technique, which is what annoys the hell out of me the most, because at uni they're too obsessed with experimentation that we don't have time to develop any kind of proper technique- so sure i can draw figures etc, but i have no real understanding of what i'm drawing. and i'm like well this is a crappy way to start of our future artists. we were being assessed the other day and i was wandering around looking at everyone else's work, and i was seriously dissapointed in the quality of the work. like barely anyone chooses to paint anything realistic, going more with just throwing paint on the canvas to make some blah.

mmm yeah art just sh*ts me off sometimes...

[tds]

dear tash, i am sorry to hear about your experience at your university. it seems like it offers poor, unbalanced courses. no doubt, technique is necessary. without proper technique, no artists/musicians/atheletes/etc can excell. its a pity that your uni has neglected the importance. i bet some students there stay creatively limited, despite the probable great artistic talent.

have you tried to talk to your teacher, and/or professional artists, and/or other respected people in the fields about this kinda thing? lets see what they have to say.

keep us posted, ok? warmest regards, tds

[Tash]

yeah it sucks, hopefully it'll get better next semester, but i have a feeling it's gonna be like yr12 art which will kill me. but it's ok cos i'm quitting after that! and yeah i told my teacher i didn't like the course structure because we don't develop any technique and she's like but this course is about 'materiality' and experimentation and blah, because otherwise students end up getting stuck in a hole and don't explore everything that's around for them. but frankly i don't care, i want technique dammit! nobody else in my class was particularly fond of the class either. the teachers were the most boring people on the planet too- it's bizarre, you'd think that artists would be kind of quirky- but they're not! i've only had 1 art teacher who was remotely interesting, the rest were boring. so yeah i'm ditching fine arts to do music ed, and i'll learn interesting stuf at an art school outside of uni next so it will all be good!