Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Here's another. Both characters fairly different looking than the last post. I sort of liked trying the stylized background with the stretchy stars. Everything is angles and choppy strokes. These black trees turn up in my stuff from time to time. I'm not quite done with the black trees.
Posted by Starchie Spudnoggen at 1:51 PM
Labels: Black Tree, Ernie, Painting, Suda
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Hmm, didn't see that coming. For some reason the coloring just doesn't sit with me... Maybe Suda and her companion were colored too heavily I'm not sure. It's well drawn but the background feels like it was painted differently, or maybe I'm just weird.
Ah well. Sometimes you just have to mix it up a bit. It is painted differently. That's sort of the point.
Yeah I guess I'm just too static for my own good. I do like it, but like Harvey Atkin's voice... well you know.
It's different all right, and pretty experimental. I think it could use some lighter strokes here and there but otherwise it's fine. Definitely not the best Suda one though.
I really like the edginess of this, and the intensity of colors. And Ernie was never lovlier.
I'm really surprised by your flexibility, actually, cause I'm so used to your regular brushwork, and this vaguely hints at them, but if somebody showed me this and quizzed me as to who did it, I would've thought it was someone else. Same goes for the S&M:FP dvd covers. Bravo, man, if you can evolve and change this much, this far along.
I dunno the DVD cover doesn't bother me, but This one bothered me. The inconsistency bothered me, although I did a crappy job of explaining it. With that I'm dropping it, I'm not gonna say anything else. I'm done....I think.
Yeah that's what I meant with the eyes and the darker background. The mood in this painting is lonesome and not as cheerful as the painting before.
And oort: It's really good, if you put emphasis on some parts of a painting. Here the characters are sharp and maybe the background should be a blurred as contrasted with the characters. I'm neither a painter nor a museum owner or an art connoiseur(I didn't know, I would need a french word to translate an ordinary german word), but with some paintings I perceive where the artist has put the emphasis on and sometimes I seem to know why the artist did that. Maybe I am right this time.
Ooh, me no likey, and I'll tell you exactly why:
1. The format seems 'squashed'.
2. The top half of the tree has no line of action. It's all over the place, without a clear general 'path'.
3. The tree's sickly dirty green looks like a first wash.
4. The tree trunk dominates, when it should be Suda.
5. Suda and the rats' silhouette is compromised by the tree trunk.
6. It's not clear where Suda's body ends, giving her the eerie appearance of having tree roots for legs.
7. The rat's erect tail opposes its mood, and the paintings mood, and causes further distraction as to what the focal point is.
8. Suda's one eye white is half-covered with a shadow. This gives her the appearance of having one eye half closed, and thus she looks 'dumb'.
9. Her pupils look incomplete with the highlight in them.
10. Her hair gets lost in the tree trunk.
11. Suda and the rat look way disproportional. (that's one big rat)
12. Somehow the sky's colour doesn't fit the overall palette.
Things that DO work.
1. Her hair wisps have something going for them.
2. Her mouth and arm and facial forms are great.
3. The tree roots are interesting.
4. The sky has a 'Van Goch - Starry Night' look to it
okay, i tolerated oort because people can have diferrence of opinion, but exactly what makes you, MIKE, think that all of what you described weren't intentional choices made by the artist who, not only probably has immense amounts of experience on top of you? i understand why someone might not like this painting, but the amount of detail you're going to just describes that you can't think outside of the box.
It's like saying you don't like a picasso's "three musicians"because it's not photorealistic.
art is the freedom of expression, and i've never seen anything that steve did which'd make me think anything in his painting is unintentional.
some people just anger me.
this is an art blog.
when I look at this I think this is a movie Guillermo del toro should be making
but guillermo del toro is kinda busy, I just checked it at good ol' Wikipedia.de. But there's a good question I just recalled with your comment, which goes to...
I wonder if there's something like a comic for Suda or any ideas for a movie you may have kept in mind already but didn't tell anyone. Would like to see something like that (hopefully in german language, too).
Holla, we're criticizing an artist of the most amazing kind, him generously giving us great paintings for sight and all we do is shredding them to pieces!! Though. if that's how it is, here my first thoughts when looking at the picture.
The girls mouth doesn't fit the rest for my taste, it's a bit of a weird, static expression that gives her a strange mood, then spreading over to the whole piece. The tree vs. the picture's format - why not have a strictness to the branches, everything going straight up, south to north? This would also be a great contrast to the rats tail.. no line of action (the format and general layout wouldn't appreciate) just parallel lines and the tail breaking with them. Left boarder of the arms and the rats back - maybe again an emphasis on the parallel lines mentioned before? Elbow, hand and rats back could be aligned, one line, south to north (which beautifully would align with the center of her left eye as well!). Other than that i somehow had to think of schiele and klimt looking at the picture and of what was missing. It seems to long for a certain strictness and graphic, posteresque style they've often had, all together with their usually 'off' poses and wierd backs.
Hope i made any sense, and last not least - these are really just ramblings that came to my mind, nothing more. Sir Starchie,please forgive! And i'm definatly nobody to talk, i have no clue of painting at all.
Post a Comment