[rdgraffix]

More of an experimental freeform piece that grew over time than anything planned.

I've been experimenting with dynamic shapes like splatters of ink and licks of flame lately, trying to inject some of their vitality into my work. In this case I was playing with structuring the dynamic shapes within a fairly static composition to play them off against each other.

Definately not one of my best works, but something I thought you might find interesting none the less.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: rdgraffix ]

[Akukage]

pretty cool,

[vegeta�ONAC]

not to sound like a prick im just kinda venting right now. and ill hold back some of it. im kinda mad at this kinda art. nothing personal, i just think its nothing but tryin to be original and yet in itself is gettin boring. all i can say is that it looks kewl...is that enuf for things to be art? i guess it is actually (sorry for this post again heh)

[edraket]

Pretty cool.

The funny thing is I've been doing the same thing with the same goal.

I think it is just pretty interesting to how shapes can emerge from "coincidence" but still have a recognisable structure depending on the situation.
Wether or not it is art. I guess it can be. Most of all it's fun and it's a learning experience.
Anyways.. here's a pic of some photography I did a few weeks back:




And two more:

piccie1
piccie2

[ken]

hey, that's sweet, rowan. it has a very substantial feel to it, like a ball of lava impacting on the floor.

i thought it might look better with a duplicated/burn layer, hope you don't mind:



-Ken

[tyron]

aahh! cool!
i wanna try it too...

and i definitly think that it IS art. i think it's stupid to argue on whether it is or not.
this piece came from the authors mind and then it doesn't matter if it's a portrait, lineart or whatever. it's just art.
whether you (vegeta�ONAC) like it or not is a whole other thing.

[rdgraffix]

Well as for the issue of wether this is art on not, I personally believe it is (though I'm biased, right ). An important component of 'art' to me is the communication of an idea or emotion. In this instance I've consciously tried to get an emotional response through the symbolism of this work, and to some extent at least I hope that I've succeeded. In that sence it makes it art, to me at least. More so than many of the technical exercises I often see which are merely realistic interpretations of an existing reference.

I appreciate your opinion though, vegeta�ONAC . I would not have posted the piece here if I did not want honest reactions to it.

Please take the work for what it is. Simple expression and experimentation with aesthetics, merely posted for the interest of the forum. If you like it, great. If you hate it then fair enough. If it it makes you think, or feeds some spark of inspiration within you they it has achieved all that can be asked of it.

Akukage: thanks.

edraket: I like your photos. The shapes have a lot of fluidity and dynamicy, you should be able to find good use for them. I spent every night one week in my back yard playing firebug with a digital camera and terrifying the poor pet rabbit, who apparently doesn't like fire very much. I think I ended up with well over 500 hi-res shots before I started culling.

Ken: thanks for you comments. I'm glad you like it. Your edit looks very cool and I was definately tossing up intensifying the pic like that, but I also like the slightly dull, golden feel it has now. Like fire, yet somehow unlike fire.
I'm not sure yet though, still trying to decide on the final version.

tyron : thank you for your input - I'd definately love to see what you come up with using a similar technique.

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: rdgraffix ]

[edraket]

Well. What is art and what is not is such a subjective thing that I generally avoid discussing it.
In my opinion this is art. Probably more so than 90% of the stuff that I see posted here.
On the other hand. I spent last saturday at the open day of the Art academy in Rotterdam (holland) where I was supposedly shown the best stuff their students are making right now. Well 90% of what I saw there was, although art, an aesthetic disaster.
So what is more important? I don't know. I guess thats personal. And it depends on what you want to communicate.

[vegeta�ONAC]

ahhh maybe i should just do my own thing and forget arguin what is art or not. im sure art will never be definently distingushed. im just scared about a future where a blank sheet of paper will become art. the more i think about what art is the more my brain hurts so i guess the best thing is to drop it totally.

[[wakestarr]]

most interesting!

keep experimenting :)

[edraket]

A blank piece of paper could be art. After all it has a very symbolic meaning.
Luckily there is also things like originality and maturity involved. So I doubt anyone would get anywhere with an artwork like that.

[Ian Jones]

Hi Rowan, good to see you back here again... I saw that cameleon that you collaborated on, in the portfolio issue. Nice to see you got into it again.

I like this abstract thingy. It may not have any meaning to some ppl (does it even have to!) but I can see its value aesthetically, and the communication. I'm also a graphic designer, and I like the freshness of it, that vitailty you speak of. It defintely has some movement in it, and it is chaotic yet has unity through the colours and repetition. Cool stuff.

Do you do this stuff directly on the scanner? not the fire of course, but you must put some sort of clear sheet down on the surface of the scanner to protect it from paint... it just looks splodgy and has depth, unlike dried paint splats on paper. Thats why I think it looks like you have put it straight into the scanner. Whats your method?

[Teaweed]

Blank pieces of paper as art stopped being fashionable some time ago

edraket, I like your little swirly..thing. It looks like a graphic you might find on a trendy nu-design website or something.

[jabber]

the loaf i just pitched in the toilet, now THATS ART! :P

[edraket]

hey

Teaweed... Thanks. Although I am not very fond of that type of design.
This is just a picture of some incense-smoke actually. Although inverted duotoned and de-gritted. I guess it does kind of like like that "wallpaper-art" that is going around a lot nowadays.

Turds stopped being fashionable as art as well. Sorry for the disappointment.

[Dr. Bang]

*bump*

[HawkOne]

Pareidolia
Description
Pareidolia is a type of illusion involving the misidentification of a vague indefinite stimulus as a person or an object. Examples include seeing the man in the moon, Jesus in a tortilla, or a face on Mars. So strong is our innate pattern recognition skills that we easily find familiar patterns in meaningless images created by random and chaotic forces. This phenomenon can provide an alternative explanation for many apparently unusual events, such as UFO sightings, ghost pictures and even the eerie sounds found in songs played backwards. In a sense pareidolia is not a misrepresentation because there is no objectively valid interpretation. Once the interpretation is fixed in the mind it might be impossible to see something else. In a clinical environment psychologists encourage pareidolia to learn about their patients. e.g Rorschach Test.



Andy Warhol, Rorschach, 1984,
synthetic polymer paint on canvas,
90 x 70 in.
------------------------------------------



Part of a tree-root ... what do you see ?


A face in the clouds ??

A face on Mars ??

A face in the rock ??

But ... is it art ? ... even though it is even more obviously recognisable forms than many of the shapes claimed to be art ??? Or are we just so fascinated by our minds power to see shapes in abstract forms that we cannot realise that that is all that is really happening ???

Art cannot be made by accident, art requires skill and time. I know that is a bit more than 2 cents worth of opinion, but I have yet to hear a succesful argument against this theory.

Maybe you can prove it wrong ?

Proof requires arguments that can somehow be backed up, any statement is obviously worthless unless there is some form of coherent reasoning behind it.

Therefore a statement such as "anything is art" is really stretching it too far.

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: HawkOne ]

[Muzman]

The form recognition systems of the brain are very powerful things, always trying to 'make sense' of what we see (or do not see). The facial recognition system is even more powerful. The fact we call a circle with two dots and a line "a face" goes some way to demonstrating this.
I'm confident that in art, like invention, innovation occurs just as often by accident as anything else. In fact I think it's true to say that, to some degree, art is the skillful application of accidents. Awareness and exploitation of the phenomena that cannot be controlled or predicted, as well as those that can. So a random inkblot chosen for display because the artist thinks it looks like a face (or whatever) represents an artistic choice. Just so, an inkblot that the artist can find no particularly obvious or recognisable form might be chosen because of a recognition that cultural resonanace of the inkblot as a formal thing will, as often as not, ask people to look for forms all by itself. Art.
A blank piece of paper. Art? Doesn't seem like much until you ask a paper presser. An expert in the field would tell you all about the fibre, the imperfections, its receptiveness to ink and which inks in particular, ad nauseum. Make no mistake, people do hang blank sheets of paper on the wall (and non blank ones too, not at all for what is written on them).
I would suggest that the answer, in all situations, to the question "Is it art?" is "You tell me." Ergo, the answer to the question "Can anything be art?" is, by extension, "Yes."
Unfortunately, most people when they ask (often rhetorically) "Is it art?" have loaded the question with the apparent stature some works have attained and seek to assess the work some other way, be it effort or tradition or something else, to decide "Does this deserve to be art?". It is relevant to discuss the access to and/or merit of our cultural mores as far as 'famous art' is concerned, but I would suggest it is another debate entirely from "what is art?".

Bollox? Yeah probably