DU artists--is this good or junk? (honest opinion request)

I was fiddling around while calibrating one of my printers (very late) last night and got into a "pop" mood. I kinda like it, but given that I don't know beans about art, I'd like you to be honest and tell me if it's kinda neat (I like it because all four sets of eyes are always watching you), or just dumb, of if I'm unconcsiously plagiarizing someone.

The subject hasn't seen it yet, so I'm not sure if she'll like it either. Though the printed version is 16 x 16 inches, which might give it more oomph than the 600-pixel jpeg version

Thanks,
Redstone

Very Andy Warhol-ish.

Tho I'm not too familiar with computer generated art, so maybe I'm not the best judge...

Thanks for the advice; I'll do that.

Redstone

And if you were, what were you trying to do, or say? And did you accomplish it?

That's a part of the process of determining whether what you have can be called art. (Looking at it from the creator's point of view.) Sometimes there are "happy accidents", but they have to resonate somehow; they have to impart something of a deeper truth.

From my observer's point of view: I see a slight altering of the original image (achievable either with two Photoshop filters or, in the old days, mechanical film screens) that doesn't impart any meaning beyond the technical. Flopping the image and then repeating it doesn't give it any added significance. Although the subject is a very pretty woman, and it's an attractive photo, this manipulated image is ordinary as art.

Play around with it some more--see what else you can come up with! The woman's image evidently interests you. Push manipulating the technique and see where it takes you.

because I can't really figure out what it is (even in the original image; I don't know her that well) and I was looking for some way to emphasize that expression beyond the normal stuff I do with straight portraits (this was an "accidental" shot during a more formal portrait session).

Some Photoshp filters, some channel mixing, some other stuff.

Thanks for your comments.

Redstone

but it's a very nice portrait of the subject.

An art I'm still trying to comprehend...

I consider it an art, but I know many people would argue with me.

The duplication's okay...but distracting from your model there.

I was trying to do something a bit different with one of the "outtakes," and it sounds like I may have been stretching too much...the actual portrait she was sitting for is very formal and quite nice, but I've done a lot of those.

Thanks.

Redstone

Especially if you're looking to keep it from looking stilted and artificial.

What attracts me most about this shot is that her expression doesn't look fake at all. It conveys a sense of mischief, and something else that's a little mysterious and inexplicable.

I also think that the angle is unusual, not the usual 'on the level' shot. Further, as far as playing with the picture goes, your seeming removal of the background is another feature that draws your attention to the woman.

I think the trouble I had with the 'pop'-style duplication and photographic filters is that they struck me as a little too derivative, not to mention self-conscious.

You've a great subject there -- let -her- be the photo. :D

cheers!
-Technowitch

p.s. My own photographic work (primarily nature and landscapes) appears .

/honest

I like the images with the fine grain, but the 2 with considerable noise do nothing for me. The noise symbolically says "lack of clarity-poor communication" (to me, anyway), and visually doesn't offer a strong enough contrast to the first image. Plus, it looks like her hair is greasy and her eyes have bags in the second image, where the first one shows a far more attractive woman.

How about taking some of the color out of the scarf in the second image, and punching up the color in the background and her jacket using the same colors? You could also increase the contrast, but eliminate any indication of shadows under her eyes . Just one idea-I'm sure you've got plenty more yourself.

Hopefully my opinion wasn't too honest! :hi:

I was looking for.

When you say "take the color out of the scarf..." do you mean use those colors in the background? I chose a neutral grey background on purpose, but it sounds like that may not have been the way to go.

The under-eye "shadows" are an artifact from the considerable alteration from the original image. I appreciate you pointing that out, because you're right about them being unattractive.

Thanks a bunch,

Redstone

it simply feels like it needs greater variation; her expression is mischievous and a little seductive, and of course there an emotional response to color and chroma levels. It depends upon what your intention is as the artist; are you amplifying the feeling that is projected by the photograph, or are you offering a conflicting message with color and texture as commentary about your relationship with this person? (Sorry-too many art theory classes). I think that to avoid too much of a Warhol comparison, you may want to continue the emphasis on texture in the piece (though not on the subject's face unless conflict is part of the message). Even textures can evoke an emotional response, so if it were my piece, I'd probably go with those that had a feeling of energy or even sensuality.

I hope that made some sense! :shrug:

On edit: I'm only refering to the image with lots of 'noise"; I like the fine grained image; it has a feeling of contemporary sophistication with a hint of playfulness about it.

I simply did not know aht her expression seemed to be saying, but wanted the viewr to be intrigued by it, as I was.

Your suggestions go a long way toward helping me to sort out what I really should be doing with the image in order to work toward having another person have the same response to the image that I have.

And that (here's where your art theory classes could benefit) is what artists try to do, isn't it? Produce an images that brings about a specific kind of response in a viewer?

That's my guess, anyway.

I do appreciate your further commentary. It's quite educational for me, because I don't generally have to consider this kind of stuff in my work, beyond conveying simple concepts such as elegance, playfulness, and other realtively uncomplicated characteristics of my subjects.

Redstone

It's kinda hard to be clear without being able to point to the work as I'm writing, so I'm glad that I was able to make some sense, lol!

"Produce an images that brings about a specific kind of response in a viewer?" yep, that's what all great artists are trying to do. Often the greatest and deepest desire for each of us is to be understood, and the artist seeks to convey his or her emotions and/ or ideas in ways that will best achieve that goal. Someone on this board recently said to me "here's a hint; art has no meaning"! (seeking to "instruct' me, obviously) he could not have been more wrong; art has a thousand meanings, and when an artist can convey the full complexity of a message or feeling, then he or she has created something masterful.

BTW- what do you do for a living? Sounds interesting.

I own an advertising agency, and do the photography for the ads, catalogs, and websites that we produce, along with the other parts of the business such as actual page layout, web design, etc. (Used to own a photography studio back in the 1970s, but got tired of doing photography full time.)

I do the photography for the business rather than hiring it out because I enjoy it, and get to pick the stuff I want to do myself. (I'm not great with glass, for example, so I have a local guy who does bottles and glasses when we need them done.) I also do landscape photography as a sideline. I enjoy portrait work, but don't want to do it full-time, so I only do it for people I know; I don't advertise that part of my work.

It's a fun way to make a living, because every days brings a different challenge...it could be working on website structure and functionality, or planning a marketing strategy, or writing PR, or designing a book, or any one of a number of things I do for local non-profit agencies (I work pro bono for nonprofits one day a week).

I consider myself extremely fortunate to be able to do this stuff and make a living at it. It's never boring.

Thaks again for all of your useful and enlightening commentary.

Redstone

Photography was my minor in college for two years, and then I switched to advertising for three (went to art school 5 1/2 years because I changed colleges). I'm afraid that I never used my training in photography outside of doing it as a pleasurable hobby ( much of that training is forgotten, unfortunately) but I have great admiration for professional photographers; it takes both technical and artistic skill, and combining left and right brained activities like that is pretty challenging for most of us.

My second professional job was in an ad agency. I started out in keyline and pasteup (back in ye olden days) and moved on to being the head illustrator. We mostly handled restaurant accounts and children's publications (Highlights was a big client, as was Bob Evans), but I quit when I was offered an internship at Walt Disney Feature Animation. I was an animator for a number of years before starting my own freelance business. Like you, I enjoy the variety. I've taught at colleges and done seminars, I've done art direction for the theme parks, I've managed a small animation studio for Sony Pictures, I've worked in merchandise design and product advertising, and currently I'm writing and illustrating children's books ( doesn't pay much compared to the rest-but it's what I always really wanted to do). If I do anything for more than five years I can't stand it, lol!

I guess we both are proof that you can have a creative job, be self employed, and not play the "starving artist" role. ;-)

I admire your contributions to non-profits; I wish I had that kind of time! I've got fibromyalgia, so I'm often working against physical setbacks (but I always get back on track eventually). Right now I'm working on a job for the Heifer Project, but I wish I could do this sort of thing on a regular basis.

A :toast: to your weekly contribution!

I'm a Chronic Pain Person as well (not what you have). As I'm sure you know, only we Pain People know what it's really like, so you have my empathy (not sympathy, which of course you don't want.)

Please see my note I'll be putting at the bottom of the thread in a few minutes...you'll like it.

Thank you one more time for all your help.

Redstone

PS: I also remember keyline and pasteup. And how miraculous the Compugraphic typesetters seemed compared to a Linotype.

Though it does make the hair look greasier, and the eyes baggier, there's more of interest in the grainier image.

Not that I don't like the less noisy one - I also like that one, and on its own, it's a great image.

My beef with the totality of the artwork is that the portraits are looking in different directions - I noticed that tonigth when I looked at when the thread was first posted, and now, looking at it a number of hours later. I don't like that there are reversed images.

More compelling for me would be to keep the four images in the style they are now, but have each of the four looking in the same direction.

Or, keep them in the style they are now, but put the bottom images upside down, and placed so that the woman in each picture is looking at the center - so that all four images are looking at the center of the artwork.

I think it would also be nice if the noisier image could be just the background noisy, with the model kept as normal; or even better would be to "noise" only the model, and keep the background normal, like in the other images, so that the background for the whole artwork is the same, and the four models all facing the middle of the artwork, with two of them noisy and two of them normal.

"pat on the back" list below. Also the "buy you a beer" list. Or whatever else you drink.

And thank you.

Redstone

I am not an artist, except in my own living room. I think it is kind of neat, though.

:)

The composition of images looks much like a project for a course in computer image processing that compares alternative algorithms for compression or some other aspect of image processing. You can find similar pictures in books/papers on image processing, although they are more likely to use Lena. (For more information, do a Google search on image processing Lena.) Not all image processing folks spend all their time trying to identify military installations from satellite images; some get into art, and artists sometimes use techniques from image processing.

If the images speak to you or others as art, then regard and treat them as art. It's true that you can't escape the eyes. But don't quit your day job quite yet.

:-) :-)
:-) :-)

thanks for the link.

Redstone

can you mask the face on the top left & lower right so the texture is not on the face ? nice comp.and the way her skin comes forward from her clothes is cool.
is this one of the adobes with with masking for textures ?

much better than tha "Warhol on Valium" approach.

But keep the noise out of the subject herself. And do single portraits... multiple versions if you wish, but 4 images at once is too much. You might get away with multiple images if the subject wasn't so attractive.

Also, be aware that most people don't like "art" made of their portraits. I happen to like it, being an artist myself, but....

You might want to remove that white thing (a chair?) behind her. Makes her look deformed.

It does look odd, though, doesn't it? Good observation.

Redstone

Redstone

You need a different background and don't go with the Andy Warhol cut and paste look. Scrap it and create something of your own.

Very Andy Warhol-esque.

So I am biased. I really like it and if that were my girlfriend, I would hang it in my living room.

BTW, my attempt at pop art. Acrylic on canvas. Tell me if you like it:

You know. we photographers are in awe of you painters (when we're being honest). It seems a kind of voodoo to us that you can pick up a brush, move it around on the canvas, and in a while, there's something that looks like something! And you don't even need any expensive equipment!

Redstone

Seriously. I might steal the concept.

You said.. "And you don't even need any expensive equipment!"


:rofl: :spray: :rofl:

Have you seen hove much a roll of canvas goes for...or a tube of naples yellow...:evilgrin:

in the Cheap Joe's Art Supply catalog, and I stand corrected.

Good brushes are dang expensive too, from what I saw.

Redstone

great composition and use of color. I guess my only criticism would be that I kinda wish the type were as crisp as the rest of the piece, but other than that minor bit I love it! :thumbsup:

It didn't quite come out right.

is to type out the word in photoshop, then use the perspective tool to alter it to fit the perspective of the object it's to be applied to. Then print and copy it onto the canvas using the old graphite-on-the-back-of-the-drawing method.

I'm really impressed with the composition. It's amazing the way that black horizontal strip at the bottom anchors the entire piece.

Whose picture is that in your avatar? Looks familiar, but I can't place the face.

Redstone

Author of the Booker prize winning novel "the god of small things" and Indian peace / anti corporate activist (anti-corporate abuse, that is).

that until Labor can move as freely as Capital, Goods, and Services there will be no Free Market?

but that certainly sounds like her! She's an amazing woman.

But I got the impression that she felt that Labor was captive by arbitrary and artificial borders whereas Capital, Goods, and Services moved freely.

An interesting way to think about the Global Economy, don't you think? If individual movement was as fluid as currency exchange, wouldn't that force developing countries to compete with first world nations for Labor?

Redstone

Did I mention what an (undeservingly) fortunate guy I consider myself to be? That's why I do so much free work for nonprofits; I'm not religious but feel I have been blessed in some way with good fortune and need to pay it back.

Redstone

It is a copy of Ruscha's series. See how a real artist does it (these are seven figure pieces BTW):

funny thing is, I like yours better. The color palette seems more appropriate for the architecture, plus, that black asphalt really does something for the composition.

Like Warhol, you took someone else's work and made it your own!

Except, of course, he needs to straighten the type. YOur suggestion should work well for him.

Redstone

I create and am a fan a of lot of "pop" influenced art, but I'm not digging this. The style is pop but the colors are not.

<eom>

I'm just saying it does nothing for me

Sorry

Trying to be honest with my critique. If this were an art message board, there would be people ripping this apart... I was trying not to.

the Mona Lisa would be ripped.

Regardless, I understand that everyone has their own thing. I like the style myself. I will use it.

and use it as a template or inspiration or whatever, but if you end up producing a work for sale with her face on it, you'll have to get in touch with me before you offer it for sale so I can get you a model release from her and copyright assignment from me.

Legal aspects of art can be a pain sometimes, but I have always found it better to go with the letter of the law.

Redstone

honest opinions from people who are artists, and you are an artist and supplied an honest opinion.

And I appreciate you doing so.

Redstone

I think it is a unique and neat way to display an individual's photograph.

which is what I asked people who have more artistic talent than I do (there are lots of them around here) to give me their honest appraisal.

Redstone

:shrug:

I already told him I didn't mind you expressing your opinion the way you did.

I did ask for honest opinions, and appreciate yours.

Redstone

One of our neighbors, who is a well-know Impressionist landscape painter (the area where we live has quite a few of them) came over for dinner tonight, and critiqued the printed version of the picture.

What she said was essentially an amalgam of the things that technowitch, Lorien, jdots, hypnotoad, NV Whino, and some others advised me. (I did not tell her about your comments beforehand, nor do I think she said what she did just because I'm editing her next book.)

You guys are good. I owe you a beer. Your advice gives me a lot to work with on this and future attempts at artistry beyond straight portraiture.

And Longgrain and BouncyBall, thanks for the positive comments.

Oh, and just in case you all are curious as to what the young lady actually looks like, here's an unretouched comp of the original:



Redstone

I see that's a strand of hair, not a shadow of the top of her shoulder line, which is what it looks like in the doctored photos.

I thought it was something other than her shoulder from the altered images.

Could you erase out that strand of hair? For the sake of clarity, it might be helpful.

Nice pic!

if this were the final shot for the portrait. This was a grab shot while I was setting up the lighting.

I was fiddling around with this image because I was mesmerized by her expression--which, by the way, I am absolutely unable to decipher.

I even asked Mrs. R for her opinion, figuring that as a woman, she could read women's faces better than I can, but all she said was "hey, she's flirting with you," which I kind of doubt was the case.

Redstone

half my age, but, but, but...nah, can't let the ego run away with itself here. Stop that right now, you old goat.


Redstone

your neopop version reminds me of me. :thumbsup: