also people should keep in mind that sometimes when an artist says “doodle" what they mean is "stress-free art”. that doesn’t necessarily mean that the “doodle” they made is something that they didn’t work hard at or didn’t spend a long time on. some people get really out of control when they see impressive works and the artist write “just a doodle” and they think, this is it, this is the end, im no longer going to be an artist, how can i possibly compare myself.
sometimes “just a doodle” means “not working on commissions or something work-based”, so don’t fret yourselves. plus not everyone who posts art plans on a bunch of people seeing it. you don’t really expect your stupid poorly written artist caption to be seen by a lot of people via reblogs,
IT COULD BE A SURGERY SCENE, OR A FOOD PREP SCENCE, OR SOMEONE JABBING THEMSELVES A LITTLE SEWING , NO ONE HAS TO BE DEAD IT COULD EVEN BE STAGE BLOOD DID YOU EVER THINK OF THAT, does ANYONE BUT ME ever think of that?!? NO ONE HAS TO BE DEAD.
Maybe I should point out that you are saying this to someone who has a “Darth” to their name, and a reputation to live up to. ;) I’m just sayin’.
Could it be that you want pictures of Bossuet bleeding all over himself in various ways? Because that could happen. Oh wait, he got buried under a collapsed load of debris. Still could happen anyway.
hmmmm might go well with blood spatters, wink wink
And just whose death are you proposing? ;) I’m pretty sure I’ve already killed each Ami at least once (complete with closeups)… with the exception of Jean Prouvaire… Which I could, of course, do y’know, only after what I pulled on Barricade Day, there might be people out for my blood if I do Another Death Picture this year.
- Not that I’m afraid of people being out for my blood, mind. I’m just stating it for the record here. ;)
While obviously taking leave of my senses, I thought I’d make a background for when I do a new painting.
Now I have a fun background, and no idea what to do with it.
Marc Giai-Miniet is a French artist who makes creepy and fascinating dioramas that tend to feature reproductions of human organs, crime scenes, submarines in basements and wait for it … libraries.
The miniature tableaus are terrific examples of art’s ability to transform seemingly predictable, mundane scenarios into absurd, freakish, and beautiful visual experiences.
Giai-Miniet’s libraries are detailed and striking, replete with book cover art, author names, and identifiable typography. Occasionally a diorama’s title will conjure a loose narrative, an obscure starting point from which the viewer might further consider the art via
Blind-painting Sam Winchester. i.e. Starting out with an eye, and hoping for the best. i.e. The kind of crap I used to do before I got serious and found Andrew Loomis and learnt about guidelines and planes and constructing heads and you just don’t start with a bloody floating eye in the middle of goddamn nowhere.
It could have come out better. On the other hand, it could’ve come out a whole lot worse.
most of the ridiculous claims of “cheating” in art are usually directed at people who practice some form of digital art, especially if they work in a realism based style, again, largely from people unaware of the artistic process or the history of the artistic process.
Most of the claims are centered around “its traced”, “its just a photo with a filter”, “the computer does all the work” etc etc, which apart from the computer one, are actually extremely fucking old and have been around since the first inkling of humans using art to create hyper realistic images from life. I’ve seen plenty of hyper realism artworks in traditional media, in recent years, accused of just like COLOURING over a photo to give it a texture (“its just a photo with a filter”) or accused of tracing (which is funny in of itself because the use of projectors and tracing are not that unusual in the art world, especially in traditional media, the big no-no comes when you are using an existing artist’s copyrighted work which yes is plagiarism, other than that, what the rights and wrongs are fairly grey)
a lot of people who aren’t familiar with art or digital art specifically just automatically go COMPUTER + ART + USE OF PREEXISTING TRADITIONAL MEDIA TECHNIQUES = CHEAT = BAD
people can bend over backwards to prove that they did an artwork, through filming, process shots, the whole shebang and people will still scream and cry “CHEATING” about it
gets even worse if you happen to be something else, like a woman, or queer, or a poc then you have to jump through twice as many hoops to prove that yes you are a competent artist, you made this yourself, here is the proof, no it is not a photo, no it is not a filter, yes i actually painted it, and also have to sit through people completely ignorant of artistic processes or techniques accuse you of cheating for using them, even if they have existed for years and years and years (ie the use of reference images, the use of grids, the use of “texture” brushes)
Reblogging for truth.
[Incidentally, I’m fortunate enough not to have run into many people like that online, but I did have a bizarre argument with a real-life friend (who didn’t know anything about digital art) once about hyperrealism: “So what did you use to paint this?” “Corel. It’s a painting programme.” “So the computer did it for you.” “No, I used the computer programme to paint it. The programme has tools that mimic real-life art media, only you don’t have to wait for stuff to dr—.” “But it was on a computer?” “Yes.” “So the computer coloured it for you.” “No, I spent X hours doing the details by hand. The programme only gave me the tools to do it.” “But the computer did it for you, right?” “…….” It was almost like being in a Joseph Heller novel.]