Surrealism By the Infamous Dr. Slick
Dr. Slick
Paul Mesken
>http://www.drslick.org/
>
>Let me know what you think.
>
I like the dog and I like the hands, both have strong, clear and
present composition.
Nikolaus Maack
You haven't added anything new since the last time I viewed (and
commented) on your site. Put something new on! NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW
NOW!
(No pressure.)
Paul Mesken
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Dr. Slick wrote:
>> http://www.drslick.org/
>>
>> Let me know what you think.
>>
>> Garvin
>
>You haven't added anything new since the last time I viewed (and
>commented) on your site.
Hu?
*GOOGLE*......
Hm, october last year, it seems Slick got the Deli treatment and lived
(BTW who the Hell summoned Deli this time? He's back after being
excorcised for a few days)
In that case I can take my critique a little bit further than "I like
your dog and hands" without fearing I might hurt some sensitive soul,
here we go!
The toothbrush : this is the kind of stuf air brush artists make to
show what they can do with their spray gun. It's simply a technical
study of how to make something shiny (make the paste transparent with
the white one opaque to get an advanced version) You were correct not
to give the same amount of glow to the brush and the tube. I don't get
a hard on from it (now if it was a breast and the stuff was squeezed
out from the nipple then you have a statement no-one understands ->
surrealism :-)
Focal point (the brains with the balls) : this one is ambiguous. Are
there balls or holes? Must be holes looking at the occlusion, but then
again : why shade the holes as if they were balls? Why two different
blues? Is it a statement? I can't project any kind of idea upon it,
therefor I would dismiss it as another technical study.
Modern Man : it's a doodle. I could post thousands which are better
than that. It's just a profile without any attempt of making explicit
some kind of idea behind it, it's not a visual statement. The fact
that the anatomy is completely off doesn't seem to have some purpose.
It's aimless.
The smoker : now where getting somewhere technically (good texture and
shading) but the composition is nowhere as good as that of the dog and
the hands. It is unbalanced (what's with the black in the upper
right?) and the distortions don't seem to give more definition to the
idea. Surrealism is more than random distortions. Consider the
following : smokers suck their cigarettes (I suck about 20 a day :-)
but the cigarettes suck out the health of the smoker, throat cancer,
lung cancer, tar, etc. The eyes are good, they can do the addiction. I
would go for the dark part of the painting, skin and flesh fall in,
bones get deformed, the cigarette has its warm, orange glow but the
eyes are numbed as if from a drone and reflect only the cold part of
the glare of the cigarette, life is drained from the body and its
contours dissolving in the background as smoke and only tar coated
bones remain, skin as ashes squeezing to get that final puff (BTW
there are some paintings drying here with lots of turps in it, can you
tell? ;-)
The Technicolor Daydream : this is random distortions, a "let's do
multiple patterns in an Escher like perspective and some textures". It
doesn't evoke any emotion whatsoever. It's like using lots of
interesting words but not telling a story. Should I be frightened by
it, should I be pleased. The only thing that sticks is that the guy's
ear "drools" off.
Kung Fu : a while ago I did literally hundreds of sketches from
Dragonball Z because I liked the fighting poses (the ones from the
"world tournament" series are really good). After that I could freely
invent my own ones (my girl Sue on her high heeled roller skates
delivering pizza she needs to protect from thugs :-) A kick should be
depicted with the idea that kinetical energy is shooting out like an
arrow (likewise sweeps should twist the whole body and blocks make the
body form a supported wall). The whole of the body is propelled by a
kick, every muscle adds to its concentrated power. Your guy's leg has
a turn and a twist, it should be an arrow followed by the rest of the
body. Your guy is floundering, could just as well be a ballet dancer,
you put in details that kill the dynamics, the feet should be pointing
forward, toes in the same line, the line of the direction of the kick.
The body should be flying, not resisting the flow. Perhaps you want it
to look like ballet but in that case I should change the pose.
Untitled 2 : it certainly looks nice (texture good, balance as well)
but it's also very different from your other stuff. As a matter of
fact : there are not two paintings/drawings of the same style. I guess
you're still searching what you want to do.
Untitled 1 : I have the sneaky feeling this one was only to study some
hatching and dithering techniques. I don't necessarily think of it as
wrong to have an eye brow slipping down, a nose bridge which runs up
far too high in respect to the eye, a missing right half of the face
(considering the perspective), the eye hovering, etc but it needs to
serve some goal. The drawing/painting has no aesthetic qualities in
the composition, we have a disjointed face for no reason other than
the one I outlined above.
Modern Man 2 : why is he modern? He makes me think of Abraham Lincoln.
It is a very nice sketch though (the nose is off and the eyes are not
at half the height of the face, no ears either) but not a work ready
to be sold because it has nothing else to state than that it's a
sketch, an exploration in a technique.
All in all it appears to me you're still searching, almost every
picture has a completely different style and technique. As a matter of
fact : I couldn't even tell that they're all from one and the same
person! Don't distort because Dali's work was distorted as well. Dali
distorted for a reason.
Dr. Slick
> Hu?
>
> *GOOGLE*......
>
> Hm, october last year, it seems Slick got the Deli treatment and lived
> (BTW who the Hell summoned Deli this time? He's back after being
> excorcised for a few days)
>
> In that case I can take my critique a little bit further than "I like
> your dog and hands" without fearing I might hurt some sensitive soul,
> here we go!
>
Thicked skinned over here. I suppose Deli is an asshole to
every newcomer.
> The toothbrush : this is the kind of stuf air brush artists make to
> show what they can do with their spray gun. It's simply a technical
> study of how to make something shiny (make the paste transparent with
> the white one opaque to get an advanced version) You were correct not
> to give the same amount of glow to the brush and the tube. I don't get
> a hard on from it (now if it was a breast and the stuff was squeezed
> out from the nipple then you have a statement no-one understands ->
> surrealism :-)
>
Colorwheel study for high school, give me a break.
>
> The Technicolor Daydream : this is random distortions, a "let's do
> multiple patterns in an Escher like perspective and some textures". It
> doesn't evoke any emotion whatsoever. It's like using lots of
> interesting words but not telling a story. Should I be frightened by
> it, should I be pleased. The only thing that sticks is that the guy's
> ear "drools" off.
It's called H. R. Giger's Technicolor Daydream. Not my
favorite piece either, but a homage/study to a brilliant artist.
>
> Modern Man 2 : why is he modern? He makes me think of Abraham Lincoln.
> It is a very nice sketch though (the nose is off and the eyes are not
> at half the height of the face, no ears either) but not a work ready
> to be sold because it has nothing else to state than that it's a
> sketch, an exploration in a technique.
>
A surrealist doesn't have to put ears on people if he/she
doesn't want to. Some of the best art in the world are sketches
(DaVinci, and Ralph Macquarrie of Star Wars fame).
> All in all it appears to me you're still searching, almost every
> picture has a completely different style and technique. As a matter of
> fact : I couldn't even tell that they're all from one and the same
> person! Don't distort because Dali's work was distorted as well. Dali
> distorted for a reason.
I don't think about Dali as i work. Artistic license allows
one to do anything. Yes, i'm still searching, always will be. Like
i'm always in research and development mode.
Thanks for taking the time to do a full critique. Glad you
liked the dog and hands.
Do you have a website for me to look at? Or do you only
critique?
Garvin
Paul Mesken
>Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<qfn76vof35hm9n883...@4ax.com>...
> Do you have a website for me to look at? Or do you only
>critique?
>
For the moment, yes, but everyone is pushing me to put my stuff up so
one of these days I might just do that :-)
Dr. Slick
It is MUCH easier to critique others, than it is to be
critiqued, isn't it? :\
This is quite a cop-out in my opinion, where i have shown you
mine, and now you don't want to show me yours! :)
Show some cajones, some courage, or are you "some sensitive
soul" as you have put it? I DID notice that your criticism was much
more long-winded and detailed than your praise.
Afraid of getting ripped apart in this newsgroup? Afraid of a
little criticism? Well, I'm criticizing you now. As the saying goes,
"Those who don't know, teach."
Just slap a website together (you can use mine as a template),
and show us what you've got!
Garvin Yee
Paul Mesken
>Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<6k3a6vkmgb88gfhjo...@4ax.com>...
>> On 4 Mar 2003 11:12:26 -0800, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>>
>> >Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<qfn76vof35hm9n883...@4ax.com>...
>> > Do you have a website for me to look at? Or do you only
>> >critique?
>> >
>>
>> For the moment, yes, but everyone is pushing me to put my stuff up so
>> one of these days I might just do that :-)
>
>
> It is MUCH easier to critique others, than it is to be
>critiqued, isn't it? :\
>
Why do I suddenly feel that my critique is about to backfire? ;-)
> This is quite a cop-out in my opinion, where i have shown you
>mine, and now you don't want to show me yours! :)
Are you questioning my manhood? I'm a 7+ incher and I tower at 6 feet
7, I've nothing left to proof :-)
> Show some cajones, some courage, or are you "some sensitive
>soul" as you have put it? I DID notice that your criticism was much
>more long-winded and detailed than your praise.
It's always easier to see why something does not work than seeing why
it does work. Your dog probably works because you opted to have it in
black and white (more or less), to have teeth in opaque white with
hardly any shading in a completely black mouth (setting it really
apart, making it jump out, it looks like shredding, almost symbol
like). I like the low forehead and the squeezed eyes (I say it's more
effective than the lion of Frazetta's "Thuvia, Maid of Mars"). The
fact that the dog's head occupies only the right lower quarter of the
painting and the rest of the painting is empty makes it more ominous
and disturbing. There's only the dog and open spaces. The dog doesn't
seem to have a prey in sight, it's skimming the horizon for something
to sink its teeth in. The only thing for the viewer to identify with
is the dog with its silent rage, ready to attack, waiting for
something to attack. "The things men do on a sunday afternoon are most
disturbing".
Was it good for you? ;-)
Dr. Slick
> >
> > It is MUCH easier to critique others, than it is to be
> >critiqued, isn't it? :\
> >
>
> Why do I suddenly feel that my critique is about to backfire? ;-)
>
> > This is quite a cop-out in my opinion, where i have shown you
> >mine, and now you don't want to show me yours! :)
>
> Are you questioning my manhood? I'm a 7+ incher and I tower at 6 feet
> 7, I've nothing left to proof :-)
>
Nothing to prove if everyone believed everything written in
newsgroups!
> > Show some cajones, some courage, or are you "some sensitive
> >soul" as you have put it? I DID notice that your criticism was much
> >more long-winded and detailed than your praise.
>
> It's always easier to see why something does not work than seeing why
> it does work. Your dog probably works because you opted to have it in
> black and white (more or less), to have teeth in opaque white with
> hardly any shading in a completely black mouth (setting it really
> apart, making it jump out, it looks like shredding, almost symbol
> like). I like the low forehead and the squeezed eyes (I say it's more
> effective than the lion of Frazetta's "Thuvia, Maid of Mars"). The
> fact that the dog's head occupies only the right lower quarter of the
> painting and the rest of the painting is empty makes it more ominous
> and disturbing. There's only the dog and open spaces. The dog doesn't
> seem to have a prey in sight, it's skimming the horizon for something
> to sink its teeth in. The only thing for the viewer to identify with
> is the dog with its silent rage, ready to attack, waiting for
> something to attack. "The things men do on a sunday afternoon are most
> disturbing".
>
> Was it good for you? ;-)
Thanks for swelling my head to the size of a watermelon. This
is because you have the audacity to compare my work with Frazetta's,
who i consider to be a near-diety in the art world.
"Thuvia, Maid of Mars" is a fantastic painting, look at body on
that woman! Not only that, but from a story telling point of view, do
you think the man has a chance to fend off/kill that cosmic lion with
that sword? Although seemingly fit, the man's skill with the weapon
is a mystery. What happens next?
I appreciate your honesty, and i wanna read bad reviews as well
as good, as long as it's honest. Certainly it's easier to point out
peoples' flaws than their strengths, that's only human nature.
And you don't even have to be an artist to critique art. Did
Siskel and Ebert ever make a classic movie, themselves? No. Does
that make them bad movie critics, just because they didn't make great
movies themselves? no.
Nevertheless, if an artist that i admired said something about
my art, i would definitely put more weight on their critique, as
opposed to a non-artists opinion of what they did or didn't like. For
example, if you built electronic circuits like i do, would you take
advice on how to improve your designs from someone who never built a
circuit in their life? i think not.
So i still wanna see your art work, which has absolutely nothing
to do with the size of your genitalia. :)
Garvin Yee
Paul Mesken
> Thanks for swelling my head to the size of a watermelon. This
>is because you have the audacity to compare my work with Frazetta's,
>who i consider to be a near-diety in the art world.
> "Thuvia, Maid of Mars" is a fantastic painting, look at body on
>that woman! Not only that, but from a story telling point of view, do
>you think the man has a chance to fend off/kill that cosmic lion with
>that sword? Although seemingly fit, the man's skill with the weapon
>is a mystery. What happens next?
>
I think the guy will be torned to shreds and the girl is next :-) I
love the way it is rendered. Frazetta probably only took a short while
for it to finish, it's very sketchy (the woman's left foot is not even
on it). But it is very effective as well. It probably takes ages and
lots of work (Frazetta is a real work horse) to achieve such a level
of naturalness in which one can paint as easily and as quickly as one
sketches. It takes me hours to do a face, Frazetta probably gives it 3
quick strokes :-) What I love about the woman is how her hips and
belly are made, there's no way one could mistake it for a man's belly
and Frazetta did it with a minimum of work.
UBUjean-jacques.viala
>http://www.drslick.org/
>
does not work.
.
UBU
"Nous sommes gouvernés par des clowns qui se
prennent pour des césars"
(Fellini)
Dr. Slick
> On 3 Mar 2003 12:20:19 -0800, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>
> >http://www.drslick.org/
> >
> does not work.
>
What doesn't work? Your brain?
Slick