NEW ART FROM DR. SLICK (GARVIN YEE) !!!!!!!!!!!
Radio913
Finally, i've got some of my newer stuff up:
Hopefully you can tolerate the very diverse styles, and parental
discretion is advised!
Constructive input is welcomed!
Slick
DNALJM
>discretion is advised!
>
> Constructive input is welcomed!
I think you're making real progress! Your lines are becoming more sure and
descriptive of form. Keep working. : )
Jane
DNALJM
ps~
In fact, you may want to consider taking some of the older work down, after
all it is over a decade old and done last millennium. When there is such a
discrepency in quality it tends to distract from the newer work rather than
stand together as a singular body of work.
Jane
Mani Deli
Not very Slick. Learn to draw!
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Dr. Slick
What is this obsession that people have with NEW, NEW, NEW?!
"Sunday Afternoon" is still, and always will be a seminal work of
mine, one that people still wish to buy, and they couldn't care less
when i made it. Great works of art are timeless.
I don't think it's the quality that is worse in the older works,
mainly just the styles are too diverse for the more smaller-minded
people of the world.
Really, though, you have a legitimate point, as I'm still
exploring different styles, and you're not the first to mention my
inconsistency of style. I really hate getting stuck in one technique,
but i know that's what the teeming masses usually wish to see, some
sort of continuity between the works.
As i create some more work, i will probably move the older stuff
to another html page, or something like that.
But yeah, perhaps some of the sketches are really more for
myself...But some people think my sketches are my strongest work! My
older stuff!
No accounting for taste, eh?
Is that you in your paintings? They aren't bad technically, but
the poses and subject matter are a bit too boring for me, and the
espressions a bit too drab. I think you were smiling in only one of
the paintings! But i'm a fan of surrealism, so a more pure realism is
not really my cup of tea.
You might wanna make a website for your art alone, as reading
about lobotomies can be a bit distracting from your paintings...
:)
Slick
Dr. Slick
> >
> Not very Slick. Learn to draw!
>
That's a funny statement coming from a guy who draws like shit
himself
and needs Photoshop to achieve effects that can and should be done by
hand!
And even if you could draw, your composition would still suck as
much as Dali's did.
My advice to you, Mani, is that you should move to Bangkok,
Thailand where you will be in good company with the many artists there
who copy Dali paintings for a living! You will then be living your
true artistic destiny, as a copier of other peoples' ideas!
YOU learn to draw!
Slick
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<ir1r30dvam4d1j1s1...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> Not very Slick. Learn to draw!
>>
>
> That's a funny statement coming from a guy who draws like shit
>himself
>and needs Photoshop to achieve effects that can and should be done by
>hand!
For someone who hasn't the skill to even trace a photo I wouldn't
brag.
Here's one my "shit" student drawings done in Renaissance style. I did
a lot of similar stuff which I sold. There weren't any computers
then. http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/face.jpg
> And even if you could draw, your composition would still suck as
>much as Dali's did.
Check out the "suck" composition.
> My advice to you, Mani, is that you should move to Bangkok,
>Thailand where you will be in good company with the many artists there
>who copy Dali paintings for a living!
Haven't seen one yet.
>You will then be living your
>true artistic destiny, as a copier of other peoples' ideas!
>
> YOU learn to draw!
>
>
My advice to you is stay where you are with your lack of knowledge
you'll get no further .
DNALJM
Personal work is viewed as a progression by most people, so the work you did
in high school is, generally speaking, of lesser quality than what you do in
your twenties.
>"Sunday Afternoon" is still, and always will be a seminal work of
>mine, one that people still wish to buy, and they couldn't care less
>when i made it. Great works of art are timeless.
I'm glad that people are interested in owning it. You should feel good
about that. I'm not telling you what to put on your site, by all means keep
whatever you like.
> I don't think it's the quality that is worse in the older works,
>mainly just the styles are too diverse for the more smaller-minded
>people of the world.
Kinda crappy that you solicit advice and then imply that I'm "small minded."
Why not just get a private site URL and masturbate in front of it if you don't
want anyone to respond with suggestions?
>
> Really, though, you have a legitimate point, as I'm still
>exploring different styles, and you're not the first to mention my
>inconsistency of style.
You didn't read my response correctly. I said the newer work was of better
quality, not style. But there are some drawing issues, like with the hand on
the girl in the water. I would point out a few minor things also but you would
get all nasty and defensive and ignore it anyway so I won't.
> I really hate getting stuck in one technique,
>but i know that's what the teeming masses usually wish to see, some
>sort of continuity between the works.
I think that it's a shame that you can't put one mismatched thing up on the
wall if you have a gallery show and also that drawings are valued so much less
than paintings. I love drawings and looking at them.
On the other hand, if someone had a wall with an abstract, and a figural
nude, and some digital work, I would wonder why they weren't compelled to
invest more time in one idea or medium.
> Is that you in your paintings?
Yes.
>They aren't bad technically, but
>the poses and subject matter are a bit too boring for me, and the
>espressions a bit too drab.
I'll let you know if I ever amp up the excitment level. I was thinking
of getting a strobe light and some naked people preforming strange sex acts
with stuffed animals. Do you think that would do it? It would be surreal,
right, you don't see that every day on the street! You'll notice my most
recent painting has me topless. That tripled my page views, I am very happy
about that!
>I think you were smiling in only one of
>the paintings!
I smile even less in real life. Maybe get a clown mask? Or get the mafia
to slit my face from the corners of my mouth to my ears and smash out all my
teeth so I'm *always* smiling?
Jane
http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod
<--- boring figurative art and distracting, unrelated links
Dr. Slick
>
> For someone who hasn't the skill to even trace a photo I wouldn't
> brag.
>
Keep to your Photoshop, you need it because you obviously lack the
skill!
> Here's one my "shit" student drawings done in Renaissance style. I did
> a lot of similar stuff which I sold. There weren't any computers
> then. http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/face.jpg
>
And so he/she does indeed look like shit! Is she supposed to be
as ugly as she looks? Or is it unintentional? Was i supposed to be
impressed by this waste of paper? Mail the original to me, there's
always a shortage of toilet tissue in my house!
I mean, it's technically done ok, but "she" looks like a man in
drag!
Look at her ugly, bony face! Very man-like, you should do
portraits of the drag queens of the world, Mani, that might be your
calling! Besides the Dali-clone stuff.
If you wanna see beauty, check out what Jackson is interested in:
http://www.drslick.org/gallery/money3.html
> >
> My advice to you is stay where you are with your lack of knowledge
> you'll get no further .
>
My advice to you is to keep using Photoshop to make up for your
obvious lack of skill, and to keep ripping off Dali, because you
obviously don't wanna do anything original, creative, or interesting!
And keep "drawing" (if you could call it that) those butt-ugly
people you have been depicting!
No Originality, No Art!
Slick
Radio913
> > What is this obsession that people have with NEW, NEW, NEW?!
>
> Personal work is viewed as a progression by most people, so the work you
did
> in high school is, generally speaking, of lesser quality than what you do in
> your twenties.
Well, I do admit that everyone progesses, as it should be.
But let me tell you something funny. Someone on another NG was saying that
my "new" stuff was much better than my old stuff, and then proceeded to praise
my "Colorwheel" study that i did in high school! They mistakenly thought that
this was a new piece! actually quite a few people mistook my older work for
the new, because they didn't look carefully enough the first time.
And i don't think "Sunday Afternoon" can really be improved upon. Sure,
you could make it a tiny bit more photoreal, but it wouldn't add to the
emotional impact at all. And many people think it's a photograph anyways.
>
> I'm glad that people are interested in owning it. You should feel good
> about that. I'm not telling you what to put on your site, by all means keep
> whatever you like.
>
Thanks, Jane. And you can certainly keep the lobotomy site on yours if
you want.
> > I don't think it's the quality that is worse in the older works,
> >mainly just the styles are too diverse for the more smaller-minded
> >people of the world.
>
> Kinda crappy that you solicit advice and then imply that I'm "small
minded."
> Why not just get a private site URL and masturbate in front of it if you
don't
> want anyone to respond with suggestions?
>
Because then i wouldn't have anyone to masturbate WITH.
Are you touching yourself too?
:)
>
> You didn't read my response correctly. I said the newer work was of
better
> quality, not style. But there are some drawing issues, like with the hand on
> the girl in the water. I would point out a few minor things also but you
would
> get all nasty and defensive and ignore it anyway so I won't.
>
You mean the hand on this one:
http://www.drslick.org/#paradiseone
Who said, "Advice is like torture: It's much better to give it than
receive it."
Well, go ahead, because EVERYONE has an opinion and advice is never in
shortage. And i have rather thick skin, so don't worry. But you might wanna
include the things you DO like as well, eh?
Doesn't she have a nice bod? hehe...
>
> On the other hand, if someone had a wall with an abstract, and a figural
> nude, and some digital work, I would wonder why they weren't compelled to
> invest more time in one idea or medium.
>
Your point is taken.
>
> I'll let you know if I ever amp up the excitment level. I was
thinking
> of getting a strobe light and some naked people preforming strange sex acts
> with stuffed animals. Do you think that would do it? It would be surreal,
> right, you don't see that every day on the street! You'll notice my most
> recent painting has me topless. That tripled my page views, I am very happy
> about that!
>
Well, then, you see? Sex really does sell!
Your most recent painting is my favorite, not so much that you are
topless, but that you have a cool smile on your face, as if you are finally
relieved to have your top off! Is this some sort of academic fantasy of yours?
I really like the idea of a hot math teacher takin' it off, i must admit!
But my dear, just posing nude will NOT be enough. This is like saying all
pornographers are great artists. It's great that you are topless, but your
posture and pose could be improved.
>
> I smile even less in real life. Maybe get a clown mask? Or get the mafia
> to slit my face from the corners of my mouth to my ears and smash out all my
> teeth so I'm *always* smiling?
>
> Jane
From your site:
"My clothing was deemed "uncool" when I was this age (note gimpy shirt).
Usually my stupid attire only solicited verbal abuse, but sometimes I had to
understandably pay for my transgression by being beat up. My head was slammed
into my desk, I was thrown into a lake, and rammed into a chain link fence
until I bled. One time someone threw a sprinkler head through my window. I
prayed every night that I would die in my sleep so I wouldn't have to go back
to school, but I always (obviously) woke up."
Well, no wonder you don't smile much. Esp. if you call your own choice of
attire "stupid".
Jane, believe me when i say you are SO sexy when you teach math like that!
:^O
Slick
Mani Deli
>>Mani Deli wrote
>> Here's one my "shit" student drawings done in Renaissance style. I did
>> a lot of similar stuff which I sold. There weren't any computers
>> then. http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/face.jpg
>>
>
> Mail the original to me, there's
>always a shortage of toilet tissue in my house!
With you salary I'm sure that's true.
Try spending even more time in public men's rooms. You can use their
paper while you collect the graffiti you rip off.
> I mean, it's technically done ok,
Gee I was hoping you wouldn't say that.
> but "she" looks like a man in
>drag!
Its a hermaphrodite.
> Look at her ugly, bony face!
No uglier than your fat ass.
>Very man-like, you should do
>portraits of the drag queens of the world, Mani, that might be your
>calling! Besides the Dali-clone stuff.
>
My advice to you is stay where you are with your lack of knowledge
you'll get no further .
No skill no art!
DNALJM
>this was a new piece!
That's strange, as the tea kettle and cathedral drawings are so much more
sophisticated that the things you've done in hs. Of course these works are B&W
and the color of the color wheel painting is one of the weaker aspects of the
work. It makes it look like a graphic for a toothpaste box.
>Are you touching yourself too?
>
> :)
>
Not at this very moment no, it's hard to type and do other things at the same
time.
> You mean the hand on this one:
>
> http://www.drslick.org/#paradiseone
Yes.
> Well, go ahead, because EVERYONE has an opinion and advice is never in
>shortage. And i have rather thick skin, so don't worry. But you might wanna
>include the things you DO like as well, eh?
OK, just a few things to pick off, I'm sure you know when you're doing well,
the tea kettle has excellent perspective and the linear shading seems to define
the form.
But in this one
http://www.drslick.org/gallery/Monique.html
the pointalist dots don't really follow the form. Because they don't sit where
you expect them to be they look like they're sitting on her-making her look
like she has chicken pox. If you're saying that the light falls on the right
part of the left tit (light coming from upper right) than the right part of the
right tit should be equally light too.
http://www.drslick.org/gallery/paradiseone.html
About the hand the one problem lies with the fingers. If you curl your finger
you see the curve of the joint on the outside comes after the bend on the
inside. It sort of looks like a lion's toe right now but it would be easy to
fix. If it's lost in shadow in your reference don't be afraid to lose it a bit
in the painting, as the viewer will fill in the blanks.
The new paintings have some of the saturation of color and lack of subtlety
like the older ones but you could definitely make a case that it's unimportant.
It's fitting given the content that they look like advertisements.
> Is this some sort of academic fantasy of yours?
> I really like the idea of a hot math teacher takin' it off, i must admit!
Yes. There is also a lot of intergenerational student/teacher sex in my
book too. Sorry Dil, the ages keep it all legal.
Jane
Dilettante
> Yes. There is also a lot of intergenerational student/teacher sex in my
> book too. Sorry Dil, the ages keep it all legal.
>
> Jane
Once again another semi-literate post from the Cooper-Union grad. If
you want to talk about "intergenerational sex" as you call it, take it
over to Chris. He's fascinated with that.
D.
Dilettante
> Constructive input is welcomed!
>
The face on the teakettle reflection is so crude it ruins the whole
piece. You might try adding some new creative impetus to this idea,
unless you want to be forever unfavourably compared to Escher.
The nude, spider squatting looks is a copy, if not a tracing inked in
later, of a photo from Penthouse or some such. Did you do it from the
live model?
Dilettante
Mike Stengl
> of getting a strobe light and some naked people preforming strange sex acts
> with stuffed animals. Do you think that would do it? It would be surreal,
> right, you don't see that every day on the street! You'll notice my most
> recent painting has me topless. That tripled my page views, I am very happy
> about that!
it's just me going back again and again, jane...
>
Dr. Slick
>
> >> Here's one my "shit" student drawings done in Renaissance style. I did
> >> a lot of similar stuff which I sold. There weren't any computers
> >> then. http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/face.jpg
> >
> > Mail the original to me, there's
> >always a shortage of toilet tissue in my house!
>
> With you salary I'm sure that's true.
>
With what salary? Laid-off engineer here. Please send the
original.
> Try spending even more time in public men's rooms. You can use their
> paper while you collect the graffiti you rip off.
>
I'd rather wipe my ass with your sorry hack-work, and flush it
down the toilet to better serve the Art community at large...
Please Fed-ex it ASAP.
>
> > but "she" looks like a man in
> >drag!
>
> Its a hermaphrodite.
>
Ugly man-bitch, certainly nothing anyone would want hanging on
their walls!
>
> > Look at her ugly, bony face!
>
> No uglier than your fat ass.
>
If you mean this one:
http://www.drslick.org/gallery/ass1.html
Well, that's a favorite of MANY people.
> >Very man-like, you should do
> >portraits of the drag queens of the world, Mani, that might be your
> >calling! Besides the Dali-clone stuff.
> >
> My advice to you is stay where you are with your lack of knowledge
> you'll get no further .
>
You said that already.
My advice is for you to keep Cloning Dali, and always to be
compared to him, and never do anything original in your whole life, no
matter how much "skill" you may acquire.
Slick
Dr. Slick
>
> That's strange, as the tea kettle and cathedral drawings are so much more
> sophisticated that the things you've done in hs. Of course these works are B&W
> and the color of the color wheel painting is one of the weaker aspects of the
> work. It makes it look like a graphic for a toothpaste box.
>
Well, it's a play on AIM toothpaste, remember that? Perhaps you
aren't old enough, but it was toothpaste with red and blue stripes in
it, pretty cool looking stuff.
And this was a colorwheel study, so it had to be as it is.
And many people love it the way it is.
But your input is appreciated.
>
> OK, just a few things to pick off, I'm sure you know when you're doing well,
> the tea kettle has excellent perspective and the linear shading seems to define
> the form.
>
> But in this one
> http://www.drslick.org/gallery/Monique.html
> the pointalist dots don't really follow the form. Because they don't sit where
> you expect them to be they look like they're sitting on her-making her look
> like she has chicken pox. If you're saying that the light falls on the right
> part of the left tit (light coming from upper right) than the right part of the
> right tit should be equally light too.
>
Interesting point of view, but i was kinda going for a real
spittle effect, where there are dots everywhere, but perhaps the dots
need to be smaller and be more numerous for it to work like that.
Anyhow, it obviously passed my own personal standards, as she does
match the chaotic background.
But again, you input is appreciated.
> http://www.drslick.org/gallery/paradiseone.html
> About the hand the one problem lies with the fingers. If you curl your finger
> you see the curve of the joint on the outside comes after the bend on the
> inside. It sort of looks like a lion's toe right now but it would be easy to
> fix. If it's lost in shadow in your reference don't be afraid to lose it a bit
> in the painting, as the viewer will fill in the blanks.
>
I don't really see what you mean here. There is a certain amount
of foreshortening going on in her index finger, but it looks fine to
me.
But it was a challenge to make this work, because as you see, her
hair is right behind the hand, with the sky showing though, and this
makes it hard to define the shape a bit.
But it's really a minor point, and it's not the focal point of the
work anyways.
But thanks for your opinion.
> The new paintings have some of the saturation of color and lack of subtlety
> like the older ones but you could definitely make a case that it's unimportant.
> It's fitting given the content that they look like advertisements.
>
So if i wanted to be taken seriously, i have to back off on the
saturation of color? But if i look at your work, i would say that
even the Mona Lisa has more color than most of your paintings. I
other words, very dulled colors, and not very exciting to the eye.
Ok, so I actual have a little Warhol in me, in terms of colors and
advertisment quality, but it's more like Dali in the sense of being
hyper-real, with hyper-real colors and such.
Remember i consider myself a Neo-surrealist, and not a pure
realism artist.
So a bit of license with reality is to be expected.
> > Is this some sort of academic fantasy of yours?
> > I really like the idea of a hot math teacher takin' it off, i must admit!
>
> Yes. There is also a lot of intergenerational student/teacher sex in my
> book too. Sorry Dil, the ages keep it all legal.
>
Your book? is it available?
Slick
Dr. Slick
> >
>
> The face on the teakettle reflection is so crude it ruins the whole
> piece. You might try adding some new creative impetus to this idea,
> unless you want to be forever unfavourably compared to Escher.
>
The face isn't the focal point of the work anyhow.
I think it's technically done quite well, and i'm proud of it, but
I never claimed i could do it better than the master Escher, and it's
supposed to be kind of a funny satire of his work, as well as a
hommage to his coolness.
If you bothered to look at the title, it says, "Escher's Kitchen".
Get it? Tea kettle, kitchen? haha..
But comparisons are inevitable, anyways.
> The nude, spider squatting looks is a copy, if not a tracing inked in
> later, of a photo from Penthouse or some such. Did you do it from the
> live model?
>
> Dilettante
It's a free-hand Rotring technical pen drawing, with no pencil
under-sketch, which is why it's a bit sketchy itself. But i don't
recommend drawing this way, as it can take you 2-3 tries before you
get a good one! But being a tattoo artist as well teaches you to just
go for it with a single line, with no erasing.
It was done from a reference photograph, but it certainly wasn't
traced.
I actually have some talent, Dil.
We'd all like to see some of yours someday, but i have a feeling
it's going to be a long time before you get that brave.
You have to give your nemesis, that asshole Mani some credit
really, because at least he will show his stuff for you to fire back
on.
Where with you it is all one-sided.
Slick
Mani Deli
Please send the
>original.
> I'd rather wipe my ass with your sorry hack-work, and flush it
>down the toilet to better serve the Art community at large...
It will cost you $500. However, I advise you not to wipe your ass with
this one as it will irritate you hemorrhoids.
I strongly advise you to wipe your ass with this is one which is done
on a far softer medium. It includes my older hack work. Check it out.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/Working-drawing.jpg
I only show a detail but i'm sure it will be easier going on your
sensitive asshole. The price for this luxury is higher, $2000. And
think of your service to the "Art community at large."
I'll even sell you both works at a 10% reduction. This way you can
role them up together and you know what you can do with them.
Perhaps before you make this sacrifice for communal benefits you can
get the Dill to inspect it and tell us how truly bad it is.
PS When are you going to name the Dali I forged?
Dr. Slick
>
> > I'd rather wipe my ass with your sorry hack-work, and flush it
> >down the toilet to better serve the Art community at large...
>
> It will cost you $500. However, I advise you not to wipe your ass with
> this one as it will irritate you hemorrhoids.
>
You should be paying ME to handle such awful "art"!
> I strongly advise you to wipe your ass with this is one which is done
> on a far softer medium. It includes my older hack work. Check it out.
>
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/Working-drawing.jpg
>
Yuck! These girls are WAY skanky!
Have you never drawn a sexy woman in your life? It would seem
that you aren't capable, just like that sorry Da Vinci-wanna-be you
showed us before.
Here's what you were trying to achieve:
http://www.allposters.com/gallery.asp?aid=731567&item=317436
Learn to Draw!
> I only show a detail but i'm sure it will be easier going on your
> sensitive asshole. The price for this luxury is higher, $2000. And
> think of your service to the "Art community at large."
>
> I'll even sell you both works at a 10% reduction. This way you can
> role them up together and you know what you can do with them.
>
How about this: you send me both pieces of sh**, AND $2000, as
this is my hazardous waste disposal fee!
>
> PS When are you going to name the Dali I forged?
>
His over-all style, you Dali-cloner.
Slick
Dilettante
Once you miss on so many points that playing with you is almost no
fun.
>
> The face isn't the focal point of the work anyhow.
Yes, the eye immediately goes to the face in any, repeat any, work of
art in which there is a human figure, so whether the a badly done
face, as yours is, does detract from the work. Don't try this flimsy
excuse again.
>
> I think it's technically done quite well, and i'm proud of it, but
> I never claimed i could do it better than the master Escher, and it's
> supposed to be kind of a funny satire of his work, as well as a
> hommage to his coolness.
You can't do an homage and a satire at the same time, although of
course you do not understand why not, and in any case, you have to be
as good as, or better than, the artist you are satirising. So make up
your mind and take your medicine. Furthermore, Escher was not all that
cool.
>
> If you bothered to look at the title, it says, "Escher's Kitchen".
Yes, and if you bothered to think it through, if I want to judge a
piece by a title then I will go to a literature forum, which this
isn't if you bother to to check.
It's a free-hand Rotring technical pen drawing, with no pencil
> under-sketch, which is why it's a bit sketchy itself. But i don't
> recommend drawing this way, as it can take you 2-3 tries before you
> get a good one! But being a tattoo artist as well teaches you to just
> go for it with a single line, with no erasing.
>
> It was done from a reference photograph, but it certainly wasn't
> traced.
>
> I actually have some talent, Dil.
Yes, for a penthouse illustrator you may have, but this is a fine art
forum. As long as you stay in this forum you will be playing a game
you cannot win.
>
> We'd all like to see some of yours someday, but i have a feeling
> it's going to be a long time before you get that brave.
On this forum it isn't a question of bravery but good sense, and I am
showing my work in the real world even as you read this.
>
> You have to give your nemesis, that asshole Mani some credit
> really, because at least he will show his stuff for you to fire back
> on.
Except, you fail to notice once again, that I have never commented on
his work but on his attacks on other artists, so I am not guilty of
the shortcoming you have attributed to me.
>
> Where with you it is all one-sided.
A person with a flat head would think so.
Dilettante
Dr. Slick
> >
> > The face isn't the focal point of the work anyhow.
>
> Yes, the eye immediately goes to the face in any, repeat any, work of
> art in which there is a human figure, so whether the a badly done
> face, as yours is, does detract from the work. Don't try this flimsy
> excuse again.
>
As i suppose your own badly done face detracts from the
conversation when people talk to you in person, hmm?
:)
And this person detracts from the background:
http://www.drslick.org/gallery/paradiseone.html
>
> You can't do an homage and a satire at the same time, although of
> course you do not understand why not, and in any case, you have to be
> as good as, or better than, the artist you are satirising.
Who the fu** says? A hommage can certainly be satirical! And
i'm better than Escher on some things, like color usage (not saying
much actually)!
So make up
> your mind and take your medicine. Furthermore, Escher was not all that
> cool.
>
I'll take my medicine from your mother's titties.
Escher kicked ass...let's see your stuff, chimp-wimp.
> >
> > If you bothered to look at the title, it says, "Escher's Kitchen".
>
> Yes, and if you bothered to think it through, if I want to judge a
> piece by a title then I will go to a literature forum, which this
> isn't if you bother to to check.
>
Oh, excuse me, i thought you had a literate, intelligent brain
that could understand that the title of the painting will CERTAINLY
affect how one perceives it!
> >
> > I actually have some talent, Dil.
>
> Yes, for a penthouse illustrator you may have, but this is a fine art
> forum. As long as you stay in this forum you will be playing a game
> you cannot win.
>
And erotic art ala Vargas, Olivia, Serpieri and Gil Elvgren are
all fine art, regardless of what the art community at large feels.
And i am most certainly winning THIS game, punk.
> >
> > We'd all like to see some of yours someday, but i have a feeling
> > it's going to be a long time before you get that brave.
>
> On this forum it isn't a question of bravery but good sense, and I am
> showing my work in the real world even as you read this.
So am I, but also here.
You really are a chicken-sh** aren't you!
bakk, baaak, bak-bak, baaak!
Slick
Erik A. Mattila
> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message
>
> Once you miss on so many points that playing with you is almost no
> fun.
>
>> The face isn't the focal point of the work anyhow.
>
>
> Yes, the eye immediately goes to the face in any, repeat any, work of
> art in which there is a human figure, so whether the a badly done
> face, as yours is, does detract from the work. Don't try this flimsy
> excuse again.
>
>
>> I think it's technically done quite well, and i'm proud of it, but
>>I never claimed i could do it better than the master Escher, and it's
>>supposed to be kind of a funny satire of his work, as well as a
>>hommage to his coolness.
>
>
> You can't do an homage and a satire at the same time, although of
> course you do not understand why not, and in any case, you have to be
> as good as, or better than, the artist you are satirising. So make up
> your mind and take your medicine. Furthermore, Escher was not all that
> cool.
That's an unsually absurd claim, Dildo (homage v. satire). What rule
book did you get that from? Have you been reading passé Norhrup Frye
essays from the 50's? And what's the archaeology of your other rule:
you have to "better" than the object of your satire? Better in which
way, given that Escher wasn't a satirist?
Erik
DNALJM
> Well, it's a play on AIM toothpaste, remember that? Perhaps you
>aren't old enough, but it was toothpaste with red and blue stripes in
>it, pretty cool looking stuff.
I'm 26, I guess we're the same age or close enough. My grandmother used
that toothpaste but I use Tom's of Maine.
>
> Interesting point of view, but i was kinda going for a real
>spittle effect, where there are dots everywhere, but perhaps the dots
>need to be smaller and be more numerous for it to work like that.
Not sure, if they're unable to be read as descriptive of shadow than I
think it triggers the unpleasant association with disease, but that may be
entirely me. When you think of a sexy woman you think of clear, even toned skin
and spots or markings tend to envoke blemishes, cancer, smallpox, etc.
>
> But it was a challenge to make this work, because as you see, her
>hair is right behind the hand, with the sky showing though, and this
>makes it hard to define the shape a bit.
Maybe if you redo it, and consider the light patches that come through as
shapes, and the hair masses as shapes too the finger will define itself.
Sometimes the negative space can do the work for you.
>But it's really a minor point, and it's not the focal point of the
>work anyways.
! You have one figure in the work dead center and that's where peoples'
attention goes. Why not make it perfect? : )
>Your book? is it available?
Not yet, I'll let you know. : )
Jane
Dr. Slick
>
> Not sure, if they're unable to be read as descriptive of shadow than I
> think it triggers the unpleasant association with disease, but that may be
> entirely me. When you think of a sexy woman you think of clear, even toned skin
> and spots or markings tend to envoke blemishes, cancer, smallpox, etc.
>
Well, she's certainly sexy to me, but you have to be receptive to
artistic license and such... too much photo-realism is boring to me.
>
> Maybe if you redo it, and consider the light patches that come through as
> shapes, and the hair masses as shapes too the finger will define itself.
> Sometimes the negative space can do the work for you.
>
I really don't agree with you on this point, as i have looked it
over again, and i am still pleased with her hand. But thanks for the
input anyways, i like to hear what other people think. And the
website overall has improved a bit, has it not?>
> >But it's really a minor point, and it's not the focal point of the
> >work anyways.
>
> ! You have one figure in the work dead center and that's where peoples'
> attention goes. Why not make it perfect? : )
>
Her hand looks fine to me!
"Perfection" is never really achieved, and is an un-worthy goal,
according to L. Ron Hubbard.
>
> Not yet, I'll let you know. : )
>
> Jane
>
I look forward to it.
Slick