Philosophy Now Forum

Yes, thanks for that. But the drawing depicts an idea, the place is imagined, I called it Outer Hebrides as that sounded far from cities.

The whole thing is a stage, the trees are props. The drawing is taken from the play about the event, not the event itself.

Ah, OK

Impenetrable Text

artisticsolution wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
I'm not that computer literate. I was quite surprised when I learnt that people use photoshop to make artworks. Do you think it's a dumbing down of art? The art equivalent of what passes as music these days?
It would still look good on my wall.

My son has been using photoshop since he was in the 5th grade. He now works as a graphic artist....well...he calls it something else...something like "front end" something or other...but I never remember so I just say 'graphic artist'. Mom's...eh...go figure!

Anyway, he has put a couple of programs on my puter that even a retard can do (he knows his mom when it comes to the puter...lol) and I have had fun with them. This pixel one called graphics gale is really cool!

But now I stick to doing art on my phone when I am bored waiting for appointments and such. I must say...it is more fun than candy crush! lol

Here's one I made last week. I am still learning...all those tools I don't know how to use yet...like layers...what the hell does that do...does anyone know?

Oh and btw Trixie...I love yours! Very cool! And the title too...

Layers are like a sketchpad. Like if you don't want to mess up the original layer, you add a new layer so you can draw on top of it, like trace paper. They are useful if you want to add makeup or extra layers to an image.

Here's one I made last week. I am still learning...all those tools I don't know how to use yet...like layers...what the hell does that do...does anyone know?

It is pretty cool the face you've made AS, sort of dreamy but then a bit menacing with the skull-like reference. David Hockney has done alot of paintings using an ipad, one is below. There is a difference between computer generated image and so-called man-made images. The computer generated image speaks of itself more than of the artist perhaps. But it needs the artist to put it into gear. Software is just a more powerful tool, a more powerful pencil or paintbrush. The problem I have with it, with the computer generated image, would be that it is digital and not material, the materiality of a drawing on paper is part of the world, and the space between artist and artwork is closer somehow. Though looking at the picture below I see a fifty-fifty battle result between artist and program. He has taken the program into places it didn't know existed, and that is when it starts to work, maybe.

Very nice, but the perspective goes a bit haywire at the far end of the lane.

Pluto wrote:

Here's one I made last week. I am still learning...all those tools I don't know how to use yet...like layers...what the hell does that do...does anyone know?

It is pretty cool the face you've made AS, sort of dreamy but then a bit menacing with the skull-like reference. David Hockney has done alot of paintings using an ipad, one is below. There is a difference between computer generated image and so-called man-made images. The computer generated image speaks of itself more than of the artist perhaps. But it needs the artist to put it into gear. Software is just a more powerful tool, a more powerful pencil or paintbrush. The problem I have with it, with the computer generated image, would be that it is digital and not material, the materiality of a drawing on paper is part of the world, and the space between artist and artwork is closer somehow. Though looking at the picture below I see a fifty-fifty battle result between artist and program. He has taken the program into places it didn't know existed, and that is when it starts to work, maybe.

1124-web.jpg

I like the quality and variations of line but not a fan of the color scheme. Computer generated works for me are twinsies. It's a battle of inches, a lot of experimentation and choosing the right series of steps. Half is picking which computer generated filter looks best, the other half is pure me.

Pluto wrote:Impenetrable Text

Page-1.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTEFKFiXSx4

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTEFKFiXSx4

I can understand how Trixie would like that.

I'm glad she didn't try to put it in the music section.

thedoc wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTEFKFiXSx4

I can understand how Trixie would like that.

It is not something to be liked, it is to be understood.

It was a reference to the drawing of Pluto's which did not show up due to technical difficulties.

That is a great connection you've posted! I love John Cage's work. Great version, one guy and a piano. The sound of silence, not really. Right now with me, early morning, is quiet but for the fan of the laptop.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Very nice, but the perspective goes a bit haywire and the far end of the lane.

Yes, I see what you mean. That end bit isn't convincing enough, looks a bit like a purple blob. It's too light maybe, should be darker, and less blobby. There's not much sharpness in the picture.

This is done using a computer. Like gaming graphics. It has an odd quality to it. It denotes a person from Germany, on holiday somewhere. Maybe the perspective also struggles here? The receding beach needs the help of the small pier, big wheel, etc, to help it along. I should try to do my own version of this, it's a strange image.

It would be nicer without the man and his mis-matched socks and legs.

You prefer landscapes without people.