PDA

View Full Version : Baseball & Dumbbells - x-posted in Acrylics


DMSS
04-09-2014, 09:08 AM
Baseball and Dumbbells. 9 x 12 inches. Fluid acrylics. C&C welcomed. What would make future paintings better? You might wish to read the thread I just posted here about what has been inspiring my journey lately. Thank you for looking and for your comments.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-Apr-2014/1351569-Bbdb1.jpg

artbymdp
04-09-2014, 09:25 AM
To offer valid advice, it would be helpful if you posted at least six to ten pieces. Without a body of work, it is difficult to determine if your approach is intentional and consistent. At face value, this painting is very two dimensional which may be intended based on your other thread. It also defies properties of light and perspective. Because the objects are so representational the work is more of a "na´ve" style rather than "abstract". Keep working at it and be sure to build off of each painting completed.

DMSS
04-09-2014, 02:21 PM
artbymdp: Thank you for looking and for your comments. This is the first piece I have painted along these lines, so I don't have others. I will post more as I make them. You are correct, I did intend the painting to be very 2-dimensional. I agree that the painting defies the properties of light and perspective, and I purposely painted it that way -- based on what I thought made for visual interest, without regard for whether that equates with visual reality -- but whether or not I succeeded at making a painting that works, is pleasing, is interesting-- that is a question. I like the painting, but I wonder whether one might find it too representational to work with the incongruous highlights, shadows and perspective.

artbymdp
04-09-2014, 02:58 PM
David, If a piece is highly representational, the viewer becomes aware, be it consciously or subconsciously, of its real life proportions, perspective and lighting. If you intentionally distort reality only slightly the image will simply appear off. If you exaggerate the incongruous elements while maintaining the other parts as representational you might be able to create a visual and quirky tension in the artwork. Just a thought.

davefriend
04-09-2014, 03:39 PM
David, If a piece is highly representational, the viewer becomes aware, be it consciously or subconsciously, of its real life proportions, perspective and lighting. If you intentionally distort reality only slightly the image will simply appear off. If you exaggerate the incongruous elements while maintaining the other parts as representational you might be able to create a visual and quirky tension in the artwork. Just a thought.I agree in that, when objects are identifiable, the left side of your brain will try to categorize them by comparing them to other similar objects on file there. The viewers brain is measuring your presentation against the others and if reality of an object is perceived the brain will either supply and correct any small irregularities and appreciate it or finding oddities (as compared with what the brain thinks that object SHOULD look like) pick apart those and reject the work.

When on the other hand you create a NEW object, such as through exaggeration or abstraction, one that is unlike other objects in the brains filing system you may be able to create a new file in the viewers brain because the new object needs to be investigated and cataloged - so the brain becomes engaged through its curiosity and switches from reliance on the the left brain's reality mode to the right brain imagination mode and that is where the fun begins for the abstract viewer.

Don't know if any of this is true but it is generally how I am understanding the process.

saje
04-09-2014, 05:15 PM
I agree in that, when objects are identifiable, the left side of your brain will try to categorize them by comparing them to other similar objects on file there. The viewers brain is measuring your presentation against the others and if reality of an object is perceived the brain will either supply and correct any small irregularities and appreciate it or finding oddities (as compared with what the brain thinks that object SHOULD look like) pick apart those and reject the work.

When on the other hand you create a NEW object, such as through exaggeration or abstraction, one that is unlike other objects in the brains filing system you may be able to create a new file in the viewers brain because the new object needs to be investigated and cataloged - so the brain becomes engaged through its curiosity and switches from reliance on the the left brain's reality mode to the right brain imagination mode and that is where the fun begins for the abstract viewer.

Don't know if any of this is true but it is generally how I am understanding the process.

Dave, artbymdp- I suggest this become a independent thread here. Does a pure abstraction become an identity or is it a non-attached beginning and end? Does one identifiable object within an abstraction distort the recognized object? Does the single identifiable object expand into something new with its surrounding abstraction?

DMSS
04-09-2014, 09:04 PM
Thank you for your comments. They are helpful.