View Full Version : Flow 10

05-21-2008, 08:46 PM
C and C welcome





Thanks for looking

05-21-2008, 09:25 PM
I see birds and chickens.

05-21-2008, 09:34 PM
<grin> I was looking at it for a while and it became an allegory of the gods with the first image. How angar and power by force was superimposed over the top with the red, and then images of the gods giving energy to a figure in the bottom right under neath in the light blues. For me the images become quite complex. I can see how some of the automotists said they would hallucinate the images as others couldn't see what they did. I find the same for me. For me it told me a story of how underneath the human condition is a divine benevolence that is allways in love, no matter how we try to pervert it here. The madness is the illusion.

05-21-2008, 10:05 PM
i see scribbles lol :)

05-21-2008, 10:29 PM
Can you see into the scribbles, does the colore communicate with you?

05-21-2008, 11:35 PM
colors not the problem it looks like you used just one brush and not that much going on but a bit of business to me....and it doesn;t look like you spent much time with it.. see if you can't let one sit for a bit and then come back to it before starting a new one... it's an interesting experiment you got going but look for more... think detail or intricacy. or something that is not so single layered....

05-21-2008, 11:37 PM
For me it is not single layered. Thank you for letting me know your viewpoint. It helps me to understand how others see it.

05-21-2008, 11:57 PM
i've filled sketchbooks with just scribbles but it has led me to where i am with my work.. i would say think of what you are trying to convey and what image that isn't abstract would convey this and then find out how to draw and paint this... for me still life and figure drawing helped a lot especially with shading and lighting and three dimensionality and then go back into it or at the same time work back and forth if you can between realism and abstraction

05-22-2008, 12:04 AM
I am not so interested in three dimensionality as multiple dimensionality. I see them differently.

05-22-2008, 12:10 AM
i don;t want to pick on you or anything but i went through all that... it sounds like maybe you read too many books on surrealism... and your maybe reading too much into them or taking them too literally.. i don;t know all i have to say is keep it up,, i'm sure if you stick with it you'll have a breakthrough.. just my advice :)

05-22-2008, 04:14 AM
I have to agree deeply with timE, we had once a similair discursion about quickies, remember. You show as you have a deep filosophy about your paintings, but for me will stay all superficial, when was made so fast...you don't really let time for you to seek ...


05-22-2008, 06:37 PM
First it was shapes. Then it became lines. Now it is about speed. Pollock would also do a painting in a day. I have seen performance pieces done in less than ten minutes. It is amazing that most art I see I find the underpainting far more interesting than the finished piece. I find the gesture more interesting than a photorealism most times. In obscurity there is more. And I have been told to shut up by the WC guide. To continue the art of speaking and saying nothing. The art world is great at that. There is so much out there that is boring for me. I feel either someone is able to engage with a peice or they are not. There is no point in convincing someone who doesn't like abstracts to engage in one for example. Those that 'see' enjoy my work for the most part. Or at least get something out of it. Those that see a colore field and series of shapes or lines don't for the most part. I don't enjoy the bla bla of those that want to take the theory out of art. Those that want to see paint for paint. Those that want to separate the viewer and object into a superficial 'physical' box. There is so much more than that. Your Bla Bla is srrounded around getting rid of what you call Bla Bla. Mind you some of the professors out there that are inodated by it every day probably don't want to hear any more of it due to pure overload and what is probably now tediousness. For me I don't want to separate theory from the art. Art gives me something to talk about, and talking about it gives me more to paint about. One theory has just been exchanged for another. Theory exchanged for composition alone. Anyway, that is my rant for today. I think the artist has done a lot of work trying to take themselves out of the picure when It comes to how the oserver observes the object. For me it is the matrix that is being experienced.

05-22-2008, 06:58 PM
timE started such a good thread, regarding abstract/contempory art prior to the WC server collapse, which is now lost. But pertinent to this thread. Pollock was a very accomplished realist prior to deciding that since no one was buying his work he would throw paint at them (well on the floor on the canvas) in much the manner Whistler was libelled with for his Noctures and he consequently took the accusers to court. I think ThreeWolves Flow experiments are currently forgettable in themselves but are a step on his journey which may be to a place really worth going. His 'figures' series that I saw were amazing in their complexity so I think something will happen with the Flow series and we should be patient for a bit longer. Plus he is psychic - and admits it - very rare! :)

05-22-2008, 08:15 PM
Interesting Idea. Mabey I will try merging my figures with the abstract. I don't have any models so I will have to wing it. At least it will give the average person something to put their hooks into.

05-22-2008, 08:41 PM
I do see progress with the flows and i would say your little spat is proof that you are relying too much on theory and not enough on painting..... Yes i do agree that there will probably be a breakthrough at some point and i have said this but maybe something someone here says will be the epiphany needed and i owe it to threewolves to speak my mind... and maybe merging with the figures is that epiphany,,, unfortunately i arrived late to the game... winging is what surrealism abstract is all about... i'm sure dali didn't always use models for his figures..... but he wasn't about to scribble and be done with it.. are you sure pollock only spent one day one his paintings and controlled dripping is a little more interesting and happens faster than brushwork sometimes .... if he did spend one day i would think it was probably one whole day.....not just a few hours...you could be onto something with speed but i would suggest changing brushes every once in a while.. give it some variety.....when i do my automatic drawings, i go fast for the block in and original work in and then what comes after could be as realistic as anything but i don;t stop at that first stage.. i don't settle for purely automatic matrixes... etc ....

05-22-2008, 09:38 PM
Thank you for your ohnest opinion.