Hey! It looks like you're new here. You might want to check out the introduction.
Show rules for this event
...But Not Through Glass
Fics
I'll be honest; I'm not exactly sure what's going on here, except for Philomena. You've tagged a lot of stories, but I just can't tell what those objects below Philomena are... One looks kinda like a flask to me, and the other looks like a monolith or something.
As for Philomena herself, it looks to me like it's from a photograph of a sewn-together image with felt or cotton? It's really neat, and I'd love to hear more about it once the round closes!
And if anyone can tell what's going on in the rest of the picture, please let me know, because I do feel kind of silly for not being able to figure it out.
Thank you for submitting!
As for Philomena herself, it looks to me like it's from a photograph of a sewn-together image with felt or cotton? It's really neat, and I'd love to hear more about it once the round closes!
And if anyone can tell what's going on in the rest of the picture, please let me know, because I do feel kind of silly for not being able to figure it out.
Thank you for submitting!
As >>Bachiavellian said, it feels like this piece was made out of cotton (or felt) and it is pretty cool. But I can't understand what anything is (besides Philomena), and I can't draw connections to the stories you have listed.
I'm assuming the design choice was to have the other objects be pretty vague, but there has to be a balance. For example, let's take the big green mound. I'm assuming it is the mountain from "Ascension", but that is just a shot in the dark. You could put a pony-like figure on top of the mountain to solve this, but "that makes it obvious". There would be a pretty easy fix for that. Change the color of the mound to brown with black patches, and have some clouds hang above it. Is it "Golden Oaks" or the mountain from "Ascension"?
Again, this assumption is drawn from how vague the objects were. The big lesson of art (and writing) is learning how to get the viewer (or reader) to correctly infer your intent behind the piece. Art is a story with pictures, so it is natural that the two share the same ideals.
Anyways (I was going on a tangent, but that was a very important point), I will restate I like the piece, but you should make it a little clearer. Abstraction pieces work better when you blur the lines between connected things. Instead of making you viewers wonder what an object is, make them wonder which interpretation is correct. (Blur the lines, don't obscure.)
I'm assuming the design choice was to have the other objects be pretty vague, but there has to be a balance. For example, let's take the big green mound. I'm assuming it is the mountain from "Ascension", but that is just a shot in the dark. You could put a pony-like figure on top of the mountain to solve this, but "that makes it obvious". There would be a pretty easy fix for that. Change the color of the mound to brown with black patches, and have some clouds hang above it. Is it "Golden Oaks" or the mountain from "Ascension"?
Again, this assumption is drawn from how vague the objects were. The big lesson of art (and writing) is learning how to get the viewer (or reader) to correctly infer your intent behind the piece. Art is a story with pictures, so it is natural that the two share the same ideals.
Anyways (I was going on a tangent, but that was a very important point), I will restate I like the piece, but you should make it a little clearer. Abstraction pieces work better when you blur the lines between connected things. Instead of making you viewers wonder what an object is, make them wonder which interpretation is correct. (Blur the lines, don't obscure.)
A broad gauge assemblage. I have a feeling that you will understand, Artist, when I say that openly blase salads confound retrieval of less than twenty disparative quidnuncs. The mighty eyes will suspect the avuncular cacophony, but even then one may stretch too many oyster shells, mayn’t one?
>>Bachiavellian, >>TerrusStokkr
…But Not Through Glass
I was hoping but not expecting that someone would get this one. (Where’s Fenton when you need him?) I had to do it, regardless.
When the prompt was selected, it instantly reminded me of Through Birds Through Fire But Not Through Glass, a work by the Surrealist painter Yves Tanguy. My inspiration became shaped by this coincidence.
I went through several different concepts, in decreasing complexity as the deadline loomed, and finally arrived at this piece, which was mostly digitally painted in Photoshop. Tanguy often included an obelisk in his landscapes, and so there is one in mine. Philomena was drawn in Illustrator and merged with the rest of the scene with Photoshop tools.
I was expecting that some author would include a reference to a phoenix, but I couldn’t find one, so I referenced a selection of fics and hoped to muddle through somehow. I apologize for any confusion.
See you all next round!
…But Not Through Glass
I was hoping but not expecting that someone would get this one. (Where’s Fenton when you need him?) I had to do it, regardless.
When the prompt was selected, it instantly reminded me of Through Birds Through Fire But Not Through Glass, a work by the Surrealist painter Yves Tanguy. My inspiration became shaped by this coincidence.
I went through several different concepts, in decreasing complexity as the deadline loomed, and finally arrived at this piece, which was mostly digitally painted in Photoshop. Tanguy often included an obelisk in his landscapes, and so there is one in mine. Philomena was drawn in Illustrator and merged with the rest of the scene with Photoshop tools.
I was expecting that some author would include a reference to a phoenix, but I couldn’t find one, so I referenced a selection of fics and hoped to muddle through somehow. I apologize for any confusion.
See you all next round!