|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:25 pm
ALRIGHT.
FIRST READ THIS:
DO NOT LOOK AT THIS PICTURE AND SAY IT IS "JUST A PICTURE OF A HOUSE WITH A TREE ON A SUNNY DAY" BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF THIS.
I PAINTED THIS WITH A COMPUTER PROGRAM.
I DID IT ON JUNE 28TH, 2005
IT IS TITLED RED HOUSE WITH BLUE DOOR
IT IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS "SEMI-ABSTRACT"
WHICH MEANS, THE LINES AND THE FIGURES SYMBOLIZE SOMETHING.
BUT WHAT EXACTLY IT MAY SYMBOLIZE, MEAN, OR WHAT EMOTIONS MAY DEVELOP FROM IT DEPEND ON THE VIEWER. WHICH IS WHY I AM MAKING THIS TOPIC. SO SAY WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU OR MAKES YOU FEEL OR BOTH. THERE IS NO WRONG ANSWER. JUST DONT SAY ITS A HOUSE WITH A TREE, PLEASE. THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR ^^
IM CURRENTLY STUDYING ART, MAINLY ABSTRACT AND SEMI-ABSTRACT AND WELL. THIS IS MY FIRST ACTUAL WORK OF ART. I HOPE YOU ENJOY IT ^^
NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION:
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:41 pm
The simplicity of it kind of bothers me, so I can't really drag much meaning out of it? ;|
It kind of reminds me of one of those summer days when I used to run around outside with my friends and we'd go into a field, and there'd always be a beaten down old shack somewhere off in the distance none of us ever dared to go into.
Cept it was brown and stuff.
Sokbye. heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:28 pm
Alright, this is my third attempt at posting this, before Gaia eats it by logging me out, or my computer turns of because of a bloody restart to complete an update.
Maikun was in the right vein, when he mentioned it was reminiscent of childhood, or at least the experiences of childhood. Many a person would agree that this semi-abstract expressionist image would be considered simplistic, or even overdone. However, as with any art you should think through what is being asked and what is being expressed, because despite it being easy to make, another may not have the same impact, whether it be subjective or inherently there for the average person to see.
red text unless you want to see me tear the thing apart.>
For starters, it resembles the art of children and so-called primitive art, which has come back in swing in the postmodern time. Emphasis is put on flatness, that is: a) a lack of depth or illusionary space and b) complete flatness of the surface of the physical thing; as well as making things partially or fully unrecognizable. Instead of making things three-dimensional, they convey the aspects of each item in terms they can understand. The sun has warm rays; the tree has leaves and a trunk (but no reachable branches to speak of); the house must have a roof, at least two walls to support the roof, and the third is just there because you need to put the door on something and no windows at all; the flower needs a stem and a blossom; the sky covers all. As well, the colour have been simplifed to the basic six (brown is a neutralized orange) and shapes to a mere three.
Despite it looking flat, due to the thick outlines, mostly single value colours, and lack of overlapping, it still achieves depth with it's colours. The most obvious is the use of red and green, which are usually in a very violent love-hate contrast relationship with each other. The house is unnaturally red, and the environment protests with its vibrant green, a very poignant image of how honest art can be. Though the shapes of the roof and the ground line pattern are similar, it's obvious the house doesn't quite belong, heated by it's most intensely warm neighbour, the sun. Still, it tries to connect to the outdoors, only just barely able to hold on with the very blue-purple door, as if hinting that the inside of the house is actually kept cool.
The second contrast is between the house door and the sun. Given that we are told it's a blue door, and we get a blue-purple door, it's safe to say that, whether intended or not, we are facing the side of the house in shadow. It's as if the house is protecting it's cooler interior from the sun. Though the jarring thing is that none of the objects cast shadows on the ground lending to a bit of the strangeness.
The most subtle contrast is between the brown of the tree and the blue of the sky. It pushes the tree forward and away from the sky, but not enough to defeat the large red house, so it remains behind the house, but in front of the sun. As well the trunk tapers at the top, making it a towering, almost foreboding, tree. Further more, as one of the major objects in the composition it has been reduced to very squarish parts, which, along with the house and ground (triangles), make very aggressive and rough shapes, as if pushing the sun, the only source of light and a strongly round (see: calming) shape, into the corner as if it's not important, until it does actually disappear.
If you're still reading this, I commend you.
A rule of the thumb I usually use on art and media is a rule of thirds, where you divide the image into three vertically and horizontally, and the four points of intersection will likely have something important near it. If you do that, given that the items take up quite a bit of room in this work, they are quite obvious. The sun, the top and bottom of the tree and the door of the house. Maybe it's a reference to the title, or even takes some puzzling out on your own, but personally I seem to use a lot of anatomical analogies. Through that light, a grotesque face pops out, with a gaping mouth where the house once was, and a gouged eye spewing something or other out. As inviting as it may seem at face value, one can't help but admit there is something sinister or at least off-kilter about the whole world in the picture.
My conclusion is that it can be both a child's perfect day or their worst nightmare, but ends up stuck somewhere between the two. Perfect in that it has everything a child with a very simple idea of life would imagine as a utopia, and yet it's fairly empty if you think about it. You can only count four or five things in it, and even then they're all alone and isolated from each other. Other than the plant life, there is nothing living there, it's completely lifeless. The bold lines try to keep everything separate, as if a bit of the adult mentality has leaked in, starting to organize, while still fighting it by making things jagged or letting colour go outside their boundaries. It's pretty weird and frightening for such a tiny thing if you think about it long and hard.
So perhaps for the people that take it at face value, it seems pleasant enough, but the overanalytical among us will find something more bizarre.
It was much better written the first time through, and I apologize for the length, but it's those damned class critiques where you grab hold of anything and everything you can think of so you don't end up embarassing yourself. Make sure to tell me if you find any holes or contradictions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:56 pm
OH DARRYLE! how happy you make me ^_^ but we over this already... im not sure y im even posting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:32 pm
It creeps me out. Honestly.
Did you ever see a movie called The Paper House? Well, it's like the house she drew. On the outside, it looks all innocent, but, like Keithing said, there's something sinister about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:21 am
Kaporie OH DARRYLE! how happy you make me ^_^ but we over this already... im not sure y im even posting. Heyyy Kapo. That new pic you posted in the pic thread is kinda hot. Know what else is pretty hot? Proper English. xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:39 am
Oh let him be Vague, we all know what he is saying...anyway...I like it I think it's cute but to be brutally honest I don't think it impacts for good or for bad. My appreciation for it is found in it's simplicity and it's youthfulness(I couldn't draw that way if I tried anymore), but it doesn't hold a deep ulterior meaning to me, it looks like a cute piece of artwork you'd see on a piece of stationary or gift wrap, I'm sorry if this offends you, I don't think it's bad at all, I just don't personally see any tangible depth. sweatdrop please don't hate me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:54 am
SeraphiceAngel Oh let him be Vague, we all know what he is saying... Well, it was meant as a lighthearted jab. I don't want to turn this into a big debate (especially in Tak's thread) and scare the little guy away, but proper English IS part of the rules. Plus, if you know what he's saying 100% of the time, you've sure got one up on me. As for the picture, I can't decide what it says to me... I'm drawn to the other patch of dark blue...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:02 am
Is the faded look important? I mean, it is faded, right? That's not just me or my monitor, is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:04 am
TuffGhost Is the faded look important? I mean, it is faded, right? That's not just me or my monitor, is it? No I get the same kinda "film" over it too, I guess it's suppossed to be the sunlight fading it kinda, at least that's my interpretation or maybe it's just a glitch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:12 am
Tak, I really don't think anyone besides someone who has studied art can tell you what it means to them, because most people don't think abstract..ly. Now, something that everyone can reply to is "WTF do you think this picture is?" .. And I meant that in no way to hijack this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:37 am
TuffGhost It creeps me out. Honestly. Did you ever see a movie called The Paper House? Well, it's like the house she drew. On the outside, it looks all innocent, but, like Keithing said, there's something sinister about it.
Sorry Keithing I don't have the patience to read all of that just now.
What does "OH DARRYLE" mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:00 am
Wow, Keith. You are so right about the face.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:06 pm
Nios TuffGhost It creeps me out. Honestly. Did you ever see a movie called The Paper House? Well, it's like the house she drew. On the outside, it looks all innocent, but, like Keithing said, there's something sinister about it. Maybe I should watch that, then again I couldn't even handle some graphic descriptions of Clockwork Orange, so I'm not too sure. Nios Sorry Keithing I don't have the patience to read all of that just now. What does "OH DARRYLE" mean? That's all right, I knew most people would have the same reaction, so I did made it a point to make a summary of what I thought at the end in red. And I think Kapo was trying to sound out "Darryl," which I think is -Tak-, and I think Tak showed this to a few people before us to ask their thoughts. I'm guessing Kapo was one of them. Astri Wow, Keith. You are so right about the face. That took me a while to see. I guess after typing the whole damn thing out three times and staring at the picture for almost an hour, things pop out. People are taking art too superficially nowadays. The "oh, that's nice" or "how pretty." Sure, we can make pretty things or some wall adornment, but not all artists are here simply to make things that are just pure fluff. The greatest insult is probably to admire in passing and walk away. As ridiculous as the stereotypical image of the art critic standing still in front of a piece is, it actually works, given that you're open to what the person is trying to say and that they've done their job well. If it fails to give you something interesting to think about, then move on. ...Hmm, so much for avoiding art activism. confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:25 pm
TuffGhost Is the faded look important? I mean, it is faded, right? That's not just me or my monitor, is it? I must have forgotten to note that in the final version. I thought, if anything, the use of a faded, almost pastel, values (the variations of the colour) for all the colours heightened the tension in the viewer's mind. The things I mentioned would be all too obvious if they were left at the values and intensity that we're use to seeing, but faded and partially disguised as a dream-like quality your eye gets distracted from seeing it entirely. It's like a dense fog on a cliff, unless you know what's there already, you may never know what hit you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[Q]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/23/15/1f06246f41523_flip.png?t=1465986572_6.00_11)
