Some inititial ideas on concept and critique.

Feb 19, 2009 22:21

By no means exhaustive, or definitive, this is something I was
told by abecat and, less formally, kamenkyote, both of whom ( Read more... )

concepts, art

Leave a comment

Comments 20

ranshire February 20 2009, 06:50:52 UTC
Oooo, that last one looks like a cluster galaxy. Preeeeeetty

[science geek mode off]

Reply

eselgeist February 20 2009, 06:55:58 UTC
That's one of the digital photo pieces by Chris Jordan. I point to his stuff in the post, check it out, it's terribly intense (and I suspect -vertigo inducing- in person).

Reply


noodlesandbeef February 20 2009, 07:11:34 UTC

... )

Reply

eselgeist February 20 2009, 07:35:33 UTC
you are a total art director :D

Reply

noodlesandbeef February 20 2009, 17:01:15 UTC
I wish there was a reality show for designers so I could be a snooty guest judge.

Reply


wannabeyote February 20 2009, 09:49:01 UTC
Guernica strikes me as somehow Hieronymus Bosch-ish, maybe because of all the symbolism in it. Though the title of "heir to Bosch" would better fit Dali, if bestowing such a title were useful.

Thank you for this post. It's interesting to see how art creation is perceived from the creator's perspective. As a creator of non-artsy stuff, the approach is very different: First comes function (driven by need/desire, that of the client that is), then comes design, which implements the function, then comes form - if you can afford form, or you even (have to) care.

Reply

eselgeist February 20 2009, 10:12:19 UTC
Then I'm afraid I wasn't clear.

What you describe as "function" -is- what is considered initially as concept. It is the "why". The rest of it, composition and color and so on, that's the design of it, and the form is technique, detailing and flourishes, the actual means and tools (pixels, pigments, codified marks, etc.)

I'm not sure where I might have suggested that you work in reverse of this method.

Reply

wannabeyote February 21 2009, 00:01:21 UTC
Ah, thank you for clarifying. I really like this formalized way of approaching creation ( ... )

Reply

eselgeist February 21 2009, 00:20:55 UTC
Optical contrast works exactly the way it does on your TV or computer monitor; it is the amount of different between light and dark. The highest contrast is between black and white.

Images with high contrast have lights and darks sharply delineated, this tends to describe line drawing, as well, as lines stand out in contrast to the background.

Images with low contrast tend to be murky or hazy (image on the left). Some pictures use this for atmospheric perspective.

Knowing how to use contrast helps support your composition; low contrast can push things in the background to the back, sharper contrast can be useful for describing where the light source is, and so on. High contrast is often used in animation (the so-called "cel shaded" look) to simplify shadows and forms to fewer colors to animate.

Reply


lutos February 20 2009, 11:07:44 UTC
Interesting post! And thank you for the link to Chris Jordan's work. I'm totally overwhelmed -well, shocked would be more appropriate- by the sheer amount of waste we produce in such a short time only. I knew it was bad, but this....aargh (vertigo of the perceptive faculty) X(

Reply


mikosquirrel February 20 2009, 14:58:41 UTC
I spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff, mostly in relation to music. One thing that makes me stay up all night rolling around sweating and grinding my teeth is music that begins and ends at 5.Technique, and how I hate hate hate it.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up