Mini Art Spam + Meme
Despite my radio silence, I have actually been fairly productive these last couple of weeks (also, Tumblr. What can I say? Everything is visual and bite-sized over there. I've already gone over my data plan for my work phone this month because of break time browsing. My boss is going to shit when he gets that bill XD). Since getting my new computer and reuniting with digital art, I've actually been arting nearly every day! I've been playing with new programs, new styles, new brushes and pushing myself in ways that I haven't had the urge to in a Very Long Time.
It's been rather exciting.
This week's offerings:
For the sensational starpanties:
For the lovely lallyloo
Still in process, for the luscious ladyblahblah
How not to unload groceries with Dani
SOMEDAY I WILL NOT SUCK AT INKING with Sherlock and John
(Click on pictures to see larger version at DA.)
Then the loquacious laria_gwyn offered up an intriguing meme (along with tasty, tasty Tony Stark/Bruce Wayne fic recs!) which got me to write more than a three line reaction to pictures of pretty men (NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT)
Comment to this post with RENNER'S GUNS, and I will list seven things I want you to talk about. They might make sense or they might be totally random. Then post that list, with your commentary, to your journal. Other people can get lists from you, and the meme merrily perpetuates itself.
She gave me: artistic license, cheese, coffee beans, John Watson, France, redshirts, robots
artistic license - oh, wow, that's a heady leader, isn't it?
Art is art, I'm not willing to draw lines between what qualifies as art and what doesn't. If whoever made it believes it's art, then it is art. If whoever is viewing it believes it's art, then that's art too. (Is it good art, on the other hand? That's a matter of taste, and I am full of opinions on that XD) I will never tell somebody that they aren't allowed to do something. I think it was Voltaire who said, "I may not agree with everything you say, but I will fight to my last breath to defend your right to say it." and that's pretty much my view on artistic license: Fill your boots.
My only caveat to that is awareness. (Caveat may be too strong, suggestion perhaps?) I think most great art comes from a place of active thought and consciousness--it's difficult to subvert expectations and take license if you don't know what you're changing, or aren't aware of the impacts. I'm not saying that it can't be done and done well, but it's a lot harder to take something in a new direction if you have no idea where you're picking up from.
To illustrate (lol) - think about anatomy. Not all bodies are created equal, but there is a certain logic to how they are assembled, how they fit together and how they work. If your background in anatomy is strong, any conscious tweaking that takes place will be more effective and appealing. If, like Rodin, you want to exaggerate the length of the arms and the hunch of the shoulders to create a stronger sense of shame, then having a background in anatomy will inform this license to make the sculpture still read as a plausible human representation instead of creating a gorilla horror.
If, however, your sense of anatomy is not particularly solid (and yeah, I can throw myself in here too. I spent too much time learning faces to be comfortable with the rest of the human body. I'm working on it!) then any changes made will appear as accidents and your figures could come off as poorly constructed and jarring, and the experience becomes less about what you've done and are trying to say and more about what's been done wrong.
Again, I'm not saying that knowing everything about everything before doing anything is required before you can use artistic license, but having a sense of the background and history of what you're changing can only improve your work and make your changes easier to "sell". It can also better inform you on how to present it.
If for example, you're doing an AU image of Erik Lensherr... knowing his history and about the Holocaust might better prepare you for the backlash if you oh, I don't know, decide to put him in an SS uniform?
(For literary license, you can usually tell which authors are talking out of their butts and which actually did the research. The researched stories tend to feel richer and more complete. You can, of course, err in the opposite direction and infodump your way into losing a reader's interest, but that's another essay :D )
cheese - I refer to my lactose intolerance as "cheese disease" because I've never liked milk and cheesecake was the first thing I had to lose when my sensitivity increased. GREAT IS MY SORROW. I also used to snack on brie and grapes, but circumstances changed so I now have a debilitating phobia of grapes on the vine (Spiders. ON MY FACE) as well as lactose intolerance, so that's been pretty much stricken from the record. *shudder*
coffee beans - I hold the humble coffee bean up as a perfect example of human ingenuity. At some point in history, somebody realized that if they take the seed from a berry, roast it, grind it and brew it, you create the most remarkable and delicious of all beverages. HOW DO YOU ARRIVE AT THAT CONCLUSION? I can see trying to eat them, that makes sense. It's shiny and red, let's taste it! But what actually triggered the process of adding fire and water to make it into a drink? I just, I don't, I can't... what?? #mindblown
John Watson - my totally reasonable, under control crush on Martin Freeman aside, John Watson (particularly, but not AT ALL limited to BBC Sherlock's interpretation) is one of my favourite characters (and narrative devices). Sherlock Holmes is amazing, and could be interpreted as a cautionary tale on the perils of too much intellect, but he's larger-than-life, turned up to 11, etc... It would be very easy to make him a one-note hero - the Genius Detective and leave it at that. But John Watson's presence humanizes Sherlock, forces him to show his work (thus avoiding feeling Deus Ex and instead allowing us to delight in his cleverness along with John) and through him we get glimpses of what it really means to be a genius, or to take it a step further, what it is to be an outsider.
The evolution of their relationship is one of the most beautiful examples of love, platonic or otherwise, in any media. A lot of John's appeal stems from a longing for a Watson of our own. For myself, I don't relate to people very well. I can fake it when I need to, but my most meaningful relationships have always been with the people who can filter the world for me and provide the subtitles without judgement. John's willingness to accept Sherlock as is, while acting as the interpreter and the anchor and the constant through all of the chaos of existence is a remarkable show of loyalty, devotion and love. And yeah, I want me some of that. Who doesn't?
As a character, John's defining trait is that he's solid. He may seem ordinary, but it's only really in comparison with Sherlock. He's a soldier and a doctor and a good man. He is not ashamed to be examined, deduced and solved because he knows who and what he is and he is at peace with that. Seriously, that level of self-assurance only comes with rigorous reflection, clarity and the ability to be brutally honest with yourself. Think zen masters and Batman. His personality is strong enough that he can stand beside Sherlock Holmes without being subsumed by him. He can shoot a gun, perform emergency surgery and he will remember to pick up the milk and check the sell-by date. If it weren't for Sherlock Holmes's towering intellect and overwhelming personality, I could almost be describing a Gary Stu. But it's John motherfucking Watson, yo. Shit will be handled, tea will be served and then maybe, if you're lucky, he'll tell you the story.
<3
France - The problem with talking about France isn't so much "what do I say" but "where do I start".
France is fascinating. A study in extremes and largess. It was the epicenter for the Age of Enlightenment. Most of my favourite art and artists hail from France (Rodin, Matisse, je t'adore!!). Ditto philosophy (Descartes? Voltaire?) Its military has changed the map on five continents. Charles De Gaulle's cry to "Vive le Quebec libre" was a key impetus for the FLQ crisis, the largest terrorist act in modern Canadian history. The prevalent racism that informs its immigration policies is disgusting. Its wines still set the standards for quality and complexity around the world.
I've been to Paris and smoked cigarettes at a sidewalk cafe, I've wandered amongst centuries-old bones in the catacombs, I've overloaded my art intake at the Louvre and I've gotten so drunk off red wine that I giggled and capered at the top of the Eiffel Tower. That was one day. One city.
I can't wait to go back and see more.
redshirts - ah, disposable characters, by any other name would you still die so sweet? Guaranteed landing party fatalities aside, redshirts are my favouritest favourite of division classes in the Trek Universe. Two words: Engineering Porn.
(NGL, I have a bit of an engineering kink. In a perfect world made of nothing but money and I time, I would be have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering and be working in the aviation industry as a destructive aircraft tester. Essentially, for every new airplane design, there are prototypes built for the sole purpose of testing its limits and figuring out where it breaks. This is DREAM JOB.)
Theoretical sciences are great. Amazing, innovative, making sense of the Universe and all of that. But the really cool stuff happens when you apply it, which is the basic definition of an engineer.
Take Scotty (YES PLEASE, LET ME LOVE YOU) - he's the best of both worlds. Not only did he figure out the theory behind transwarp beaming--a feat which I am reliably informed involved a lot of higher, Vulcan-level math--but he also uses the knowledge to improve the engines until they can suck out more power from the warp core at the highest possible efficiency to create whatever miracle that madman Kirk needs on any given day. That, my friends? Is a BAMF. The kind of man that knows what the setting after "kill" looks like. Who can whip up a perfect batch of scotch with a copper tube and an air regulator. Who can exploit a theoretical glitch that can all but destroy the most rigorous test in the entire Starfleet Academy curriculum.
I've also got a longstanding attraction to the philosophy of distilling something to its simplest form. My favourite art is gestural almost to the point of abstraction. I think that if you can convey energy, gravity, and a sense of movement with one less stroke it shows greater mastery and understanding of your subject than a million fussy, picture-perfect lines.
Simple, elegant, alive:
contrast with fussy, static, stiff:
Ditto for text. Ask the poor saps that I've beta read for, I'm always looking for clearer, sharper, more concise ways to tell the story. I am in awe of people that can cram a story into 100 words or less. Bruce Sterling's entry to Six Word stories, for example, still leaves me wibbly.
Considering the pinnacle of engineering is reached not when there is nothing more to add, but when there's nothing left to take away [Antoine de Saint-Exupery], is it any wonder that I love the redshirts best?
On a less lofty, more primal note: the redshirts in Star Trek are the grunts of the fleet. They're the ones crawling through the access panels, adjusting the cooling cores, greasing the gaskets and working up a nice, healthy sweat. In coveralls. The arms of which can be loosened and tied about the waist, exposing that tight-fitted undershirt that stretches just so across their chests. Maybe it lifts up and shows a flash of clean skin at the base of their spine when they move to wipe the sweat from their brow. Maybe it just clings, offering a teasing outline of muscle tone and curves so that you can picture the underlying structure with almost perfect clarity, but can only guess at the surface details. Or, maybe, it's not there at all...
Rawr. >:3
I rest my case
robots - To be brief (because it appears at this point I really, really should XD) : Asimov.
(and I really like the idea that the machine is more a reflection of the creator, it's like a self portrait in gears and programming and another brilliant example of human ingenuity)
(Also: Dummy)
(My first robot memory was a piggy-bank Robbie the Robot that use to light up and whirr and swallow coins. I loved that thing until he broke and the fifteen dollars in change was spent on ice cream and candy that was ingested in solemn tribute. Really.)
(I also had a Teddy Ruxpin, which freaked me the fuck out until I realized that it made a handy bludgeon and I could get my cousin back for chewing the asses out of my My Little Ponies.)
(OK, OK, shutting up now)
Other good things that bear mentioning: I am finished school and am now the proud owner of a Project Management Certificate (that I need to decide what I want to do with). I have taken steps to finally (FINALLY) start fixing my house. This time next week I will be on a plane to DC to hang out with my charming cheesecake of cheer and together we will see Richard Dawkins, Bad Religion, a Mythbuster, and various YouTube personalities at the rally for reason and then attend the humanist conference! After that, I'm on way to Seattle to hang out with suchthefangirl and flail over Sherlock and the Avengers at bitchinparty!
It's been rather exciting.
This week's offerings:
For the sensational starpanties:
For the lovely lallyloo
Still in process, for the luscious ladyblahblah
How not to unload groceries with Dani
SOMEDAY I WILL NOT SUCK AT INKING with Sherlock and John
(Click on pictures to see larger version at DA.)
Then the loquacious laria_gwyn offered up an intriguing meme (along with tasty, tasty Tony Stark/Bruce Wayne fic recs!) which got me to write more than a three line reaction to pictures of pretty men (NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT)
Comment to this post with RENNER'S GUNS, and I will list seven things I want you to talk about. They might make sense or they might be totally random. Then post that list, with your commentary, to your journal. Other people can get lists from you, and the meme merrily perpetuates itself.
She gave me: artistic license, cheese, coffee beans, John Watson, France, redshirts, robots
artistic license - oh, wow, that's a heady leader, isn't it?
Art is art, I'm not willing to draw lines between what qualifies as art and what doesn't. If whoever made it believes it's art, then it is art. If whoever is viewing it believes it's art, then that's art too. (Is it good art, on the other hand? That's a matter of taste, and I am full of opinions on that XD) I will never tell somebody that they aren't allowed to do something. I think it was Voltaire who said, "I may not agree with everything you say, but I will fight to my last breath to defend your right to say it." and that's pretty much my view on artistic license: Fill your boots.
My only caveat to that is awareness. (Caveat may be too strong, suggestion perhaps?) I think most great art comes from a place of active thought and consciousness--it's difficult to subvert expectations and take license if you don't know what you're changing, or aren't aware of the impacts. I'm not saying that it can't be done and done well, but it's a lot harder to take something in a new direction if you have no idea where you're picking up from.
To illustrate (lol) - think about anatomy. Not all bodies are created equal, but there is a certain logic to how they are assembled, how they fit together and how they work. If your background in anatomy is strong, any conscious tweaking that takes place will be more effective and appealing. If, like Rodin, you want to exaggerate the length of the arms and the hunch of the shoulders to create a stronger sense of shame, then having a background in anatomy will inform this license to make the sculpture still read as a plausible human representation instead of creating a gorilla horror.
If, however, your sense of anatomy is not particularly solid (and yeah, I can throw myself in here too. I spent too much time learning faces to be comfortable with the rest of the human body. I'm working on it!) then any changes made will appear as accidents and your figures could come off as poorly constructed and jarring, and the experience becomes less about what you've done and are trying to say and more about what's been done wrong.
Again, I'm not saying that knowing everything about everything before doing anything is required before you can use artistic license, but having a sense of the background and history of what you're changing can only improve your work and make your changes easier to "sell". It can also better inform you on how to present it.
If for example, you're doing an AU image of Erik Lensherr... knowing his history and about the Holocaust might better prepare you for the backlash if you oh, I don't know, decide to put him in an SS uniform?
(For literary license, you can usually tell which authors are talking out of their butts and which actually did the research. The researched stories tend to feel richer and more complete. You can, of course, err in the opposite direction and infodump your way into losing a reader's interest, but that's another essay :D )
cheese - I refer to my lactose intolerance as "cheese disease" because I've never liked milk and cheesecake was the first thing I had to lose when my sensitivity increased. GREAT IS MY SORROW. I also used to snack on brie and grapes, but circumstances changed so I now have a debilitating phobia of grapes on the vine (Spiders. ON MY FACE) as well as lactose intolerance, so that's been pretty much stricken from the record. *shudder*
coffee beans - I hold the humble coffee bean up as a perfect example of human ingenuity. At some point in history, somebody realized that if they take the seed from a berry, roast it, grind it and brew it, you create the most remarkable and delicious of all beverages. HOW DO YOU ARRIVE AT THAT CONCLUSION? I can see trying to eat them, that makes sense. It's shiny and red, let's taste it! But what actually triggered the process of adding fire and water to make it into a drink? I just, I don't, I can't... what?? #mindblown
John Watson - my totally reasonable, under control crush on Martin Freeman aside, John Watson (particularly, but not AT ALL limited to BBC Sherlock's interpretation) is one of my favourite characters (and narrative devices). Sherlock Holmes is amazing, and could be interpreted as a cautionary tale on the perils of too much intellect, but he's larger-than-life, turned up to 11, etc... It would be very easy to make him a one-note hero - the Genius Detective and leave it at that. But John Watson's presence humanizes Sherlock, forces him to show his work (thus avoiding feeling Deus Ex and instead allowing us to delight in his cleverness along with John) and through him we get glimpses of what it really means to be a genius, or to take it a step further, what it is to be an outsider.
The evolution of their relationship is one of the most beautiful examples of love, platonic or otherwise, in any media. A lot of John's appeal stems from a longing for a Watson of our own. For myself, I don't relate to people very well. I can fake it when I need to, but my most meaningful relationships have always been with the people who can filter the world for me and provide the subtitles without judgement. John's willingness to accept Sherlock as is, while acting as the interpreter and the anchor and the constant through all of the chaos of existence is a remarkable show of loyalty, devotion and love. And yeah, I want me some of that. Who doesn't?
As a character, John's defining trait is that he's solid. He may seem ordinary, but it's only really in comparison with Sherlock. He's a soldier and a doctor and a good man. He is not ashamed to be examined, deduced and solved because he knows who and what he is and he is at peace with that. Seriously, that level of self-assurance only comes with rigorous reflection, clarity and the ability to be brutally honest with yourself. Think zen masters and Batman. His personality is strong enough that he can stand beside Sherlock Holmes without being subsumed by him. He can shoot a gun, perform emergency surgery and he will remember to pick up the milk and check the sell-by date. If it weren't for Sherlock Holmes's towering intellect and overwhelming personality, I could almost be describing a Gary Stu. But it's John motherfucking Watson, yo. Shit will be handled, tea will be served and then maybe, if you're lucky, he'll tell you the story.
<3
France - The problem with talking about France isn't so much "what do I say" but "where do I start".
France is fascinating. A study in extremes and largess. It was the epicenter for the Age of Enlightenment. Most of my favourite art and artists hail from France (Rodin, Matisse, je t'adore!!). Ditto philosophy (Descartes? Voltaire?) Its military has changed the map on five continents. Charles De Gaulle's cry to "Vive le Quebec libre" was a key impetus for the FLQ crisis, the largest terrorist act in modern Canadian history. The prevalent racism that informs its immigration policies is disgusting. Its wines still set the standards for quality and complexity around the world.
I've been to Paris and smoked cigarettes at a sidewalk cafe, I've wandered amongst centuries-old bones in the catacombs, I've overloaded my art intake at the Louvre and I've gotten so drunk off red wine that I giggled and capered at the top of the Eiffel Tower. That was one day. One city.
I can't wait to go back and see more.
redshirts - ah, disposable characters, by any other name would you still die so sweet? Guaranteed landing party fatalities aside, redshirts are my favouritest favourite of division classes in the Trek Universe. Two words: Engineering Porn.
(NGL, I have a bit of an engineering kink. In a perfect world made of nothing but money and I time, I would be have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering and be working in the aviation industry as a destructive aircraft tester. Essentially, for every new airplane design, there are prototypes built for the sole purpose of testing its limits and figuring out where it breaks. This is DREAM JOB.)
Theoretical sciences are great. Amazing, innovative, making sense of the Universe and all of that. But the really cool stuff happens when you apply it, which is the basic definition of an engineer.
Take Scotty (YES PLEASE, LET ME LOVE YOU) - he's the best of both worlds. Not only did he figure out the theory behind transwarp beaming--a feat which I am reliably informed involved a lot of higher, Vulcan-level math--but he also uses the knowledge to improve the engines until they can suck out more power from the warp core at the highest possible efficiency to create whatever miracle that madman Kirk needs on any given day. That, my friends? Is a BAMF. The kind of man that knows what the setting after "kill" looks like. Who can whip up a perfect batch of scotch with a copper tube and an air regulator. Who can exploit a theoretical glitch that can all but destroy the most rigorous test in the entire Starfleet Academy curriculum.
I've also got a longstanding attraction to the philosophy of distilling something to its simplest form. My favourite art is gestural almost to the point of abstraction. I think that if you can convey energy, gravity, and a sense of movement with one less stroke it shows greater mastery and understanding of your subject than a million fussy, picture-perfect lines.
Simple, elegant, alive:
contrast with fussy, static, stiff:
Ditto for text. Ask the poor saps that I've beta read for, I'm always looking for clearer, sharper, more concise ways to tell the story. I am in awe of people that can cram a story into 100 words or less. Bruce Sterling's entry to Six Word stories, for example, still leaves me wibbly.
Considering the pinnacle of engineering is reached not when there is nothing more to add, but when there's nothing left to take away [Antoine de Saint-Exupery], is it any wonder that I love the redshirts best?
On a less lofty, more primal note: the redshirts in Star Trek are the grunts of the fleet. They're the ones crawling through the access panels, adjusting the cooling cores, greasing the gaskets and working up a nice, healthy sweat. In coveralls. The arms of which can be loosened and tied about the waist, exposing that tight-fitted undershirt that stretches just so across their chests. Maybe it lifts up and shows a flash of clean skin at the base of their spine when they move to wipe the sweat from their brow. Maybe it just clings, offering a teasing outline of muscle tone and curves so that you can picture the underlying structure with almost perfect clarity, but can only guess at the surface details. Or, maybe, it's not there at all...
Rawr. >:3
I rest my case
robots - To be brief (because it appears at this point I really, really should XD) : Asimov.
(and I really like the idea that the machine is more a reflection of the creator, it's like a self portrait in gears and programming and another brilliant example of human ingenuity)
(Also: Dummy)
(My first robot memory was a piggy-bank Robbie the Robot that use to light up and whirr and swallow coins. I loved that thing until he broke and the fifteen dollars in change was spent on ice cream and candy that was ingested in solemn tribute. Really.)
(I also had a Teddy Ruxpin, which freaked me the fuck out until I realized that it made a handy bludgeon and I could get my cousin back for chewing the asses out of my My Little Ponies.)
(OK, OK, shutting up now)
Other good things that bear mentioning: I am finished school and am now the proud owner of a Project Management Certificate (that I need to decide what I want to do with). I have taken steps to finally (FINALLY) start fixing my house. This time next week I will be on a plane to DC to hang out with my charming cheesecake of cheer and together we will see Richard Dawkins, Bad Religion, a Mythbuster, and various YouTube personalities at the rally for reason and then attend the humanist conference! After that, I'm on way to Seattle to hang out with suchthefangirl and flail over Sherlock and the Avengers at bitchinparty!