Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/6/08 02:39 PM, MiddleFingerRings wrote:
That's not what I heard... My art teacher always said he just splashed on canvas in a way that represented his emotions... While drunk. Yes, he was often incredibly drunk while art-making.

Who isn't drunk when making art? Is there another way to do art?

At 2/6/08 02:39 PM, MiddleFingerRings wrote:

At 2/5/08 09:11 PM, BlackmarketKraig wrote: ..::abstract art::..

Jackson Pollock was incredible. His paintings create complex mathematical fractals that other artists have failed to do. He really labored over his paintings and wasn't just splashing paint as it appears.

That's not what I heard... My art teacher always said he just splashed on canvas in a way that represented his emotions... While drunk. Yes, he was often incredibly drunk while art-making.

Sounds about right. One famous Pollock has some ashes from the cigarette he was smoking on the canvas, and another (possibly the same) has a cockroach trapped in the paint. So no, not laboring over the paintings, but there was work involved.

*hijack* Mondrian is probably a good example of modern art that took effort, knowledge of principles, and open-mindedness. He is now our prime example.

At 2/6/08 02:39 PM, MiddleFingerRings wrote:

That's not what I heard... My art teacher always said he just splashed on canvas in a way that represented his emotions... While drunk. Yes, he was often incredibly drunk while art-making.

I visited Pollock's old house on an art trip many years ago, and I remember them saying something like that, just in a much more euphemistic way. I have learned to appreciate art more and more as I take more art history classes, but still can't get into his style, its just too crazy.

At 2/6/08 01:12 AM, poxpower wrote:
whatchootalking about.
There's no fractals in his drip droops.

It's a theory, it/'s been pretty widely known for several years now. There is, I now find, quite a bit controversy surrounding it, not the least of which the fact that fractals were not yet discovered for a couple decades after Pollock. I had read about it some years ago when it was widely published in several magazines. Anyway the physicist who came up with the theory is named Richard Taylor, it's a real art story and something you could have looked into before shooting down completely.

At 2/6/08 09:56 PM, BlackmarketKraig wrote:

At 2/6/08 01:12 AM, poxpower wrote:
whatchootalking about.
There's no fractals in his drip droops.

Stuffs about fractals...

Generally, fractals tend to appear when you least suspect them, so the fact that random drip drops produce them isn't a suprise. I certainly don't think Pollock went around painting fractals into his art.

A possible concept art thread?

I plan to make flash sometime this year and would like to know if I could keep concept art in a seperate thread from my gallery so that it would be easier to see and keep track of input from other art regulars. Before I even go and do this and get one locked and make myself look like a jackass I figured I'd come here and ask. Do you think it's a good idea to have the seperate thread? And if not would you care to justify why?

At 2/6/08 11:27 PM, P-51 wrote: A possible concept art thread?

I plan to make flash sometime this year and would like to know if I could keep concept art in a seperate thread from my gallery so that it would be easier to see and keep track of input from other art regulars. Before I even go and do this and get one locked and make myself look like a jackass I figured I'd come here and ask. Do you think it's a good idea to have the seperate thread? And if not would you care to justify why?

I think if the thread is about one thing, related to itself it would make sense to keep separate.

This thread is cool! I love to see everyone's art, read every good discussion and learn more about arts. But I'm not good at English so I don't know what to discuss now. Sorry.

Guess I'll just read this thread in the shadow. Thank you Mr. BlackmargetKraig for making this.

At 2/7/08 04:14 PM, AMP-d wrote:

At 2/6/08 11:27 PM, P-51 wrote:

I think if the thread is about one thing, related to itself it would make sense to keep separate.

you mean like a thread only relating to one of my series or what? because I was thinking of making a seperate thread with all the series universes altogether so it won't be too messy and I could have it laid out like this lounge thread (i.e. have a top title in bold to reference which series I'm talking about)

At 2/7/08 10:23 PM, P-51 wrote: you mean like a thread only relating to one of my series or what? because I was thinking of making a seperate thread with all the series universes altogether so it won't be too messy and I could have it laid out like this lounge thread (i.e. have a top title in bold to reference which series I'm talking about)

Only related to one series at a time.

Paint Shop Pro

You guys had a conversation about Paint Shop Pro versus Photoshop, but nobody actually answered my question. D=

Paint Shop Pro

You guys had a conversation about Paint Shop Pro versus Photoshop, but nobody actually answered my question. D=

I find them both too similar to even be one better than the other. From what I've seen they both have the same tools, same concept. Maybe just a different layout but in the end it all works the same to me. I recommend either, but then I again I don't use either of the software's wide range of tools.

At 2/7/08 11:11 PM, narf109 wrote: Paint Shop Pro

You guys had a conversation about Paint Shop Pro versus Photoshop, but nobody actually answered my question. D=

I find them both too similar to even be one better than the other. From what I've seen they both have the same tools, same concept. Maybe just a different layout but in the end it all works the same to me. I recommend either, but then I again I don't use either of the software's wide range of tools.

And sorry yes its under the layer palette, layer blend mode, default should be normal, but u can switch to all that stuff.

Will someone buy me a Cintiq? I will be your art slave for a year

KTHNXBAI <3

At 2/8/08 12:19 AM, All-Hallows wrote: Will someone buy me a Cintiq? I will be your art slave for a year

KTHNXBAI <3

buy you a cintiq? you best make some badass art afterwards. I'm barely scraping by with a freakin bamboo (no complaints here even the cheapest one is nookass :D )

At 2/8/08 12:22 AM, Spaghetti14 wrote: I'm sad because I only have Photoshop 2.0
I feel so limited to what I should be able to do with all the cool features of newer Photoshop!

I would recommend the GIMP.

And how do you all afford flash when it is 700 DOLLARS?

Scrimping and saving.

At 2/8/08 07:44 PM, Spaghetti14 wrote:

At 2/8/08 02:47 AM, fetusdoctor wrote:

I feel so limited to what I should be able to do with all the cool features of newer Photoshop!

I would recommend the GIMP.

But if GIMP is free, then why is Photoshop still selling?

PhotoShop is a lot better than GIMP in most areas.

Photoshop, paintshop, GIMP, blah

But if GIMP is free, then why is Photoshop still selling?

PhotoShop is a lot better than GIMP in most areas.

yeah, i'm really comfortable with the brush customizations that photoshop gives. Script-fu is nice, but i'd miss my "opacity based on pressure" function too much to make a permenant switch.

also, Student discount FTW!
this place gives discounts from K-12-college.

Why is it when everyone else tried this, it was locked/deleted, and when a mod decides to make it, it stays?

Anyway, w00t?

At 2/6/08 09:56 PM, BlackmarketKraig wrote: it's a real art story and something you could have looked into before shooting down completely.

no need, I know there's no way a human can recreate a fractal by splashing paint around.
Maybe he found random parts of the paintings that were sort of like little approximations of what could be considered a fractal if you continued it, but that's it.

At 2/8/08 08:28 PM, kernalphage wrote: Script-fu is nice, but i'd miss my "opacity based on pressure" function too much to make a permenant switch.

GIMP is more powerful than most people think. It's just kinda clunky to work with sometimes.

Opacity based on pressure and more!

K, I have a question. First off, forgive me all I have is MS paint and a touchpad, saving up for a tablet now. Basically, I've been playing around with side-views of people for a while now, problem is, I'm not 100% sure on where the nose, mouth, and chin should go, here's a little outline of a person I made in paint, could somebody please outline the facial features?

EYES and EARS and MOUTH and NOEZ
i'm on a laptop with a touchpad, so i'm not even gonna attempt it.

conceptart always knows what to say.

a good thing to use for reference is your own head. trace the relations with your fingers. i've found that ear starts at the eyebrow, and ends at the base of the nose. dunno about the rest in relation to the face.

At 2/11/08 08:31 PM, Winned wrote: Face

Eye is at 1/2 head, nose and ear start at eye and go down 1/2 face. Mouth lines up half way between the bottom of the nose/ear and the chin. The chin ends (and the earlobe sits) half way across the face horizontally. Also, remember the back of the head protrudes, and the neck starts 1/2 way down.

It's all about the halves.

At 2/8/08 11:06 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 2/6/08 09:56 PM, BlackmarketKraig wrote: it's a real art story and something you could have looked into before shooting down completely.

no need, I know there's no way a human can recreate a fractal by splashing paint around.
Maybe he found random parts of the paintings that were sort of like little approximations of what could be considered a fractal if you continued it, but that's it.

Fractals are patterns in chaos though, so wouldn't an increased randomness be more likely to produce a fractals?

Anyway for the record, even though I don't create 'conceptual art' and I think some of the stuff done lately is the most pretentious load of horseshit around, I think some of the classic pieces are absolutely brilliant.

Thinking mostly "This is not a Pipe"

At 2/12/08 03:54 AM, Vousielle wrote:
Fractals are patterns in chaos though, so wouldn't an increased randomness be more likely to produce a fractals?

sorry *a fractal.
It's 3:01 AM here gimme a break.

I guess this is a good place to discuss the question "What is art?"

Too many times have i heard answers like "everythings art" or "Art is in the eye of the beholder" and i'm getting pretty tierd of it, thats just avoiding the subject.

Why do we paint/sculpt/animate or menstruate on paper, whats the meaning of it?

I draw and paint and such because i get some sort of rush trough it, I can't tell why nor how, maybe it has something to do with me wanting to express myself. The result is a tiny piece of my mind. Every piece of 'art' might be a piece of someones mind, and maybe thats whats so intruiging with it. Why else would colors on a canvas or a shaped rock and so on be something you can look at for a while?