English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://s38.photobucket.com/albums/e137/cutie_cathy/?action=view¤t=Fleamarket.jpg


thanks ~

2007-08-20 13:20:28 · 3 answers · asked by cathy d 1 in Arts & Humanities Other - Arts & Humanities

3 answers

There is no life to it. All the figures in it seem like statues to me. I do not see much in the way of contrast between dark and light either. The people in the background needed to be more detailed as well. I realize that in real life the eyes would keep them out of focus, but you made the rest of background detailed. This throws the entire background out of whack. This could have been a better painting. It at least has potential.

2007-08-20 17:53:59 · answer #1 · answered by kepjr100 7 · 0 0

I make a distinction between art and illustration. The example you ask about is illustration.

It tells the story well enough. It is like a snapshot. OH! The Market!. Beyond that there is mostly monotony. The shapes of the picture are generally the same size and shape. They contain the same unit of energy. The artist fails to offer us the kinds of contrasts that make the sizes of things distinct and visible.

The picture is divided into 4 horizontal bars. The near ground, the near mid ground, the far mid ground and the back wall. Each horizontal bar is about the same size and contains about the same amount of energy. The artist fails to provide contrast in the size, shape and direction of overlap in use of these bars.

The drawing is only used to illustrate and is unarticulated relative to which side it belongs to. Only one option is offered.

The color is essentially monochromatic as the colors of the objects depicted are really only accidental associated with the objects snapshot-ted and only the gray scale is functional. It is essentially a black, mid tone, light structure and even that has the contrast very reduced.

I like more composition in pictures. The word composition means, with spacial position. The shapes and the dark light structure in this painting are disintegrated and do not add up to a series of spacial events. As things are only seen in a context, the context for each visual event should reflect a conscious choice on the part of the artist. This picture reflects much more confusion about the motives for the marking pattern and it demonstrates, quite dramatically, the affect of an artist being captured by the physiologically based drive to constancy.

It is an artist's work to overcome these automatia in process issues and be responsive to visual outcome.

This painting demonstrates a very low level of visual awareness.

2007-08-20 22:23:39 · answer #2 · answered by bondioli22 4 · 0 0

I think it's a horribly vulgar affair, much to do about something so mundane.

2007-08-20 20:38:08 · answer #3 · answered by Profound Artist 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers