HOME | DD
ProjectComment — Thematic Commenting #5: Perspective CLOSED
Published: 2018-06-15 00:09:11 +0000 UTC; Views: 1119; Favourites: 7; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
body div#devskin0 hr { }
Welcome to ProjectComment 's Thematic Commenting! Below are all the participating artworks for this edition of Thematic Commenting on Perspective. Leave a perspective-related constructive comment on any of the pieces below today for a chance to be featured in our Monthly Newsletter!
Possible Discussion Points:
- Does the perspective create a believable space?
- Is there a smooth transition from the foreground to the background/horizon?
- Do all subjects successfully converge towards the vantage point(s)? Do all overhead items slope downwards to reveal the bottom? Do all underneath items slope upwards to reveal the top? (Example )
- Likewise, is scale communicated effectively? Do further objects appear smaller and paler, while closer objects appear larger and more detailed?
- Do angles or subjects clash with each other?
- Do you, as the viewer, feel "drawn/sucked into" the artwork?
Get going now!
Deadline: Friday June 29th
:thumb745518587:
:thumb740460611:
Related content
Comments: 16
Did people submit their own works here or do they even know they are here? Just checking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
People submitted their own works through the sign-up page: Thematic Commenting #5 - Perspective
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think the question of perspective creating believable spaces is a bit unfair after considering the subject matter of each piece. All of which are created from the minds of the artist, built from fantasy and have no "reality," to build upon. The 4th piece has the shadowing off. For if the moon or star is casting that much light from behind her, it would not seem to be casting lights before her. The artist was 16 when he devised that project and certainly was not aware of how light falls. Yet I am interested and captivated by the piece because she sees the world as a chess board. The second piece has the same lighting issues. For if there is a light shining beneath the landscape and is supposed to bring about the effect of "ripping spirals" there should be more shadow in the mid-section of the piece and darker still towards the right of the piece. Centering ones focus to the middle of the image. The fifth piece would have been better without the CG graphics. At times I feel we over compensate with digital media and forget the beauty held in Traditional styles. The same goes for the first piece. With so much digital overtones there is a rigid transition feeling coming across from the foreground to the background and horizons. Giving the image a complete impossibility be it Fantasy Art or Traditional or Realistically Abstract. It would have been better if she was in a Roman gladiator arena or the French halls of Louis VIX, then some wild plain of an African mountain side with no name. Lastly scale is needed to be educated rigorously because none of the images are drawn to scale and that could have been done purposely so I feel it is not fair to ask that question. Some of the greatest vintage music albums have scale issues. Tee-shirts with vector print are not drawn to scales based on reality, Scale does not fit in the world of abstract expression.
I am personally not drawn into these subjects of art. They do very little to entertain me or make me want to find out more about the artist and what they are communicating, that does not take away from their usefulness though. I feel with more practice they will get better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Hello
Nice analisys you did on every piece, but as DTKinetic i disagre too whit your first statment. You are putting "reallity" in the same bag as virtual possibilities, realism (the movement on art) or even a subjetive matter of individuals and ideas that don't make sense in the way of what are images and how we create them. Images are builidings, reallity too, we are building reallities whit images, our actual social structure is a build which elements indeed are images. So, even in the material world, reallity is build whit base on images so in that sense we make reallities whit images. Saying that "built from fantasy and have no reality" is a mistake, a falacy that came from confusion on mixing context and concept.
However, i apreciate your comment since i'm the autor of the 2nd piece. But more that a fully descriptive and assertative looking of the lighting i was aiming for the deep, the fogness and fragillity. We are in control of what we put in a image, twisting if is needed the rules of the material world, creating our own logic, that should be comunication. But to put things into the actual discution of this post, which is perspective, i was aiming from composition on creating a space whitout horizon and vanishing points as reference, instead i chose the ligth to give deepness, even though i use 3 vanishing points (maybe more whit diagonals) and the curves hide the crucial one and the others get out of frame.
I hope this set place for more discution, i certanly wanna make a review as you did on the other works, maybe setting other points of discution if is needed.
See you soon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You guys are going to never let me live it down huh? lol jk.
www.newgrounds.com/art/view/ad… <
I added a lot of emphasis on the lady with the "microphone" on the right, on purpose, with intention of mixing context and conceptions to build a dialogue, upon on our present reality.>>
I was suggesting that though I am the artists and in control of the canvas and how the lines bend, that does not give me an excuse to purposely mislead my viewers by making things appear where they should not and suggest that it is ok because of virtual possibilities.
As I said before it is my own personal "hang up" in which even if a piece is simple or mundane I try to keep within the frame works of reality and follow the fundamental rules of where "overlapping," is safe to use, where shadows should appear and where they aught not to.
Of course I am quit aware that I am not the artist of any of the pieces that I made comments on and had no right to presume that something "should be, or aught to b, or has to be," because of my personal hang up with speaking without words with a canvas, or a desire to.
I do look forward to future discussions with you about the wonderful realms we can create with art though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha ok ok, the conspiracy hehe...but jokes aside, be aware when you use the word "reallity", because you tend to make a liquid discuss, so when everyone is rigth that mean that everyone aren't, in the end that doesn't take you to anywhere. How you avoid that? well, make yourself in a solid position and stick whit it, in illustration what is more important is the comunicative intentions more than a technical actual craft, that doesn't mean that it isn't still important, of course it is, but the objective of making images is to comunicate something. So in that sense, the desitions you make in compostion, ligth, perspective and even in technique depends on what are you trying to say.
Anyways take this as an advise more than a "most do" thing, it's better to have judgment on this kind of things because we're making desitions at the end.
See you soon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Interesting feedback, on analyzing both the pieces and the overall theme.
Well, let me start with your first point. I'm largely an experimental artist and hardly ever do things by-the-book, but I respectfully disagree with the notion that within perspective there's no "reality" to build upon. Just like you critiqued on the properties of light in the 4th piece, and expected them to conform to reality, the same concept applies to perspective. All artists are welcome to distort reality in any case (which I touched on in the anatomy edition of this feature), but the only art genre that can truly distort ALL properties is surrealism. There's always some foundation. From most of these pieces, I can see or infer that laws of gravity, motion or time apply unless stated otherwise. Admittedly, yes my discussion questions are a little biased, but they're targeted towards the deviantART audience, where I've mostly seen everyday interiors or street corners with incorrect geometry and perspective where the angles don't match up, aspiring to be realistic. The only piece that seems truly surrealistic in this case is the 2nd.
Scale is difficult, but it doesn't mean that we as artists shouldn't work towards it. We're not expecting perfection here. Here, you don't know what everyone's skill-level or education-level is--some artists may be completely unaware. So any advice or feedback can be helpful.
Lastly, be wary before you state something "would be better". You're giving an opinion based off a background setting that is suited to your tastes and preferences, not the vision of the artist's.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your last statement is true and I will be more careful of that.
Yes in truth when I look at art pieces of others I do like to infer my own tastes and no one wants to hear that, or presume something is not good because they would have done it another way. (No excuse for that.)
I suppose my original statements were set in motion in hopes that others would view my own works and help, "Me," keep in line with the laws of gravity, motion, or time applying to pieces that are clearly based on reality. Not doing things by the book is a great approach to art and allows us to remain free in our search of expression but that is why I said, "It is unfair to ask us to comment on weather or not the artists used these techniques properly or not." For as you said, we know not there background, education, or skill level.
These lines of discussions is half the reason why I have never believed in the notion of "bad art," anyway or under developed artists. The idea puts a bad taste in my mouth every time I think about it. Though it has been suggested and not by me that,
As for what score you'd earn..? The fact that you even ask that question tells me you are looking at and approaching this wrong. Stop worrying about the score and focus entirely on realizing your creative vision as best you can. Passion leads to excellence which leads to score.
Can't emphasize this enough: stop worrying about the score. One thing I've noticed as a defining difference between great producers of content (be it scientific, musical, mathematical, etc.) and the mediocre is that the greats never feel like their work is complete and rarely even feel like it's good.
The person that said this, you will be hard pressed to find any of there artistic works but they felt all of my works were under par pieces and made "would be better suggestions," and we had a bad day. The point is this person believed in keeping things realistic as possible and relevant to their own bubbles in life and found it hard to look at other perspectives and would have given each piece less accreditation than what they deserved based on excessively critical standards that I have had to under go and I might have been too harsh in my initial critics or line of commenting.
That being said, it stands to reason without knowing the intentions behind each piece I can only comment on what I see, and I felt in the beginning that those questions where unfair to the artists.
If you were to look at my pieces and commented based on those questions, "How would I stand?"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We can help keep you in-line with anything you may be struggling with in our projects/gallery/features. That's our goal.
From my experience, I think it's understood by everyone here that pieces will be assessed on the grounds of realism. Knowing what you're participating in and what kind of feedback you may receive is to an extent the artist's responsibility. Again, I'm a firm believer in freedom of expression but it's important to learn as well and this approach allows for us to focus effort on improvement in one area. For those who want to innovate, you can always facilitate discussion on your page, forums, or suggest ideas here.
I don't like discussing "good vs bad art" either, especially regarding skill level.
Where in my post did I ever talk about score?
Yeah, that's an issue that I see too much of, unfortunately. An unhealthy obsession of being the best, of not accepting or finding satisfaction with any thing that's a hair short of absolute photorealism. Too much of anything is a bad thing. I can't control one's mindset, but all I can do is reinforce positive encouragement and the proper mindset along the way. I'm not afraid to give credit on an artist's hard work if I can see they worked hard, even if I find like 20 errors on it. And art should be done out of your passion, not to be the best (that goes with anything really).
I think you're looking at this like a grade. This isn't a pass/failure checklist like a final exam at school. It's meant to be a discussion on perspective, with those questions as things you can think about as you study, analyze, and practice perspective--either on your own or when commenting on other pieces. It's meant to help artists improve. And rather answering "yes" / "no" the point is to ask "why" and go in depth and guide the artist what exactly the artist can be doing to make a piece better or portray space more effectively. It may be unfair that some near-professional artists may need only little correction while beginners need a lot, but it's not unfair at all that all artists regardless of skill-level can have access to that same help.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I suppose because I am self-taught and keen on experimentation I am just not used to this level of engagement from real artists. This is sooo cool.
You really have been a help and I am glad that there is so much we can agree on.
Positive encouragement is nice, I was not getting that where I came from and I guess it was coming out...very bad, I need to keep that projection stuff far away from me.
It don't think it is unfair that people have access to help...I would never deny someone avenues to help.
I am self-taught and have just never had any real help presented to me ever and would not know where to start in giving it. (Man that was actually really honest and way too personal, for an open forum.) It should be understood though, that those who refuse to use classic styles of art and love to push the boundaries of what is expected from art are really looking for their work to be appreciated for as you said, "the attempt to achieve "photorealism," from their mind alone.
That has always been my aspiration and with my habit of projecting my feelings on to others I feel they may think the same way.
Maybe they don't. Does not take away from their genius. I love them all for their ideas, I just want to see more of it. LOL.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Awesome, well I'm glad I've been able to help
Yeah, it seems very commonplace that artists don't get a lot of support--even on the hobbyist level--especially when compared to other extracurriculars like sports or music. In real life, artists are a rare breed, I almost never recall meeting an artist outside of an art classroom or art exhibition. Thankfully, I have family and friends who are willing to support/encourage me, but I don't know what it's like to have those people help or collaborate with me on projects. So yeah online here is basically where I do all my networking for that. It may take time to get feedback and meet the right people, but I've had some rewarding experiences here. And you've already found ProjectComment, so that's a good direction.
You don't have to take the role of a commenter then. Just work on building your art, and working towards your personal goals with that. Sometimes my goal is to get better, but other times my goal is to communicate something to my audience. Just use the site in a way that works for you
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Could you edit paragraph breaks into your answer? I think you raise good points, but it's very heavy on the eyes, so people might not read all of it because of that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sure I can do that. I have a few bad habits I need to break. Thanks for letting me know.
You were able to get something out of it though?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I had to re-read it because I zoned out at the wall of text. I'm going to comment on some of the ones I have an opinion on.
The fourth picture brings to mind a theater stage, where the moon is just a backdrop and painted on, not an actual light source. But the foreground is clearly in perspective, and believable at that. It doesn't strike me as false, even when the shadows don't match the supposed light source. I probably wouldn't have even noticed that if you hadn't pointed out.
The point of thematic commenting is to concentrate on one aspect at a time, so it's unnecessary to focus on other things, like lighting. A space is believable in 3D if objects do not look unintentionally distorted. It's different if the artist distorts them on purpose according to some deviced rules, but in that case the distortion should be so obvious that it doesn't look like an error.
In the second piece, things do seem to get smaller and more pale towards the back, but it doesn't have a very strong sence of space.
In the first piece, the character seems to be above the world. The sloping terrain makes it hard to guess where the horizon would be if the mountains weren't blocking it. There is one very faint blue mountain in the far back, showing this artist knows that things get more blue towards the back, but the mountains seem pretty huge and close, while there is very little behind them. The midground makes it look like the character isn't part of the same environment, but like she was far above the ground.
You might want to elaborate on what you mean by things being out of scale, because it's not instantly obvious to me and probably not many others either. People are used to seeing photographs more than real world, so how things are behind each other or how extreme the perspective is depends on the lens. If I look at something with my own eyes, it's going to look vastly different if I look at it through the lens of my cellphone camera. Yet a lot of people draw from photo references, so they don't get exposed to how things look like to human eyes.
I recently tried to paint what I saw in the room and my intention was to paint the objects on the corner of my desk, but I wanted to include the background too, so I started from the door to the balcony, the wall next to it, the curtains, and a chair. But as it turned out, these things already filled the whole canvas and I had no room left for foreground at all. Ok, I could have made the canvas bigger but by that point, I was so carried away with the small corner of the room, that I was no longer interested in what was on my desk.
The field of view is surprisingly large and if somebody wants to capture what they see on a small canvas, it's very hard to make the things in the back small enough not to run out of space.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0