These photo/illustration pieces should be awesome after they're mounted in the way you describe. I assume the mat will be cut and the pictures will be underneath like a normal mat. It might be nice to emboss the illustrations or fade them a little; something that will make them slightly less crisp so they don't draw so much attention. I look at the illustrations first and spend a lot more time looking at them, but then again I'm not that into photography.
What's the process with the paper sculptures? It looks really great.
I'm not digging on any of your cycling illustrations, really. they all seem pretty arbitrary, and I'd rather have either the photo or the drawing, not both in any of them.
The tree one worked slightly because your eyes followed the lines of the trees and then when you got to the bottom it was suddenly like "Whoa!"
The second ones with the rocks don't really work too well, it just looks like two separate works of art and it confuses the viewer as to which they should be looking at. In fact, while the tree drawing could only go with that specific tree picture, those rocks could go with just about any picture that has rocks in it.
You have your mediums confused really. If you're going to do photographic work the focus should be entirely on the photo. Your frame should bring as little distraction as possible, which is why frames should always be boring. People want to look at your photo not the pretty frame.
If you really want to integrate illustrations into photographs then you're basically looking to do some aggressive photo shopping and graphic design type stuff for this to work, instead of merely pasting illustrations next to pictures. Either go big or go home.
You have your mediums confused really. If you're going to do photographic work the focus should be entirely on the photo. Your frame should bring as little distraction as possible, which is why frames should always be boring. People want to look at your photo not the pretty frame.
I agree with some of your crits, but I have to say that you're labeling (rather definitively at that) what can and can't be done with art. He obviously wants the focus to be on both the illustration and the photography, both of which are great, and he's obviously succeeded with the trees example as you stated. I just think the right balance needs to be had between the two is all.
You have your mediums confused really. If you're going to do photographic work the focus should be entirely on the photo. Your frame should bring as little distraction as possible, which is why frames should always be boring. People want to look at your photo not the pretty frame.
I agree with some of your crits, but I have to say that you're labeling (rather definitively at that) what can and can't be done with art. He obviously wants the focus to be on both the illustration and the photography, both of which are great, and he's obviously succeeded with the trees example as you stated. I just think the right balance needs to be had between the two is all.
While I obviously appreciate crits, I agree with the response prospicience has already given. If the idea is crap, no worries. However, there's no rule anywhere that you can only display a photo framed, on a plain off-white mount, or hacked apart in photoshop.
Finally got my exhibition up. I ended up not printing the illustrations onto the mount due to time limitations, but they went down well. I've been told by the curator of the venue that this is their best exhibition to date, which is fantastic! I've sold some work too, which I'm happy about. Thanks for the crits guys.
In case anyone looks at this thread, I'm interested in hearing crits on this poster design. Specifically, I'm not sure about the placement of the top line (or if it should even be there), and if the person needs to be more prominent/less abstract.
You might want to try some different ideas with the person. Maybe less abstract like you said, or maybe moving him under the "turns into people" text. Maybe separate the electron from the nucleus more, as well?
Yeah, it's great as it is, but if you can find a way to really nail the figure(s) it'll be fantastic. Apart from that I can't see much to criticise. Good stuff! :^:
Depends on the context of where it's being viewed. It's too subtle for the average passer-by to notice it, but perfect if you intend for people to look at it for a few moments.
Zombiemambo on
0
Options
BuckwolfeStarts With Them, Ends With UsRegistered Userregular
edited November 2009
I stared at it for a moment and didn't notice it until I read "is the baby too subtle," and looked at it again.
Its small, and vague at first glance. It only reads as a baby if its pointed out, and if you have to point it out, it loses all subtlety and meaning.
That being said, now that I recognize it as a human baby, I feel like its in the way. Like unnecessary clutter. I'm wondering if trying to draw a visible reference to the "turns into people" thing is really required in the first place. Ya know?
I was pretty fine with the one you posted just before. Then I gave it a second look and saw that you made a similar attempt to subtlety incorporate a vague human form in the same spot. Only it was more styled, and harder to read.
I really don't think its entirely necessary for you illustrate the human form into this piece. I could be wrong though. It may be that trying to incorporate it in a "subtle" way is the problem. It doesn't really have to be subtle to mesh with the text, or the tone of the piece.
i liked it as an adult, abstract human form a bit better
simply because fetuses are such friggen loaded images
all i could think of was "abortion" when i looked at it which i don't think is the impression you're trying to get.
but i mean... i just finished 4 months of intro to visual culture, so my views on this sort of thing are totally warped by ridiculousness.
love the design of it so far though
beavotron on
0
Options
BuckwolfeStarts With Them, Ends With UsRegistered Userregular
edited November 2009
The whole fetus image/abortion angle didn't even occur to me. It still doesn't draw a correlation when I look at it though.
Its still a valid, and potentially volatile comparison that the viewer could easily make. Beavo is right by pointing out that its a loaded image/topic, that carries its own set of issues to say the least. And not ones that you necessarily want to incorporate into your piece.
I'm still debating whether you need an image representing the human form at all, to get the images message across.
The first thing I saw was a baby and thought "well that's not too subtle. . ." - I like the first one because it ISNT obvious, but I suppose if that is what you are going for.
hmm... Out of interest, where are the people from who think foetus = abortion? I'm guessing the US and perhaps Canada? I don't think it has the same connotation here at all, although I could be wrong.
Anyway cheers guys, you've given me lots to think about!
yeah, probably a regional thing, it just makes me think 2001. But (possibly for that reason), I prefer the adult. If anything, that was subtler, but also made the mood/message feel stronger, somehow.
I'm from Canada so yes regional factors apply
also fine arts school where they bombard us with "if you're going to use that you'd better understand that to some people it means this"
beavotron on
0
Options
NappuccinoSurveyor of Things and StuffRegistered Userregular
edited November 2009
I'm from the Mid West in North America, and someone who thinks abortion should only be done in extreme circumstances (this isn't to start a debate, just to let you know where i'm coming from) and I didn't get abortion at all from that second picture. Life yes. Abortion no.
That said, I think the first picture is much stronger. I think it might have to do with how the guy seems connected to the picture where the baby seems dislocated from it. Also, the text seems placed better in the first one. The bolder text and the "History of the Universe" title made me laugh hard where I just sort of shrugged at the much quieter way the second one reads.
NappuccinoSurveyor of Things and StuffRegistered Userregular
edited November 2009
Oh, i think the cord really pulls the picture together. I'm still not thrilled with the words though... its something that is phrased to be humorous but with the small size of the lettering seems like it is being whispered in awe.
I like the small text. this feels like a poster for an event, but I don't know if that's what you're going for. I'd definitely consider putting it on my wall if it had color involved. I like it without color as an image, but it kind of looks like a flier right now. it'd take seeing it full size to know, but even so, a black/white poster would be hard to pull off with at least some grays/depth involved. it feels very graphic and flat.
srsizzy on
BRO LET ME GET REAL WITH YOU AND SAY THAT MY FINGERS ARE PREPPED AND HOT LIKE THE SURFACE OF THE SUN TO BRING RADICAL BEATS SO SMOOTH THE SHIT WILL BE MEDICINAL-GRADE TRIPNASTY MAKING ALL BRAINWAVES ROLL ON THE SURFACE OF A BALLS-FEISTY NEURAL RAINBOW CRACKA-LACKIN' YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE HERE-NOW SPACE-TIME SITUATION THAT ALL OF LIFE BE JAMMED UP IN THROUGH THE UNIVERSAL FLOW BEATS
Posts
What's the process with the paper sculptures? It looks really great.
The second ones with the rocks don't really work too well, it just looks like two separate works of art and it confuses the viewer as to which they should be looking at. In fact, while the tree drawing could only go with that specific tree picture, those rocks could go with just about any picture that has rocks in it.
You have your mediums confused really. If you're going to do photographic work the focus should be entirely on the photo. Your frame should bring as little distraction as possible, which is why frames should always be boring. People want to look at your photo not the pretty frame.
If you really want to integrate illustrations into photographs then you're basically looking to do some aggressive photo shopping and graphic design type stuff for this to work, instead of merely pasting illustrations next to pictures. Either go big or go home.
I agree with some of your crits, but I have to say that you're labeling (rather definitively at that) what can and can't be done with art. He obviously wants the focus to be on both the illustration and the photography, both of which are great, and he's obviously succeeded with the trees example as you stated. I just think the right balance needs to be had between the two is all.
My Portfolio Site
While I obviously appreciate crits, I agree with the response prospicience has already given. If the idea is crap, no worries. However, there's no rule anywhere that you can only display a photo framed, on a plain off-white mount, or hacked apart in photoshop.
Maybe.
i am bad at crits.
'this art looks good!'
and so did I because
oh my god *gushing compliments*
Beav: in honesty and in fairness, here's a secret. Every time I open your thread, I think 'awesome,' and then fail to post anything :P
Finally got my exhibition up. I ended up not printing the illustrations onto the mount due to time limitations, but they went down well. I've been told by the curator of the venue that this is their best exhibition to date, which is fantastic! I've sold some work too, which I'm happy about. Thanks for the crits guys.
I love it as is though, I'd put it on my wall!
Awesome idea. I think I'll do that.
is the baby too subtle?
Its small, and vague at first glance. It only reads as a baby if its pointed out, and if you have to point it out, it loses all subtlety and meaning.
That being said, now that I recognize it as a human baby, I feel like its in the way. Like unnecessary clutter. I'm wondering if trying to draw a visible reference to the "turns into people" thing is really required in the first place. Ya know?
I was pretty fine with the one you posted just before. Then I gave it a second look and saw that you made a similar attempt to subtlety incorporate a vague human form in the same spot. Only it was more styled, and harder to read.
I really don't think its entirely necessary for you illustrate the human form into this piece. I could be wrong though. It may be that trying to incorporate it in a "subtle" way is the problem. It doesn't really have to be subtle to mesh with the text, or the tone of the piece.
Steam handle: Buckwolfe
simply because fetuses are such friggen loaded images
all i could think of was "abortion" when i looked at it which i don't think is the impression you're trying to get.
but i mean... i just finished 4 months of intro to visual culture, so my views on this sort of thing are totally warped by ridiculousness.
love the design of it so far though
Its still a valid, and potentially volatile comparison that the viewer could easily make. Beavo is right by pointing out that its a loaded image/topic, that carries its own set of issues to say the least. And not ones that you necessarily want to incorporate into your piece.
I'm still debating whether you need an image representing the human form at all, to get the images message across.
Steam handle: Buckwolfe
i would buy this though
Anyway cheers guys, you've given me lots to think about!
also fine arts school where they bombard us with "if you're going to use that you'd better understand that to some people it means this"
That said, I think the first picture is much stronger. I think it might have to do with how the guy seems connected to the picture where the baby seems dislocated from it. Also, the text seems placed better in the first one. The bolder text and the "History of the Universe" title made me laugh hard where I just sort of shrugged at the much quieter way the second one reads.
it's different and it works (for me anyways)
if instead of pure black you went for a warm grey
warm grey always looks so classy to me