Comments: 23
crh [2012-02-26 13:42:07 +0000 UTC]
cool abstract! nicely composed as well!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ArtlessHmmmm In reply to crh [2012-03-07 03:57:59 +0000 UTC]
Gotta love a strong line.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
yv [2010-01-06 14:24:14 +0000 UTC]
nice!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ArtlessHmmmm In reply to yv [2010-09-23 11:39:31 +0000 UTC]
thankyou
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
PaulGana [2009-11-19 18:00:19 +0000 UTC]
cool composition
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ArtlessHmmmm In reply to PaulGana [2009-11-22 19:15:40 +0000 UTC]
thankyou - the square suited it so much better than the original format.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Kel-----Bel [2009-08-20 13:19:57 +0000 UTC]
Lovely! This image just Rocks! Glad I found it! Featured ----> [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bertus- [2009-08-01 20:34:25 +0000 UTC]
Wow Lizzy this is beautiful and vibrant! Great job! Good luck with the contest!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ArtlessHmmmm In reply to bertus- [2009-08-01 22:00:40 +0000 UTC]
thanks so much hun - glad to see your still about on the circuit! hope your well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
BobVPR [2009-07-24 12:12:53 +0000 UTC]
Precise (and I love your obsessions)!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BobVPR In reply to ArtlessHmmmm [2009-07-24 20:33:22 +0000 UTC]
You are quite welcome! I am sorry if this is a lengthy reply, I have been delving into unlearned memory such as The Shadow of Sirius by W.S. Merwin and philisophical comments on pattern, symmetry and line... a fragment from "The Principles of Creation in Art"
Susanne K. Langer
...Yet even in the motifs of pure decoration—zigzags and S-curves, parallels and spirals and loops—we find the basic principles of expressiveness, forms that seem to “have life” not because they represent anything living, but because they symbolize directly the sense of life, which underlies all our feelings. In a little book on design3 I find the following statement, made by the artist-author with perfectly literal intent and evidently no consciousness whatever of using metaphor: “Borders must move forward, and grow as they move.”
Now, what does it mean to say a border moves? The border is a mark on a contrasting ground, perfectly stationary. When we draw it, the pencil moves, the line or series of forms actually grows in one direction. But suppose it is not even made in this fashion; suppose it is made all at once, by block-printing. And perhaps we do not see it made at all. Still the border “runs” along the edge of the tablecloth or around the margins of a page. If it is supported by short tangential lines the apparent movement is very much enhanced.
There are, of course, classical explanations of this phenomenon in terms of eye-movements: the eye, it is said, is “carried” along a line as it is in following a moving object, such as a mouse running across the floor, and the association of our eye-movement with moving objects prompts us to impute movement to the line. It is not unlikely that eye-movements do play some part in the illusion, but they do not account for it, for if they were always thus associated we could never appreciate as stationary anything too big to be seen at the focal center, i.e., without moving the eyes. Everything else should appear to shift or mill around. Quite to the contrary, however, we are just as likely to think of actual motion in terms of a fixed form. The mouse running across the floor seems to cover a path that remains there, an imaginary line.
The real connection between lines and motion is, I believe, that an uninterrupted line serves us as a symbol of motion, and conveys the idea of it exactly as any symbol conveys its message. In the direct, intuitive appreciation of what may be termed “natural symbols,”4 the import is received like something inherent in the symbol; therefore the running mouse seems to cover a path lying on the floor, and the still, painted line seems to run. The reason is that both exemplify the abstract principle of direction, by virtue of which they are logically congruent enough to be symbols for one another; and in the ordinary, intelligent use of vision, we let them stand proxy for each other all the time, though we do not know it. This is not a function that is first discursively conceived and then assigned a possible symbol, but is non-discursively exhibited and then perceived long before it is acknowledged in a scientific device (as it is in the language of physics, where vectors are conventionally indicated by arrows). Motion, therefore, is logically related to linear form, and where a line is unbroken, and supporting forms tend to give it direction, the mere perception of it is charged with the idea of motion, which shines through our impression of the actual sense-datum and fuses with it in apperception. The result is a very elementary artistic illusion (not delusion, for, unlike delusion, it survives analysis), which we call “living form.”
This term takes us back to Best-Maugard’s supposedly simple statement (it is addressed to children!) : “Borders should move forward, and grow as they move.” What does “grow” mean in this context? The border does not grow bigger in design. No, but it seems to grow longer, for in its seeming motion it does not vacate the places where it was before; like the imaginary path of the mouse, it covers the ground, but continues in one direction; and an ornamental border design appears to do this by a law of its own.
Artistically, all motion is growth; not growth of things or creatures, but of lines and spaces. The spiral—one of the simple motifs—is a “dynamic” or progressing line, but what really seems to grow is a space, the two-dimensional area it defines. This intimate relation between movement and growth is what makes design—the grammar of visual semblance—“living form,” in a perfectly intelligible sense. It is also the surest refutation of any theory that reduces the experience of movement in design to motions connoted by stimulation of tiny muscular actions in the eye. The term “living form” is justified by a logical connection that exists between a half-illusory datum—the “growing” line or space—and the concept of life, whereby the former is a natural symbol of the latter; for “living form” directly exhibits what is the essence of life—incessant change, or process, articulating a permanent form...
Thank you for reading!!!
Obsessions are, well, excessive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ArtlessHmmmm In reply to BobVPR [2009-07-24 21:31:09 +0000 UTC]
wow - no thank you for thinking and connecting up the dots. Movement eh? alot to think on!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0