Comments: 39
fiorinosulaco [2016-06-09 18:53:55 +0000 UTC]
Enigmatic and charming work!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
caroflon [2013-01-04 19:49:57 +0000 UTC]
Wow, great stuff! I like that a lot!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
shellyplayswithfire [2012-08-15 22:26:19 +0000 UTC]
you drew all of that on ballpoint pen?! Ever run out of ink?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
gabrielataylor [2012-08-09 23:22:21 +0000 UTC]
I love this ! well done !
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
shamantrixx [2012-07-22 12:00:31 +0000 UTC]
FANTASTIC IMAGE!
I just LOVE your drawing style, and in my opinion it comes to shine in your black and white and/or monochrome drawings. This is sooooo tripy and very psychedelic .. it just invites your mind to spill all over it. Well done indeed!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
awstock In reply to awstock [2009-05-16 15:22:56 +0000 UTC]
Fauvism, Neo-Fauvism, Cubism, Dadaism, and Surrealism were about all around the same period of history from the turn of the last century to the mid twenties, so with the artists you will see of this era there will no doubt be influences drawn from other schools in there work. (Think of it in terms of modern music, a performing artist can be of one genre and pulls on other genders that influence them to create their own original sound, also what fashion is in vogue at a given time will influence them also, and not necessarily in a positive way it may be in revolt to a specific fashion or trend, but it is still a influencal factor)
So skipping from one style to another in my opinion can only be good for your art to evolve. It means that you are open minded enough to be aware of what is going on around you, and not be blinkered. Even if it is a negative take, a brilliant musician of the 1970’s named Alex Harvey was quoted as saying “it is better to get a negative reaction than no reaction at all”. This is in fact is saying that whatever you do should have the importance to be noticed and not overlooked, even if it is not liked. Johnny Rotten (John Lydon) of The Sex Pistol fame was noted to have said that Alex Harvey was one of the only musicians that influential and Alex’s attitudes inspired him.
As you probably know the sex pistols attitude went on to influence many of the modern groups. Art reflects music styles and music reflects art so the big picture is everything is effect that around it, therefore deviation from your given course I believe can be healthy for an artist’s evolution.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
awstock In reply to lisa-im-laerm [2009-05-16 15:29:21 +0000 UTC]
Fauvism, Neo-Fauvism, Cubism, Dadaism, and Surrealism were about all around the same period of history from the turn of the last century to the mid twenties, so with the artists you will see of this era there will no doubt be influences drawn from other schools in there work. (Think of it in terms of modern music, a performing artist can be of one genre and pulls on other genders that influence them to create their own original sound, also what fashion is in vogue at a given time will influence them also, and not necessarily in a positive way it may be in revolt to a specific fashion or trend, but it is still a influencal factor)
So skipping from one style to another in my opinion can only be good for your art to evolve. It means that you are open minded enough to be aware of what is going on around you, and not be blinkered. Even if it is a negative take, a brilliant musician of the 1970’s named Alex Harvey was quoted as saying “it is better to get a negative reaction than no reaction at all”. This is in fact is saying that whatever you do should have the importance to be noticed and not overlooked, even if it is not liked. Johnny Rotten (John Lydon) of The Sex Pistol fame was noted to have said that Alex Harvey was one of the only musicians that influential and Alex’s attitudes inspired him.
As you probably know the sex pistols attitude went on to influence many of the modern groups. Art reflects music styles and music reflects art so the big picture is everything is effect that around it, therefore deviation from your given course I believe can be healthy for an artist’s evolution.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lisa-im-laerm In reply to awstock [2009-05-16 15:58:35 +0000 UTC]
Hm, I read smth about that yesterday the writer said, not many people getting very good, because, the don't stay in their arts, they try a lots of things and losing time , so a painter f.e. trys to make music, or writes smth...and he also thought, that they losing time and in his opinion time is a very important thing for an artist. He also mentioned, that young people who don't make that mistake, making other mistakes, so they not getting very far or stopping with their arts, because of love ( da vinci didn't marry!!!), partying, trying to be recogniced because of their ego and when they are, trying to stay observed... and that's why we don't have many Molieres in our world It is Helvétius, the 27 capture, when I remember it right...
I have Sid Vicious in my favs
This ols Lady, we talked about, she was an expressionist and was sure that she could become really good in it, when she didn't lost time with, surrealsm, imressionism...
I'm not sure about that all, I just know that exhibitions sucks and that is recognition!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lisa-im-laerm In reply to awstock [2009-05-19 14:21:34 +0000 UTC]
This kind of foods, I eat already, but thanks!!!!
This thinking about 500 hundred years, is like Camus thought about it, right!!! But he also thought that artists really live when they work on their arts, that means a painting/writing is a some kind of memory you live again, and let it die somehow, parially it is true, I suppose, some paintings are not memories, my opinion, some are
Thats smth too, I had talked last Sunday with that friend,the society tells you what is fun, what you have to enjoy and what not and you just do it, looking backwards it can seem to you that you didn't really enjoyed it at all and it was a kind of wasting time, getting recognition, being adored, even such kind of things! ( F.e. 500 hundred years ago, people enjoyed totally different things, then we do now )
About money, I have to paint much, much "nicer" things, to get fame and money We talked about...
Da Vinci, I read about this rumours, as a teenager, long ago I don't belive in that, it was also supposed that he was gay, just because he adoppted a little boy, they can existing a lots of more reasons, that he just prefered other things, because they seemed to him more precious, than spending time with wife and children, we'll never know, just my opinion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
awstock In reply to lisa-im-laerm [2009-05-19 20:10:27 +0000 UTC]
I have never come across Camus until you have mentioned him; I will have to research his work. He is probably right that there are artists that live through their work, what I am saying is this worth the sacrifice of other parts of our lives. There have been artists in the past that have lived their whole life tormented by dedicating their lives to their art at the expense of their personal lives and relationships, and still died unhappy. Look at Vincent van Gogh as a classical example of the tortured artist.
My personal outlook on the whole issue of creativity is such as one of the zen beliefs ‘Contentment and fulfilment should be found in the search for contentment’, and ‘first you learn how to learn’. In my eyes art should be created for the enjoyment of it in its own right, and not as a chore for the fame, success and rewards it brings. I think when people journey down this road it is potentially a recipe for discontentment and disaster. Art that is created through love for art will evolve naturally anyway.
This is only my take on the subject. I know myself well enough that creativity is rooted in my soul and I have accepted that, to create art is a compulsion for me not a choice. Throughout my life, if I do not draw I paint, if I do not paint I take photos, if I do not take photos I write, if I do not write I speak, the passion is always there, even if it is drawing patterns in salt on the kitchen table that gets wiped away with the next clean.
To be honest I enjoy these discussions as much as producing art.
Society, we all have to conform to society, this is an accepted fact. In respect we are lucky to live in a time, and in countries which are relatively liberal with our freedoms. The definition of freedom being that you as an individual will have the freedom to think an act on that tought, as long as it do not infringe the freedom of any other party. And yes I agree 500 years ago people would enjoy different aspects of life, priorities of day to day living would have been so much different to that of today.
The point of Da Vinci sexuality was maybe an irrelevant factor, we will never know and dose it matter? he is still regarded as one of the greatest minds and finest artist that the world has ever known. The point I was making was, even if he was gay did that bear relevance as an important factor for why he devoted so much of his life to his art, or is it that his sexuality had no importance and regarded personal relationships of a lesser priority and importance in his life.
Think of is in the terms of a career woman who consciously decides her career has a higher importance over her family life and having children, then in later life coming to the realisation that through circumstance and unforeseen events she had left it too late to start a family.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lisa-im-laerm In reply to awstock [2009-05-20 10:19:07 +0000 UTC]
Do you think Van Gogh would be happier, when he would stop painting and would live a regular life? i think he choose the minor torture
About Camus, guess you will like him, but I forgot the title of the book, you sure will find it anyways.
Bout enjoyment, yes you enjoy it, but that doesn't mean that you don't want to get much, much better. Told you bout what da Vinci expected from his scholars
Maybe he was gay, in that times it sure could effect your life more then nowadays, so maybe that's why he prefered to work so much. Don't like the idea, that my first love was gay
The medicine nowadays are so far, that the most women can wait a very very long time, till they can start a family, see madonna
👍: 0 ⏩: 1