Comments: 19
LouViolet [2007-07-31 16:28:36 +0000 UTC]
this looks great i think this is my favorite but its really hard to chose. does this have a painting in it or is it all digital?
either way it looks great
im lovin all the layers
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Senecal In reply to LouViolet [2007-08-01 03:18:37 +0000 UTC]
This is all digital.
Thanks very much I am glad you came by to see it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
kolaboy [2005-01-23 17:31:17 +0000 UTC]
Veiled by curtains of suggestive colour. I love serendipity. The sun is your friend.
Forgive the laconic observations (last night was Saturday night).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Senecal In reply to Deborah-Valentine [2005-01-19 20:45:43 +0000 UTC]
Hey no problem, I know how it goes.
I am pretty bad about making the rounds and visiting, for which I wear the yellow ribbon of shame.
But that's cool.
When you have time, feel free to stop by whenever.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Deborah-Valentine In reply to Senecal [2005-01-20 17:31:41 +0000 UTC]
the yellow ribbon of shame, like the support our troops stickers i see everywhere!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Senecal In reply to Deborah-Valentine [2005-01-20 18:16:25 +0000 UTC]
I see the irony has not been lost on you.
Ah well, I should stop now before I end up back on the mile high soapbox with a nose bleed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
kipton [2005-01-19 16:26:46 +0000 UTC]
i don't find this variation as visually stimulating as number 12, but i do think it's quite interesting to see what your modifications, as imitation of the natural effect of sunlight, have done in the way of letting the attention flow to different aspects of the image. while in version 12, to me, the use of colour seemed to be most in focus, here the subject seems to be the girl, the flower and the lines. an interesting effect of this might be the question as to how digital art should be displayed, and how different ways of displaying it change the way a viewer sees the artwork. of course, these questions are present in general when it comes to art, but when the work is created on a medium that is so much affected by light from the outside, they do seem to carry a bit more weight.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Senecal In reply to kipton [2005-01-19 17:46:55 +0000 UTC]
Another really good point.
And, I think the idea of display has always been the most problematic.
In fact, for the galleries it is the top issue after "how do we sell this?"
That is actually a quote from the gallery.
"We really like the imagery, but how do we sell digital?"
It is a matter of learning, and education.
So, definitely display is a central issue.
Personally, I prefer solid state media that are inserted into digital viewing frames, wireless and powered on house current.
Unfortunately the devices really don't exist yet the way I want them to. I was in talks witha company to manufacture some custom screens but they went belly up and are now bankrupt so no dice. Next stop would be digital paper. Xerox has a lower res monotone prototype in existence but nothing for mass market yet.
In time.
All in time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
wroth [2005-01-19 15:37:41 +0000 UTC]
I prefer Variation XII of this myself because that version seems more complete, it seems farther down the path toward a common goal. That said, the sights along the path can be as interesting as the final destination so the more mature seeming variation does not take the worth away from this one.
The sunlight interaction was an imaginative stroke, rare to see some element that points a finger so squarely at a physical presence and the digital image itself. And the muted colors show that your work can stand on it's own feet and does not relay on the eye catching color you often use.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Senecal In reply to wroth [2005-01-19 17:37:21 +0000 UTC]
Thanks, the feedback is helpful.
It comes back to "paint what you see" not "what you think you see".
But I also sometimes work with my eyes closed to paint what I see with eyes closed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
pawwwprint [2005-01-19 11:42:44 +0000 UTC]
the light was inspired -- fully transcends the medium,, it's not often you see something like that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
musicfan [2005-01-19 05:20:21 +0000 UTC]
this has the same image as the other one doesn't it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Senecal In reply to musicfan [2005-01-19 06:40:29 +0000 UTC]
Yes it does.
A reinterpretation of the smae work, multiple times, multiple ways.
The idea being, a record of the process of making the work including the decision making process that goes into it.
Multiple variations from the same sessions, not done glibly or with no thought of course, but a setailed reinvestigation of alternate paths.
The futility lies in trying to capture ALL image events that arise from the process of making ONE image.
Each of the images has within it potentials, alternates, variable lifelines and routes often aborted, killed, or otherwise unrealized.
I am, with this image, giving more of those a chance, like saving as many earth worms after the rain as possible.
You wont get them all but maybe by preserving as much of the life as you can you will make yourself a better person.
Or so goes the professional, and personal rationale behind the work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
musicfan In reply to Senecal [2005-01-20 01:59:17 +0000 UTC]
awsome!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
longhairhippie [2005-01-19 00:35:53 +0000 UTC]
the best of the series so far. digging the amount of chance involved.
overall aesthetically beautiful.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Senecal In reply to longhairhippie [2005-01-19 06:42:16 +0000 UTC]
Thanks a lot, I really do find the feedback useful and constructive.
Personally I tend to like this one too for the sublte coloration.
But I am biased so I will leave it at that for now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0