art-theory

Art and the Chronic Mind

For whom do I work?
It’s crucial to contextualise.
The space around art itself is more interesting.
When does the non-art component become the art?
Taking these non-artistic practices.
And applying them to an artistic practice.
As there are no limits to what art can be,
Could our performance be art?
In a learning environment, this is art practice.
But not an art work.
Even if your practice is product-based.
There’s no limit to a practice.
The placement doesn’t have to conclude.
With a product, but the experience itself.
Artists commonly suffer with a chronic state.
Of comparing themselves to one another.
Allowing it to be what it is.
The judgement and self-criticism falls away.
Relationships within institutions have become.
Distorted due to marketisation.
Art within all of this is potent.
There’s no right or wrong answer.
As long as you can back up why.
I make work for others.
Because as much as people say.
Your work should be what you want!
It must fulfill a brief, it must meet expectations.
If it doesn’t meet expectations, it has failed.
Art education has drilled into me that.
Whatever I make must fulfill something others desire.
This is my thought, not how I feel.
Enable me to redefine my individual practice.

Disney's Pool of Light and Background Theory

Something I’ve been reading up on recently in my quest to provide backgrounds for my drawings is Disney’s focus on pools of light in backgrounds, the idea being that backgrounds, while important and containing valuable information, are set pieces. A background on its own isn’t really complete - it’s a stage without actors. The pool of light refers to the area that is supposed to catch the viewer’s attention, it’s where most of the action in the scene will take place and where the majority of the important information for the viewer is located. Essentially, to continue the theater stage metaphor, it’s the spotlight of your composition.

Cinderella has some really, really excellent examples of this in its background paintings:

These are some more blatant examples, but will work for what I wish to talk about, in that this theory comes down to two things: color and shape.

COLOR

The pool of light deals not just with making an area in the scene brighter or lighter than another, it focuses on contrasts. While dark/light is part of this, there’s also the contrasts of tone, hue, and saturation. In Cinderella’s palette, this is consistently different warm grays used as the light, while dark blues are used as the shadow. When viewed on a color wheel, the colors are often near-complementary, but not exactly:

What’s important to take away from this is that these colors blend into every object, which allows the whole composition to appear consistent. 

Of course, the shadows/hilights don’t have to be the traditional warm light/cool shadows. This is just what the example uses.

SHAPE

Secondly, and just as important, is the shape of the light itself - because it shows exactly where the character will be moving, and what we should be focusing on. Even when not in animation, this is surprisingly effective. For example, look at the two screenshots of the stairs - would you expect Cinderella to go down the stairs, or across towards the rafters? Would she bring the breakfast up the stairs, or across the hall?

What’s fascinating is that this is absolutely everywhere in old Disney movies and shorts. Literally every background uses this concept. It’s not something you really think about while viewing the film, but as an artist, the ideas employed by these movies are incredibly useful.

(All screencaps used in this post are from disneyscreencaps, which is also a great place to research this further.)

scientificartist.blogspot.co.uk
THE SCIENTIFIC ARTIST: Head Extensions

The idea put forward in this article is so smart and elegant it makes my brain fizz. Pulling lines off a profile to draw a front-on view of a face with the same proportions is something that I think every artist has done at least a few times… but! 

If you pull the lines out at an angle, down or up, you can accurately derive the proportions for low and high view shots. Brilliant.

4

Not all of Stan came back.

Not all of Bill was lost.

Well…No he really isn’t.

Ok hear me out I’m not shooting down any theories whatsoever but hear me out ok??

cause this is the guy who goes so far to wear super short hacker mode shorts on instead of normal trousers omg like guys

Anyway, my point is if 707 really has that kind of power he would rather joke around with everyone instead.

So I’d like to porpose a brighter, happier theory to our dear lord lucifer I mean Luciel Choi.

Ok remember this chat at the start of the game???

There’s the time when you have to answer one of these

-You’re not violating my….
-Where did you get that info!?
-But I’m not a girl.

Now Im one of the few people who chose “But I’m not a girl”

Luciel will straight up answer : 

”thenwhydidyouplaythisgame” 

or sth like that, cause I didnt screenshot it. BUT OK IT’S CONFIRMED!!! HE’S NOT A TIME TRAVELLER, HE’S A FOURTHWALL BREAKING CHARACTER.

And when you think about it, it actually make sense. REMEMBER this is a OTOME GAME that team Cheritz created for YOU GUYS to enjoy.

Want more evidence?? Please check out team Cheritz asks for the game character. You know what Luciel always say??

SO!!!! I hope yall have a broader view on the problem and try not to be sad about it, because after all, mystic messenger is a game we all enjoy. Luciel always knows the user is new, and he would make jokes for you guys so you guys can feel comfortable around the game

LUCIEL CHOI IS TEAM CHERITZ ‘S VOICE!! A FOURTH WALL BREAKING CHARACTER. HE KNOWS HE’S A PROGRAM. AND YOU ALL WILL ALWAYS BE NEW TO HIM.

Speard the words guys. 

Finally, a thank you for all who’ve had the patient to read all my bullshit. ;w; love ya~

Art has become too ironical and unintelligible for its own communicative good: It only speaks to those in the esoteric know – those willing to play the art game. Narcissistically fetishized, advanced art loses relational purpose. Caught up in itself, it forgets the audience, which is expected to accept it on its own terms, uncritically: Whatever common ground existed between advanced art and the audience collapses. Holding up a mirror to itself rather than to the audience – as art has done since Aristotle noted the cathartic effect of the insight it afforded – art loses its audience. Thus, advanced art loses its foundation in human experience.
—  Taken from A Critical History of 20th-Century Art by Donald Kuspit.