Green Gecko wrote:I continue to like how effectively your images break my monitor regardless of which one I'm on at that time in the past 10 years or so.
That's gonna make me paranoid now. It's weird how people's eyes adjust, this is blurry and just by looking at it for hours then reverting to the other image i put up somehow now it appears overly scratchy and crisp. I want to do stuff that's alien and there's layers even if it's flat, so you can sink into it and see organisms mutating. Also you make me think of something animated, like Chris Cunnigham becoming obsessed with editing visuals to Aphex Twin's drill and bass hyper active music, or stuff like Gantz Graf. I like the idea of a static image where there's movement in it, your eyes vibrate because of the amount of movement that's layered in there. It's the same blocks over and over again and i spent ages thinking whether to accept that, Rothko essentially did the same thing for decades, and i used shapes and textures and can do more digitally. There's no pretense to think; right white page let's do something different. It's supposed to take the electronic music approach of creation, at least as i see it, not using loads of different hardware and software (i just use photoshop - colour balance, lasso, layers, copy and paste and that's it) but the endless manipulation of what you have based on stuff you've drawn that you can transform whilst retaining the fidelity. Just messing about with no intention, twisting and turning something to breaking point then trying to make it palatable. Maybe they're claustrophobic blocks where there's release inside them. A lot of electronic music affected me, Vose In, Rae, Cancel, The Waxen Pith, Pro Radii, My Half, so it made sense to reach for that. Rothko has the scale, the subtle changes, being enveloped, humans have a deep connection to colour as much as sound and he uses that. I people feel this constant pressure and accelerated chaos of modern life then there's something about the simplicity of a block of colour that breaks people and they just let it all go. But i've always worked small, if you enlarge these the detail changes. Like I saw Picasso's Guernica and wasn't impressed, it's so sketchy and unfinished, there's inspiration in the intent, how he's captured the horrors of war, but it's the inbetween bits where it's size doesn't make it more impressive to me. Rothko, Statue of David on the other hand, are transformed. You have to think i have to think; why do them? No one cares, they don't make me money, i have no desire for more, i don't listen to electronic music anymore, it was a few year period of excitement and that's fine, it doesn't act as inspiration anymore. I should have specified ages ago that drawing electronic music was the intention rather than reach a point where i don't want to even show them as they're judged a certain way, either as magic eye pictures, something spat out by a computer, using filters. They're collages really, rothko mixed with pollock. Do you know when you listen to electronic music and sometimes it feels like what you're hearing is alive, like it has a mind of its own, a living thing rather than something made by man. When it's percussive the sounds become like knives that kind of dance and it's so satisfying. Another thing is like Autechre, they construct their tracks so it's not this pop approach of sounds occurring without meaning, if there's a transition it will work and happen over minutes to a meticulous degree. They earn it, break it down, build it back up, they don't jump around. And sometimes that can be, like with their free jazz stuff now, a bit samey, they really prolong it. I do block pictures all at once, i don't bolt things together because it will never be seamless. I suppose you can blur but it's never like; okay this is all red lets create some electric blue ball in the corner, the changes come within. This makes me think of the first day at college in art class, the teacher assigned us a sketchbook and i filled about 5 pages. I think i wrote too much inbetween the drawings because she gave her impressions after everyone else, like i instantly came across hyper self analytical, saying one thing then contradicting it. Just draw the flowers and cloths. But asking why seems like a good thing to do rather than adopting art like a technician building up skills. I envy people who are always happy and satisfied but maybe life peaks when you listen to Atmosphere again and it's timeless and perfect, pure expression and that's enough. It's funny, keep this as a big paragraph block, or space it out. Keep it and it's stream of consciousness, space it out and it immediately becomes more considered and obviously readable. I'd like to sit opposite a professional and unload and for them to go; i have no strawberry floating idea what you are going on about, i have no frame of reference.
Whenever i do the black and white photos i save greyscale, tweak the darkness, upload, see that what i thought was black isn't quite black, tweak again, upload, see that what I thought was black isn't quite black, save as rgb, oh no too black. I assume other peoples monitors are brighter than mine so always have mine at 80% brightness. I used to use a matte monitor and maybe the gamma was all out but stuff looks different now to how i did it. I want to go back and re check, maybe i just saw things that weren't there, for the digital drawings I mean.