Derailed,

[Catman25]

as per usual.

[img]http://i47.tinypic.com/2itii5u.png[/img]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/WgdcI.png[/img]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/3wpac.png[/img]

[img]http://i46.tinypic.com/2iqjvi8.png[/img]

[IMG]http://i47.tinypic.com/32zs29d.png[/IMG]

[.Rai]

I actually really like this, even though my instincts tell me not to. I like the rounded white rectangles, if it wasn't for the fact that only two of them randomly glow. It's an interesting conceptual peace, and I seem to spot random text clipping masks which I like. Low range of tones is interesting, but does lead to some harsh edges: cool at times, but often not.

Colour here is phenomenal.

[Catman25]

Yeah text wasn't masked haha, from a stock.

[quote name='.Rai' timestamp='1357406952' post='6111917']
I actually really like this, even though my instincts tell me not to.
[/quote]
As they should; quality and execution is outright terrible.

[quote name='.Rai' timestamp='1357406952' post='6111917']
Colour here is phenomenal.
[/quote]
That's all I strive for haha.


Thanks bro.

[Catman25]

Just gonna dump all my new crap in this thread.

[-DG-]

2nd seems too drowned out for me, It's kinda hurting my eyes a bit, and the focal's a bit hard to recognize at times.

I do like the atmosphere for the 1st and 3rd alot! The bars on the first bother me a bit, and I see some pretty heavily contrasted areas that might should be toned down a bit.

Other than that, I like

[Catman25]

Thanks bro. There was like one layer where it was pretty much all or nothing, referring to the overcontrast.

[RickiMinaj]

[quote name='.Rai' timestamp='1357406952' post='6111917']
Colour here is phenomenal.
[/quote]

I want to argue with this so badly but I can't because it's right. Actually, I can for the second one.
Your color choice looks like a faded out early 1940's american christmas.
Guess what time period that was.

The first one (the one with the excessive use of black) is actually quite fantastic. Her face is the only thing that needs proper definition. The white blocks presented was a good use of modernism. The only thing lacking here is your technique (or execution, whatever you want to call it) Just play closer attention to detail.

For the last one, was the entire thing vectored by you?

[.Rai]

[quote name='Essence' timestamp='1358112666' post='6119882']
I want to argue with this so badly but I can't because it's right. Actually, I can for the second one.
Your color choice looks like a faded out early 1940's american christmas.
Guess what time period that was.
The first one (the one with the excessive use of black) is actually quite fantastic. Her face is the only thing that needs proper definition. The white blocks presented was a good use of modernism. The only thing lacking here is your technique (or execution, whatever you want to call it) Just play closer attention to detail.
For the last one, was the entire thing vectored by you?
[/quote]

At that point, only the first one was up anyway :3 The use of large swathes of monochrome with highlights of a saturated split complementary colour scheme.

For the new one that's up, my OCD desperately wants those hexagons to look more regular.

[Catman25]

No I didn't vector it. I scratch about 0%.

[RickiMinaj]

[quote name='+Catman' timestamp='1358113462' post='6119894']
No I didn't vector it. I scratch about 0%.
[/quote]

Then I can't respect the piece as much as I want to.

[Catman25]

Seeing as that wasn't the intent, ok.

[RickiMinaj]

[quote name='+Catman' timestamp='1358192586' post='6120761']
Seeing as that wasn't the intent, ok.
[/quote]

Your intent seemed to be color manipulation. shapes and color coordinate almost coercively, one depending on the other like yin depends on yang and vice versa. If you did not create the shapes from scratch, you do not show prominent technique. Utilizing the existing and creating from raw are two different dimensions. I respect your coordination of color and shapes, but it's not as breathtaking as it could be knowing that the process wasn't as intense as it could be. After all, much of art is the process of getting there more than it is the actual art itself.

[Catman25]

[quote name='Essence' timestamp='1358207382' post='6121071']
Your intent seemed to be color manipulation. shapes and color coordinate almost coercively, one depending on the other like yin depends on yang and vice versa. If you did not create the shapes from scratch, you do not show prominent technique. Utilizing the existing and creating from raw are two different dimensions. I respect your coordination of color and shapes, but it's not as breathtaking as it could be knowing that the process wasn't as intense as it could be. After all, much of art is the process of getting there more than it is the actual art itself.
[/quote]
I happen to reside in the dimesion that works primarily with utilizing the existing, which by no means should be taken lightly in comparison to scratch work. You bring up a point, process is definitely important. But as history has shown, there is no right way to do art, and application of technique should not (within reasonable measure), affect your appreciation or lack thereof.

[RickiMinaj]

[quote name='+Catman' timestamp='1358225390' post='6121293']
I happen to reside in the dimesion that works primarily with utilizing the existing, which by no means should be taken lightly in comparison to scratch work. You bring up a point, process is definitely important. But as history has shown, there is no right way to do art, and application of technique should not (within reasonable measure), affect your appreciation or lack thereof.
[/quote]

There may not be a right way to do art, but there is definitely something called an opinion. I think you forget that art in itself is up for interpretation, and when we say art, we mean the entire process of it (including the starting point and creation of it). Therefore, do not forget that my opinion is an accumulation assessment of your process as well as your final product.

In addition, utilizing the existing displays something the art district likes to call "assumptions". Coined with overly simple modern work in the current era, "assumptions" are exactly what they appear to be, "assumptions". But these assumptions assess the skill of an artist with all factors (not limited to just conceptual thinking but also including technique) of art. If you are as logical as I give you credit for, you see where I'm going with this. You lack technique.

It's stated with your first and second piece as well. The hard edge style may be what you are going for, but I can see areas where clean up is definitely necessary.

Overall, I guess I can sum it up in a few short words to save you the trouble from reading above. Take your time with your artwork. Don't limit yourself to one sitting. Work on your technique. Most importantly though, leave the dimension that you currently reside in and step out your comfort zone. You will improve ten fold.

[Catman25]

There may not be a right way to do art, but there is definitely something called an opinion. I think you forget that art in itself is up for interpretation, and when we say art, we mean the entire process of it (including the starting point and creation of it). Therefore, do not forget that my opinion is an accumulation assessment of your process as well as your final product.

This is true, but there's a time and place. Your evaluation of my process should only include that of the intended process and outcome. Suggestion as to a different process that leads to a similar result is fine, but letting a different process in itself affect your judgment of a piece is not the point. I happen to work with more of "technique of assembly" rather than "scratch/creation". So to evaluate based on how I "should've" gotten to the end result is moot, as I intended to work the piece using a specific technique.
 

In addition, utilizing the existing displays something the art district likes to call "assumptions". Coined with overly simple modern work in the current era, "assumptions" are exactly what they appear to be, "assumptions". But these assumptions assess the skill of an artist with all factors (not limited to just conceptual thinking but also including technique) of art. If you are as logical as I give you credit for, you see where I'm going with this. You lack technique.

I guess I'm not as logical as I appear. I do not see where you are going with this. Sure my work is overly simple, it's supposed to be. I never claimed to have good technique, I claimed to be practicing a specific technique. And to go back to what I've been saying all along, if my piece is evaluated based upon my lack of a technique that I did not intend to use, then it will have no effect on me. I am here to be judged on my technique to "utilize the existing." I will gladly receive bad reviews on technique/concept/etc. and suggestions to better myself.

 

 

It's stated with your first and second piece as well. The hard edge style may be what you are going for, but I can see areas where clean up is definitely necessary.

Overall, I guess I can sum it up in a few short words to save you the trouble from reading above. Take your time with your artwork. Don't limit yourself to one sitting. Work on your technique. Most importantly though, leave the dimension that you currently reside in and step out your comfort zone. You will improve ten fold.

Of course clean up is necessary. I in no way claim perfection. I'm not trying to prove my choice of execution for my intended technique is "correct." I'm looking at the bigger picture though. Style even as a subset of technique or whatever is not what I'm going at. Scratch vs existing is the point I'm trying to make.

I admit, you bring up a good point with time. I do spend very little time actually going through and fine-tuning everything. But I feel like that's irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not trying to argue that I have good technique. To me this conversation isn't about trying to improve. It's about taking art for its intended purpose in addition to external factors. You said had I vectored, the piece would've garnered more respect, and that's a fact. Scratch work is a tough technique to master. But I do not claim to be that skillful. All my work would gain more respect had I sat down and painted it with a brush. But I did not intend for it to be that way. I came to the end result, and bar copypasta, I think any technique should be viewed from an equal vantage point. We don't all possess the skill or resources to scratch our work so I wouldn't like that to affect my pieces.

If you are suggesting leaving the realm of "utilizing the existing", then my answer would be no. Why should I? This segment of graphic design offers a lot, and obviously, acknowledging my low skill level, there is much more to learn. But more than that, I enjoy it. I'm sure you didn't mean leave completely, but I'm just going to point out, a combination of scratch work and non-scratch proves to yield some very nice art. I'm open to suggestions and will try new techniques. But bettering myself in the realm I'm in now is what matters to me as that's my intended technique.

This is not to appear sarcastic, but I too think a tl;dr is appropriate here haha.
Everything you said has merit. I'm not looking to improve with this argument. I just don't feel the same way about your evaluation of process. For my work to be evaluated with a process in mind that I cannot implement is unjust. Every piece of non-scratch work on this site would've been better scratched. But obviously, that's not always plausible or even skill-wise, possible, so I don't think that should have an effect on how the piece is viewed. You sort of branched off into a couple different areas, but this is ultimately what I'm trying to say.