 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just for pleasure (mine at least)
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'DALIP4.jpg' (35 KB)
Preview of image 'DALIP4.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ph Gibone wrote:
>
> Just for pleasure (mine at least)
>
> Philippe
>
> [Image]
Dali-esque with a bit of Ecsher self portrait theme tied in
as well I see.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
>Dali-esque with a bit of Ecsher self portrait theme tied in
>as well I see.
>
That is the idea in the title !
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ph Gibone wrote:
>
> >
> >Dali-esque with a bit of Ecsher self portrait theme tied in
> >as well I see.
> >
> That is the idea in the title !
> Philippe
Well see how subtly you got your message across. I did not make the
association through the title of the thread but through the content
of your work. It will only work with a discriminating and perceptive
audience though.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I really like the picture, and the other versions that you have posted,
but in the words of an old DJ who used to play alternative music before
alternative music was popular, "if it needs explaining it's no good".
I think that the point is that any piece of work (art) should be able to
stand alone. It's debatable whether or not the title is part of the
piece or has been put there to describe the piece to people who wouldn't
understand it. This becomes a circular argument, as one wants their
work to be accessible and appreciated by as many people as possible, and
some would look or listen and not see or hear what it was that the
artist was trying to say, so, when should one give the audience a gentle
push in the right direction?
Steve
Ken wrote:
>
> Ph Gibone wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Dali-esque with a bit of Ecsher self portrait theme tied in
> > >as well I see.
> > >
> > That is the idea in the title !
> > Philippe
>
> Well see how subtly you got your message across. I did not make the
> association through the title of the thread but through the content
> of your work. It will only work with a discriminating and perceptive
> audience though.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Aw shucks! I was hoping you would have used another view in that added
picture if you were going to do any such thing at all.
Like it, but think it would have been far better.
Ph Gibone wrote:
>
> Just for pleasure (mine at least)
>
> Philippe
>
> [Image]
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aol com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
+AD4-I think that the point is that any piece of work (art) should be able to
+AD4-stand alone. It's debatable whether or not the title is part of the
+AD4-piece or has been put there to describe the piece to people who wouldn't
+AD4-understand it.
Hi Steve
There is a third posibility that I like yhe most : the title is part of the
piece, but not to describe it, but to add something the piece would'nt have
without it.
The example that comes to my mind is Magritte (belgian surrealistic painter)
: he painted a realistic pipe but the title of the painting is +ACI-this is not
a pipe+ACI-, obviously, without the title, you lose something BTW nobody ever
tried to smoke a painting (AFAIK)+ACE-
An ancient french writer (don't remember which one (shame on me)) said
+ACI-Any verse that has to be explained does'nt deserve to be+ACI-
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Aw shucks! I was hoping you would have used another view in that added
>picture if you were going to do any such thing at all.
>Like it, but think it would have been far better.
Sorry to disappoint you, I've tried with other views of the same scene, but
it is too small, and you can't really say what it is, with the same image (I
love recursion) even if you don't see details you recognize the whole thing
Thanks anyway for pushing me
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
, so, when should one give the audience a gentle
> push in the right direction?
>
> Steve
I think that is a point well taken. My recent post called obscurity was
titled only after some deliberation. It had many predicessors like Ninja,
The Rock Face, and few others left unsaid. In the end I choose "Obscurity"
because I felt it set a mood I was trying to convey with the work and to
a certain extent described the content. I have been much less successful
in the naming of some of my other works of art.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've been thinking about this subject today, and came to the conclusion
that in a medium such as this (and in many other media), a title is
essential. Imagine if none of the postings in this particular NG had a
title, would you even bother looking at the work, you could waste some
money spent on your phone bill to download 100 Star Wars pics. If items
in a newspaper didn't have headlines, would anyone buy the paper let
alone read it.
I do agree that a title can actually add to the enjoyment of a work of
art, as ken says, it can set a mood, but there's always a thin line
between setting a mood and leaving nothing to the imagination.
This is something for every individual artist to decide for themselves.
PS: My dat constantly watches TV programs and films without knowing what
they are called, I on the other hand won't turn the TV on unless I know
the name of the program that I'm going to watch. Maybe some visitors to
this NG don't even read subject lines, it'd be interesting to know.
Steve
Ken wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
> , so, when should one give the audience a gentle
> > push in the right direction?
> >
> > Steve
>
> I think that is a point well taken. My recent post called obscurity was
> titled only after some deliberation. It had many predicessors like Ninja,
> The Rock Face, and few others left unsaid. In the end I choose "Obscurity"
> because I felt it set a mood I was trying to convey with the work and to
> a certain extent described the content. I have been much less successful
> in the naming of some of my other works of art.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
