finally… I like the previous ones a lot better, but this one has some color… waiting to see what you’ll whip up tomorrow
What’s the girl in the yellow shirt facing?
Any reason why the 3 pictures are all the same?
Oh I get it, the three women are facing each picture from a different angle and it looks different to their rotated field of vision.
BleedForMe: Haha, thanks
Cyborg Dragon: Good questions you raise and I’m glad because it gives me the opportunity to explain, something I typically refrain from doing as I’m about to do, but it’s a good thing sometimes, especially in an otherwise unassuming image like this where people might not suspect a great deal of thought went into it. I’ve been dwelling on such an image for years actually and was motivated with all the talk of art to go ahead and finish it. It is surely a theme I will revist, especially in my “Beautiful Music” animation underway. “Viewers Are the Exhibition” is, on the simplest level, about how each person can look at the very same image and have much different reactions. The person on the left perhaps loves the image, green, going toward the image, while the person at the right is unsure of the image, and hence grey (neutral) in her thinking. The person at the top of the exhibit is figuratively and literally “above such art” and is leaving through her personal ceiling, which I take for her lofty yet limited definition of “Art.” She wears a sickly greenish-yellow dress because she is sick of what she sees and has to leave the exhibit. The room itself is a series of reflections. Everything, the walls and ceiling, reflect, yet the entire image itself, including the people, have a canvas feel to it, because it is the act of the exhibit, the viewers themselves, that are on display here, and how they react says more about them sometimes than the art they are looking at, and vice versa, since this is a duplex/reciprocal phenomenon of creating and regarding images. In this case we are regarding the regarders regardlessly of what they think The room itself is titled and everyone is shown to have their own angle and perspective, so they each see it in their own way. Haha, that was fun to try to explain In this project I wanted to keep the style very basic to let the ideas come across more purely. Escher was an influence here too (as I stare left at his “Relativity” print on my own wall in my room). Relativity is an element here too with respect to everyone’s personal “frame of reference.”
I think this one called for more realistic viewers, or done in a different way, dunno.
this work points, imho, to the way responses to a ‘art piece’ are ‘art’ themselves, and sometimes even more interesting. Does RobertT answer here to the ongoing discussions about art in this forum? Maybe, but Bleedforme’s talk about ‘the previous ones’ may reveal this piece is previous to that debate, and this review, bullshit.
edit: lol, being so slow had me trying to explain something after the autor did. A critic nightmare.
nf3, chill. I was stating my opinion, unless there is a law that takes the right to do so away from me, chill. I like this one, but I just like the previous ones(forgot the names but… the beveled curves and the one that reminded me, and other people of “selfmade man”).
Dizzying explanation RobertT. And I do like works inspired by Escher, he was a genious in making pieces like this so I have nothing against that.
There must be some misunderstanding here. I thought your reference to ‘previous’ work meant RobertT had posted before previous versions of this particular piece wich I didnt see, so then it could not be a response to ongoing discussions about ‘art’. I only said, “if so, my take on RobertT’s work was clueless”. I never wanted to imply anything about your opinions. I did commit a mistake mentioning your name in a context that was not clear, though.
nf3: Thanks for the feedback! It’s probably worth saying, regardless of what people have to say, I’m always anxious to learn and remain interested in all their responses I never do what I do for praise or anything like that. My main thing is to get ideas I believe in out there to get people thinking, hence my sig, and steadily improve my ability to do that. Sometimes I like to have fun too, or get experimental, and perhaps what I enjoy even more is not doing what people necessarily expect or demand. So much of it is steered by inspiration, but beyond that there are very specific reasons I make certain artistic choices, like in the image the lack of hands. You mentioned “more realistic viewers,” but what I had in mind, in the overall philosophy of the image, is that the viewers are part of the art they interact with and not separate from it: the art is a reflection of them, of society, of the world, whether they like it or accept it or not. Some choose to leave the room, some fall in love with what they see or at least try, while others, skeptical or unsure, at least make an effort to delve past the surface of an image. The fact they have no hands is my way of saying they cannot create or change the image they are seeing because it was made by another person, like them perhaps, but a person with her or his own mind/experiences/memories/thoughts/fears/aesthetic persuasions, and so on. On the other hand, everything in the exhibition, including the viewers and even the viewer leaving the room (if she even can, that is… shades of Sartre’s NO EXIT???) is real and valid. The presence of gravity tugs at them all. The pictures are somewhat fixed in their frames, but they continue to change in the minds of the viewers, through their own perspectives, and as the camera angle suggests here, the room (a metaphor for the universe, if you will) even has its own perspective. As I was telling Cyborg Dragon, these are ideas I have dwelled upon for years but only tonight did it digitally (and to answer your other question, I think BleedForMe was referring to other recent unrelated projects of mine). The images may come quick, but the thoughts behind them have been there much of a lifetime. Thanks to Blender and its creators I now have a means to give dimension to my thoughts, and I’m infinitely appreciative for that.
Cyborg Dragon: Yeah, Escher still amazes me after all these years His 2D patterns alone (which often resemble 3D) are like handmade fractals. Imagine what someone like Escher might do with a program like Blender.
It stuck me the contrast between the human figures and the slick and detailed scenario. Maybe a good addenda would be to make the visible reflection of one of the women very realistic, or add a more realistic ‘entering’ fourth woman. Anyway, dont take me 2 seriously
nf3: Haha, yeah, and this is really the part where the “no hands” thing kicks in But what you mention does give me the opportunity to explain more, so it’s great either way. Without the grey/maybe person the image becomes a binary polarization. The Contemplator (grey person) is really the most hopeful aspect of this image, for the possibilities that person contains as opposed to the Adorer (left) and the Rejector (top). A fourth person might make for round numbers and an artifical sense of evenness, but the properties of 3 are key here for these and other reasons. The grey person is not physically situated in the center of the room, yet she remains essential and central to everything.
okay, okay, I’ll buy it
Seriously: I admit I just took enough time to consider the details (no hands, different colors…) I only saw the way the ‘reactive’ women kind of ‘exposed’ themselves (literally, with an upskirt) So I just scratched the surface. I remember reading about Vermeer and how he (and many flemish painters) included all sort of ‘code’ objects than bore very specific simbolic meanings, some of wich now are lost. So, in a way, we cannot ‘see’ a Vermeer like his contemporaries. Luckily, his work survives, though, and eventually is much more appreciated than in his time.
nf3: Yes, Vermeer – I really like that artist A while back I created something in 3D called “Another Girl with a Pearl Earring” that was inspired by his famous work. There are a bunch of books on symbols and myths in art that are pretty fascinating. The phenomenon of meaning and interpretability over (what I consider the illusion of) time, as I have personally explored it in years past specific to literary theory, was something I came to call the READSHIFT, a neologism of mine which was inspired by the astronomical term redshift. I had a website years ago at Tripod.com (rtiess.tripod.com) that had, among other things, an essay I wrote about this, but the website is long gone (parts of it are in archive.org though). I’m posting it below because I think its ideas are still relevant and essential in the context of art (nearly as simple as substituting the words “art” for “literature” and “artistic” for “literary” and “artists” for “authors” and “works” for “texts”). So here it is:
The Escher influence comes through loud and clear, and I see a touch of Lichtenstein in it too. It’s probably my monitor, but the sickly yellow green dress just looks like a warm yellow dress, leaving this character in an ambiguous situation.
Still, it’s a nice piece. It grows on me each time I take another look. It’s obvious, even without the explanations, that a lot of thought went into the work. Good job.
>>> What’s the girl in the yellow shirt facing?