I like the face, except for one thing: the detail leads you to expect a realistic head shape. The head you have is quite round, and while such a head is possible, I'd expect at least a fold of skin around the chin area and up the sides of the face (to show a double chin or something).
The detailing on the fact is quite excellent, but the shape of the head kind of draws your attention away because, while the rest of it looks natural, the head doesn't quite fit the level of detail. It seems to have gone beyond a cartoonistic style and into a more semi-realistic style, detail-wise. Also, there is a dab of lighter color on the left side of the hair that looks like it shouldn't be there.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Methril
The face is technically pretty good artwork but pseudo art part is dumb. Modern "art" is crap. Modern art is related to our tolerance pushing media, because if everyone could not make good art then they might feel bad. Therefore any suspected artwork is good in a surreal way.
|
Would you call the sculptures from "Nightmare Before Christmas" art? How about people who draw charicatures? Do you consider that art? I would. Scott has an alternative style which is very different and very refreshing. It's a gothic style, to me, meaning that darker elements of humanity creep through.
When I see his work I think dementia, insanity, dark thoughts, and so on. It's not just a drab, boring painting of trees or leaves or mountains or other landscapes; each face and character has a personality. A good artist is able to evoke emotions and thoughts from the people who view their pieces, just as a good poet can do the same.
05-30-2005, 07:31 AM
This isn't 'modern art', this is Scott's art.
Linear Mode
