flower, part two by eyeland
Close
Hover over top left image to zoom.
Click anywhere to exit.
Members remain the original copyright holder in all their materials here at Renderosity. Use of any of their material inconsistent with the terms and conditions set forth is prohibited and is considered an infringement of the copyrights of the respective holders unless specially stated otherwise.
No AI - This artwork was created entirely by hand or with traditional digital tools.
Description
I started with the same photo I used in my previous post, merged another photo with it & did some color manipulation & layer blending in photoshop. Does this muddy or adulterate the purity of the original photo or does it enhance it somehow? Would a viewer's reaction to it be different if they hadn't seen the original? If they suspected that the transformations were randomly generated by a piece of software? If this was an oil painting rather than a manipulated photo?
Just trying to stimulate some thought about art & perception here - if you find this to be meaningless drivel, sorry to have wasted your time...
Comments (3)
as long as you challenge yourself, your intentions, and your own manifesto of creative vision, why do you need others to give you the answers?..... I believe a 'finished work of art', no matter the medium, should speak for itself to any viewer... I think the question is, what is criticism?
I don't think there is an answer, just different points of view and modes of perception (which may or may not be biased in one direction or another). I just wanted to try to find out how others experience art & what critical filters they might apply. It won't change my approach to my own art or how I view others art - it's just something I have a curiosity about...
In answer to your questions: 1. In my view, it is muddied, only because the original seemed clearer of purpose. There seems to be more randomness going on here than in the first version, and the central focus is no longer "as focused." 2. Yes, it probably would have been different, but still I find the image busy. 3. If is it is randomly generated by software, then it could loose some integrale value. If the effect is seemless and enhances the image, then I am all for it. 4. In THIS case, I would say an oil painting would be more impressive than a maniped photo, though I would still not find the subject matter of as much interest. I know you did not ask, but if it were me, I would have honed in on the mandala aspect of the blossom and cropped in tighter, allowing all other surrounding details to blur and fall away. I should not need to mention it, but obviously this is all just my view of things. If an image speaks to the artist in some way, then they should be happy with it.