Hello, good evening, and welcome, to another enthralling post. Yeah, I had trouble keeping a straight face over that too. Anyway, despite the title there is only one picture for your perusal today, but there are two people in it - plenty of step by step stuff though, if you're into that sort of thing.
I still haven't compiled all the sketches from October to December to show, and now of course I have January's to do, and then February's in a couple of weeks. I'll get to it, and probably not all in one post either, but this weekend I'm working on another painting (digital), and then there's another facebook portrait to do, and I want to get a traditional piece done and work on my perspective skills and speedpaints too, so as you can imagine, things are a little cramped for time right now. Also, TV show season, not helping...
Anyway, on with today's performance.
Showing posts with label Optical Illusions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Optical Illusions. Show all posts
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Sunday, June 23, 2013
A Musing 5b: It's Just an Illusion (Part 2)
Let's talk some more about optical illusions. If you missed the first part of this series (and this may be the last part, unless I think of something else worth saying) you can catch up here. That's not required reading to understand this part, but it may be of interest. So, illusions! Fascinating things. In the previous part I discussed how illusions help us understand art. This time I'll be looking at how they can also make the artist's life hell by lying about what we're seeing when we are trying to reproduce it. This issue doesn't effect all artists - some people just have the natural power to overcome at least some of these illusions, and for others you can either learn tricks to get past them, or use "mechanical" means to do the same. That is not what this post is about though. I'm not going to go into every optical illusion that causes problems, just a small number of prevalent ones or I'd be here all week.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
A Musing 5: It's just an Illusion (Part 1)
Let's talk about optical illusions.
Usually when you think of optical illusions you're thinking of something that's messing with your brain; "Look all the dots are wobbling!" "Look, that staircase is impossible!" "Look, the candlestick is two faces!" and so on. But really we rely on optical illusions all day, every day. Without them could we look at a photograph and make sense of it? Understand a representational illustration? See a movie, without the illusion of motion? I'm going to say that no, we probably couldn't, and that such art forms are as reliant on illusions that can fool our brains into seeing something that isn't there as novelty videos of dragons who's heads follow you around the room. Illusions are central to our understanding of art - they make art possible, and yet at the same time they make art very difficult. We'll get to the why of that in a later post, but first let's look at some common illusions and why I believe they make a case for art, in general, being dependent on them.
Before we continue I should point out that this essay is going to be a bit of a ramble, and will be split into two parts (the next coming soon). I have a copy of Sketch Book Pro open in one window, and I'm writing this in the other. I am hoping it will all tie up neatly with a nice bow, but I'm not writing it for my English lecturer so I'm just going to go with the flow and hope for the best (If you're lucky I'll proof read it before publishing). As usual in these posts there's the caveat that I'm not an expert in this stuff, and I'm definitely not qualified in these areas, so you probably don't want to quote me in case I'm an idiot :)
Usually when you think of optical illusions you're thinking of something that's messing with your brain; "Look all the dots are wobbling!" "Look, that staircase is impossible!" "Look, the candlestick is two faces!" and so on. But really we rely on optical illusions all day, every day. Without them could we look at a photograph and make sense of it? Understand a representational illustration? See a movie, without the illusion of motion? I'm going to say that no, we probably couldn't, and that such art forms are as reliant on illusions that can fool our brains into seeing something that isn't there as novelty videos of dragons who's heads follow you around the room. Illusions are central to our understanding of art - they make art possible, and yet at the same time they make art very difficult. We'll get to the why of that in a later post, but first let's look at some common illusions and why I believe they make a case for art, in general, being dependent on them.
Before we continue I should point out that this essay is going to be a bit of a ramble, and will be split into two parts (the next coming soon). I have a copy of Sketch Book Pro open in one window, and I'm writing this in the other. I am hoping it will all tie up neatly with a nice bow, but I'm not writing it for my English lecturer so I'm just going to go with the flow and hope for the best (If you're lucky I'll proof read it before publishing). As usual in these posts there's the caveat that I'm not an expert in this stuff, and I'm definitely not qualified in these areas, so you probably don't want to quote me in case I'm an idiot :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
