# Hey, Artist: Paint This! Part II



## fatlane (Jan 27, 2006)

Janet, your picture is ready...


----------



## fatlane (Jan 27, 2006)

I have another and, for the life of me, can't remember who it belongs to. I feel so terribly remiss in my lack of attention to details outside the picture.

Anyway, enjoy.


----------



## Janet (Jan 29, 2006)

Amazing! Thanks, Fatlane. It is beautiful! 

By the way, what medium are you using? Part of the picture looks like silkscreen, but the highlights in the hair and lips look more like watercolour. At the same time, you seem to be a computer wizard so this could all be digital magic. 

The technical details don't actually matter because I'm thoroughly honoured!! 

We have to hunt down Badger and let him know that having clothes paid off for me! 

Hugs,

Janet


----------



## fatlane (Jan 29, 2006)

It's all done with Paint Shop Pro, Janet. And I usually mess around with things until they look good, in this case using a smudge tool on the hair layer. I titled it "Wallflower" because you were leaning on the wall and looking wistful in the photo. Then I decided to add the flower on the wall.  After that, I pulled colors from the flower to use in the clothes, so things sort of surround the face, keeping our eyes on your eyes... and lips. We can wander around, but we keep coming back to that focus.


----------



## TaciturnBadger (Jan 30, 2006)

Janet said:


> We have to hunt down Badger and let him know that having clothes paid off for me!



Whyfor you hunt down Badgers?!  

--B.


----------



## Janet (Jan 30, 2006)

TaciturnBadger said:


> Whyfor you hunt down Badgers?!
> 
> --B.


 
Oops! A poor choice of words. You're safe my furry friend, I was merely remembering you from your wit in Hey Artist, Paint This (part l).



> *Gasp!* You have CLOTHES? Wow! What a coincidence! I do too! ~~
> 
> --B.



By the way, I left you a little "link" in that old thread. Did you see it, Badger?

Janet


----------



## fatlane (Jan 30, 2006)

Badgers? I DON'T HAVE TO SHOW YOU ANY STINKING BADGERS!

Sorry, but it was long overdue for that pun.


----------



## fatlane (Feb 2, 2006)

And now... 

CARRIE HALL!

Enjoy Carrie in her "Diane Keaton Circa 1977" look!


----------



## swamptoad (Feb 2, 2006)

You are quite the artist, Fatlane!


----------



## Carrie (Feb 2, 2006)

Okay, fatlane. To properly gauge my reaction, please picture me clicking on this link you sent me, finding this picture, and squealing "Ooooooh!," and clapping my hands in delight like a little girl presented with a pink pony covered in candy. 

In other words, *I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* :smitten: :smitten: :smitten: :smitten: :smitten: :smitten: :smitten: :smitten: 

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! I'm just completely flattered and thrilled.  :kiss2:


----------



## fatlane (Feb 2, 2006)

You're absolutely welcome. So I guess you like Manhattan by way of drawings...


----------



## Carrie (Feb 2, 2006)

fatlane said:


> You're absolutely welcome. So I guess you like Manhattan by way of drawings...



I do indeed.


----------



## fatlane (Feb 2, 2006)

Now you just need to change your sig to, "God, I hope he doesn't turn out to be a schmuck like the others."


----------



## fatlane (Feb 3, 2006)

Dreamer72fem sent one in: here it is!


----------



## fatlane (Feb 3, 2006)

Annnnd now for BigSexy920:


----------



## bigsexy920 (Feb 3, 2006)

OMG, what a nice picture. Thanks so much. Im totally flattered that you chose me. 

Berna


----------



## Jane (Feb 3, 2006)

FL, if you're now the Prince Regent, I'm "Bob" from Bladder IV.


----------



## fatlane (Feb 3, 2006)

bigsexy920 said:


> OMG, what a nice picture. Thanks so much. Im totally flattered that you chose me.
> 
> Berna



I chose a bunch of pics from the smiling thread...


----------



## fatlane (Feb 3, 2006)

Jane said:


> FL, if you're now the Prince Regent, I'm "Bob" from Bladder IV.



If you're "Bob", then...

RIGHT!
_*SAUSAGE TIME!*_


----------



## bigsexy920 (Feb 3, 2006)

fatlane said:


> I chose a bunch of pics from the smiling thread...




I know, still feels nice.


----------



## Daimon (Feb 3, 2006)

...talentless fraud???????


----------



## dreamer72fem (Feb 3, 2006)

THANK YOU SOOOO MUCH for doing the pic. It is great...I was wondering which you were going to pic
*HUGS*
Stacey


----------



## Daimon (Feb 3, 2006)

fatlane said:


> I chose a bunch of pics from the smiling thread...


 I think you're a fraud. Have you no compunction????


----------



## fatlane (Feb 3, 2006)

dreamer72fem said:


> THANK YOU SOOOO MUCH for doing the pic. It is great...I was wondering which you were going to pic
> *HUGS*
> Stacey



You're quite welcome!


----------



## fatlane (Feb 3, 2006)

Because I think I owe Karoline a pic in which she doesn't look like She-Hulk...


----------



## bigcutiekaroline (Feb 3, 2006)

Ummmmm Fatlips.......I don't know if you noticed but I am not blonde.....lol
Just kidding.....the picture ROCKS! Thank you so much for the painting!!! You have proven to be the genuis I knew you to be. Ofcourse it has alot to do with the subject matter too!!!  

I have always wondered what I would look like blonde! Am I getting paid in 
M & M's again???? :eat2: :eat2: :eat2: :eat2: :eat2: :eat2: :eat2: :eat2:


----------



## bigcutiekaroline (Feb 3, 2006)

Lol...I keep looking at it....I can't help it....I love the nose eyes and lips.......that is just so....................me!! Amazing.....


----------



## fatlane (Feb 3, 2006)

bigcutiekaroline said:


> Lol...I keep looking at it....I can't help it....I love the nose eyes and lips.......that is just so....................me!! Amazing.....



Thank you very much. And as far as the yellow hair went, I had an urge to do a kind of late 60's/early 70's kind of thing with it and treat it as a solid color, then go with the purple shirt and yellow background to frame the face. 

I'm so glad you like it! Thanks again!


----------



## fatlane (Feb 3, 2006)

Aaaaaaand this is for Saucywench!


----------



## Buffie (Feb 13, 2006)

Daimon said:


> I think you're a fraud. Have you no compunction????




I disagree with your opinion.

May we see some of your art, please?


----------



## dangeresque (Feb 13, 2006)

Daimon said:


> I think you're a fraud. Have you no compunction????



Thank god, someone feels the same way I do.


----------



## fatlane (Feb 13, 2006)

dangeresque said:


> Thank god, someone feels the same way I do.



Dude, you have no clue.

Go consume the rotting corpse of your father after you finish your day's work as a rag-picker on the streets of Kabul while a baboon shoves a bamboo rod up your butt and smokes a cigar into it.

Just for funsies, though, K?

These works aren't intended for you. They're gifts to friends or passing acquaintances, and _they_ *like* them. Not you. My care for your opinion, I have decided, will not exceed the care I have for Dick Cheney's immortal and hell-bound soul, which is _nil_.

These are not for you. They are for someone else. If you don't like them, then, well, do as they say in Mongolia:

_Iruugai avaj nuruugai maijmar, ilgai avaj bogsoo archmar._

Translated: Take your jaws and scratch your back, and take your liver and wipe your ass.

And that's the short version. Now scram.


----------



## Carrie (Feb 13, 2006)

fatlane said:


> These works aren't intended for you. They're gifts to friends or passing acquaintances, and _they_ *like* them.



I love mine. :wubu: 

Dangeresque, it's disappointing that you seem to have registered for the sole reason of posting one crabby "me too" here, but welcome to the forums, anyway. Here's hoping you have something a bit more positive to contribute from here on out - I'm willing to bet you do. Some artwork of your own? A dirty haiku? Obscure movie quotes? Tips on where to find affordable, large-size crotchless, edible panties? Whatever, just join in.


----------



## jamie (Feb 13, 2006)

FL, the new additions are great. I love how you caught what was so unique about each of them. Good job.

Carrie - they should totally re-do that movie with you as the lead. I am starting the petition shortly!


----------



## fatlane (Feb 13, 2006)

That's what I'm talking about. Thought about it some more, too. I'll itemize my thoughts, because it's fun that way.

1. If I make something and the intended audience likes it (or better than likes it), then I've succeeded as an artist, period. If I hear or read the feedback of those who like it, so much the better. I'm thankful for my fans. They make doing this all worthwhile. 

2. I admit I'm nowhere near where I'd like to be in terms of draftsmanship or productivity. Those will improve with time. I see it in the work of others and know that if I'm patient and keep working, things get better. I'm not in a hurry. I can take my time and I can keep at it.

3. Accuracy is not as important as emotional feel. If I produce a technically accurate work with no emotion to it, I'm not an artist in that case. I'm an artisan, a craftsman. If I do a terrible job of accurately representing something but somehow infuse the work with a certain _Je ne sais quoi_, then _that_ is art, not the cold reproduction. It's the same way one can just snap photos or actually practice the art of photography. There really is a difference. If you don't feel what others feel, well, then, OK. So it goes.

4. I'd like to drag Les Toil into this one. (See his fine stuff at www.toilgirls.com ). I love his stuff, personally, but let's just say, one day, I see a work of his and absolutely freak because when I magnify it 3000%, I discover a pixel I felt should have been colored #456FF3 was _actually_ colored #456FF*2*. The horror! I'm totally turned off by him and don't ever want to see his work again! Fine. No reason for me to sling crap in his direction. It's obvious he's still got an audience and if people want to buy junk with pixels colored #456FF3, that's their business and their waste of money. If he really, _really_ has no talent, nobody will buy his stuff -- in the which case, slinging crap at him is mean and petty. (For the record, I love Les' work -- and I have no problem with any of the pixels he's pushed or pigmented! I just wanted to drag him in to plug his site, which I think is great.)

5. If you see me as arrogant, phony, megalomaniac, presumptuous, stuck-up, full of myself, or any other negative perception, then let's go at that, shall we? No need to attack me obliquely.

6. If you can't substantiate what it is you don't like about my work, then you're talking out of your mind. Sound and fury, signifying nothing and all that rot. When I criticize art, I don't just leave it at "this is bad". I'll identify the elements within it that contribute to the badness. If those are later corrected, I'll like it. If not, then I won't. If someone else actually likes the work, flawed and all, then I guess I'll just have to be tolerant and go my own route.

7. I am reminded of Rostand's immortal hero, Cyrano de Bergerac. I am he. You have just said my nose is.... large... 

So unimaginative!

I demand better of you! I have made not just a large number of posts here, but a large number of well-written and well-researched posts. I am a loyal member of these forums, and I am willing to fight to protect their honor and dignity. Therefore, I resolve to light a candle after my previous, darkness-cursing post. I share with you all the final lines of Rostand's great play:

_CYRANO:_
Why, I well believe
He dares to mock my nose? Ho! insolent!
_(He raises his sword):_
What say you? It is useless? Ay, I know
But who fights ever hoping for success?
I fought for lost cause, and for fruitless quest!
You there, who are you!--You are thousands!
Ah!
I know you now, old enemies of mine!
Falsehood!
_(He strikes in air with his sword):_
Have at you! Ha! and Compromise!
Prejudice, Treachery!. . .
_(He strikes):_
Surrender, I?
Parley? No, never! You too, Folly,--you?
I know that you will lay me low at last;
Let be! Yet I fall fighting, fighting still!
_(He makes passes in the air, and stops, breathless):_
You strip from me the laurel and the rose!
Take all! Despite you there is yet one thing
I hold against you all, and when, to-night,
I enter Christ's fair courts, and, lowly bowed,
Sweep with doffed casque the heavens' threshold blue,
One thing is left, that, void of stain or smutch,
I bear away despite you.
_
(He springs forward, his sword raised; it falls from his hand; he staggers, falls back into the arms of Le Bret and Ragueneau.)_

_ROXANE (bending and kissing his forehead):_
'Tis?. . .

_CYRANO (opening his eyes, recognizing her, and smiling):_
*MY PANACHE!*


----------



## Boteroesque Babe (Feb 13, 2006)

You gotta a funny "it's..."


----------



## fatlane (Feb 13, 2006)

I have big it's and I bet you're looking at my it's right now.

Eyes up here, BB. Quit looking at my it's. And those it's are 100% natural. They're mine, and they're _spectacular._

I daresay my it's are even bigger than Buffie's it's.


----------



## Boteroesque Babe (Feb 13, 2006)

Sorry. Uh... what were you saying?


----------



## Jane (Feb 13, 2006)

I like the "It's..." perky!!!!


----------



## Jane (Feb 13, 2006)

dangeresque said:


> Thank god, someone feels the same way I do.


Oh, look, a low flying, anonymous, huevoless wonder!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FreeThinker (Feb 13, 2006)

Fatlane said:


> Accuracy is not as important as emotional feel. If I produce a technically accurate work with no emotion to it, I'm not an artist in that case.


Exactly what I try to do with my singing/songwriting.

By means of illustration (no pun intended, *Fatlane*!), may I suggest one listen to Whitney Houston's flawless, uninspired cover of "I Will Always Love You", and see how it compares to Dolly Parton's _wrenching_ original.

If you look back at this post and think you were too harsh with him, *Fatlane*:

You weren't.


----------



## Buffie (Feb 13, 2006)

fatlane said:


> I daresay my it's are even bigger than Buffie's it's.



EXCUSE me!? :shocked: 

~Smacks Fatlane with a pink leather glove!~ 

I challenge you to a duel!

As Jack would say... Oh, look... my ride is here... it's a huff and I'm leaving in it!  

Just kiddin. Your It's is way bigger than mine, that's for sure. Natural, too. You get extra points for that.


----------



## fatlane (Feb 13, 2006)

Buffie said:


> ~Smacks Fatlane with a pink leather glove!~



I love a woman with spirit.


----------



## Buffie (Feb 13, 2006)

Have I ever told you that you're crazy in the good way, Fatlane?


----------



## fatlane (Feb 13, 2006)

I'm sure you have, but it bears repetition. If you ever need my cigar-smoking baboon with a bamboo tube, just holler and he's yours!


----------



## dangeresque (Feb 13, 2006)

Don't bother bringing up Les in this discussion. He's done all the basics for years and years, and as you and everyone else can see it has paid off. You're just skipping right over those basics.

Also, your postcount means nothing to me, just as mine shouldn't mean anything to you.



fatlane said:


> 6. If you can't substantiate what it is you don't like about my work, then you're talking out of your mind. Sound and fury, signifying nothing and all that rot. When I criticize art, I don't just leave it at "this is bad". I'll identify the elements within it that contribute to the badness. If those are later corrected, I'll like it. If not, then I won't. If someone else actually likes the work, flawed and all, then I guess I'll just have to be tolerant and go my own route.



Fine.

You look like a tracer who just bought a tablet thinking that it's a magical device that gives you artistic skill.

Your lines are short and scratchy and blurry. There's no confidence. Use a harder brush for once.

Nothing has any underlying form, it looks like it's traced. Build your subjects up from basic shapes like cubes, spheres, etc. If you have taken any sort of life drawing you would know this.

Your colours are blinding. There's no colour harmony. Your shaded stuff has no lightsource.

Don't give me that excuse that 'you're an _arteest_ and that all your amateurish mistakes are of your choice. They look bad. Learn the rules before you break them. It's not like Da Vinci, Picasso, or whoever else you can name off was super art guy overnight. They learned the basics like anybody else.

You seem to like lots of words, go read this for a good start in how to do things right: http://www.itchstudios.com/psg/art_tut.htm

Also, this goes for you and everyone else: Photoshop filters do not make a photo or drawing automatically look better. They're tools with a purpose, and that purpose is not '*click* Yay! Masterpiece!'.


----------



## fatlane (Feb 14, 2006)

All righty...

Yes, I use short lines. The blurs come from the fact I blur the layers. That's intentional. That's the look I want. I'm setting them deliberately. When I get something I don't like, CTRL+Z gets rid of it and I go back at it.

Honestly, I don't think you get what it is I'm doing. You're entirely missing the point. The colors I'm working with right now are intended to be as bold as they are. Do you even know what idioms I'm working with? Never mind, you'd reject that I've worked with them properly from your perspective.

I'm very aware of where I'm making abstractions. Yes, I'm working with an underlying photographic base. But there are nevertheless forms within what I'm doing and I reject the notion that I'm producing flat pieces. I simply don't see that. Yes, there are areas I flatten in an abstraction, but there are other areas I bring out - when I want to. Part of what I'm working with is the vocabulary of comics. There are psychological elements in controlling this detail or that, making a figure more iconic or more realistic. 

But all right, you hate my stuff. Sorry you can't get into them. I can't agree with your criticisms. You accuse me of talentlessness, yet I've got at least the talent for eliciting admiration and pleasure from my audience. To do that, there is something more than mere amateurishness. You don't see it, but quite a few others do.

Cast the boulder from your own eye before you pick the speck out of mine. You're just not looking at them right. 

I suspect you've got some deeper bitterness issues, but I'll pass over those. If you got stuff of your own, show it. Dedicate it to some of the people here and share with them and then you'll see something no technical brillance can ever capture. 

Leonardo Da Vinci's stuff wasn't good because he had perfect technical execution he had an ability to project psychology through his pictures to such a degree his master, Verocchio, hung up his paintbrushes and stuck to sculpture after Leonardo finished his apprenticeship. _Ginerva de Benci_ isn't just a beautiful portrait of a young woman. There's a sublime spirit behind it, incomprehensible, yet beckoning. That's what makes it great, what makes people look back upon it repeatedly.

Anyone can do that what just knows how. There's more to art than color, line, form, and value. If you have to ask what else, then you'll never know.


----------



## dangeresque (Feb 14, 2006)

I love amature artists who don't know how to take critique. Go ahead and keep tracing photos and having people praise you because they're too nice to say otherwise, and build up your false confidence about being a high and mighty arteest.

The definition of art is subjective. Your artform is illustration. Anyone can use a Gaussian blur filter and use absolutely horrid colour choices. It's nothing special.


----------



## FreeThinker (Feb 14, 2006)

Why are you here, if you find it so abhorrent?


----------



## Jane (Feb 14, 2006)

dangeresque said:


> I love amature artists who don't know how to take critique. Go ahead and keep tracing photos and having people praise you because they're too nice to say otherwise, and build up your false confidence about being a high and mighty arteest.
> 
> The definition of art is subjective. Your artform is illustration. Anyone can use a Gaussian blur filter and use absolutely horrid colour choices. It's nothing special.


I love amateur writers who don't take the time to spell check. When one is writing critiques, one should take the time to correctly choose words.

One takes criticism. One writes critiques. One is a critic.

See, any of us posting here are sticking ourselves out for criticism.

(I'm not a bitch, I just play one on the boards....okay, yes, I am, but damn it sounded good.)

Until we see your artwork, your words are hollow.


----------



## fatlane (Feb 14, 2006)

dangeresque said:


> I love amature artists who don't know how to take critique. Go ahead and keep tracing photos and having people praise you because they're too nice to say otherwise, and build up your false confidence about being a high and mighty arteest.
> 
> The definition of art is subjective. Your artform is illustration. Anyone can use a Gaussian blur filter and use absolutely horrid colour choices. It's nothing special.



Now, now, no need to task anyone on spelling. 

I don't think the problem is my art. The problem is that you don't see my art as worthy of the acclaim it recieves. You've essentially insulted everyone here who says they like what I've done. They're not being too nice to say otherwise. They really do like it.

_"Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill gives us modern art."_

--Tom Stoppard

Therefore, even if I have zero - ZERO - skill and do stick drawings traced over black velvet paintings of kids with huge eyes in well-lit building exteriors superimposed over simple everyday appliances, the imagination changes everything.

While exceptional skill and technique can always be admired, it's when abstractions creep in that people start to shout, "A child of six could do it!" Or, in another way, "Any jackass with Photoshop and too much chutzpah could do it!"

That fails to see is how the concept replaces the execution. Yet, the work is not so abstract as to eliminate its audience. It's just abstract enough to go over your head.

As a critic, you've got nothing more than a technical grasp of the arts. As a critic, you are very disappointing if all you can do is say you don't care for the color or technique and found an online tutorial, of which there are hundreds. More instructive would have been at least a link to Google with a suggestion on which keywords to use. But even more instructive for you would be to take some time and to broaden your understanding of art and how it is not a technical reproduction of nature all the time. The power of the abstraction is what makes art transcend its day and time. 

I reject your criticism not because I am an amateur, but because it reflects no knowledge of the interplay between the realistic, abstract, and the iconic. I'm not plonking down a bunch of fancy talk to confuse you and everyone else, either. This is something one uses when one criticizes a work.

A child of six regularly does things as technically good as a Mondrian abstract or a Matisse collage. That doesn't take away from Mondrian's abstract works of Matisse's collages. Those works have a soul to them. So do mine. Some of the six year olds' works have souls, too. Don't dismiss a work just because it's done simply or because someone else has a sentimental attachment to it.

Before I took up drawing, I was a critic. I still am. As a critic, your work is useless. It shows a lack of understanding of alternative artistic vocabularies to the one and only one you've picked up. Beyond the first salvo, you've got nothing further to say, indicating a shallow message. Your reliance upon "anyone can do that" falls flat, especially in the aftermath of the Armory Show. _Of course_ anyone can do that. Anyone _does_ do that. But what isn't necessarily done is the part which makes the work a performance, not just a picture, pretty or otherwise. That's the aspect you fail to appreciate.

Am I a beast? A _Fauve?_ So did they label Gaugain and his ilk. Primitive technique, brash colors, the works. I look at it and see something different, just as I can look at a Cycladean figure of a woman from thousands of years ago and see much, much more than a hunk of rock with some primitive carvings and a LOT of smoothing. 

Some people think Tiesto is a talentless idiot with too many fans for what his slop justiifies. Other people take those as fighting words. The fact that he has fans willing to defend him passionately means he's done some sort of art and he's made some sort of connection. There's something worthy of study in a person who makes a connection.

Is what I do more potent in the execution or in the interchange between me and my audience? Is it possible these works themselves are not just visual experiences, but the product of a community, of which you are an outsider? If so, then your attack upon them does only two things: exclude you from that community, making you less able to see their value than before and, two, cause the community to draw closer together in the face of a challenge. That's yet another aspect of the art you are unaware of.

I suggest not a search on Google to enlighten yourself, but to sit back and observe how it is I do what I do, because it produces profound effects which escape you. If you ever hope to do something profound, then learn from me. If you have done something profound, which others have cast doubt upon, I am ready to learn from you. Until such time, your criticism is useless as a tool for improving what I do. I get much more from putting my images up against others and asking, "OK, what more do I need to do to increase the emotional impact of what I'm doing." Techniques that improve that are what I seek, not those to faithfully reproduce nature.

I'm sorry, Mr. Dangeresque, but all I can find positive in your contributions so far has been your user name and its reference to Homestar Runner, an online flash animation series I enjoy. I wish you had more imagination and appreciation of imgination. Start there and improve yourself.


----------



## Jane (Feb 14, 2006)

FL, you know I was in friend defense mode.


----------



## fatlane (Feb 14, 2006)

Jane said:


> FL, you know I was in friend defense mode.



Hey, thanks.

And I went ahead and made a new image. Note the skillful interplay of light and dark: a moral _chiaroscuro_ capturing the essence of man's inhumanity to man. One wonders what the artist is trying to say in this piece. What extends beyond the borders of the canvas? Perhaps the title, _Sit on It #17_, gives us a clue as to the emotional intensity of this rough piece. 

One supposes that the artist, defiant, stands protective of his legacy and shows his intentions to fight on, in spite of his being set upon by malformed and poorly-delivered criticisms. We know that he dealt with hostility during this period: perhaps this raw, unfinished work was intended to convey a hidden message to his erstwhile nemesis. We also know that he wrote in his diary on 14 Feb 2006, 

_"Hahaha! I drew a picture today and used filters I didn't even need to use just to make a point. The KPT LensFlare was really over the top, but I don't care! Hahaha!"_

There is, in fact, a LensFlare on the ring on the third finger, which many critics, even among his admirers, deem gratuituous. But given this diary entry, one must question such judgment: It _is_ intentional and perhaps intended to give a clue as to what extends upward from the semi-clenched fist.

Truly a powerful work, full of rage, defiance, and, ultimately, scorn for self-styled elites who seem to comment only to tear down, not to build up. 

View attachment TEH_FIGNER_OMG11111.JPG


----------



## fatlane (Feb 14, 2006)

Of course, I'm just kidding around! I LOVE YOU GUYS, even the ones who call me talentless frauds! You guys are the best! To Mr. Dangeresque of Down Under (Australia, New Zealand? Which is it? Or is it British Columbia? Oooh! The mystery!), I have nothing but the highest regards and I'm so glad you have deep reservoirs of mirth for your sense of humour to draw upon so you can see the great fun we're all having. Such a laugh! I'll buy you a pint, mate! Or is it "eh"? Again, I'm so confused... 

Truly, I know you do appreciate a joke and that it doesn't get past you. I finally get your little jape - nobody could be so pedantically obtuse to miss the point on what I was doing just to pick at technique. You're a great wit, and I admire you for it!

From one merry prankster to another, HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY! (And did you find all 20 of the secret hearts in the picture above? See if you can!)

HUGS AND MORE HUGS!!!


----------



## Jane (Feb 15, 2006)

I see the artist has returned to his more reserved mode, abandoning his recent explosion of color for a more austure and deeply personal message.

Alas, future art students, taking their elementary courses in art appreciation will see this as an act of defiance, when those who knew him at the time imagined it to be his personal version of "come hither."

When the prints are ready, I want one, poster sized, to hang in my living room.

Not to mention postcards....I could really use some postcards with this on them.


----------



## fatlane (Feb 15, 2006)

I dunno... you think they hung it upside down? Looking at it the other way, I think it's a stylized waterfall.

Or maybe an elephant in poor health.

Postcards, huh? There's a much-needed void I could fill!


----------



## FreeThinker (Feb 16, 2006)

I heard an interview with Peter Etril Snider (well-respected local landscape artist).

He spoke about having been hired by a cruise line to paint onboard during the cruise. He set up on deck and got down to work.

A woman approached, looked at his work and huffed:

"If I could paint, I'd paint better than that!"



My point? Well, not all that noticeable if I wear a hat!


----------



## FreeThinker (Feb 17, 2006)

By the way, *Fatlane*, I notice your 'bird' flies palm-up.

I employ the palm-towards-me technique, with the middle finger colinear with the back of the hand.

I have often wondered about these differing styles. With 'palm-up', do the knuckles of the adjacent fingers symbolize...er, anything?


----------



## missaf (Feb 17, 2006)

I for one, can't wait for my FL to be done. He actually cares about the subjects in the photos and has fun in his own way with art. 

It's a shame those of you who think you're a member of our community just because you sign up can automatically understand the complicated nature that exists here. Sit back, enjoy, and understand the thoughts and emotions behind the art. FL is offering something as a gift, and for your own artistic ego, you can go pee in someone else's lake for your pissing contest.


----------



## fatlane (Feb 18, 2006)

It's on the way, but I think I'll post it next in the Clubhouse. There's much less chance someone will drop $30 to make a phony username just to lob a few poorly formed criticisms at me.

And here's a fun link: http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech08.html


----------

