Eyes of the beholder

I like the colors in this one, though I have no idea what it is, and in this one too I find the title puzzling. As for theme fit - I'm not sure I see much of a pattern here?

 

The frame seems a bit strange too (bottom is not as wide as the top? - or is this due to PN compression?). I think PT can safely drop the whole black frame in this one.

 

I'd love to hear from PT what this really is.

 

Regards,

 

Tom

I am in awe of this one. Don't ask me to explain why because I can't. My draw is purely emotional. I see the hand of Klee at work. Exceptional.

 

Sally

 

 

I find it very hard to comment on this one. I like the colors and the composition, although I don't have any clues what this is and the title does not help either. IMHO it does fit the theme (pattern =4 : an artistic, musical, literary, or mechanical design or form) if we use this definition.

 

IMHO the composition can be improved by reducing the space in the middle, right now the eyes are quite away one of the other. Maybe rotating it also...

 

I would love to hear more details about this one PT.

 

regards, calin

The interesting part of the image for me is the coloring in the upper left corner and it's positioning just kills it. The overall thought is just a bit disjointed for me. Too many players all too far out on the canvas. I remember reading a photographer (name escapes me) who said, 'don't be afraid to get closer'. I think that would have helped here a lot.

 

Klee? Hmmm, not to me. Klee's images were based in recongnizable geometric shapes in cohesive groupings. I might think more Steir but with a bit of Pollack randomness?

 

Or it could just be an original PT... I like that better.

Klee wrote in 1920: 'Formerly we used to represent things visible on earth, things we either liked to look at or would have liked to see. Today we reveal the reality that is behind visible things, thus expressing the belief that the visible world is merely an isolated case in relation to the universe and that there are many more other, latent realities ...' ( Taken from "Shock of the New" which is a great read!) I guess the metaphysical quality of the image is what for me made the Klee connection. Ya know??

 

Sally

Hey Sally. Not being the biggest Klee fan is probably hindering me here a bit. I only know him by his art and not by his thoughts. So to me his work was less abstract (as I see this image catagorized) and more conceptual because of the concept, thought and definition involved.

 

I must add that your understanding of traditional art and it's genre's is light years beyond mine. It's probably time for me to brush up on some of Klee's thoughts and see if I can tie it together a bit better... Thanks.

Dave my friend I doubt your light years behind anyone in anything. We just see things differently here that's all. Hell , watch PT tell us we're both out to lunch! Where are you anyway PT? Love to hear your thoughts.

 

Sally

Dave your comment on the blob top left & it killing the shot. When I looked at this again I had the smae feeling. It's like PT wanted to do a shot that has the good stuff hardly in it - the circle shape things are also hardly *in* the shot.

 

In terms of composition this is restless - my eye jumps from circle, to circle, over red stuff to red blob and back to circle (anticlockwise).

 

PT? Intentional? Let's hear it!

 

Tom

Love it - don't know why except it is very enigmatic. Little else to add, although I have been to look at the Klee link provided by Sally. Interesting.

 

Will you 'fess up at some point PT and tell us what it is?

 

Cheers

 

Darrell

This is the lid of a 20 litre paint tin, partly rusted, partly scratched. I added some additional scratches and touched up with some water based paint. The 2 'eyes' I am holding (hence title - for title's sake and nothing more) are the ends of metal kebab sticks, or their shadows rather.

 

The shaded area TL and BR are PS gradient overlays.

 

The lid in itself under good light is quite beautiful, however I always like additional elements (shadows, water, reflections, etc.) to lend some visual depth and possibly mystique - in their absence, the traditional flakes of paint would be acceptable but that's rather common these days.

 

I really didn't want this image identitfied through the visual faculty alone however; it is not in the least a literal expression of what pressed upon me at the time of creation. The objective day was light, but not the subjective moment -- some darkness had to fall in an effort to communicate my emotional state.

 

For a more prosaic and prettier rendition, I accept that the top left might have been better left alone, and that the gradient on the BR is probably unnecessary.

 

Thanks to all for their observations.

I like fun textures, original idea, color, and balanced composition. The added gradients detract, to me, because it steers it in the 'overworked' direction. I don't think they are needed.