• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Reading the reading

Tracy Lebenzon

New member
I guess using spell checkers is a mixed blessing !

It sometimes is for me, when I don’t look closely at the word selected to replace the misspelling, but using spell checking is always worth the effort.

I will make the work at the size that suits it and not the viewer. this is not a product like a can of juice. i expect and demand the viewer to work. if they dont want to work then they can (in scots) git to france.

While it’s your work and you can do as you wish, at the end of the day most anything is a product and as such, should be presented in a way that invites the viewer.

Consumers want things that are easily accessible. I guess it amounts to successful communication. Visual art needs to be presented large enough so that people can not just view but appreciate the work comfortably from a typical viewing distance. I guess the cynical way of stating that is that one never wants to depend on the viewer’s willingness to work for anything. Presenting too small will tend to discourage people during that 2.465422368 seconds where most decide if they want to continue looking, or maybe even buy.

Consider Andy Warhol’s famous soup can series, for example. The evidence shows that this series rings with millions of people. Would it have been as successful if the individual images of cans were 2” x 3” rather than roughly 16” x 20”? Probably not. Viewers want the opportunity to take in the details.

I cant remember doing a "redundant themed" work.

The work above has a redundant theme. So do Warhol’s soup cans. Both consist of essentially the same image repeated many times with only slight differences. A couple of other ~ equivalent terms would be repetitive or iterative.
 

Mark Hampton

New member
While it’s your work and you can do as you wish, at the end of the day most anything is a product and as such, should be presented in a way that invites the viewer.

Consumers want things that are easily accessible. I guess it amounts to successful communication. Visual art needs to be presented large enough so that people can not just view but appreciate the work comfortably from a typical viewing distance. I guess the cynical way of stating that is that one never wants to depend on the viewer’s willingness to work for anything. Presenting too small will tend to discourage people during that 2.465422368 seconds where most decide if they want to continue looking, or maybe even buy.

Tracy,

Why when i have explained the purpose of the size - in relation to the whole - would I change it because Warhol made big repeating images that were large in scale - was scale an afterthought or in his case an intrinsic part of what the work was about?

when I make work - that is to be made and not internet sketches - scale is important to how I want people to react to it in 3 dimensions. SOMETIMES we shout and sometimes a whisper carries more weight. The phisical dance of the viewer is a consideration.

I do really think you are missing the point of scale in this work - but that is good - because it tells me that for some people small images that play with the fabric of perception are not everyone's bag. And the thread is called reading the reading. It may not work for you small - but for others it may.


The work above has a redundant theme. So do Warhol’s soup cans. Both consist of essentially the same image repeated many times with only slight differences. A couple of other ~ equivalent terms would be repetitive or iterative.

Tracy - I think the redundancy (excces) that you see in this is countered by the scale in my reading.

Thanks for the thoughts and time you have taken with this. It is appreciated.
 

Tracy Lebenzon

New member
Tracy,

Why when i have explained the purpose of the size - in relation to the whole - would I change it because Warhol made big repeating images that were large in scale - was scale an afterthought or in his case an intrinsic part of what the work was about?

when I make work - that is to be made and not internet sketches - scale is important to how I want people to react to it in 3 dimensions. SOMETIMES we shout and sometimes a whisper carries more weight. The phisical dance of the viewer is a consideration.

I do really think you are missing the point of scale in this work - but that is good - because it tells me that for some people small images that play with the fabric of perception are not everyone's bag. And the thread is called reading the reading. It may not work for you small - but for others it may.




Tracy - I think the redundancy (excces) that you see in this is countered by the scale in my reading.

Thanks for the thoughts and time you have taken with this. It is appreciated.


Mark,

First, my apology if I've inadvertently implied that the number of images is excessive. Sloppy use of language can lead others to feel insulted, can’t it?

The broader point is that making something too small frustrates the viewer by making the images difficult to appreciate. I'm sure you will agree with this in the abstract, even tho you don’t agree that’s the case here.

Please continue this highly educational thread, with my thanks for your time and many contributions.
 
Maybe this is off topic, but while size is an engaging topic, it is very much connected to the viewer (reading the reading). As an Art student in Boston, I spent most of my noon times eating my bag lunch inside the Isabella Stuart Gardner Museum (which had been her residence and as a museum was free to the public and they didn’t seem to mind my gnawing on sandwiches in front of the works of Titian, Rembrandt, Raphael etc). I always remember the Giorgione head of Christ that she had sitting on her dressing table. It was quite small compared to the many enormous works of art spread throughout this Italian Villa. She had always enjoyed a small vase of purple violets next to it, and the museum kept that tradition alive. I was interested in large works that offered an environmental experience, but the size and placement of this work made it extremely personal, ( almost like a treasured photo in an old wallet) I could see the comforting value of size and space.

Still, when I stand before a large Jackson Pollock or a Jules Olitski I fall into it like a dead leaf in a puddle . . . around I float in an almost magic ride.


Then again, there is a miniatures show each year at the Dunedin Fine Art Center in Dunedin Florida where you are given the use of a hand held magnifying glass to assist your viewing the show. It is an incredible experience! Here are a few that are shown on their website at http://www.dfac.org/exhibits_current.shtml

Crescent_Moon---Clifford_T_Bailey---35x55_1st_Landscape_200.jpg

This is by Clifford Bailey and is 5.5 inches high and 3 inches wide


Low_Country_Fleet_at_Rest---Wes_Siegrest---45x15_1st_Marine_400.jpg

This is by Wes Siegrest and is 1.5 inches high and 4.5 inches wide


The_Nutmeg_Lantern---Lynn_Ponto-Peterson---3x3_Watercolor---Best_of_Show_400.jpg

This is by Lynn Ponto Peterson and is 3 inches by 3 inches


You would never guess how big small is unless you were to see the show. It is about what we are looking at and reading.
 

Mark Hampton

New member
Maybe this is off topic, but while size is an engaging topic, it is very much connected to the viewer (reading the reading). As an Art student in Boston, I spent most of my noon times eating my bag lunch inside the Isabella Stuart Gardner Museum (which had been her residence and as a museum was free to the public and they didn’t seem to mind my gnawing on sandwiches in front of the works of Titian, Rembrandt, Raphael etc). I always remember the Giorgione head of Christ that she had sitting on her dressing table. It was quite small compared to the many enormous works of art spread throughout this Italian Villa. She had always enjoyed a small vase of purple violets next to it, and the museum kept that tradition alive. I was interested in large works that offered an environmental experience, but the size and placement of this work made it extremely personal, ( almost like a treasured photo in an old wallet) I could see the comforting value of size and space.

Still, when I stand before a large Jackson Pollock or a Jules Olitski I fall into it like a dead leaf in a puddle . . . around I float in an almost magic ride.


Then again, there is a miniatures show each year at the Dunedin Fine Art Center in Dunedin Florida where you are given the use of a hand held magnifying glass to assist your viewing the show. It is an incredible experience! Here are a few that are shown on their website at http://www.dfac.org/exhibits_current.shtml

Crescent_Moon---Clifford_T_Bailey---35x55_1st_Landscape_200.jpg

This is by Clifford Bailey and is 5.5 inches high and 3 inches wide


Low_Country_Fleet_at_Rest---Wes_Siegrest---45x15_1st_Marine_400.jpg

This is by Wes Siegrest and is 1.5 inches high and 4.5 inches wide


The_Nutmeg_Lantern---Lynn_Ponto-Peterson---3x3_Watercolor---Best_of_Show_400.jpg

This is by Lynn Ponto Peterson and is 3 inches by 3 inches


You would never guess how big small is unless you were to see the show. It is about what we are looking at and reading.

Bill,

when I was at art school lunch time was when I started to drink ... i never liked old paintings (to tell you the truth I still dont) .. I drank and listened and talked .. went back to my studio and worked and though.... then into the darkroom... loved that room..

scale is intrinsic to any form of work - as you point out.... but i think you were pointing us to layers in previous posts...

photography has a attributes other forms of art dont have (**** selective focus in sculpture could work - it has been done) it is time based and uses focus like no other medium can.. painting can try - but I can focus into such a small area its scary...

so onto layers - your suggestion - the ice images use this ..layered time made on a time based image ...

i am oot the morrow looking at a place i used to play in when I was a kid - there are layers of time and depth..

I call for more images !!
 
More pictures, less words

I went through a phase where, when an image was presented small, I found it interesting, the shapes and lines became apparent, but when I viewed it larger, that aspect was lost. I have to say though, this was all on the computer screen.

I think this is one reason viewing art in physical space is so important. You get that effect naturally. You almost always have to start at a distance, your eye picks up on the lines and shapes, and then as you get closer, you are rewarded with the detail...

Like a dead leaf falling into a puddle... I've heard that somewhere recently....
 
I went through a phase where, when an image was presented small, I found it interesting, the shapes and lines became apparent, but when I viewed it larger, that aspect was lost. I have to say though, this was all on the computer screen.

I think this is one reason viewing art in physical space is so important. You get that effect naturally. You almost always have to start at a distance, your eye picks up on the lines and shapes, and then as you get closer, you are rewarded with the detail...

Like a dead leaf falling into a puddle... I've heard that somewhere recently....

Ed,
You raise a very interesting topic (diversion) which I have been pondering for some time. That is the marriage of art (photography) to the computer. I’m sure I am like almost everyone else, and that is, the digital world (which took me out of the darkroom) has allowed me the ability to create and see thousands of impressions without ever leaving my monitor. Yet, for me, it is that final tangible “print” that transforms the digitized moments into a new reality. The dilemma is that the ease of posting allows the “drafts” to be seen by the multitudes when the small number of final objects which are physically created are seen by only a few (in comparison). The other side of the coin might be projections and illuminations which transform a “given” space or location, but don’t exist in a digital aspect on the computer screen that can mimic the actual work. So what do we do? Is the “draft-still in transition-post” the new art? Where is this physical space going to be, and how will we find it? Is it the number of impressions made, or the quality of the few impressions seen (or read). I’ve gone from the darkroom into the dark!
Thanks for commenting,
Bill
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
I went through a phase where, when an image was presented small, I found it interesting, the shapes and lines became apparent, but when I viewed it larger, that aspect was lost. I have to say though, this was all on the computer screen.

I think this is one reason viewing art in physical space is so important. You get that effect naturally. You almost always have to start at a distance, your eye picks up on the lines and shapes, and then as you get closer, you are rewarded with the detail...

Like a dead leaf falling into a puddle... I've heard that somewhere recently....

Ed,
You raise a very interesting topic (diversion) which I have been pondering for some time. That is the marriage of art (photography) to the computer. I’m sure I am like almost everyone else, and that is, the digital world (which took me out of the darkroom) has allowed me the ability to create and see thousands of impressions without ever leaving my monitor. Yet, for me, it is that final tangible “print” that transforms the digitized moments into a new reality. The dilemma is that the ease of posting allows the “drafts” to be seen by the multitudes when the small number of final objects which are physically created are seen by only a few (in comparison). The other side of the coin might be projections and illuminations which transform a “given” space or location, but don’t exist in a digital aspect on the computer screen that can mimic the actual work. So what do we do? Is the “draft-still in transition-post” the new art? Where is this physical space going to be, and how will we find it? Is it the number of impressions made, or the quality of the few impressions seen (or read). I’ve gone from the darkroom into the dark!
Thanks for commenting,
Bill
Very interesting observations, thanks for this insight. I have a 30" monitor and I nowadays reduce my pictures to some 600 pixels in order to see if I still like them when they are that small rather than 75cm across right in front of me. I am sure that this might be a related phenomenon or that my eyesight is going bad.
 
Bill,

when I was at art school lunch time was when I started to drink ... i never liked old paintings (to tell you the truth I still dont) .. I drank and listened and talked .. went back to my studio and worked and though.... then into the darkroom... loved that room..

scale is intrinsic to any form of work - as you point out.... but i think you were pointing us to layers in previous posts...

photography has a attributes other forms of art dont have (**** selective focus in sculpture could work - it has been done) it is time based and uses focus like no other medium can.. painting can try - but I can focus into such a small area its scary...

so onto layers - your suggestion - the ice images use this ..layered time made on a time based image ...

i am oot the morrow looking at a place i used to play in when I was a kid - there are layers of time and depth..

I call for more images !!

Mark,
Sometimes the side effect of a question can let us touch on additional issues (something like layers and levals), but I have not forgotten.
Here are a few posts created a while back. For me they capture that sense of time lapse as well as special layering.


Algaeflow.jpg


Spring Algae Blum



DriftingOakLeaves.jpg


Passing Oak Leaves



SpringAlgaeBloom.jpg


Algae Flow



Thanks for looking, and the more comments from everyone, the merrier (and sorry if the dive last week, into a sort of photo realistic set of tiny paintings was too jarring, just trying to make a point).

bill
 

Mark Hampton

New member
Mark,
Sometimes the side effect of a question can let us touch on additional issues (something like layers and levals), but I have not forgotten.
Here are a few posts created a while back. For me they capture that sense of time lapse as well as special layering.


Algaeflow.jpg


Spring Algae Blum



DriftingOakLeaves.jpg


Passing Oak Leaves



SpringAlgaeBloom.jpg


Algae Flow


Thanks for looking, and the more comments from everyone, the merrier (and sorry if the dive last week, into a sort of photo realistic set of tiny paintings was too jarring, just trying to make a point).

bill

they feel like their own space in time.. i like the time over the piece... the moment that is stilled in one picture is pushed onto the next - the sky in 1 and 3 add a beautiful tone ... it's a distilled view ..

so another link to follow - this is paper about a painter - and how the complex patterns are built ...

photo realism - always bugged me - it should be photo (small data model of light over time converted into information(that is the hope)) within the bounds of a market system) painting !



so layers - the images above play with layers - of time - of focus, tone. colour is tone. for me.


I got invited to a wedding in rome - when there a
started a bit of work called the wedding party.. it is a stack made of the 24 guest wedding party... the portraits were made over an hour as the sun was going down on the wedding day... 24 images of faces ... the sketch below is a representation of how one of them may look...





theweddingconcept.jpg






Sketch (extract from theweddingparty) - M Hampton​


cheers
 

Mark Hampton

New member


I got invited to a wedding in rome - when there a
started a bit of work called the wedding party.. it is a stack made of the 24 guest wedding party... the portraits were made over an hour as the sun was going down on the wedding day... 24 images of faces ... the sketch below is a representation of how one of them may look...





theweddingconcept.jpg






Sketch (extract from theweddingparty) - M Hampton​


cheers


intreasting Idea Mark - how does the full stack look with the 24 images.


ahh - well something like this...





404260_230125047069161_100002150021183_480222_811558775_n.jpg






Sketch (extract from theweddingparty) - M Hampton






.​
 

charlie chipman

New member
Mark, quite the interesting thread you have going on here. I enjoyed reading it and experimenting myself with some of the techniques you have mentioned. I especially like your 24 portraits as one. Great Idea and execution.













theweddingconcept.jpg






Sketch (extract from theweddingparty) - M Hampton​


cheers
 
intreasting Idea Mark - how does the full stack look with the 24 images.


ahh - well something like this...





404260_230125047069161_100002150021183_480222_811558775_n.jpg






Sketch (extract from theweddingparty) - M Hampton






.[/COLOR]​

Mark,

the layering is wild! Love the colors. Do you want to talk about the Process? Does the single image have 24 layers and how important to the final product is the title? I read a very sensitive but singular portrait. The face has incredible strength which in some ways overpowers the gorgeous surrounding layers. Who is on top?

I would of course favor the gridded grouping, but at screen size I lose the fluidity of the layered details.

Very nice work,
Bill

PS I enjoyed the research paper on Jackson Pollock’s fractals, it was informative. I love that there always seems to be folks that want to tell you why someone did what they did, after they are dead (we have no way of knowing if he actually was influenced by the landscape, but the idea of fractals is fun).
 
Small to Large viewing experience

An example on a picture transforming on approach, view each image and scroll down as if you were walking up to this picture hanging on a wall...


guy-log-1.jpg













































guy-log-3.jpg



















guy-log-5.jpg
 

Mark Hampton

New member
Mark, quite the interesting thread you have going on here. I enjoyed reading it and experimenting myself with some of the techniques you have mentioned. I especially like your 24 portraits as one. Great Idea and execution.

Charlie,

thanks for stopping by - and for your comments - is there anything you could add ... an image - a topic - an article - a link to someone elses work ?

cheers
 

Mark Hampton

New member
Mark,

the layering is wild! Love the colors.

thanks man.... the wall colour was so hot - with the sun going down.
Do you want to talk about the Process?


I got people to stand in frount of me and stare down the barrel.... all in roughly the same place - at aroundish the same distance between us..

*
Does the single image have 24 layers

no - 27 - curves / levels / B&W layer - then the 24image stack - opacity 20% till the last normal @ 40% (ish)


and how important to the final product is the title?

this is a sketch - a proof of concept work - when the title is stable I will finish it (that's why the brackets) think of it as working title.. god i am vague...

I read a very sensitive but singular portrait. The face has incredible strength which in some ways overpowers the gorgeous surrounding layers. Who is on top?

on this one the groom - there is a shape shifting struggle in the image between layers for dominance - like a small genetic experiment - faces try to become singular but are then pull back into the whole.

I would of course favor the gridded grouping, but at screen size I lose the fluidity of the layered details.

agree - i think images are about face size (that's my face size - a fat football !)

Very nice work,
Bill

PS I enjoyed the research paper on Jackson Pollock’s fractals, it was informative.

I just thought to much about it an my brain has been infected for the last couple of weeks ... lines like thoughts...

*
I love that there always seems to be folks that want to tell you why someone did what they did, after they are dead (we have no way of knowing if he actually was influenced by the landscape, but the idea of fractals is fun).

then again it does provide another way to read what he was doing.....

thanks for the questions and thoughts ...
 

Mark Hampton

New member
An example on a picture transforming on approach, view each image and scroll down as if you were walking up to this picture hanging on a wall...


guy-log-1.jpg














































guy-log-3.jpg



















guy-log-5.jpg


i really liked these edward - making motion - thanks for the addition to the thread - the three dark shapes move well ... it's almost an addictive way of looking at things.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
An example on a picture transforming on approach, view each image and scroll down as if you were walking up to this picture hanging on a wall...


guy-log-1.jpg

Brilliant! In the small image, one could really believe there are two people sitting. We "read" images by quickly associating a meaning to a shape, but that sometimes goes wrong.
 

Mark Hampton

New member
.




img001_oO.jpg






(two be viewed from 15 feet) over.slip.time - M Hampton



been busy playing with a lazer printer - so I have been reading and making work.... this one seemed to land here as it.

Epson CN21NF lazer print on Logic Image 80/mg paper with church candle wax scanned - 40/40 image.

kind of pulls lots of ideas together

cheers
 
Top