A New Work, Would You Care To Critique? Is It Printable?
This is a new work I recently uploaded. It is a new direction (pun maybe intended) for me in digital abstract work (not necessarily new but different) and kind of in response to another thread recently about open source / free image manipulation software.
This was done in GIMP 2.10.24. The droplets are a brush stroke selection from the GIMPressionist menu, and the art itself is derived from another piece I did some time ago, called Wave to Van Gogh. It was admittedly a happy accident because my intention was to explore how to achieve more realistic (broad) brush strokes and happened upon the droplet selection and decided to try it. Then, I bump mapped it to simulate a mild 3D effect of paint on a textured substrate.
Would FAA print it? Is this a good technique or a useless embellishment? (since it's really digital and not actually painted)
I also do it to define edges to make the image appear sharper.
I personally like it, but would a buyer even care? (Not that that would necessarily change my mind about using the technique)
The entire piece was sort of an "Ah ha" moment. Learn as we go I guess. But, as often happens with me, I'm somewhat challenged to reproduce the "look" again. Although, I've uploaded one other droplets piece that turned out well.
I like it very much, David! Great fluid movement and colors overall. I clicked on it to enlarge sections and thought your use of texture throughout the piece was excellent. I would've commented except I can't seem to sign into Pixels...or maybe it's your artist's website.
I agree with Roger about the title. I don't think there would be a problem with printing.
I love it and would feature it ( in fact I have done). I think also it would print. In fact the real question is not whether it would print (almost anything on a screen will do); it is will it be printed. I believe the printers are sensible people and the criteria for say a photograph would be different to that of an abstract.
My only question about it is is it objective or non objective abstract art. Personally I like it so much that I would probably accept it under both!
Re title whatever the answer; it probably would not a good idea to change it now.
I will go with the title change to "School" but as Douglas suggests - School of Life? I assume that is what you meant? I really like that too.
@David B - forgive me... AbEx?
@Scorpion - I didn't think about changing the title will break back-links that I've put out there already. Oh well, now it's too late (I think). And, I always (in my case at least) have had a tough time categorizing my abstracts as objective or non-objective. When I submit to groups I usually take my chances with either being accepted, or not.
I don't know how you got it, I don't know this kind of art. But I can tell you about what I see, I really like this blue whirlwind, it just reminds me of a school of those little fishes that form patterns in the blue of the sea. The only thing that does not convince me is the elongated shape of the image, I would see it better in a 3: 2 ratio, eliminating a part on the right side, that seems to distract from the main vortex. What do you think?
@Barbara - Fish swirling in a school in a deep blue sea is what this reminded me of as well and thus the title.
As for composition, I see what you're talking about where cropping off the right side might give more balance. I started this work as a full circle with the vortex in the center (derived from a previous piece I did called Wave to Van Gogh) but as you observed, it turned out unbalanced and since I have routinely done square format digital swirl art, I wanted to do something a little different and asymmetrical and cut off the entire bottom half, especially since the more interesting stuff seemed to be occurring in the top half, and, I'm a fan of "wide" format art.
@Carmen & Roger - I'm less inclined to talk tech when it comes to generating digital art but as they say, "the more you know....." Because, honestly I'm still learning. But, bump mapping has become a very useful thing for me because it not only provides a more visually realistic 3D "bump" simulating the topographical paint brush effects on a surface, but also lends itself to sharpening an image by defining edges more crisply, or at least the illusion of sharpening. There are a myriad of "canned filters" for that of course.
@Mike - I've often wondered if it provides enough clarity for FAA to print though, hence my question. Thanks for chiming in, that gives me confidence it does.
@Roger & Peggy - I don't intend to change anything. There's always room for improvement but there's also the danger of overworking it. Trust me, I've done the latter often. There is such a thing as a digital round file...
Carmen; else where I upload the whole set of maps. In effect there are two different set depending on the work flow you (actually the renderer ) use. I have always hope that FAA would allow you to upload series of map, and then sell them as royalty free images. As prints they would not necessarily work, except may be the normal map. Normal maps can have a certain artistic appeal. I am interested to know which software you use ; apart from Materialize if any.