20,001 Leagues Under the Sea part two... or is that 20,002 leagues?
Another work in progress shot to show how how it's evolving....
I'm having a good time getting lost in various textures and forms, giving just enough information to hint at what we are seeing, yet allowing plenty of room for the imagination to do it's thing. Please let me know what you think!
~Paul
I'm having a good time getting lost in various textures and forms, giving just enough information to hint at what we are seeing, yet allowing plenty of room for the imagination to do it's thing. Please let me know what you think!
~Paul
Your comment immediately summed up why I liked it Paul. The foreground establishes the mood, while the background lends itself to varying interpretations of that mood.
Based on the light blue, I assume this is fairly shallow, as it seems the surface is just above the top of the painting.
Keep em coming.
Reply to this
I appreciate the input, thanks Chuck! Just having remembered that you were once a submariner, you're probably more familiar with this type of scene than I. Well, perhaps not the monsters, but the general type of atmosphere.
It does look shallow up front, doesn't it? My hopes are that it looks deeper as the eye receeds to the background. In order for a sense of depth, I had to make something different about the foreground and background. This is often conveyed by a shift in contrast or color temperature. The greater the contrast between the two, the greater a sense of distance. I would assume (based on a little snorkeling and scuba diving) that we'd be lucky to see perhaps a few dozen yards at best before the lack of light, sediment or algae blocks any of our view. I bet if a photo were taken of this scene, there'd be a lot less contast, and we'd probably never see the stuff in the back.
So, I was more or less forced to make the choice between the sense of vertical depth and horizontal depth with more drama. Then, knowing I was consciously breaking some rules of how visibility works, I had to try and work out my own sense of logic of how to treat it. Each painting is a sort of puzzle, but as long as the painting plays by the same game rules, things generally work out. *fingers crossed*
~Paul
Reply to this
I don't know if you intended it, but there looks to be a pair of eyes looking back out of the background! Spooky! :0
It's also plenty deep, IMWO.
Reply to this
Really? Where? I didn't intend it all all, but it's cool that you can see it.
It's deep enough for government work.
Reply to this
In the right rear, under the cap of the big "mushroom". The middle distance "mushroom" sort of looks like a bridge of a nose between the eyes.
Reply to this
Heh! I still don't see it. But, even so, I am glad to hear you do. As I said in my giant reply to Rich, my hopes that leaving some parts obscure would allow people's imaginations to take over.
~Paul
Reply to this
Oooo, not diggin on this one, NS. It's a good painting an' all, but I'm not getting the writhing life feel and it's not creeping me out. It all looks too, "real deep-sea life" to me. Having, oddly enough, some Marine Bio background undersea doesn't freak me like it must've done Lovecraft. What would creep me out more is more human elements. The semi-face at the very bottom about a third in from the left is about the creepiest thing there. Creepier than the barbed-tongue dude.
I do like the depth thing of view thing. And I think you can really play that for what it's worth by lighting it as if there's lights of a city on the bottom of the ocean in the distance.
I reckon once you've got a bit more detail I'll start to see the staring eyes effect and it'll get creepier. So I'll just shut up and go back to my corner now.
Reply to this
Hi Rich,
My paintings seem to be disappointing you more than not. Although I realize that not one painting will please everyone, there's still a part of me that half hopes it could happen anyway. I guess because of this unique situation, I am trying to please myself more than usual (as compared to a formal illustration for a publisher), but I won't lie and say that it isn't nice to have it be an enjoyable view for others as well. Perhaps it is your higher degree of critical comment (which I have really appreciated, it challenges me) that has me hoping the art will appeal. I get the sense that we initially diverge at the description/text and have different interpretations of what that should equate to in painting terms. From then on, we're on separate paths, it seems.
My guess is that the divergence happens when we thought about exactly who it meant to horrify, and what world or time we are in. To a modern day person, familiar with footage and evidence from deep sea submarines, it might need to be fairly exotic. To a phobic man of the 1920's, maybe less so. So, the question seems to be, am I painting Lovecraft's idea of horror, or ours? His descriptions could easily be describing what actually exists today, though yet undiscovered in Lovecraft's time.
Perhaps a less the desirable scan quality is in some part to blame for our differing opinions. I had a hard time bringing out the midtones without distorting the image too much. I would argue that the central, eel-like creature is far from common, though it might not be clear from my scan. It has three empty eye sockets, a dart-like stinger from it's mouth and a prehensile tongue the forks into four appendages. In the background we have vast mushroom like growths with flailing tentacles around the base, and small red glowing points of light under the cap. Behind that, a giant cross between a whale shark and a ray, but perhaps hundreds of yards across. Perhaps not too pedestrian, if one could see a quality scan.
What interests me in particular about your comments on this piece as opposed to the 'Nucleus' painting, is that in the former case you felt it was perhaps a little too much over the top, and in this painting is sounds like you feel it is perhaps too understated. That's fine in my book.
I suspect you're right, few of us could match Lovecraft's fear of fish. I read one account of him nearly passing out upon seeing a cooked one on a dish. So, in his case, it needn't be anything exotic... cod would probably be ghastly enough. Another example was his account of a tour of Florida swampland, which from his descriptions you might think he was witnessing the river Styx.
Without making this too much longer (what can I say, I appreciate the feedback), I take great interest in the idea of two of you already seeing faces in the painting (I still can't see either, by the way). Unintentional on my part, though I had hoped that if I left some parts vague and unclear, the viewers' imaginations would have room to explore. It seems they are!
~Paul
Reply to this
Hi Paul,
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I think I do go off on a different tangent than you... but then I tend to stray away from what most people think too.
Good point on the "who's looking at the painting" issue. My 21st century view is certainly coloring my perception of it and making it less horrific. Also the HPL story keeps coming to mind (I can't remember the title and I'm not at home with my books) of the town in Maine where the people grow up to turn into fish creatures worshipping some elder god. And that sort of human-fish crossover creepiness is what I'm looking for subconsciously or maybe not so sub.
I like this far more now than before. Sorry if I'm sounding negative in my feedback. I actually really like your stuff and would be much happier seeing it without all the electronic crapola in between. I wouldn't have taken the time to comment if it didn't make me stop and go "ooooo" and think about Lovecraftian stuff.
Right, so I'm going to have a second look at Nucleus to see what goodies I missed there...
(dang, I gotta get me a better monitor at home
Reply to this
Rich,
Your comments are of great value to me, so it's the least I could do. They make me explore my ideas and direction more, and that helps me improve. This is not to say that the other kinds of comments aren't or worth, because even a pat on the back or thumbs up goes a long way.
What I've been thinking about recently is what aspect of Lovecraft's universe I am most attracted to. To be honest, I am far from a dyed in the wool horror fan. I don't really care much for gore or violence, and I am not so sure that disturbing people is even a huge priority of mine. So, that begs to question why I am here?
Without some serious funds, I think we're going to have to contend with the less than ideal quality of the scans and monitors. My own monitor is perhaps eight years old, and lacking for sure! Each link in the chain (scanner, software, my monitor, others' monitors, etc) could use a boost. Though, even the highest quality print never matches the real thing. I guess we're just going to have do make do with what we have, though it is bound to muddle the flow of communication.
The whale-shark-ray thing is the largest mass in the upper left, the next scan will probably make more sense as I have put more work into it. It's not meant to jump out at the viewer as immediately as the eyeless-eel-viperfishy thing, but hopefully it causes interest when the sense of scale kicks in.
You're referring to the Shadow Over Innsmouth and the 'deep ones' and their hybrid. A great read, in my opinions! Based in the fictional town of Innsmouth, Massachusetts. Those familiar with the state, that really equates to the fishing village of Gloucester. About a half hour northeast from here, actually! That story really exemplifies both his fear of the aquatic and his fear of other cultures.
~Paul
Reply to this
It really fascinates me (as a 17 year old who failed miserably at art all the way through school
Reply to this
As I have eluded to in other posts, the illusion of depth can be conveyed a few ways, and they collectively can be called atmospheric perspective. If you look at a building or mountain far in the distance, there will be less detail/focus (blurry or fuzzy), there will be less contrast (not as dark darks and or light lights) and the colors tend to get cooler (closer towards a cool blue and further from warm red-oranges). To make it more confusing, there can be warm blues and cool reds! This is called atmospheric perspective because the particles in the air block and distort your sight. In space, there would be almost no effect like this, because of the lack of atmosphere.
I would be curious to know if any artists, especially ones focusing on horror type art, can creep themselves out. Maybe I am just too close to what I do, so the image is devoid of mystery, and the unknown is what usually makes things scary. More often than not, I will find monster type things either humorous or beautiful. Beautiful because of the way textures and colors are handled, not the conventional beauty, mind you.
So, what scares me? Not monsters. Ignorant people weilding too much power.
~Paul
Reply to this