A Possible Fix?
It seems if it weren't for the Iron Cross issue, most people would prefer the simple points. I kept thinking of ways to modify the corners, but why not just add more points to the sides?
Todd/Bellygrub had suggested modifying the points themselves, but I wondered if that might make it too busy in the corners. Yet, I think it encouraged me in the direction of adding rather than subtracting (the circular cut-outs) to remedy the problem.
So, in this image we have the current state, a photo-shopped restoration to the original basic four points, and a photo-shopped possible fix.... adding 4 simple points to the sides.
Better? Worse? Neither?
~Paul
So, in this image we have the current state, a photo-shopped restoration to the original basic four points, and a photo-shopped possible fix.... adding 4 simple points to the sides.
Better? Worse? Neither?
~Paul
Ok well I don't like the extra points. It looks to busy or kinda like a paper snowflake. I do like the plain points and it's not thaaaat much like an iron cross. Kinda like a lopsided one.
I figured out what I don't like about the circles. They're to...round. If you could lower the...wait I'll show you in photoshop. I'm terrible at it but this is what I mean:
It kinda softens the round indent a little bit and doesn't immediately draw your eye to it taking away from the rest of the base.
Reply to this
Todd,
Thanks for the visual aid, that always helps. It appears that you perhaps narrowed the borders and dulled the angles on the sides of the points. Seems sort of like a combo of the two original ideas.
The more I look at the circles, I realize what I don't like about them. The words that people have used to describe the cirles just doesn't match with the concept of Cthulhu. What I like about the more angular dsigns is that they contrast nicely with the organic forms of Cthulhu.
Edit: what I like about the center points is that, at least for me, it completely eliminates the Iron Cross, and it keeps to just angles. Perhaps they could be minimized, but just enough to break up the shape.
~Paul
Reply to this
I did narrow the borders. Dulling the angles was unintentional. That's just my bad photo shop skills.
I say just go with your original design. It does look the best and I would imagine people would tend to miss the iron cross similarity when there is a giant squid god sitting on top of it staring at them
Reply to this
There is no doubt in my mind that design 3 is the winner. I didn't comment previously, as I was torn between the previous 2 options and hadn't been able to make up my mind. I can be so fickle!
Reply to this
I guess I am fickle too, as the first two didn't satisfy me either. Thanks for the input!
~Paul
Reply to this
Hmm, now I'm not so keen on the circle cut-outs. Todd's change does help them out though.
The original design screams I.C. on the face with no tentacles.
I think I like the one with the extra dag per side. It gives the impression of a skull in a box full of daggers.
I photoshopped a couple alternatives and couldn't find one worth posting. So I'm no help.
And to follow-up my question... I figured you built the stuff on top. So the question is how DID you get that carved stone effect on the faces?
Reply to this
Ahh, I see. Well, I smooshed an appropriate sized blob onto the surface and tried to get some good adherence (even scored up the matching surfaces a little with an x-acto). Then, I drew out the skull outline with the blade and trimmed odd the excess. Then, I started using various loop tools (smaller than the ones shown previously with sharper edges) and started removing clay from areas like the eye sockets and cheeks. Then, it was a sort of back and forth between using that rubber-tipped tool and the loops until I got the desired effect. The teeth were first cut with e x-acto, then I used the runner-tipped tool to round them out and work the detail of the socket edges.
I can't say I fully was conscious to make it look like stone so much as I focused on it being a true relief sculpture. By that I mean giving more of an illusion of depth, rather than making it a fully rounded form (as if I cut a skull in half and simply glued the front on). Much like how a portrait on a coin is flat instead of sticking out a half inch from the surface. Perhaps that style helps suggest that it is stone-like?
When it is baked, I will make more chips, cracks and holes in the surface to reenforce the stone idea.
~Paul
Reply to this
Actually it's the flat face of the pedestal that gives the greatest impression of carved stone. The skull relief work is great, mind you, but I was wondering whether there was a conscious effort made when you did the flat surface to get the slight roughness that implies stone.
Reply to this
Heh, I think we're essentially saying the same thing. Carving in the relief style help communicate the essence of stone.
Was the actual modeling conscious? Mostly.
~Paul
Reply to this
That's a tough one. I agree with Todd-Bellygrub that the circles are too round.
What if instead of those round circles, you sculpted bolts on the corners, as if the sculpture is built to keep something bound inside the base of the statue? You could put two bolts per corner, on top of the current round holes, and that would remove the iron cross from the profile.
Reply to this
Funny you mention this, as I have been using an enormous amount of restraint to not use metal-like surfaces on the base. It's a compuslive thing, as I love doing all the rivets, bolts, etc., on the Orky vehicles and sculptures. But, I felt that it wasn't appropriate for the subject matter, as pure stone was far more timeless and ancient.
~Paul
Reply to this
Ah, I didn't think of that. Nice call. That whole "has to have existed for 10,000 years" thing. Curse you rust!
Reply to this
10,000 at the very least ("stranger aeons", and so forth)
~Paul
Reply to this
I can't think of any real solution tbh. The new 8-point solution just makes me think of 40k Chaos (8 point star and all that), which just instinctively makes me think of corniness. That's probably just me though, I'm sure it'd look fine to anyone not familiar with Warhammer.
Reply to this
From everyone's feedback (many thanks, by the way), it seems that there is no universally right option... so, looking at the glass half full, one can also conclude there is no universally wrong option. I'm going to go with the 8-point design, but make the side points minimal, just enough to break up the shape.
Fingers crossed!
~Paul
Reply to this