Am I Evil??
A quick update/ check-in...
Perhaps I saw too much of a Laughing Buddha in his eyes, but my focus has been to make the eyes look more malevolent yet not so much to remove the intelligence.
I also added the 'ears' and hints of nostrils. Nothing's baked-in yet.
Thoughts??
~Paul
Perhaps I saw too much of a Laughing Buddha in his eyes, but my focus has been to make the eyes look more malevolent yet not so much to remove the intelligence.
I also added the 'ears' and hints of nostrils. Nothing's baked-in yet.
Thoughts??
~Paul
It's really coming together now...
Yes, the changes to the eyes are perfect. they did look "amused" before, now they look threatening. I really like the elephant skin texture.
Reply to this
Heya Scott,
Thanks for popping in! Glad you like the eyes, it seems there's a fine line between amused and evil incarnate... who knew? The lines were beginning to blur for me.
~Paul
Reply to this
Well if you have to ask then you probably are evil.
I like the change to the eyes, though I can't saw much of a laughing look to him prior. He is definitely looking malevolent and itelligent!
The ears and nostrils look like good additions to me.
How close do you think you are to compeleting this and starting casting?
Keep up the good work!
Reply to this
Duffy~
Maybe I was just looking at it too long, but I couldn't not see a benevolence... which is far from my target.
I think I am getting pretty close. The face is the big part for me right now, the rest of the head is pretty much just texturing which is busy-work but less design intensive. After that I will likely give the sculpture one last sweep of nit-pickedness and then we're on to the molding. The end is nigh!!
~Paul
Reply to this
I think you did catch a smile in his eyes -in the 2nd photo he looks like there could be a smile under those tentacles. xxx
Reply to this
'Mornin, Miss~
I noticed that the lower the angle in which I viewed the face, the less evil it looked. Perhaps because it is more vulnerable from a lower vantage?
Yep, a big toothy smile!
Reply to this
Zog me, that's evil alright! The slitted eyes just stare right at you. Definitely malevolent. The ears are nice and subtly done too- more like sound-holes than "ears" as such. This is going to look fantastic with a coat of paint. Sorry I can't give you any useful criticism, but I just love this latest update too much!
Reply to this
James,
I have no problem with your having no problem!
~Paul
Reply to this
OK, I'll be the dissenting opinion. (boo hiss!) Actually the eyes are much better, but they still seem *very* incomplete to me. So I'm waiting for the bang at the end of the symphony.
The nostrils are good, but I somehow feel they'd be better if they looked like they had a flap to cover them (sort of like a whale blow-hole, but not round, slit-like).
And the ears look a bit tacked on. I think he would be better without them or with a circular depressed area that didn't have skin texture. Like his tympanic membrane is on the surface.
Just a view from another planet...
Oh yeah, one last thing, the skin texture on this thing is absolutely beautiful. It is so convincingly skin-like that the whole sculpt looks positively alive.
Reply to this
Hi Rich,
Sorry for the late reply, I've been away from the computer for a little bit, and I wanted to mull over the 'dissent' for a little bit and give it some thought. Nice to see you back, I always appreciate your input! As fate would have it, I baked the sculpture just a hand full of hours before I got your comment. The comments on the topic had seemingly tapered off, and a direction showed itself. It's not that the features are unchangeable, but it's certainly more challenging to do so at this point.
Be warned, the conductor of this symphony is no longer using a score, so he may be just as surprised about how it ends as the audience. Though the photo process is improving, I still often question whether the photos are at all misleading to the readers. The eyes are in shadow, so often a little underexposed to keep the rest of the statue properly exposed. I think I might add a little more definition to the actual eyeball, as the lids look a little too thick at the moment.
The nostrils do have a flap of sorts, here's an enhanced photo to bring out the detail a little more. My intention was similar to your suggestion in that they can be used to close off the air while submerged.
I chose to have ears mostly for a little added detail, as a way to break up the large areas of flesh. I think a realistically sized membrane would probably be too subtle small to notice (many sense organs need not scale up with a large being, doing so reduces the illusion of scale). I liked the idea of the hole, as it has a very ancient/prehistoric feel to it, and that it might not even be an ear at all. Any sort of protuberance might look too much like a "cute" ear.
I appreciate the feedback!
~Paul
Reply to this
I'm always late it seems. No harm because my input is whacked as usual. Now I see the nostril detail and it's brilliant. I guess it's my crappy monitor that's faking me out. Still not thrilled with the ears, but I don't really dislike them either. As usual, you are well in control and ol' tentacle head is looking great. I really wish I could see this guy in 3d... guess I'll just have to wait for the casting.
Reply to this
Well, at the very least, your input is reassuring. So,there's still plenty value in it no matter when it rolls in. It's going to be fun to hear feedback from people that finally see the sculpture in person, as I don't have a real grasp for what the photos are and are not conveying.
As I recently discovered, a new monitor can make a huge difference. But, the downside is that it's seemingly impossible to find a home for the my old one. They are illegal to throw out, so we're encouraged to recycle. That's cool, I am all for recycling. However, there isn't a facility in all of Boston proper, I would have to lug it to a suburb (which is harder without a car, like many other residents of a major city). The, I get to pay $45 to recycle it. No wonder I see people dumping them wherever they can. Kind of defeats the purpose to discourage the recycling so much, we might as well have them in the landfills. :-/
sorry about the rant.
~Paul
Reply to this
I been investigating getting rid of computer stuff recently and I discoverd that Staples will take monitors and towers for $10 each. Have you got one of them in the city? I'm guessing you would.
Staples: http://www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/ecoeasy/?storeId=10001&cm_ven=Glamour&cm_ite=ecoeasy
Best Buy does it too, but I don't have all their details figured out yet.
The government has this link too:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/ecycling/donate.htm
Enjoy!
Reply to this
Cool, I have both a Staples and a Best Buy within a hand full of blocks. That'd be great, thanks for the tip. I checked out your links (and the links they lead me to), it looks like Staples would be my best bet. I was going to call the Salvation Army today, though I bet they are flooded with used monitors. Thanks for the help, Duffy, that brings my cost and hassle down considerably.
~Paul
Reply to this
Glad to be of assistance!
Reply to this
Cool. I never knew that either but I do know how hard it is to recycle computer equipment. Fortunately for me I can just leave it at work and it goes out with their old stuff.
Reply to this