Sticks and String (Due December 1, 2007)

[Ilaekae]

You all had a nice week, so I'm your punishment for enjoying yourselves just a bit too much...heeheehee...

Sticks and String (Due December 1, 2007)

This week we're gonna do something a bit weird. We're going to picture sticks in our mind and tie them together. How easy is this gonna be? WBMWAAHAHAHhahahahahahahahaha...

Actually, there's a bit more to it, so here goes...

This is an exercise in composition. It's to prove to you that you can do something very exciting with very little, IF you think about it a bit first.

I want you to pretend you have a bunch of sticks. They don't have to be perfectly straight like wood from the lumber yard, but they should be at least as straight as little tree branches and twigs that look "kinda" straight. Got that? Don't worry about bark and stuff like that--assume the sticks have been crudely shaved by some nice fairy god mother somewhere and you just found them on your doorstep. There can be as many as you want, BUT NO LESS than 20, and they should all be about the same thickness, but can be different lengths.

We are going to tie our sticks together with some string at each connection point (the fairy god mother left you a ball of that, too...) and build...on our paper...a structure of some type that can be as abstract as you want it to be, as long as it looks like it would "work" in real life. That means it would need at least three legs to stand up and be self supporting.

What we're doing is building a sculpture the way a little kid would do one--but only in our minds and then drawing it. It will have depth, so some of the sticks will get smaller as they go to the background, and larger if they come forward. They will throw shadows, so get a very clear idea of where your light source is.

In the areas where there are lots of sticks and string together, the drawing will develop visual mass and volume, even though it's mostly empty space. Where there are fewer sticks, the feeling of "weight" will be a lot less.

Interesting things will happen when the sticks cross each other start and to chop up the white background into little negative spaces of all shapes and sizes.

The trick here is to arrange your imaginary sticks in such a way that somebody will think it's interesting and exciting. It's almost the same as doing an abstract painting with just lines, only these lines are real items that have a real presence in space. It's not important WHAT your final mess of sticks looks like. It IS important how "exciting" and attractive it is...whatever it is...[grin]

If it helps to visualize your "pattern" of sticks, you can pretend you're building a tree house framework, funny skyscrapers built by ants that have suddenly all achieved IQs of 200, a city designed by a mad man, or some kind of apocalyptic tower to fend off flying demons, or something equally dumb, but it doesn't actually have to look like ANYTHING.

Some advice to keep in mind: If you do a pattern with the sticks that gets TOO repetitive, you're going to have a boring drawing, like drawing wallpaper or building a fence. Maybe think in terms of two, three or four groupings of sticks that form neat shapes that are all in turn connected by other sticks like bridges or aerial roads.

If this doesn't make sense or if I've confused anyone, don't be afraid to ask me to explain it better.

BIG NOTE: In about 8 hours, I will be posting a really crude sort of tutorial on composition that could be a big help on this assignment. It will be right down below in a thread labeled REFERENCE & TUTORIALS, so make sure you take look through it before you start this assignment.

:ilaekae: :steph:

[iwantjelly]

This classrom keeps getting better and better...

I'ts 23:00, I'm completely exhausted but i'm starting right now !

[iwantjelly]

Here's a first go, I'll do another try later :

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/6642/sticksfc6.jpg

This is fun

[PaTXiNaKi]

Wow very funny and instructive activity, nice tutorial Ilaekae, i must say i have never taken care of my composition,i simply wanted my pics to be more or less good, but not well presented.My error,Reading ur tutorial seems that,its at last as important a nice draw than a good composition.

iwantjelly, wow! i can feel the movement,the sticks falling from above ^^ great sense u gave to the draw.

Im working on something like this

[iwantjelly]

A second try :

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/2506/sticks2df5.jpg

Edit : forgot it when I posted, but I tried to apply what Ilaekae said in his tutorial, and would love to get some feedback about this aspect of my doodle.
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/6844/sticks2compositionte7.jpg

[Seedling]

Oooh, there are so many exciting possibilities in this assignment. I like what you guys are trying so far, and I'm tempted to give it a try myself. :)

[Ilaekae]

This is nice... You guys are going exactly where I hoped you would.

[PaTXiNaKi]

What do u think a bird? a draco? :D

[Kat_Warrior]

It's not much and I might do more, but right now I'm just proud of myself for getting a couple done!

[Rabbi Satan]

Here's my sticks image. I took in mind the rule of thirds that Ilaekae mentioned in his tutorials and reference thread. I found that really informative, as I knew next to nothing about composition before. I also added a bit of what I know of colour theory to this image. Hope you like it Ilaekae, and that it's not an "anti-composition" like my last one was :)

[enrigo]

Here's my try on this assignment:
250191

I really like iwantjelly's second one so I try to do something similar to that, but I think mine seems too choatic. Maybe I'll have another try and next time I'll make sure to leave some space in the picture.

I think this is going to be even more abstract than the actual abstraction assignment :drool:

[Ilaekae]

Sorry for the delay here. I was actually waiting a bit to see what we got in...

Iwantjelly: The first version is an extremely nice pattern composition that really makes good use of the abstraction process without becoming a true abstract. Except for a very few small spots, this would translate nicely directly into a usable illustration, if we could figure out what that illustration was actually showing...heeheehee...

The second piece has tremendous possibilities as a real environment of some type, or again, could even be extended to an illustration with appropriate characters included. Very strong composition. The primary structure is extremely powerful and has a very real feeling of space and depth. I could see moving this into the "real" world where we would need additional bracing to make it really stand and support weight, and maybe some wind-break type of "walls" of canvas or found materials. It almost screams apocalyptic shelter/environment.

Kat Warrior: Nice solid structural concept. I'm wandering what would happen if you added a more random (less-structured) tower-like element maybe behind the two you have now. Almost abstract, or like a bunch of drunken beavers did it... :P In fact, it might be a bit of a gas to actually turn the hand in your second piece so the fingers touched the ground like legs holding up the "palm" structure, which you could develope further in the "random" way I mentioned above. My suggestions are meant to add an organic interest to the positively "man-made" structure so they contrast off each other. This would create an artistic tension, so to speak.

(btw, is that realy a hand? If so, it's got six fingers... :P)

RibbiSatan: You've almost got it. The combination is working, but I'm thinking we have to get the upper right "organism" moved down so it's closer to the yellow one than it is to the edges of the "paper." The freaky use of color has created a multiple layering effect--with the yellow (surprisingly) relegated to the distance and the multi-layered element coming both foreward in space and hovering above the yellow unit. It's the white that's doing it, and that's why I think that entire element should be moved down and leftward. It's actually the white bits that are making a run for it--which is a good thing--but they're "moving" upward just a tad too fast maybe.

Enrigo: Strong start. It looks a bit disjointed right now, but if you study it for a bit, you begin to see a clustering effect happening about a third of the way from the right and just above dead center vertically. I'd add some extra elements (thinner and at angles the way you stabilize a structure) in this area and let them gradually diminishe as they went from that point outwards to the rest of the structure. Was I clear on that? If not, yell and I'll try to make better sense. aleoun already is convinced I cant seak English anyway...so no harm...:P

[Ilaekae]

PaTXiNaKi: I don't know how I did it, but I accidentally skipped over yours when I scrolled. Sorry about that.

I'm not sure if you were heading that way, but you've developed quite a nice foundation here for a pure fantasy illustration. Obviously man-made, nice perspective and composition, and very interesting visually. It wouldn't take much to add some nice random triangular bracing in all the right spots, make the structure something light like bamboo, and extend the "wings" a good bit to look like they had a realistic possibility of flight. Some fabric sewn on, a believable power source or even a ballon(s) as extra lift, and you're on your way to the Bahamas, or Jupiter...

As i looked at this again, I got another take on it, assuming we're accepting it as something practical--the "tail" is a seat...with the primary device to the front of the "driver/pilot."

Nicely done...even just as it is.

[D-Holme]

This all seem an excellent idea so I'd hope to give a good go at it.

Here is what I have so far. I feel I've come to this rather late but I might be able to bring this together a tad more before tomorrow.

[Ilaekae]

...nice start...

[enrigo]

I got a bit dizzy while working on this one so I didn't go beyond just the lines. I'm pretty new to digital painting and somehow I can't seem to draw straight lines like I do on paper.

The tutorial is really great but it's using it is really harder than it seems.
250868

[Ilaekae]

"I'm pretty new to digital painting and somehow I can't seem to draw straight lines like I do on paper."


Man goes to the doctor...

"Doc, I can't draw a straight line with my tongue."

"Do you always use your tongue to draw?"

"No. I use my right hand."

"Then draw your straight lines with your right hand, too..."

"Why would I do that?!?"

Doctor killed him and buried his body under the waiting room sofa... :P


Sorry... that was too good to pass up...


Enrigo: First off, draw the way you normally do, on paper, then scan it. If you can't scan, or you really want to get in a lot of practice on the comp, do this...plan your design out roughly with a pencil and put some grid lines over it. In PS, set up a layer with grid lines on it to match the ones on the paper. Then you can pretty much copy what you did on paper to the monitor--but on a different layer from the grid one.

And to draw straight lines in PS, after setting up the brush the way you want, click where you want the line to start, hold down the shift key and click the curser where you want the line to end. WHEEEEEEEEE! Straight line...so cool...

Like what you started, but you have a big problem with your composition in that that great big stick in the middle is... a great big stick in the middle... that's hard to miss. Color it, and it would get worse. And on a nitpicking scale, the two units off to the sides are "almost-part-but-not-part" of the center structure. And I'm not really sure you need the three straight ones in the back...they look like those dumb people that stand around at an accident and say things like, "EWWWW! Gross brain guts, Dude!"

I made a really crude cut and paste of your piece and just added a few lines, and flipped the right-hand unit around to a new position. This moved the BIG STICK in the middle (remember that one?) to someplace else where it isn't so obvious, but you may have to twist it a bit (arrows) to make it look right. Then I added to more sticks to attach everything a bit--getting us into a more exciting composition.

Now, being serious here, go back to the tutorial reference thing and look at what I said about the Rule of Threes and why it's important. When you comback, that will explain why I moved your horizon (right smack in the middle-now a dotted line) up nearer the top. It could be lower, but you'd have to compensate by shortening or lengthening some of the sticks that go near it so they didn't end right AT the horizon, which would be bad...

Overall, I do like what you have here, it's got an interesting mass, and a bunch of nice overall negative spaces that work. It just needs refined a bit...

[D-Holme]

I hope I haven't overstepped the idea of this project by working some colour in - My rough pencil lines were getting a bit mixed up so I tried to use a dual tone to bring the definition out.

It was never supposed to be anything but I wanted it to look like it should stand-up, maybe some kind of crazed bower.

[enrigo]

Sorry about the digital-drawing-straight-line whining, I'm having a mentor to teach basic digital painting soon so I want to warm myself up for that. Also I feel guilty to post a crappy photograph of my drawing all the time.

I can see the huge difference of mine and your cut and paste one, and I'll have a good reminder from experience:

"The Rule of Thirds," and is used by many artists to remind themselves NOT to bisect the canvas by placing the horizon or some other obvious break through the center of the painting

:assspank:

[JonZ_]

Damn, I am too late to participate.

Composition is a big ****ing deal to me, I wish I can understand better. To me, drawing the idea is important, not how you place the subject in the area and all. I've read the bits about the technical, but I feel it just as it is: technical. When people see my art, they don't go wtf COMPOSITION!!11one one. Only pros do. Why it should be important?

Iklaeke make good observation, but I only feel the odds only after he explain why, and I also feel it just a matter of opinion. I couldn't see the odds before he pointed them. To me (at this day) it just a matter of self perseption.. Rules of Third, neg-spaces.. Why don't we just make art?

Sorry if I raise a bit of stir here, I try to open a debate and try realizing why it important so I can at least apply some of the basics before doing a quick sketch (and also maybe for the benefits of the learners here)

[arttorney]

The first thing I would point out is the overwhelming likelihood is that the boss at a concept art job is most likely a pro, though there is the outside possibly that he is the brother-in-law of the guy that owns the company. The same goes for most fine art jurors. Whether or not most of your fan base gets composition, the fact that you are doing it right is more likely to open doors for you in your career.

The basic idea of it, though, is to use the psychology of design to keep people's eyes from wandering off the paper. Then not only have you successfully told a story, but they just can't look away. It's compelling to them.

[Ilaekae]

Think of composition as something you can identify with on a more positive level...

When you draw a person, you would never think to put his feet where his head is, and vice versa. Someone might notice and ask embarrassing questions about your use of pharmaceuticals... If you intended to that, then there would be a logical sunconscious explanation somewhere within the context of the artwork--ummm--what if Dr. Franjenstein was blind, for example...otherwise, you've muddied the waters for the viewer.

To translate this over to your art in the sense of composition, you are in the process of creating a mood/environment/visual communication for an unseen viewer that you will never be able to speak to, even if you wanted. How are you communicating what part of the illustration is important? What should I be looking at first to better understand what is going on or about to happen? A desperate fight for survival between two heavy-muscled heroes with massive swords and loin cloths can become two guys posing for a bunch of local amateur artists by just a slight shift in the composition.

Another example--a fat over-dressed Caliph swooning back on a bunch of cushions while a beautiful nubile young girl plays a harp. Is she deviously putting him in lala land to cut his throat for some past indignity, or is she just a stock character adding to the general feeling of utter decadence? Only composition will resolve this question, by forcing the viewer to look at one or the other in a specific way, therefore gauging their relative importance within the scene. Is that look on her face boredom in the deep background, or is her face a bit sly and somewhere we would see it clearly before we take in the entirity of the scene. The answer determines whether we should feel sorry for the fat bastard, or just be disgusted with him.

Does that help?

Paying attention to composition up front helps us decide if we have a lunatic on the roof gettin ready to commit suicide by diving into a massive traffic jam, or a "super hero" about to save the world from the evil nano-robots who have taken control of the world's machines.

[Ilaekae]

JonZ, I figured a pic was worth a thousand words, so here's a little piece I created, after much sweating and careful artistic stuff, entitled "Mold Man Kills Batman in Bar Fight."

I'm thinking the composition needs a bit of work... W'dya think? :P

[enrigo]

I dunno if this has to do with anything (since I'm a composition n00b), but I've read this article a while ago and it explains a lot of stuff about how the pros like Frazetta uses shadow on their image.

http://mattiassnygg.com/tutorials/imaginefx2.htm

Nice picture Ilaekae, you should post it in the ohhh's and ahhh's forum section.

LMAO !

[JonZ_]

I don't know. Your example is quite specific, but it also an extreme case. What incitated me to write on this is comments like this:

Like what you started, but you have a big problem with your composition in that that great big stick in the middle is... a great big stick in the middle... that's hard to miss. Color it, and it would get worse. And on a nitpicking scale, the two units off to the sides are "almost-part-but-not-part" of the center structure. And I'm not really sure you need the three straight ones in the back...they look like those dumb people that stand around at an accident and say things like, "EWWWW! Gross brain guts, Dude!"

I made a really crude cut and paste of your piece and just added a few lines, and flipped the right-hand unit around to a new position. This moved the BIG STICK in the middle (remember that one?) to someplace else where it isn't so obvious, but you may have to twist it a bit (arrows) to make it look right. Then I added to more sticks to attach everything a bit--getting us into a more exciting composition.

Now this is an example that goes beyond my understanding. Enrigo went for an idea. Fine. He placed the sticks in a way that he understood, and for which audience will understand too. But your intervention just makes me go, well yeah is there really a benefits in this? I understand the whole parts but no part but what if it was like, a carpenter doing a canon mockup or a structure of a Trojan Horse in the making. Why the other studs must have the same level of importance of the center one? Why the horizon must be placed higher when the center of interest is the big stick in the center which just nullify the horizon line (which is fine by me) whereas to put it above and make it more noticeable? This again sounds like an opinion (so is my point of view) but the main idea of Enrigo is there, and not half outside of the paper (like in the batman example). Why it should be improved to be toe to toe to the composition theory?

Is most of the professionals out there are capable to apply this rule of third without thinking? Or even high renown artists have flaws in their composition? (and Why it create a such outrage in the artist community?)

To me, it looks like composition is hit or miss.


Again sorry if I sound bitter (sorry for poor english too bergh) ... I just want to understand better.

EDIT: Ok, this was my entry:
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/171/crossesme2.th.jpg (http://img504.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crossesme2.jpg)

I'm not sure if it fit on the rule, I hesitated a lot before putting it there, because I feel it wasn't right or fair, or too advanced, or inspired with the others entries.(apologies if it does). This was done within few minutes, without putting my knowledge of composition to it.
I just went into what inspired me. I love dramatic effects of composition and emphasis, but it just a natural feel to me, not some theory.

[Ilaekae]

JonZ: Okay, I'm going to see if I can explain this a bit better without getting the two of us into language mis-understandings...

There are rules in art. They are NOT laws. they can be broken, and often are, for some sound reason that the artist deems necessary. When I play with someone's art and flip it around, I'm making a suggestion of ONE way to solve what i see as a problem of some type, but that THEY may not. They CAN (and often do) disagree with me.

The problem with Enrigo's piece that I saw was a "flaw" in his composition that could become a problem in the overall context of his solution to the assignment. The assignment, in it's most basic form, was to take a bunch of simple sticks and make something--anything--out of them that was visually more interesting and exciting than the sticks alone would be. He succeeded beautifully in this, but in the process, made a few "visual errors."

The one that was most obvious was the single large stick directly in the middle of the page. It was so strong an image, and so large, that if he had gone on to shade or color it, its presence (to the viewer) as A SINGLE STICK would have been intensified tremendously, and it would have become a drawing of a BIG STICK with some OTHER sticks, too, not a construction of STICKS (as in universal--all the sticks are involved to a good degree)... This ONE stick became your cannon barrel. It could just as easily have become a big man among some sticks or branches, which would have resulted in a completely different solution than what we were looking for.

Arranging the sticks create shapes and patterns that tease the eye the way just lining them all up like a picket fence would not. It becomes an interesting "composition," with interesting little places within it that my eye WANTS to go.

The stick being larger than the others wasn't really a problem as such, but it DID become a major one when Enrigo placed it exactly in the middle of the drawing. We can't help but notice it. We don't look anywhere else, Therefore, we miss a lot of his drawing that he spent a lot of time on. In the "rules" of composition, the "rule" of symmetry beats out all the others. That's why many critics/teachers/etc., make the dumb-sounding comment "NEVER put anything in the middle!"

That, for the record, is bullshit. Put something in the middle if you want, BUT...make sure that's where you really want it first. It IS going to be IMPORTANT... IMPRESSIVE... OVERPOWERING... JUST SOOOOO THERE... and with a vengeance. Many people will see nothing else but that thing in the middle. So...you have to decide, as an artist, whether this is really what you want them to "see."

Since I liked the basic structure he had created, i looked for a way to get the "problem" out of the center of the art. One way was to mess with the one unit at the right, which i did. I had a secondary reason for doing this...look below again at his original piece. I placed a number of colored dots at some places on the drawing. These are visual "confusion" points--tangencies--that annoy the viewer just a tiny bit. They don't know what to make of them. They don't really overlap, so you can't confidently tell in that area if they're in front or in back of something else. A few others are simply areas where lines all come together and cause a bit of "dark" confusion"--these places start to look more important than they should be. They annoy the way a white thread on a nice dark suit annoys...it's there...and DAMN I WISH it wasn't... :P My flipping the unit eliminated most of these.

The Rule of Thirds is a classic artist's rule that's been around a long long time. It came into being to prevent a problem that was very common with amateur/student artists--dividing the canvas almost exactly in half with something (like the horizon line). A viewer will glance at the overall piece of art first, then "move in" to study it. If the canvas is divided, so to speak, so cleanly in half at first glance, the viewer will tend to treat it as two equal canvases rather than one big canvas. This doesn't happen when the horizon is moved up or down from that point, because that "point" is the direct center (vertically) of the canvas. It's the same problem we had above with the big stick--only now, the horizon line is a BIG SMACK-IN-THE-MIDDLE-THING...

"Is most of the professionals out there are capable to apply this rule of third without thinking? Or even high renown artists have flaws in their composition? (and Why it create a such outrage in the artist community?)"

Actually, they are. They do it without thinking, because they learned to avoid it as a potential problem when they were developing their craft. And this does not mean that renowned artist never make mistakes. They make them all the time. That's why we refer to "competent" art and "masterpieces." As for outrage--I don't think it's outrage as much as a "I can't believe he/she did that on purpose!--What were they thinking!" reaction.

Composition is definitely not a hit or miss proposition. It is the blue print, for want of a better term, that your art is built from. Without it, there is no "art"...just studies of things... birds... hands... noses... nudes... Drawing as an artform is not just duplicating something. It's controlling it, making it get up and sing, and producing a whole that is so much more than its parts. Composition is just a part of this, and it becomes automatic once you get used to the way and how of its workings.

Did I help clarify anything, or did I just make it worse. don't be afraid to keep pounding me til I make it clear. that's why I'm here...that, and the free sex from Cody and Sundance...but we don't talk about that... :P


On your piece: Never--repeat--NEVER be afraid to post a piece. I'm not here to get angry at you, or to make fun of you (...well...maybe...if you actually look like your avatar... :P) because you want to learn. I have failed more times in my life than you can even begin to imagine, and I have made mistakes that were so outrageous that even today, they still embarrass me when I remember them. But I'm still here. And I'm here because I learned something each time I failed...

On this piece you didn't fail...technically...

Its a solid attempt at a random field of shapes that achieve great depth and a true sense of space and majesty by their placement and perspective. Having said that, I'm now going to point out some things, and they inadvertently prove a scientific principle: It is almost impossible to create a random pattern randomly.

Look at the little pink dots and tell yourself what you see...

Did you want that to happen?

Then look at the faint blue line and tell yourself what you see...

Is that a road that you want me--the viewer--to take?

Now, ask yourself if ...just maybe... it might pay to be a bit more "calculating" when you want the appearance of "randomness"...?

What you are doing--with me guiding you just a tiny bit--is discovering that no matter how emotional you think your approach is, there is an underlying layer of "reason" or "pattern" that your mind subconsciously forces into your art...unless you CONSCIOUSLY stop it and correct for it when discovered--IF it's a problem. The rather regular pattern you inadvertently created is something that would not be all that obvious to most people. It wouldn't even occur to most people to look for it...just like most of the "problems" I seem so intent on pointing out on everyone's art.

I'm not here to teach you how to create artwork. I'm here to show you how to make your art better, and part of that is teaching you how to "see" what you're doing...

well done... :)


D-Holmes: I waited to see what you were going to do before commenting further. Don't worry about overstepping here. I'm a firm believer in using a steamroller on pumpkin pies if that's the best way to get what you want or need.

This works surprisingly well as a nearly symmetrical composition. The difference in value in the sticks is what's pulling it off. There's a real sense of distance, and the two arcing structures in the foreground are forcing our eye to circle the image to take it ALL in, not just the center. In an abstract sense, this image becomes both character and environment at the same time, leaving us a bit intrigued by exactly where one ends and the other starts.

VERY nicely done...

[JonZ_]

Interesting post Iklaeki. What made me thinking it an outrage is sometime I read users comment on some artists that in their opinion shouldn't have any attentions because the reasons they have in mind is their composition sucks and all.

Thanks for explaining the reasoning of your comments. It helped a lot to understand. I'm still battling with questions in mind but it not important.

As for the hit or miss, it still to me difficult to look at composition as something that is achievable to human eye or something to work at 100% in an artwork. It seems to me there will be always flaws in it. Like in my example of my own rendition of sticks. I tried to balance the crosses in a way the perspective would work and fill the frame all equally, but yet someone spotted that blank spot on corner that could be a potential problem because it could drive audience attentions (is that what you mean?) It not the first pro who point me holes in my artwork, I remember my art teacher decade ago spoting that same similar diagonal hole in some my works :) And no, I didn't made the distributed crosses on horizon on purpose.

It just goes beyond my abilities to see these flaws before putting the artwork to final, or to be able to quick fix some pieces that is solidly anchored on the media. I go in a loop of never ending self-questioning. Like my crosses, I keep wondering how I can fix this, put another cross, then I say no because it will clutter the picture, then I can't think of anything else. What if it was a photography? Would it be to say the photographer to move to another angle, or plant a fake cross to fix the problem, that's seems a bit exagerating. And then I realize that it just Iklaeki perception and I should not listen to him because the portion of the cross cropped on the upper right is redirecting the audience inside the picture, but then I realize he is a pro and much more experienced than I do... there you go I'm in a questioning loop again :(

There's so much theories related to compo that it seems endless and in the end it seems to not making sense, it feels like it destroying my inspiration, break my dynamic drawings, and maybe one of the many reasons of why I am not motivated to draw more often.

Sorry to be a pain in the butt for this, my teacher decade ago also dropped the ball on me because I asked too much questions lol.

I hope you understand my point of view (or I just don't make any sense like most people find on me lol).

Maybe you will have another upcoming answer that will make me light my bulb.

[D-Holme]

Thanks for the comments Ilaekae - looking at it now I wasn't sure that I should have put in a more obvious starting point for the eye or whether it doesn't matter so much as there is something of a cycle in the image.