I have to concur guys and Chris your example is clutch, I see that it is picking up the glaze work. I'm glad machine's have not taken over the human brain anyway. Even if they come up with something perfect someday don't you think it's better to train your own eyes and brain... ?
The first time I tried it I loaded the Mona Lisa and it did a perfect trillion both eyes and her mouth, which may seem good as a focal point for a portrait... I just loaded the painting again and it gave a completely different read altogether... This engine is neither good or consistent. I'll keep reading here and my books and thanks for taking the time!!
I reckon this device to be hoplessly inadequate. In fact I would say it is worse than useless in that it is highly misleading! (However, it possibly works a little more reliably for text based graphics with no 'human interest' images, but that is still a guess and I'm doubtful, frankly.)
Anyway, Judge for yourself:
I don't even think it's good for graphic's people, it gives different reads every time. The machine is not good at all... Get back to these good lessons and was not trying to derail your thread. THX!
On the contrary Kelly, the deficiency of the machine served as a an excellent way of pointing up the value of intelligently getting to grips with how pictures 'work'. It also, by inference, points up how simplistic tricks are of no real help either - only a holistic understanding of the principles is capable of providing anything remotely useful to the user.
So in this way it's a useful contribution!
Thanks Chris, I am so glad that I could add so much to this thread by pointing out the bad cheats offered in this crack pot technology!! And to inadvertently add to the proof that there is no cheating. Just as you said = only a holistic understanding of the principles is capable of providing anything remotely useful to the user. Well put!!
If anyone wants to ask me anything feel free to post it here.
It doesn't have to be about composition.
Just stuff about the bedrock principles.
I'll do my best to answer as much as I can for the benefit off all those interested.
Awesome thread - thanks very much for this!
I'm not too used to reading the plastic meaning of an image, but just to see if I'm on the right track and using the Fuchs as an example...
Are the yellow shapes of the windows that echo her dress a way of reaffirming her link to the outside in a palstic sense rather than the literal (which would be the narrative fact that they're windows rather than yellow shapes)?
It's why her dress seems to so full of sunshine - positively radiates it!
This is an effect of association and causes the yellow (which is quite dull in real terms) to feel luminous.
Remember though, that the two things (literary and plastic) are working together, mutualy supporting each other.
We are in a world where the paint IS the thing and the thing IS the paint. They mutually feed each other. So that all those painterly marks exude a response to what they represent and are not limited to decoration.
The sequence of yellows from window, to dress, to office and back out to window behind the man are a colour chord that speaks of the mood in plastic terms. Think of the way light on a yellow book behaves as clouds pass across the sun - and think of how that creates a sequence of moods in you as you watch it.
Last edited by Chris Bennett; November 5th, 2011 at 09:50 AM.
Thanks very much! This has all provided me with a far more appreciative stance on the stuff (love that Fuch's painting now I'm starting to notice those things).
Would there be any examples where the plastic meaning is contradictory to the literary meaning to provide some sort of irony? I'd assume based on what you said about them mutually feeding each other that the result would be kind of messy/nonsensical, although if irony is the intent then I would suppose that would be a form of 'marrying' the two?
In the Freud of the sleeping girl, which is a similar subject in mood, the marks are deliberately antagonistic to the nature of the subject, producing a unsettling sense of contradiction with plastic expression and subject expression. Yet somehow the account is settled because neither win out right and produce a strange dynamic balance:
Chris, when you say the marks in the Freud are antagonistic to the nature of the subject, are you talking about the contrast between the girl's expression/pose and the harshness of the marks? And this is what's giving the sense of her inner mood? Just want to make sure I'm understanding that correctly.
Well, the marks aren't harsh in themselves Sidharth. They only appear harsh because we are reading them against the subject. They writhe and tumble, interrupt and contrast yet at the same time synthesise into a young girl asleep.
So we have a interaction of shapes that are 'storm like', worrisome in their wriggling together (think of heavy clouds overhead) and we have the face of a young girl.
The result is a sort of unease in stasis.
Whether that is the unease of the girl or the artist or both is not important. The subject of this picture has become 'unease' because of the duality of its plastic expression and its 'literary' subject; 'young girl asleep'.
With the Varichev there is no antagonism between subject and its plastic expression; so what we have is an accord. The reds, blacks and ochres are grouped, in their place, ordered and respectful of each other in the plastic drama.
The picture's subject is 'balance' if you like:
Two black eyes, two red ribbons poking out either side of her head, two collars... and the whole colour scheme held together by that marvelous river of white between her jacket that forks off in two tributaries, winks out at us in the highlights of her eyes and closes again as a oneness in the parting of her black hair.
Last edited by Chris Bennett; November 5th, 2011 at 03:24 PM.