Chow 110 :: VOTING:: Historical Gender Bender - Page 2
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

View Poll Results: Who's got your boxers in a twist?

Voters
148. You may not vote on this poll
  • 2 1.35%
  • 11 7.43%
  • 23 15.54%
  • 40 27.03%
  • 34 22.97%
  • 30 20.27%
  • 8 5.41%
  • 18 12.16%
  • 9 6.08%
  • 5 3.38%
  • 3 2.03%
  • 4 2.70%
  • 23 15.54%
  • 31 20.95%
  • 36 24.32%
  • 9 6.08%
  • 0 0%
  • 2 1.35%
  • 13 8.78%
  • 2 1.35%
  • 48 32.43%
  • 14 9.46%
  • 21 14.19%
  • 31 20.95%
  • 6 4.05%
  • 7 4.73%
  • 82 55.41%
  • 11 7.43%
  • 44 29.73%
  • 5 3.38%
  • 0 0%
  • 4 2.70%
  • 31 20.95%
  • 4 2.70%
  • 4 2.70%
  • 1 0.68%
  • 91 61.49%
  • 41 27.70%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 86

Thread: Chow 110 :: VOTING:: Historical Gender Bender

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Switzerland/Germany
    Posts
    162
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 58 Times in 33 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Che Guevara

    hi all,

    here's my entry for the gender bendered Che, first the ref pictures:
    ,,,

    then the link to Background info:
    ref

    and the image:

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by jpedro; March 23rd, 2008 at 05:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Kyoto, Japan
    Posts
    292
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 147 Times in 68 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Kyoto, Japan
    Posts
    506
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 90 Times in 53 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Great work guys, heres my female version of Rembrandt!

    Background info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rembrandt

    Attached Images Attached Images    
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    69
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 17 Times in 9 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    General Debra Macarthur.


    Lots of great entries this week...good luck to everyone!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur

    Attached Images Attached Images    
    Last edited by lewisaurus; March 24th, 2008 at 07:15 AM. Reason: added link
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    149
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Manfred von Richthofen

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_von_Richthofen

    Attached Images Attached Images        
    SKETCHBOOK!
    IF THIS POST DOES NOT CONTAIN SKETCHES OR PAINTINGS - REPRIMAND ME!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    288
    Thanks
    155
    Thanked 126 Times in 37 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Vlada the Impaler at a young age.

    Vlad the Impaler

    Attached Images Attached Images        
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    603
    Thanks
    127
    Thanked 272 Times in 183 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Judith Anderson - cause I wanted to do Medea

    Photos







    Wiki Link

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Anderson

    Image



    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    OC,CA
    Posts
    765
    Thanks
    427
    Thanked 377 Times in 152 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Here's my Alberta Einstein. I was in a very bad car accident yesterday and can barely type, let alone draw... So it's not quiiiite finished, but it was so close to done I want to post it anyway.

    Link1

    Link2

    Sony used some dupe pictures and links as me, but I can't lie and change my references this late in the game.

    Attached Images Attached Images        
    'Cuz life is full of your regrets, and I should be one...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    467
    Thanks
    41
    Thanked 45 Times in 39 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Gender Bender Shaka Zulu



    http://zar.co.za/shaka.htm







    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    General Custer's Grandaughter modern times TEXAS. going clubbing.





    http://www.garryowen.com/

    Last edited by Wollstonecraft; March 24th, 2008 at 12:40 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Lost in the Sound
    Posts
    4,648
    Thanks
    791
    Thanked 843 Times in 301 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    NO ENTRIES PAST THIS MARK.

    I'll get going on the poll as soon as I get home, which will be in roughly an hour.

    ~Oreg.


    Character of the Week :: A weekly character exploration activity.
    ____________________
    Other Weekly Activities: COW | EOW | IDW | POW
    ____________________
    Sketchbook | Finished Thread
    ____________________
    HIRE. ME. i draw stuff.
    FOLLOW ME. i blog stuff.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    564
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 242 Times in 130 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Voted for:

    Felicia - You combined the features of Vlad into those of a young girl well and with a lot of style. The atmosphere is fitting as well (albeit a little too gory for my taste).

    Ryuloulou - It's definitely Napoleon, and very well done technically. I'm kinda missing Napoleon's pudginess, though...she looks pretty damn tall.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Chate Noire For This Useful Post:


  14. #43
    lord_regenschirm's Avatar
    lord_regenschirm is offline Brought up in the ancient arts of mouse-painting :D Level 4 Gladiator: Meridiani
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    283
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 70 Times in 58 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I don't know why this time the poll wasn't put up into beginner advanced and pro entries cause I would like to vote for more than one ... Nevertheless it was a very hard choice between the absolutely outstanding painting by Posh and the one by Vorace who also did a beautiful workout but over and above in combination with a more interesting gender-bender (could definitely be Bismarcks sister ... ).
    Anyway I think Posh is going for the win again

    Last edited by lord_regenschirm; March 25th, 2008 at 04:33 AM.
    No skill still isn't a new side.
    ~ Arnold B÷cklin


    Visit my sketchbook-gallery kinda thing ...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to lord_regenschirm For This Useful Post:


  16. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Switzerland/Germany
    Posts
    162
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 58 Times in 33 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    lord regenschirm, it says in the poll opening lines that you can vote for as many entries as you wish, so you can vote for more than one.

    Ryoloulou, Paulypaul, Vorace and Posh...nice! love the hair Paulypaul! Posh, that is simply awesome...really cool entries and that topic rocked.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to jpedro For This Useful Post:


  18. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    914
    Thanks
    1,019
    Thanked 520 Times in 302 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Weellll... some awesome stuffs !
    First my 4 favorites :
    Vorace Very very nice rendering and colors, exept the background maybe could have been better but whatever one of my fav !
    Posh: Not much to say, just exellent !
    Lukavi: Just loving it, love your style, colors and render !
    Ryuloulou: Exellent ! vraiment magnifique

    Well the others that I voted for :
    Wiggers: Really nice ! Don't know why I didn't say that your work was one of my favorites too... maybe because I heard too much about leonidas this year hehehe...
    Icemoon: I like it. The colors and lights are very nice, like the cloths too
    Rodimus25: Nice, maybe could have worked more on the rendering.

    Nice job everyone

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Mark Tarrisse For This Useful Post:


  20. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    First of all, amazing entries everyone! Just plain amazing! I love the variation of characters and the way everyone tried to make thier character of choice into a man or in most cases a woman *I tried to find a female character but in most cases, their historical importance isn't as intresting if they had been a man so I decided on a male character as well*.

    Anyway my vote go's to;
    Vorace, Chate Noire and Lord_regenschirm

    When deciding on who to vote to I kept these things in mind;
    - does the character still have the same face?
    - does the character still resemble it's counterpart without recognizable clothing?


    Vorace
    I love the way you made such a manly-man into a downright haughty and arrogant woman. Manly-man is maybe not the right word for him but one thing is obvious, he didn't have a feminine feature in his whole being. That's why I appreciated your work even more. Your Oda would still be Bismark even with a dress and feathered hat. Even in with the uniform you gave her she's still clearly a woman of power. The only detail I would have left out would have been the cape, it's not nearly as well done as you did the rest. I appreciate your way of coloring, not over bearing but suiting to the theme and mood of Bismark. I simply cannot help but to love the helmet you gave her, amazing shading and highlight effects. Overall awesome piece, good character, excellent atmosphere and coloring. Well done, you got my vote!

    Chate Noire
    Excellent choice, Van Gogh has a rather gaunt face with sharp features. You portrait that rather well. Especially her eyes and the shape of her face is very reconisable. I adore your use of colors, truly in Van Gogh's own style. Vibrant yet plain. The overall defeated pose is also very recognizable to Van Gogh, For the sake of improvement I'll add some criticism as well. There's something not quite right with the pose, personally I think her upper legs might be to long and maybe it would have been better if you had managed to give us some more details on where the legs go. The overall roughness in the folds of her clothing is somewhat distracting as well. Overall well done piece, nice choice, excellent features and recognizable pose and coloring. You definitely managed to give him a feminine counterpart, you got my vote!

    Lord_regenschirm
    That amazing face! That's Churchill! I rather like the way you gave her a gun and cigar, and still made her look like a true woman of her time. I am quite fond of suit and shoes, they rather befitting. She really has that 'Bog Boss' image that Churchill used to have. Although I do think his face is less squatted than you made hers. For all the detail and attention that you gave her face, hair, hat and gun, it seems that the suit itself isn't nearly as well done. A pity because the collar of the suit is very nice and convincing. The last piece of criticism I would like to add is that it seems that her right arm (with 'peace sign') seems to be too long for her body. Her hand would reach beneath her knees. However, her overall character is convincing enough to overlook it. And I absolutely adore the hand bag you have her, my vote go's to you!

    Special mention to Felicia for her Vlada, I truly liked the way you used your artistic freedom to portray Vlad the Impaler, also known as Dracula. You managed to give her a childlike figure with his image and face. Excellent grotesque background! In the end I didn't give my vote to you because I would not have recognized him without the whole costume or without the background. But it's still an amazingly well done image!

    -x- Maaiker

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Maaiker For This Useful Post:


  22. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Iceland
    Posts
    1,595
    Thanks
    1,119
    Thanked 1,068 Times in 449 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    This was such an interesting round, I had great fun following the WIPs from everyone One day I'll try to find time to actually participate, but now I'll stick to voting. It's really hard to choose, I'd probaby vote for more than half of you if I didn't constrain myself! But instead of voting for all the excellent illustrations, I'm tried to pick those who really did the brief justice. So here it goes:

    Lewisaurus - The attitude, the stance, the whole atmosphere of your piece is so excellent and in my opinion firmly grasped the character of your historical persona. Dig the black and white style.
    Chate Noire - The facial features are spot on! I'd recognized Van Gogh instantly. The whole composition is very much in his style as well. This is one of my favourite pieces here.
    Vorace - You pulled this one excellently, it's instantly recognizable. I really like how it's not just a feminime man, but someone who could very well be an actual being, you know? I think you added something extra to her that makes her so believable. Anyway, very good work.
    Ryouloulou - The expression sells this one. One of my favourites as well. The stance and the background is great, very Napoleon-like. Nice job on making the costume more feminime. I must admit, like someone else has mentioned, that I rather missed Napoleon's well-known height (or lack thereof), but it's still one of my favourites.

    So those were my four favourites. But, going through this, I just can' t help myself but to give a few more votes to those who pulled off an excellent illustration along with a good grasp of the brief. Those are:
    icemoon - Love the atmosphere, it instantly reminded me of Rembrandt's own painting style, with the moody shading.
    zachtcox - Great painting style! Interesting portrayal of blood, I must say You captured Khan's spirit there, maybe a bit more on the playful side, but I think it works.
    Poshspice - Excellent portrait, captures Wilde's character in a fun way. He looks good as a woman, love the outfit!
    Wiggers - I really like the focused expression and the whole gesture is so warrior-like. Beautifully done.

    Okay, I'm done now! Great round, everyone honestly did an beautiful job. It's one of the more interesting CHOWs of late, had so much fun watching it. So cookies go to Oregano and Daestwen as well!

    sketchbook / sketchblog / deviantart / facebook / twitter / e-mail

    "assiduus usus uni rei deditus et ingenium et artem saepe vincit" - cicero
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to AsaB For This Useful Post:


  24. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    T-dot, brah
    Posts
    90
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Talking My Picks and Comments

    I voted for:
    Icemoon> Not quite Remy's light but close enough to earn my vote.
    Felicia> Great likeness. You've managed to capture the essence of the historic images beautifully.
    Jpedro> You got Che's charismatic roguishness and worked it perfectly.
    Molly> Totally Hitler! Great monochromatic historic photo look.
    rvdtor> Instantly recognizable as Newton. Likeness, Wow.
    Chate Noire> Capture the character with just a hint of his/her own painting style and colours.
    Posh Spice> Holy $#!t !!! Nuf said.
    Vorace> Great that you chose a character who couldn't be turned into a pin-up. Totally Bismark, incredibly executed.
    Ryuloulou> True to the historic reference. Awesome reproduction of the painting feel. Very recognizably Napoleon.
    Wiggers> Beautiful painting. Love it as art, all character regonition aside. You chose a very hard character to make instantly identifiable.

    Great work everybody!

    Art is a Weapon
    DESIGN WITH CAUTION !
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lucky Munky For This Useful Post:


  26. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    113
    Thanks
    24
    Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    A huge amount of excellent work this round!

    A general comment though, some of the pieces have been very well executed indeed but I think they may have missed the mark as far as taking the original person and switching gender per the brief.

    Especially in the men-to-women category, some were turned into pinups and became miraculously svelte and long legged with frontal assets a-popping despite the actual build and face of the original person.

    See the example of what I am talking about in the attachments - I don't think anyone would mistake Cindy for a female version of George.

    --Madeline

    Attached Images Attached Images    
    Madeline Carol Matz
    www.mcmatz.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mcmatz For This Useful Post:


  28. #50
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    69
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 17 Times in 9 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Cindy Crawford and George Washington certainly don't share many physical qualities, but your picture really does prove how far a little makeup ,a wig and the proper costuming can go to create an unmistakable "female likeness" of him, which I think was the exact point of this exercise.

    The Brief:
    You must take one real historical figure from any period in history (up until 1950), and recreate that person in the opposite gender. You may place them in a different time period, a different planet, an alternative universe, -whatever you like - BUT you must make it recognizable as the person you are attempting to portray, using either costume, props, facial characteristics, whatever you can think of.


    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Hollywoodland, CA
    Posts
    386
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 164 Times in 63 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    So begins my extremely long-winded critique post on this round of entries.

    I have a sneaking feeling that I'm going to be a little more harsh on some of these, though hopefully not too severe - even though I'm in a bad mood, I hope it won't temper my objectivity. There will probably be far fewer ass-pats from me this week, with a few ass-slaps in their place...and there's probably going to be a lot of clothing and costume talk, as that's my training and end of the business, but it's something vital to a lot of these briefs and this brief in particular.

    General note - on this topic, a number of people fell into what I've come to dub The Transvestite Trap. Though the original brief states that the artist "may place them in a different time period, a different planet, an alternative universe" or whatever at their discretion, it seems like a lot of people opted for just a straight-up gender switch, keeping the original timeframe or period as indicated by the research. And herein lies the trap that some fell into - though the gender is switched, their clothing remains that of their original "source" gender. Granted, we must take some exceptions when it comes to military types, such as Napoleon, which would more than likely fall into the "alternate universe" category, but a number of entries are basically a male/female wearing the original's clothes...thus making it a "transvestite" switch, and not a total and whole reimagining of that historical figure in a different gender. Something like this may have worked, but only if that character were known for wearing clothing of the opposite gender for whatever reason (Georges Sands and Quentin Crisp are two that spring to mind at the moment). A number of people posted catching this, and I join in lamenting with them - I think a bunch of entries missed the mark by simply taking the historical figure, stripping their costume off of them, transposing the gender, and then putting the same exact clothing back on them.

    I know, I know, I can hear everyone now stating "artistic license, artistic license," but when there's absolutely no indication as to changing the historical context, that's what a bunch of people did - they didn't so much gender-bend their subjects, but cross-dress them. Even if there was nothing in the picture to clue us in, at lease mention your intentions in the text with the research and links.

    Part of this is the looseness and freedom we have within the guidelines, to no fault of daestwen and oregano, who have done an admirable job moderating these weekly affairs. The Transvestite Trap isn't prohibited within the brief, but in some respects, it could be considered an easier way to the finish line depending on your subject. Is this bad? Not necessarily. Should the briefs be more water-tight and set-in-stone? Not necessarily.

    Sidebar on "artistic license" - at university level, I never could have gotten away with putting anything on paper with the excuse "because I wanted it that way." I would have been lopped on the side of the head with a T-square. So for me, a lot of "I did that because I thought it looked good," never flies - I want to follow it with "why do you think it looks good?" If someone can then follow it up with "well, because I wanted to emphasize such-and-such or really do this-and-that" then I'd have more respect (and probably a better understanding) for what you're trying to do. There's a few pieces in here which rely heavily on "artistic license," which is a damn shame because this was supposed to be a research topic - bold emphasis from daestwen in the original brief. And since the luxury of an additional week was given to us, there are fewer excuses for "artistic license" at the expense of ignoring research.

    On research - exists in both visual and textual form. Though a picture is worth a thousand words, sometimes a sequence of words may prove just as valuable. My advice is not to abandon the written word, especially when you're dealing with "character." (In my line of business out here in Hollywoodland, it all starts at the script level - ie. written on the page, that's the profile that we're given to begin to build a character visually.) This goes true of a lot of historical figures, of whom there is very little actual physical evidence as to how they looked...I can guarantee that the stylization of Tut's funeral masks over-rode anything that he might have looked like in "real life."

    On eye candy - there was a discussion a while back in the CHOWS, somewhere before the 100th contest, where the "eye-candy" factor was debated. Not that I want to get into that whole affair again, but it's something which always sticks in my craw when I sift through a CHOW thread and then see the results of the voting. In some cases in the past, pieces with much stronger concepts and ideas behind them (some very well thought-out) are outvoted by the "pretty pieces," which usually drip with eye candy. Heck, there was even a recent spat of posts by someone in the past few CHOWs saying (and I paraphrase) "I hope the big guns come out and give us some eye candy."

    Eye candy is all well and good, and I agree that it helps you to "sell" the idea you're trying to get across, but there's something to be said for a piece that is illustrated well enough but which takes the brief and really solves the problem in a creative and unique way. Does part of the "eye candy" voting problem stem from those who drift into this section of the forum, see the poll, are naturally attracted to the best illustrated piece, and tick that box next to it...and then drift out? I don't know, and there's no logistical way to fix this if that is indeed the situation. Don't get me wrong, we are all drawn to the biggest, nicest-looking, shiniest looking pieces, but that doesn't mean we're magpies, does it?

    Geez, this got long...I think I'll break this into two posts, and address people's entries specifically in the next post...

    www.costumesketch.com
    I looked at yours, now you look at mine...sketchbook here

    "The doctor said I wouldn't have so many nosebleeds if I kept my finger outta there." - Ralph Wiggum

    "Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level." - Quentin Crisp

    "Ordinary morality is only for ordinary people." - Aleister Crowley
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to madhatter106 For This Useful Post:


  31. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Hollywoodland, CA
    Posts
    386
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 164 Times in 63 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'm gonna aim for critting all of the pieces that made it.

    ice moon - I like the lighting. Love her from the waist up. I remember critting this, since the earlier version had her in some sort of Victoria's Secret ensemble from the waist down. I don't think the "saucer dress" she has on is helping her - not only from a historical context, but it just seems so damn weird. What about the legs and boots were you so desirous of showing? Why not just put her in a long skirt? Also, most of the Rembrandt self-portraits I can think of has him in his middle-age and up...he always looks like a grizzled, wizened old man, why has he been replaced by a Playboy playmate?

    Arthemis IX - Wow, I never thought of Mozart being that sexy. I do like the way this is illustrated, the lines are nice. To me, the wig is off - it has the characteristics of a man's wig (the tail in the back, which is folded over her shoulder) when women's wigs were all about keeping the hair up so that you could see those swan-like pale necks. The cravat without the shirt, the short miniskirt undergarment, the corset which shapes the breasts rather than pushing them in and up? It all looks like she's ready for the cover of Maxim. Sex Appeal: A-. Historical Accuracy: C.

    Dominus - I rather liked this more when it was in black and white. Don't quite know why, maybe it's because with all those colors playing against each other, my eye doesn't quite know where to move. Perhaps it was the looseness and painterly quality of the original black and white I liked.

    Felicia - yay, I'm glad someone did Vlad. The gallows humor is an appropriate touch, and I like how you have taken the awkward anatomy style of the original source material and transposed it. I haven't voted yet, but I think the more I look at this, the more I like it, so I'll probably kick one in your direction. Interestingly enough, I looked up that headdress, and one of my ref books maintains that it's of a Turkish style, which I found rather strange since Vlad Tepes is known for campaigning against the Turks; makes me curious why he is always depicted wearing that emblematic headwear...

    jpedro - I like the idea behind this. Was Che's beret black in real life? It seems blue or purple in your lighting scheme. The bar and stool seem purely functional, I wish it were incorporated better. Also, the way it's configured, I keep reading that it's the androids that are drinking the beer. I think it's because of the orange robot and the fact that he is sitting down, which leads me to believe that Che is behind the bar. I think it could have been organized a little better, but the concept is rock solid...the idea of the Robot Liberation is really quite good.

    Kotaro - I don't know much about Copernicus, but he probably wouldn't have made my top 100 list of possible figures for this CHOW. I just wonder why you selected him of all people. The painting is beautiful. The shoulders are uneven, though - the shoulder closest to the viewer is small, whereas the shoulder further away is larger, which makes her head/neck look like it was lopsidedly placed on her torso. The background inclusion is nice, and you get a bon-bon for actually trying to convey period and not transforming her into a sexpot.

    Lalilulelo - damn that forum name is hard to type. Moses eh? I dunno about including Chuck Heston in the research - I know he's iconic and that any research you're going to do is an artist's indirect interpretation of Moses, but I would have worked from another reference...realize that this is Moses filtered through 1950's Hollywood/mind of C.B.deMille, so it's kind of like using a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of something as research. She barely looks feminine, though - very flat chested. It reminds me of Olympia Dukakis. Not that I don't like the very warm color scheme and all that fire raining down, but just curious why you didn't do Mrs. Moses parting the Red Sea, since it's such a defining Moses moment?

    Lewisaurus - I wish there were more General and less jeep. The jeep takes up more real estate than your figure. I like the black and white for this, hearkens back to old WWII era photographs from Life magazine. Yours is one which couldn't avoid what I called the Transvestite Trap in my earlier post - but then again, Womens Army Corps in that era could never have advanced to that rank. I do wish you had included more stars into the design - was Mac a four star? Might have been nice to do four smaller stars running the vertical length of the right inside border, to echo the collar insignia...

    Manburn - Ghandi was so thin, and yet we get no sense of the body because it's enveloped in all that fabric. The drapery on the upper portion of the shoulder wrap seems fine, but the drapery across the knee is not effective at all. It conveys no sense of weight or clue as to what the fabric is, and doesn't look like gravity is affecting it at all. It might have helped if you got a roomate to wrap a sheet around his/her lower body and photographed that, to work off it as reference. As it's painted now, it just doesn't look realistic at all...

    MarkustheBarbarian - a tricky subject. I like the lighting, with the harsh diagonal which cuts the picture in two. I suspect that the headwrap is not photo-reffe'd - it seems a bit too big, any bigger might have been too comical. But this area of period costume is not my forte, so I can't say for certain.

    Mitieis - your figure seems too short, how many heads tall is it? it seems compacted, makes her look too squat and dwarfed. The line art is beautiful, though. I'm not so keen on her pumpkin breeches - I think if you went back and dug through paintings and researched them, you'd find that they're not constructed like that - my inclination is that they were more self-contained, and not strips of cloth over the tights with an opening at the front to show where the cod-piece would go.

    Molly - black and white is a good choice for Hitler. The collar seems way too high - obscenely so. Between that and the conical sleeve cuffs, she seems just as much a Pilgrim as she does Hitler. But thankfully you avoided doing "the moustache," and she doesn't need it. I still think her hair should be in a very controlled, very severe bun.

    paulypaul - Evocative image? Yep. Well painted? Yep. Dali? Ehhhh - maybe. For me, the key signature, identifiable physical characteristic for Dali is that moustache - not just the moustache, but the thin, sleek, controlled, linear quality of it, in every photograph that you see of him. Yet you've chosen to include the indication of it in the silhouette of the hair, but that silhouette is very messy and bushy and uncontrolled and chaotic. Why fuzz the hair? Why does it not have that same careful, controlled, almost sculpted quality as seen in the reseach photos? That to me would be much more effective...there aren't any photos of the male Dali with a messy moustache, so why do messy hair on this female Dali? Also, the great thing about Dali's work is the glorious saturated technicolor - those bright yellow giraffes on fire in a bright brown landscape, those dripping clocks against a saturated blue sky! And yet, you've given us Dali in black and white...why?

    PuppyKitten - your Einstein works much better than the other one. However, it has more of an Andy Warhol quality, which I think works against it...maybe it's the youthfulness of the face? If you take e-mc2 off the chalkboard, I wouldn't have guessed this was Einstein, which I think may be a bad thing for this piece. Einstein is tricky to do for this challenge, but not impossible - I think the "easy" thing to do to convey him is to do the chalkboard routine, which both you and sony did. Is that a cop-out? Not necessarily - but when it's the only thing that indicates to me that it's Einstein, then i don't know how successful your piece is...but if you think I disliked your piece, go ahead and compare your crit to sony's...though I would give my first born to be able to paint flesh tones like you. Where do I deliver the baby to you?

    rvdtor - I like the fact that you've chosen Sir Isaac and the inclusion of the apple is clever. The painting is beautiful, I love the colors. The logistics of the dress, however, are a bit off - in all pictures, paintings, and drawings of that period fashion, you'd not find a single thing that looks the way that skirt is draped. I suspect it's because you spent more time on the face/hair than figuring out just what the skirt is/should be doing according to the period research. The corsetry looks like it sits too low, also - it's almost like a Victorian corset which begins to fit near/over the hips, and not an 18th century corset, which usually fits to the waist.

    Seage - here's another where I ask myself, "of all the people to choose for this project, why this one?" The shadows on the face and the color/value of the skin being so close to that of the costume works against this, in my opinion. My eye keeps being drawn away from the focal point, which should be the face, and along the warm red sweep of the cloak and the belt/sash.

    the whistler - Female? Really? I can barely see any indication of this the way it's been presented. Perhaps because he's/she's so flat chested? Maybe because the clothing works for both genders? Or the angle of the face?

    zachtcox - old Ghengis has proven to be popular for this CHOW, I see...do you think the style this is done in betrays the historical character? Just wondering. Unlike the Vlad Tepes, which has a certain morbid humor about it, does the lighter style of this help or hinder the subject matter? Regardless, the values and colors are great. There might be a little too much similarity in movement between the way her hair is depicted and those "ribbons" of blood, but then again I don't mind it...there's a good sense of movement and flow which the hair and blood convey.

    tsujini - I'm trying to figure out a way that this doesn't sound harsh - but I suspect you wanted to do a male version of Medea, but thought this wouldn't be allowed, so you chose Judith Anderson who played Medea, and then did Judith Anderson...as a male Medea. Thus getting to do what you wanted to originally do in a roundabout way. Why not do her as Big Momma from [i]Cat on a Hot Tin Roof[i] or Mrs. Danvers from Rebecca, a role which she will most likely be more remembered for, since it will live forever on film and DVD? I'm sure Sarah Siddons or Sybil Thorndike also played Medea, why not do them instead of Judith Anderson?

    Chate Noire - I love this one. The pose, the face, the clothing, it says Van Gogh. You'll probably be getting one of my very few votes this week. If only you had done the background like a Van Gogh painting...that would have made me laugh...

    rodimus25 - yours is probably the most successful of the Ghengis Khans. The painting is well done. I wish you could see more of her eyes.

    lord_regenschirm - I'm still not wholly convinced as to the inclusion of the tommy gun. You allude in the earlier thread about the juxtaposition of Churchill as warlord and statesman, which I don't quite get. And to play devil's advocate, the tommy gun probably wouldn't be there if you maintain that this is what Churchill would be "if women ruled the world." Maybe it's me. The face is great in this one, and the clothing is quite appropriate. I do wish the background colors were explained - why the olive green and orange, and not the colors of the British flag?

    lukavi - I normally like your stuff, but this one leaves me a bit cold. Another case of "why this person, out of all history, to choose and gender-bend?" Her thighs look just a touch too long and her lower leg, consequentially, looks just a touch too short. And the cleavage seems a bit too much - the space between her breasts, though they are indeed unsupported by a bra or clothing, just seems a touch too much. Just for once, I'd love to see you do an illustration that doesn't include striped fabric, checkered fabric, or quilted/pleated fabric. heehee

    madhatter106 - hey that's me! Why did you include a naked male ass in this CHOW, when you know people get turned off by that in these forum?!? Witness how no one wanted to go near your Vampire Pin-Up CHOW...nekkid boy butt there again! You'd get more votes if it were a nekkid female! Just kidding LOL...

    mcmatz - love the idea behind this one - maybe it would be more effective if the female painting him was more in keeping with the Mona Lisa? Heheheheheh

    Poshspice - I'm gonna be a little tougher on you, but I'm sure you'll be able to handle it. I took one look at your piece and said, "yeah this will win it, hands down" because it's so beautifully painted. That said, there are certain clothing elements and details which I think hinder the design of it. First of all, it's the Transvestite Trap - Wilde the man was not known for wearing female clothes, so why should Wilde the woman wear men's clothes? Also, in two of the three research photos you included, he is wearing a black velvet suit - yet the way you have painted the suiting, it appears more silky. The iconic Wilde get-up for me is that black velvet suit - it's such a lush and rich fabric, totally in keeping with the Aesthetic Dress Movement, and the black velvet suit came to be known as Wilde's "lecturing costume" and a defineable character trait. So to overlook or ignore this, instead opting for a black velvet cravat, is a major flaw for me. Also, the edging of the lapels, pockets, etc. are painted in gold, but my rough rememberance of researching this period makes me think the edging was probably all done in black silk faille, tightly woven and slightly ribbed, which would appear much lighter compared to the black velvet of the suiting. Thus, in the pictures, what would appear to be something as light as that gold would in fact be black - the silk faille reflecting more light than the black velvet. I expect that you chose gold because it would appear more decadent, but my guess is that it would be inaccurate historically. (Of course, anyone can prove me wrong if they can come up with a 100 year old museum piece of a black late Victorian jacket edged in gold thusly, but I dunno if anyone will find one?) Also, if I'm not mistaken, the carnations Wilde wore were usually white, but you've depicted hers almost pale green...though I suppose you could argue that this is okay since Wilde is Irish, I thought there was some reason he chose white carnations, but I can't remember. The shirting looks a bit feminine - that cuff edging seems to be of an earlier period and much more feminine than the masculine suit you have her in. Also, the face is too youthful and pretty - whenever I think of Wilde, I think of that big round moonface, but this one looks like she walked out of the pages of Maxim. All in all, beautifully painted, but chock-a-block full of design choices that make me go "meh, Posh could have done better!"

    sony - like the black and white, like the wild wispy hair. Hate the clothing. What, if anything, says Einstein about the clothing choices? You noted that you researched jewelry for 1915 to 1930, but you can only see a single earring on one ear. The research you included has a picture of clothing from the late 1700's or early 1800's, and you've transposed a dark jacket with some form of lace on to Einstein...Also, the picture indicated cullotes or knee breeches on the mannequin which has been set to its lowest point, that would go with that jacket, but you've given Einstein some strange form of harem pants. Couple the wacky pants with what appear to be slippers from the Aladdin stage show, and you have Einstein looking like the doorman of a Turkish brothel. There's nothing in any of the photos of Einstein that even comes close to that in terms of place and period, why the outlandish and disproportionate clothing? Is it lazy research? I just don't get it. And the space between the two breasts, you can drive a semi truck between that cleavage...I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I look at the subject (Einstein) and I look at most of the photographs of him, and wonder how you arrived at what you posted.

    Vorace - lovely painting. I wish the opening of the gloves was a bit wider, to differentiate between where the sleeve ends and the glove begins. And I wish you were able to capture the moire effect of the silk on the yellow Order sash. The addition of the cloak, I feel, is un-needed...I would much prefer to have seen the epaulettes of the uniform, which would have given a stronger, more military feel to the whole thing. Also, where the cloak meets at the neck is where the Order medal sits, which makes it look more like a brooch and less like a medal or award.

    Temujina - there's more horse than there is figure. At least three times more horse than figure...maybe because the figure is so small, I have a hard time distinguishing sex - even though there appear to be breasts under the tunic, the whole figure is so small, I think the horse overshadows the whole thing.

    Wollstonecraft - She's goin' out clubbing, eh? I wonder if, since she was going out for a night on the town, maybe it should be a short skirt and not the leggings she has? Her face is very severe, though - was that intentional?

    Catatafish - glad we got at least one Roman to the final burning thread. The armor piece, I wonder if it would have been better to have broken it up into a few pieces? With the breasts underneath, it looks damn uncomfortable. Dunno if the hair and the topknot scream Roman style. Her left foot looks like a pegleg, the angle that it's at and with the shadow from the other leg falling across it.

    Tommoy - great. Smart color scheme, great translation and details. You could even lose the moustache and still know who it is. The addition of film scratches and flecks is good, too.

    Ebony-chan - not too crazy as to the way this is drawn, that whole rounded style of drawing musculature is not my thing. Personal taste, I guess.

    Graphuji - the three things I would have loved to have seen on your figure are not included - hat, goggles, scarf. Signature and key elements for a WWI dogfighter, all missing from your sketch. I would have loved to see their inclusion!

    Maaiker - I guess if you're from the Netherlands, you would know about this guy - I must confess I'm a stupid American and had never heard of him. I wonder if you had done the female version of one of the other two looks from the reference you posted? Less warrior in armour? I don't know...but I'm glad you didn't sex her up and made her look just as homely as the original source material, with that double chin and all...

    Ryuloulou - love the painting. I wish the hair were a bit more controlled - there's so much of it towards the back, it gives the sense she has a bit of a hunch (more Richard III and less Napoleon, haha).

    Wiggers - the tricky thing about Leonidas is that all the research is more general to Sparta and less to Leonidas in particular. This is in part due to the selection of someone so far back in history. The painting is nice. There's a delicacy and feminitity to the strap and the drapery of the tunic that makes me wonder whether or not that would be the appropriate approach - a Spartan woman, is she more feminine than her masculine counterpart, or would she be just as tough?

    www.costumesketch.com
    I looked at yours, now you look at mine...sketchbook here

    "The doctor said I wouldn't have so many nosebleeds if I kept my finger outta there." - Ralph Wiggum

    "Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level." - Quentin Crisp

    "Ordinary morality is only for ordinary people." - Aleister Crowley
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  32. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to madhatter106 For This Useful Post:


  33. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Erth
    Posts
    784
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 45 Times in 25 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Wow, good job with the critiques MADHATTER... Judith Anderson was indeed great as Mrs. Danvers (didn't realize she also played Big Mama!!!)

    LONG LIVE YOKO KANNO!!!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  34. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    603
    Thanks
    127
    Thanked 272 Times in 183 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by madhatter106 View Post
    *** snip ***
    tsujini - I'm trying to figure out a way that this doesn't sound harsh - but I suspect you wanted to do a male version of Medea, but thought this wouldn't be allowed, so you chose Judith Anderson who played Medea, and then did Judith Anderson...as a male Medea. Thus getting to do what you wanted to originally do in a roundabout way.
    You are exactly correct. I wanted to do Medea and the problem as to her mythic status was solved with Judith Anderson.


    Quote Originally Posted by madhatter106 View Post
    Why not do her as Big Momma from [i]Cat on a Hot Tin Roof[i] or Mrs. Danvers from Rebecca, a role which she will most likely be more remembered for, since it will live forever on film and DVD?
    Haven't I already answered this question? Was the brief for "an action" that the person is well known for? Should Napoleon be at Waterloo? Notre Dame?

    Quote Originally Posted by madhatter106 View Post
    I'm sure Sarah Siddons or Sybil Thorndike also played Medea, why not do them instead of Judith Anderson?
    *** snip ***
    Judith was the first to catch my eye and meet the required before 1950 cutoff date.

    Now to my piece and it's failure to convey a theatric context, my apologies. I had thought with the rough treatment of the background ( to look as a painted backdrop ) and the light source discrepancies between the actors and the background may communicate this. This and I'm not to convinced of the facial likeness. Oh, well.

    As for your piece, I find it just lovely. my only criticism is as to the darkness of the Marchioness' skin tones, otherwise, lovely.

    Last edited by tsujni; March 26th, 2008 at 01:15 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  35. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Belize
    Posts
    75
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22 Times in 12 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by madhatter106 View Post
    rvdtor - I like the fact that you've chosen Sir Isaac and the inclusion of the apple is clever. The painting is beautiful, I love the colors. The logistics of the dress, however, are a bit off - in all pictures, paintings, and drawings of that period fashion, you'd not find a single thing that looks the way that skirt is draped. I suspect it's because you spent more time on the face/hair than figuring out just what the skirt is/should be doing according to the period research. The corsetry looks like it sits too low, also - it's almost like a Victorian corset which begins to fit near/over the hips, and not an 18th century corset, which usually fits to the waist.
    thanks for that madhatter106 i was worrying more about the likeness and him being recognizable i guess i didn't do as much research on the era as i should have done, i got some paintings to reference from but in the end i kinda put my own interpretation into it... darn hehe well now i know the benefits of complete research.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  36. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Hollywoodland, CA
    Posts
    386
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 164 Times in 63 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by tsujni View Post
    Haven't I already answered this question?
    I kept asking it because the answer/response will be "because I wanted to do Medea." Medea, not Judith Anderson, which is not the best approach to this brief. It's more Medea than Judith, and this is where I think it failed to meet criteria.

    Was the brief for "an action" that the person is well known for? Should Napoleon be at Waterloo? Notre Dame?
    Not necessarily - Napoleon crowning himself emperor is just as valid as Napoleon at Waterloo, which is just as valid as Napoleon in exile at Elba. But then again, the artist who did Napoleon did Napoleon, and not Albert DieudonnÚ or Ian Holm or Armand Assante portraying Napoleon.

    I'm not trying to bust balls, but the reason you chose good old Dame Judith is because you wanted to do Medea. You said she was the first to catch your eye and met the 1950 cutoff date - thus she's been shoe-horned into the brief. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, but it's not the most effective solution to the problem - but I commend anyone who gets a piece to the final burning thread, as we see so many whither and die in the original CHOW threads for each topic.

    Now to my piece and it's failure to convey a theatric context, my apologies. I had thought with the rough treatment of the background ( to look as a painted backdrop ) and the light source discrepancies between the actors and the background may communicate this. This and I'm not to convinced of the facial likeness. Oh, well.
    I don't remember saying anything about a failure to convey theatric context. Or at least I don't remember typing anything like that? I should go back and reread what I wrote...

    As for your piece, I find it just lovely. my only criticism is as to the darkness of the Marchioness' skin tones, otherwise, lovely.
    Her skin tone is entirely intentional - for a woman in her fifties who would have spent more than half her life locked up, with approximately an hour's time of sunlight per day on her sporadic promenades in the prison courtyard (depending on whether or not she had misbehaved with the jailors), I didn't want to make her skin look at all healthy. Especially when compared to her rosey cheeked (facial as well as backside) fresh young friend there.

    www.costumesketch.com
    I looked at yours, now you look at mine...sketchbook here

    "The doctor said I wouldn't have so many nosebleeds if I kept my finger outta there." - Ralph Wiggum

    "Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level." - Quentin Crisp

    "Ordinary morality is only for ordinary people." - Aleister Crowley
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  37. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Hollywoodland, CA
    Posts
    386
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 164 Times in 63 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by seba_boi View Post
    Wow, good job with the critiques MADHATTER
    Thanks. Hindsight makes me wonder why I even bothered. It's a big wall of text that few will read, and those who do will hunt out their specific blurb, maybe hit the post with a driveby "thank you," and not respond in kind. Two and a half hours of composition and typing, that much closer to carpal tunnel in my old age...

    ... Judith Anderson was indeed great as Mrs. Danvers (didn't realize she also played Big Mama!!!)
    Yeah, as much as I love her as Mrs. Danvers, I grew up watching Cat on a Hot Tin Roof numerous times (yeah I was a weird kid) and think that it might be one of her best roles. Not as understated as her performance in Rebecca, but she holds her own against the likes of Taylor, Ives, and Newman.

    www.costumesketch.com
    I looked at yours, now you look at mine...sketchbook here

    "The doctor said I wouldn't have so many nosebleeds if I kept my finger outta there." - Ralph Wiggum

    "Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level." - Quentin Crisp

    "Ordinary morality is only for ordinary people." - Aleister Crowley
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  38. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Abyss, Manchester UK
    Posts
    2,921
    Thanks
    1,202
    Thanked 2,265 Times in 736 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Wow Madhatter106, that was pretty intense. I shall endeavour to provide a suitable reply later. But for the record, Wilde's carnation was green, not white, as it had a secondary meaning.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  39. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    603
    Thanks
    127
    Thanked 272 Times in 183 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by madhatter106 View Post
    I kept asking it because the answer/response will be "because I wanted to do Medea." Medea, not Judith Anderson, which is not the best approach to this brief. It's more Medea than Judith, and this is where I think it failed to meet criteria.



    Not necessarily - Napoleon crowning himself emperor is just as valid as Napoleon at Waterloo, which is just as valid as Napoleon in exile at Elba. But then again, the artist who did Napoleon did Napoleon, and not Albert DieudonnÚ or Ian Holm or Armand Assante portraying Napoleon.

    I'm not trying to bust balls, but the reason you chose good old Dame Judith is because you wanted to do Medea. You said she was the first to catch your eye and met the 1950 cutoff date - thus she's been shoe-horned into the brief. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, but it's not the most effective solution to the problem - but I commend anyone who gets a piece to the final burning thread, as we see so many whither and die in the original CHOW threads for each topic.



    I don't remember saying anything about a failure to convey theatric context. Or at least I don't remember typing anything like that? I should go back and reread what I wrote...



    Her skin tone is entirely intentional - for a woman in her fifties who would have spent more than half her life locked up, with approximately an hour's time of sunlight per day on her sporadic promenades in the prison courtyard (depending on whether or not she had misbehaved with the jailors), I didn't want to make her skin look at all healthy. Especially when compared to her rosey cheeked (facial as well as backside) fresh young friend there.
    You didn't mention the theatric context, however, by placing it in such, it becomes Judith Anderson and not Medea. Say I was to do Napoleon, and I did Armand Assante sitting in a dressing room. Did I do Napoleon? or Armand? I'd say Armand. This is my failure to visually communicate this.

    As for my point about the action of the subject, is not Napoleon taking a piss as valid as Napoleon at Notre Dame?
    Isn't it still Napoleon? This was in relation to your question as to why I didn't do another of Judith's roles.

    I started out wanting to do Medea. I picked an actress who portrayed Medea. I set the actress/actor on a stage, I change my subject from Medea to Judith.
    I think you'll agree, my logic is a perfect circle.

    Good point about your choice of skin color.

    Please, don't take offense, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but playful.

    Last edited by tsujni; March 26th, 2008 at 04:53 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  40. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    316
    Thanks
    418
    Thanked 168 Times in 106 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Thanks for crit madhatter106, she is wearing what a Greek Sparta hoplite would be wearing at the time, i could of given her more armour a bronze cuirass or a linen curiass or she could had been completely naked as some holites fought naked apart from a helmet and shield, the point is she is in no way wearing anything feminine for a Greek warrior of the period.

    I did read all your post!

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 1

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •