Shmuel, Christina, Nathan, Russ and Denise
By: Stuy Parker
I like Denise and... Denise's slice the best. She tries something different from the typical 'lets cut images out of an online encycolepia or stock photography site and stick them onto our segment and call it art' method.
I like the matching between hers and Russ, very nice, the rest probably belongs on an altogether overly typical corpse.
May 15, 2002 08:05 AM
By: Jorun
Heavy colours and images gather in the dark clouds above, and then WHAM! a flash of lightning and the air is clear and fresh.
May 15, 2002 08:13 AM
By: hilary
Geez, Stuy. That's pretty freaking insulting, especially from someone who doesn't even have his work in the gallery yet. You're a wannabe art snob, aren't you? Gotta be insulting so people will think you know what the hell you're talking about? Nice tactic. Wins ya lots of friends, I'm sure.
May 15, 2002 08:50 AM
By: allen
well, for an "overly typical corpse" i'd say it works exceptionally well. i like it. too bad we had to have such a negative start to the commenting. i do agree, however, that denise's slice is an interesting change of pace... and that stuy's just set himself up for a nice critical reading of his own work, when and if it ever appears.
May 15, 2002 09:07 AM
By: Gabriel
Even tho Stu's comment came off poorly (interpersonal dynamics can be a bitch sometimes, eh Stu?), the photo-collage method can get a little busy, incohesive, tiresome. Maybe Stu could have kept things nice and friendly by simply saying: "I like it when people create original artwork for their slice." Me too, Stu.
I am also fond of the body parts that match up between panels... especially the bald head of--is that Telly Savalas? Escape to Athena?
May 15, 2002 10:16 AM
By: amanda e.
I love the top two panels, it's a nice start-off and sets up a surreal landscape.
Overall it has really nice flow, with the angel figurine pointing the way to Telly.
That las panel is quite lovely as well -- the shadows are divine.
May 15, 2002 10:21 AM
By: Jessica
Some of us colllage-ists are also photographers.
Whatever works to get your thoughts and feelings on digital canvas, do it.
Mayhaps there are a lot of busy thoughts out there, producing busy slices; if you look at the body of past corpses, you'll find a lot of quiet photos, too.
I like the shadow on Denise's a lot. I am awed by Shmuel and Christina's work here.
May 15, 2002 10:21 AM
By: Gina
There's nowt wrong with photo collages... it's how you handle those images and integrate them into a whole.
May 15, 2002 10:28 AM
By: Andrew
Original artwork is great, but collage can be very moving and creative, too, when it's done well. We do have an overabundance of overly busy corpses, that involve a lot of collage.
This one is not one of them, in my opinion. There's very little slap-dash cut'n'paste, and there's more "original artwork" in Nathan's section (I suspect Shmuel may have created the source images for his/her piece also). The awnings in section one and the reflections in section two combine into a bird-like shape, and another form of flying shows up at the bottom. All in all, a really cohesive Corpse.
May 15, 2002 10:52 AM
By: NataLukas
aka Nathan
Ya know when I created my section of this piece I intentionally wanted to get away from the busy photocollaging that seems to be the standard. All of what is in my panel is a result of pushing pixels around, with the exception of the hand. STOLEN off the web for 2 reasons; a) I like the way photographic images work with the more painterly stuff. b) I knew other corpsers would inevitably be using photographic images and thus felt my piece would not blend with the whole without some sort of reference to photographic images (or in the very least it would stand out).
I think it's great that Denise seized the opportunity add breathing room to the corpse with her carrott on the woodfloor.
btw, Christina- those 3 lines that come down to the arm of my section were not in the 15 pixels I received, what gives?
May 15, 2002 12:34 PM
By: NataLukas
As for the comment about the use of photographic images, I think Schmuel's contribution is the best arguement FOR the use of photography in corpses, whether he took the pics himself or not, the way he has manipulated them is right on, stylish and Beauuuutiful!!!!!!! Telli's head is also a good example of a creative of a photo (nice transitioning too!) It seems this guy got decapitated and now he can pat his own head without lifting an arm.
May 15, 2002 12:49 PM
By: Suzanne
I like the richly coloured, photo oriented dense corpses quite a lot. I am sometimes surprised by how much of the environment gets pulled in (popular figures, news items, et cetera) and it all speaks to the cultures we live in.
That said, I try to only use images I photographed or created, because I have that method available to me. The art of collage means using the items that are available. Obviously that means different things are available to each artist.
On the topic of this corpse, I find the difference between the two "sections" a little jarring, but who says art has to be beautiful and soothing?
I had a dream once where I was in an action flick sort of plot, running and racing and me with a bunch of kids trying to get away. It was very intense and frightening, so my brain switched the dream. It pulled back and showed a hand drawing a cartoon of the plot, which effectively put me back in control and I woke up feeling a little shaken, but not terrified.
This corpse reminds me heavily of that feeling of being immersed in something and pulling back to see only the broader strokes of the plot development.
May 15, 2002 02:48 PM
By: christina
It's a funny thing-- I almost never open photoshop anymore, but I do take a lot photos. a lot. everything there is from my collection.
This is my first corpse, though I look at a lot, and i find it really hard to not become hypnotized by the layers as you build them. I had much more, and I ripped it out.
I have no idea what happend to the lines; i drew them to the very end. i figured it was good to leave hooks.
I adore the tile. And i like the movement from photography to cartoon. I enjoy the discomfort that ensues.
May 16, 2002 12:21 AM
By: mirla
(Tee hee...looks like I'm not the only one who can't seem to keep from slapping a brat.)
Nice to see your first effort on the boards, Shmuel my friend.
And a nice job overall - I like the clever seams very much, and I generally like collage as well, though I must admit that I'm made most happy by those that employ clean, striking, evocative compositing and color balance.
May 17, 2002 02:52 AM
By: Stuy Parker
I like how critique has to be candy coated for people to accept it. And then, after they say, "Don't be so insulting!" they insult you in return. Jeez, maybe someone should take a lesson from themselves.
Either way I'm entitled to my opinion and if I want to say something, I'll say it... If you want to say something nice, say it, if I feel the need to say something bad, then I'll say it.
As I like to say... Nothing will improve if all you do is praise it. It's like spoiling a child from birth and never punishing him.
May 18, 2002 03:52 PM
By: Stuy Parker
Oh, and Hilary, I wouldn't call myself an art critic because none of these things are art. Thanks.
May 18, 2002 03:52 PM
By: allen
au contraire. i'd say they're all art - but then i subscribe to the scott mccloud definition of art: anything done by humans not done in the name of reproduction or survival. it's broad, but it works.
May 18, 2002 07:33 PM
By: Cris
This one flows down as you scroll it and then "bounces up" like a dream cloud sprouting from Telly's head -cool!
May 22, 2002 10:00 AM
By: Kevin Fox
Stuy, there's a saying that "art is whatever three people say is art."
The same thing applies to the definition of assholes. ;-) (note: I don't think you're a jerk for your initial critique, but instead for your 'one-uppsman' escalation afterwards.)
May 22, 2002 03:45 PM
By: Shmuel
Just for the record (not that it matters all that much) I did take all three of the photos in my section. They are all of the same building and the shadow leaning against the phone is in fact me. I chose the images that I did in an effort to offer something that could be continued if the next person chose to do so (i.e. the bold lines of the building).
Out of curiosity what exactly is your definition of art Stuy?
May 28, 2002 03:00 PM
By: Shmuel
Actually Stuy, on second thought, never mind.
May 28, 2002 03:21 PM
By: joe blow
Ok, I feel the need to say such things when I see a lot of gibberish being blithered in public. This is like a lot of idiots that try to be afficionados of art and music etc. What is or isn't art is of no significance. What is of significance is the intent of the artist to communicate an idea and resolve the problems that arise in the presentation of that idea. That is entirely up to the artist themselves, people like you in particular, Stuey need to stop thinking you have any place to comment on what art is. I myself have a degree in the visual arts and sat through lecture after boring lecture on art to be able to tell you that a. you aren't qualified to tell anyone what is and isn't art because if you were you would arrive at point b. there is no definitive way to categorically say something is or isn't art. Art is all about context and intent. If Duchamp could put a urinal in an art gallery then who is an armchair critique like Stuey to tell anyone else what art is and isn't. Go out and get an education if you're going to open your big mouth. On the work itself i think there is an interesting use of composition and colour going on. The carrot especially has some strange connotations. It would interest me to see an interpretation of thesymbology of the various elements used if any symbology is attached.
March 11, 2003 10:32 AM
By: joe blow
Ok, I feel the need to say such things when I see a lot of gibberish being blithered in public. This is like a lot of idiots that try to be afficionados of art and music etc. What is or isn't art is of no significance. What is of significance is the intent of the artist to communicate an idea and resolve the problems that arise in the presentation of that idea. That is entirely up to the artist themselves, people like you in particular, Stuey need to stop thinking you have any place to comment on what art is. I myself have a degree in the visual arts and sat through lecture after boring lecture on art to be able to tell you that a. you aren't qualified to tell anyone what is and isn't art because if you were you would arrive at point b. there is no definitive way to categorically say something is or isn't art. Art is all about context and intent. If Duchamp could put a urinal in an art gallery then who is an armchair critique like Stuey to tell anyone else what art is and isn't. Go out and get an education if you're going to open your big mouth. On the work itself i think there is an interesting use of composition and colour going on. The carrot especially has some strange connotations. It would interest me to see an interpretation of thesymbology of the various elements used if any symbology is attached.
March 11, 2003 10:32 AM
By: joe blow
Ok, I feel the need to say such things when I see a lot of gibberish being blithered in public. This is like a lot of idiots that try to be afficionados of art and music etc. What is or isn't art is of no significance. What is of significance is the intent of the artist to communicate an idea and resolve the problems that arise in the presentation of that idea. That is entirely up to the artist themselves, people like you in particular, Stuey need to stop thinking you have any place to comment on what art is. I myself have a degree in the visual arts and sat through lecture after boring lecture on art to be able to tell you that a. you aren't qualified to tell anyone what is and isn't art because if you were you would arrive at point b. there is no definitive way to categorically say something is or isn't art. Art is all about context and intent. If Duchamp could put a urinal in an art gallery then who is an armchair critique like Stuey to tell anyone else what art is and isn't. Go out and get an education if you're going to open your big mouth. On the work itself i think there is an interesting use of composition and colour going on. The carrot especially has some strange connotations. It would interest me to see an interpretation of thesymbology of the various elements used if any symbology is attached.
March 11, 2003 10:32 AM
By: joe blow
Ok, I feel the need to say such things when I see a lot of gibberish being blithered in public. This is like a lot of idiots that try to be afficionados of art and music etc. What is or isn't art is of no significance. What is of significance is the intent of the artist to communicate an idea and resolve the problems that arise in the presentation of that idea. That is entirely up to the artist themselves, people like you in particular, Stuey need to stop thinking you have any place to comment on what art is. I myself have a degree in the visual arts and sat through lecture after boring lecture on art to be able to tell you that a. you aren't qualified to tell anyone what is and isn't art because if you were you would arrive at point b. there is no definitive way to categorically say something is or isn't art. Art is all about context and intent. If Duchamp could put a urinal in an art gallery then who is an armchair critique like Stuey to tell anyone else what art is and isn't. Go out and get an education if you're going to open your big mouth. The rest of you need to get over this little hang up of work has to look pretty or real and seemless to work. On the work itself i think there is an interesting use of composition and colour going on. The carrot especially has some strange connotations. It would interest me to see an interpretation of thesymbology of the various elements used if any symbology is attached.
March 11, 2003 10:33 AM
By: joe blow
um sorry didnt mean to post it three times. got some weird message
March 11, 2003 10:37 AM
