pomeranian

I want to throw this piece out to u folks for critique. There should be an Erotic Art Contest coming up in New York City again soon. I want to put a small series in the show. This is just one of them. The first is an unaltered pastel. The 2nd is manipulated in Photoshop. Can you gather any interpretation from what you are seeing?

Pom

ARTelevision

only one image here.
the lighting is fairly amazing - it totally looks like spotlights but it's just drawn in, right?

__________________
create evolution

mastboyx

is it just drawn?? omg its mind boggling, its a great picture but i would swear those are lights, u did a great job there

__________________
Ignorance Is Bliss

analinguist

i think this one is manipulated in photoshop. i've never seen pastels do that nor paper be that bright.

__________________
end

ARTelevision

analinguist, good points.
hope the artist lets us know...

__________________
create evolution

pomeranian

Yes, folks...the picture is a combination of Sennelier soft pastels as well as Sennelier oil pastels. I took a digital shot of the art and enhanced it within photoshop. I used the filters for the lighting. There were 3 lights that came with the set that I picked, but I placed the 3rd off the staging area out of sight and positioned the other 2 at the head of the drawn up lights. Only the oil pastels came up as a sort of low relief effect, due to the thick nature of those pastels. I forgot what filter I used to get that effect.

The art is called "Gallery Exhibition-ist" and is somewhat on the quasi-side. I will attatch the origional that was prior to my enhancing it in photoshop. I will make a url in the future to showcase the series.

Thanks for the feedback,
Pom

pomeranian

Here is the origional "Art Exhibition-ist" work prior to photoshop enhancement.

Pom

DelayedReaction

Nice work. Not sure what kind of interpretation I can gather from it, but it's a very clean work of art. You might want to clean out the pixilation of the photoshopped image; the sharp edges contrast with the blending you've done in the painting.

The photoshopped image is definitely interesting. The contrast of light and dark really add a seedy atmosphere to the work, and works well with the taboo act of exhibitionism. The unaltered image seems a bit bright and cheerful; not very erotic at all. The extensive shadow of the photoshopped image also adds a lot more depth to the work. Good stuff.

I honestly know jack about art (I'm sure it shows), but that's what I got out of it.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

pomeranian

Thanks for the critique DelayedReaction. I must agree with your contrasting views between the origional and the photoshop image. I didn't even consider the origional as such from your angle, but I must agree with you. I would not say that you aren't a bad interpreter of art from your commentary. As I can recall Artelevision quoting at some time "Art involves spontaneous processes. Just speak what your mind and emotions tell you through the assimilation of visual imagery.

Pom