X factor: what you set out to achieve minus what you actually achieve — Pop
Yes most of them I keep, for example the white wash over the ripples in the sand in the foreground should be at the other side of the ripples, be done in reverse, a big mistake, but I know from experience it doesn't matter, because the viewer would never know and it works anyway.Punshhh you are deciding which accidents you keep, and which you correct.
I'm working from two photos I took myself and google images of people riding horses on the same beach, Holkham beach, a famous beach for horse riding. There is hours of the experience of walking the beach and watching the riders myself distilled in some way into the work.Surely he's using someone else's art.
So, if I had thought,"I'm going to do art" the first time and did exactly the same procedure, that first image would have been art? This is a tad more complicated than putting a brush to canvas. In my case the "brush" has a "mind" of its own. — jgill
Primary in the perceptible electromagnetic spectra is the color of the chloroplast's photosynthetic mechanism. We are attuned to see this vivid green most of all, because that mechanism is how plants create and sustain all life on the surface of this planet. The hues around the green of growth are therefore most frequently easiest for animals' eyes to see, and nature is therefore dominated by peculiar evolutionary developments, such as flowers and fruits with tones around the color of chloroplasts, to attract and encourage animal life in the most bizarre forms of symbiosis, to propagate the seed of the sedentary plant.
A special wrinkle on perceived color is that objects do not appear to be the same hue and brightness in different lighting conditions, because of their different qualities of light absorption, reflectivity, specularity, opacity, and detail resolution at different distances. If the object also emits light, its color changes under different lighting conditions in an entirely different way, because the primary colors are different—Green instead of yellow for emitted light. Yet we normally are unaware of how objects change color in different conditions and unconsciously project whatever we know the color would be under uniform light without optical-processing artifacts, unless we consciously make the effort to consider environmental conditions. Additionally we don't actually see color at all if is dark, and instead slowly see monochromatic shadows with a secondary light-preceptor protein in the eye, commonly called visual purple; but we do not think the objects are different colors when it is night, even though that's what we actually see. Monet's Haystacks play with the changing of color's appearance at different times of day by emphasizing those tonal variations, engendering a dynamism to the paintings that might explain their meaningfulness to us. Moreover, the eye's edge-perception mechanism enhances nearby neighboring colors along their borders, but merges them depending on distance and lens focus in amazing ways that fauvists, pointillists, and other modern-art schools explore with rather more brute force than renaissance masters such as Michelangelo and Van Dyck.
Some, such as Randian objectivists, believe any argument on the nature of color should end there, unless it serves some material purpose, such as selling lipstick, to which the limited effectiveness of our visual range is only an irritation. Yet most complain not of the massive act of domination on our visual perception by our association with Regnum Plantae, instead considering the visual spectra only with pleasure, for of all the benefits that plants engender to animal life and human experience, color perception is one of particular delight. Such delight may or may not be a property of the object, depending on one's metaphysical view, so scientific explanation alone is not sufficient (for those who say delight is obviously not a property of the object, that's not what a buyer thinks at an art auction, so it's not so simple).
@Bartricks
I had a narrow consciousness before reading Piaget, subsequently my consciousness broadened.
It took many years to fully digest. My instinct about this construct was strengthened by the double slit experiment, and further buoyed by recent developments in theoretical physics where they talk about consciousness creating matter.
try to substitute ' understanding of self and world that i live in ' for 'consciousness' in the definition of art.
Then it would become art is an expression of understanding of self and the world, and art work is information about understanding of self and the world, including subconscious elements
Art is an expression of human consciousness, and art work is information about the artists consciousness, and subconsciousness
See if that works for you?
See if that works for you?
Yes I think you're right, the construction isn't the nest, it is a kind of base, or pitch from where he operates. The females visit numerous bowers to inspect them and decide which matches her taste. This includes a dance by the male.It's like - 'I am making a base' - the bird says.
'conscious' is a state minds can be in.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.