Artist Creates Self-Portraits On Different Drugs

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Definitely a good point, I'd imagine there would be some preconceived notions about how he should expect to feel while creating his self portraits. It's still very interesting to see his interpretation of how they play with self image and perception.

a reply to: AnteBellum

Trippy!

a reply to: AnteBellum

This man is a fool and a terrible artist in the first place. All I see is attention seeking from a man who should have grown up years ago.



So many great artists never getting attention while this drugged out fool gets the spotlight. He really is a terrible artist drugs or not.

a reply to: SubTruth

He's no Dali, Van Gogh, Steve Byrne or Chad Koeplinger, that's for sure. That's what is so great about art, everyone takes something different away. Personally, I hate Picasso but he's got a major following.

While his artwork doesn't overwhelm me, his artistic exercise did. It's interesting to see how his self image, mood and perception changes from drawing to drawing based on the specific substance.

a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

It's also fun to read biographies of artists many don't find their way until much later on. Some start hot and heavy then fizzle out. I forget who it was that used found pieces of cardboard to paint on due to lack of money for canvas, now some hang at the Moma - priceless!

Style never bothered me since most are avant-garde now anyway. My Dean/professor at Cooper Union was John Hejduk(got accepted then turned it down). He often made fun of his own work as it looked like kindergarden crayon art, but the philosophy behind it was immeasurable.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

I'm calling BS on this one too...seriously? He does a portrait on NICOTINE GUM??? yeah that alone made me skeptical and didn't get too much further. I think he went for the "this is what I would think I would draw if I were actually on that drug or had any idea what they did".

Just my opinion though!

I thought it was a really cool idea...but the whole interestinv thing was seeing how the drugs would affect his perspective and abilities...when really he just drew different and random things every day, that had nothing to do with how the drug affected him...for instance, the very first picture. Nicotine gum would have like no affects on his perception, or much of anything as far as I know, yet it's some crazy picture...frankly I'm pretty skeptical he even actually took these drugs.

Well, I Guess I have a 'Bucket List' now........

The effects of salvia divinorum last about two minutes at best. Nicotine gum, really? Nope, I ain't buying this one bit.

originally posted by: ParanoidAmerican
a reply to: AnteBellum

I would have to say this is rubbish the majority of that crap he took wouldn't do much. Then he also throws out the notorious G13 which is a myth on the street and crap in the lab.

From the pictures, it seems like it's more like "trying to paint what each drug might look like" or "expression of each drug" instead of painting while under the influence of the drug.

I mean, you take cannabis, and you are inspired to actually draw a cannabis leaf?

It looks like he tried to paint what it would have looked like if he took the drug, instead of just trying to draw a neutral picture of himself under the influence of the drug. Also, some of those drugs would probably mess up his mind so much that he wouldn't be able to paint coherently.

Besides, a different drug each day, when some of those things can last or give flashbacks for weeks, or even years?

So even if it's true and he really did take those drugs, how can we know that the effect of the previous day's drug (and its widthdrawal symptoms) was not a factor in how the day's picture came out?

Or the drug he took a few days ago.. or the combination-effect of different drugs?

I notice lot of those were things like psychiatric 'medications', and there weren't things like L.S.D., Salvia, or Datura on the list. Psilocybin has been thrown in, like an afterthought. And cocáine? Seriously?

The test would be more credible, if he was trying to paint THE SAME, EXACT PICTURE each time, and not 'vary' the theme, clothing, perspective or drawing style (from 'realism' to 'impressionism' to 'a four-year-old-mongoloid-with-bad-hand-eye-coordination'). Also, what is with the cannabis leaves and other 'expressions' of what one might think it could be like to actually experience the drug? Like, why draw 'crazy eyes' in some pictures (as if the character in the picture is really 'high'), and more normal eyes in some pictures?

There's just so much fishy about this story, but it is certainly an interesting study in how people are ready to believe anything they read on the web, WITHOUT QUESTIONING IT AT ALL.

People have posted different thoughts here, but not many have questioned the claim, although there is absolutely no proof. Some scribblings of a mediocre 'artist' is no proof of anything.

The '___' test video, where an artist draws the same picture sober and 'under influence', and where the artist can't tell the difference between the two images, when under influence, is way more revealing, realistic and believable (though there's no real evidence that that's real, either).

There can't be a real apocalypse (revelation of information and truth to all), until people at least learn to question claims, without blindly accepting them. What do we REALLY know about this guy? Someone writes and article and posts a few pictures, only some of which are any good (which means, it'd be easy to fake), attaches a crazy claim to it, and everyone just believes it without blinking.

Amazing.

Note; I am not claiming to know anything about the alleged test - perhaps it happened exactly as claimed, perhaps not. But I am not believing it (I don't believe anything anyway, there are better alternatives, belief is permanent, conclusive and blind, and thus, dead - I like to keep things alive).

I am questioning it, because it smells fishy - or in other words, intuitively, it feels like there's something wrong with the whole thing, and the images certainly rather look like someone tried to paint what it might look like if he took a certain drug (a cannabis leaf on the forehead, REALLY?), instead of drawing the same, exact picture under different influences.

And the claim of "different drug every day", and not releasing the information about amounts (I mean, we were not told how many grams, how many pills, etc.), just seems very suspicious. There's definitely something wrong here.

It's easy to also notice the curious, almost congratulatory tone of it all, instead of condemning drug use. People seem to think drugs are cool, here. Not a good sign..

Btw, what the heck is wrong with this forum? You can't even write DRUG NAMES, without them being modified, altered or censored? Is this the freedom of communication we want to have, where we can't even have a normal discussion in the internet anymore, because every other word is censored with some excuse or another? Geez. I can understand things like see you en tee, but cocáine? That's almost like censoring 'coffee', for crying out loud!