Lurking is in my past

a reply to: ManInRedShirt

It's quite a ride. Indeed.

I'm looking forward to reading your threads.

Sincerely No Clue

a reply to: ManInRedShirt

Love this one! Glad the little finch recovered and flew away.

originally posted by: Night Star
a reply to: ManInRedShirt

Love this one! Glad the little finch recovered and flew away.

Thanks. I was very happy too. That was the first painting I ever sold.

Sure. It is intentionally deceiving the eye. I think that makes it a psychoactive picture. That was my intent, at least. The eye through the optic nerve transmits vast amounts of data to the brain, so much in fact it has to be mediated in order to be reduced to recognizable input. This painting attempts to confuse that mediation and suggest a more than finite ( non-linear) interpretation of the mark.

The psychoactive nature is obvious. It only takes a couple of seconds, to bypass the filters.
Did you do experiments on the effect it has? Do you think a screen alters the effects?

I'm hesitant...
somewhere I read that information overload might result in permanent damage.

Sincerely No Clue

originally posted by: NoClue

Sure. It is intentionally deceiving the eye. I think that makes it a psychoactive picture. That was my intent, at least. The eye through the optic nerve transmits vast amounts of data to the brain, so much in fact it has to be mediated in order to be reduced to recognizable input. This painting attempts to confuse that mediation and suggest a more than finite ( non-linear) interpretation of the mark.

The psychoactive nature is obvious. It only takes a couple of seconds, to bypass the filters.
Did you do experiments on the effect it has? Do you think a screen alters the effects?

I'm hesitant...

somewhere I read that information overload might result in permanent damage.

Sincerely No Clue

As they say on tv, “great questions!”

Although I did no rigorous study which might be classes as experiments, I do experiment. The Smithsonian undertook to classify the art owned by the United States. They divided the vast collection into 2 types of work. First was the “Glib” art of early achievers. These works were generally purchased at a higher price as the artist had become recognized earlier in their career and the value of their work was dictated by their name, think Shepard Faery. The second broad classification was that of “experimental” art, where the artist was slow to become known and thus would change styles and approach over time to attempt to address the art market or their own creative process. Think Van Gogh. In general, they decided that experimental art was a better value over time because of a relatively lower acquisition cost and the resultant rarity caused when an artist keeps changing style.

I am an experimental artist. My style changes as my artistic process demands over time. Since my process revolves around what has been described as a Quantum Aesthetic, I embrace optical effects in order to suggest fundamentals of quantum behavior which cannot be directly illustrated.

Contemporary art has a long history of using illusion. Matisse leaned heavily on projected color to add vitality to his otherwise simple composition in the famous “jazz suite.” In Europe Victor Vasarely and Escher exploited the mechanism of vision in order to suggest things like infinity and energy of motion. The 1960’s saw an explosion of what was called optical or “op” art. I have studied these artists and movements not in order to copy their work but to employ their means towards my own end.

I imagine overstimulation of any somatic modality could result in discomfort or malfunction in the involved sense, but believe the idea of any such effect being dangerous as I employ it about as likely as my mother being right when she said if I make that face again I will be stuck with it- frozen with my tongue out for all time.

Some people do not like my work because of the optical effects. That is their privilege, if I were to tie them up and prop open their eyes as in “Clockwork Orange” I guess that could be counted as true experimentation. I don’t think I will, though.

originally posted by: NoClue

Sure. It is intentionally deceiving the eye. I think that makes it a psychoactive picture. That was my intent, at least. The eye through the optic nerve transmits vast amounts of data to the brain, so much in fact it has to be mediated in order to be reduced to recognizable input. This painting attempts to confuse that mediation and suggest a more than finite ( non-linear) interpretation of the mark.

The psychoactive nature is obvious. It only takes a couple of seconds, to bypass the filters.
Did you do experiments on the effect it has? Do you think a screen alters the effects?

I'm hesitant...

somewhere I read that information overload might result in permanent damage.

Sincerely No Clue

I do work digitally, the difference between reflected gamma and projected gamma does profoundly amplify color radiation. It for that reason when I did a site-specific installation for the engineering department at Google Mountain View I printed my files on back-lit (recycled) translucent plastic and mounted them on custom modified x-ray viewers to provide the same kind of light offered by an led monitor.

a reply to: ManInRedShirt

Silicon valley was in my head alot yesterday's.

As well as santa on holiday, and the gay version of matrix's women in red.


I sincerely can't see that spy plane but maybe the guy fishing on that bridge can!

Sincerely No Clue

originally posted by: NoClue
a reply to: ManInRedShirt

Silicon valley was in my head alot yesterday's.

As well as santa on holiday, and the gay version of matrix's women in red.

I sincerely can't see that spy plane but maybe the guy fishing on that bridge can!

Sincerely No Clue

What good is a spy plane which can be seen?

Binary Unction



This file is representative of my digital work, it utilizes some subtle illusory tricks.

a reply to: ManInRedShirt

It still fly's, that is good enough.


NC

a reply to: NoClue

I'm impressed!

The last was visually disruptive, this feels much more physical.

is this a scientific approach?
How do you proceed creating these pictures?
What thoughts do you hold?

Sincerely No Clue

originally posted by: NoClue
a reply to: NoClue

I'm impressed!

The last was visually disruptive, this feels much more physical.

is this a scientific approach?
How do you proceed creating these pictures?
What thoughts do you hold?

Sincerely No Clue

If my broad knowledge of color theory and application of those principals is a scientific approach, then yes.
If my study of optics in astronomy and photography adds to a scientific approach, then yes.
If my intimate knowledge of particle physics and biology gained through formal education and practical application is scientific, yes.
If my study of color for practical application in Theatre lighting and painting scenic construction is scientific, yes.

The approach is deliberate and measured when making work of this type. The computer and the advent of digital photography has created a revolution in art which has barely broken the surface of the art world. An artist such as myself can use a photo diary and powerful image editing software to explore a large number of options in color combinations without altering the work in progress. So while painting 10 paintings in a year I will probably generate 1000 “ digital outtakes” in related images. Some of my friends argue that my digital legacy is far more important than my painting. I am not so sure they aren’t right.

As for thoughts I hold.
I believe human have got their internal narrative wrong.
For a long time I thought this meant there was something wrong with language.
Now I think it is the non-verbal internal image we have got wrong.
Science holds clues as to what those images should be but we are programmed as children to over-simplify our environment. This leads to conflict. Internal and external.
What Art can do about that is help provide images for people to reference which are less drawn from the old deterministic view of everything which demands sharp boundaries, well-defined roles and a profound distrust of high strangeness and introduce more simultaneous, more innerconnected and less anthropomorphic visions of reality.

a reply to: ManInRedShirt

The symbol you painted lower left corner, in the birdy picture, does it mean anything to you?

Because this crossed my way not long ago!



Also You write programs that creates the pictures?

Sincerely No Clue

a reply to: NoClue

No I do not write programs which create art, I use programs like photoshop to recombine my own paintings to create a stream of design output like this:



The glyph I sign my paintings with is a wordform and I have used it for many years. The Finch painting has the glyph overwritten by nomenclature.

originally posted by: NoClue
a reply to: ManInRedShirt

The symbol you painted lower left corner, in the birdy picture, does it mean anything to you?

Because this crossed my way not long ago!

Also You write programs that creates the pictures?

Sincerely No Clue

It just occurred to me that the glyph you uploaded looks a lot like Woodstock, Snoopy’s little bird friend from the Peanuts comics by Charles Schultz.

a reply to: ManInRedShirt

Thanks for clearing that up!

I like the aproach you have of what art can do for society.

Do you think there are morals in art?

Sincerely No Clue

originally posted by: NoClue
a reply to: ManInRedShirt

Thanks for clearing that up!

I like the aproach you have of what art can do for society.

Do you think there are morals in art?


Sincerely No Clue

Morals in the sense of lessons to be learned certainly. Morals in the sense of ethical behavior based on a shared understanding certainly less so.

a reply to: ManInRedShirt

Is that where your coming from?

Take a newspaper.
Take some scissors.
Choose from this paper an article of the length you want to make your poem.
Cut out the article.
Next carefully cut out each of the words that makes up this article and put them all in a bag.
Shake gently.
Next take out each cutting one after the other.
Copy conscientiously in the order in which they left the bag.
The poem will resemble you.
And there you are – an infinitely original author of charming sensibility, even though unappreciated by the vulgar herd.

Sincerely No Clue

originally posted by: NoClue
a reply to: ManInRedShirt

Is that where your coming from?

Take a newspaper.
Take some scissors.
Choose from this paper an article of the length you want to make your poem.
Cut out the article.
Next carefully cut out each of the words that makes up this article and put them all in a bag.
Shake gently.
Next take out each cutting one after the other.
Copy conscientiously in the order in which they left the bag.
The poem will resemble you.
And there you are – an infinitely original author of charming sensibility, even though unappreciated by the vulgar herd.

Sincerely No Clue

I certainly have an interest in deconstruction and adaptive reuse. Random elements in my work are intentional and early in development stages, my aesthetic rules the endgame. Though complex, my work is guided by simple rules of growth.

originally posted by: NoClue
a reply to: ManInRedShirt

Is that where your coming from?

Take a newspaper.
Take some scissors.
Choose from this paper an article of the length you want to make your poem.
Cut out the article.
Next carefully cut out each of the words that makes up this article and put them all in a bag.
Shake gently.
Next take out each cutting one after the other.
Copy conscientiously in the order in which they left the bag.
The poem will resemble you.
And there you are – an infinitely original author of charming sensibility, even though unappreciated by the vulgar herd.

Sincerely No Clue

If you really want to know where I am coming from I have posted links to my work here www.abovetopsecret.com...