On Oct 12, 2017, David_B wrote
(in article ):

On 12-Oct-17 4:00 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 12, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 10/12/2017 2:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 10/12/2017 1:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 11, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 10/11/2017 1:19 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-10-11 05:14:31 +0000, Savageduck
said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wnpt7op5dhq5ecy/DSCF5900.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qalqaj4u4ckopx/DSCF5897.jpg
https://www.dropbox-UNINTENDED DUPLICATE.jpg

Oops! I did one twice. Here is number 3.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhaigx8l9hcqpin/DSCF5894.jpg

Now that's my type of image.

I thought you might like the concept.;-)

I find there is a Pollock feel to them with the random
application/placing and mix of color.

Actually Pollack is not pure random.

I know.There is just something about the *gum* patterns which resonates.

His application is actually quite deliberate as demonstrated in the
patterns in many of his larger works. There are a few I am very familiar with. One
which I encountered in the flesh, and have returned to wonder at many
times over the last 45+ years, is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter
Art Institute in Utica, NY.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar707s2ofbuh579/DSC_0547-E.jpg


My concept of abstract is determined by the original image.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/865o53pgsnwaj7j/Marshall%20Point%20Lighthouse.jpg

I always thought your concept of abstract was determined by what you did
to the original image.

The image tells me what to do.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xay7e4rqiz393m/Blaack%20Eyed%20Susan.jpg?dl=0

...er, OK...

That seem like a nonsense response to me. :-(

David B.

Both responses, the one from Peter, and mine were nonsense responses. Peter
is always being instructed on what to do by his images, and he emphasized
that in his follow up post.

--

Regards,
Savageduck