October 12th 17, 05:07 PM
posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
|
|
Care for Some Gum?
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/865o53pgsn...0Lighthouse.jp
g
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.
|