Dude, art DOESN'T need a theme. If I were to open photoshop and randomly create a layer with some effect, then continue using that method until I came up with something, where's the theme? I had nothing in mind. Art having a theme means you knew what it was going to be from the start, and you'll find a hell of a lot of art is created without any clue as to where the image will end up.
Art does need a theme. You don't however need to start with a theme in mind in order to make art. Please read my posts carefully before jumping to assumptions. You can't have a religion without a central figure, just like you can't have art without a theme. You don't need to have a theme or a central figure in order to create art or a religion, but it's not a finished work until you have all parts. If I just throw random layers together in Photoshop, it makes a mess... not art. However, if I use multiple layers and edit/blend them in a method that appeals to me, or 'a theme', that is art. You really need to step off the whole 'art doesn't have to be holy' thing it seems you've adopted. Art can seem random, but it never really is truly random if there is a human control.
QUOTE
And no, to me, they scream out bubbles. If I'd asked you what they were before he posted the stocks, you wouldn't have said flowers. You're seeing what you want to see. "Florals, Abstract Fractals, and Balloons just don't seem to have much in common." is what you said, and now that's all you'll see. Also, when did I say it has anything to do with the depths? I said water, not depths, read again. And even he didn't say the image should portray depth. If you actually read what he said, the 'depths' were supposed to be where the balloons are rising from, and what do you know, that's the darker bottom left of the image! Would you look at that.
They scream out bubbles because you refuse to look at the finer details. Bubbles are not jagged/wavy. They are round. The images in the bottom left are not round. If anything they look like bubbles locked in a trunk with the bass turned up on high.
If you would've asked me what the image was comprised of I probably would've taken a similar approach to Urban. Thinking it was a stock of a night sky (with the moon), some pattern/brush overlay, a balloon stock and some fractal brushes. I'm not seeing what I want to see. Because I look at the image and want to see drowning, but I don't see it in the sense that the artist sees. I see desaturated stocks.
You say you see reflections/ripples/whatever. His idea is that:
QUOTE
they are trapped underneath the water surface
.
Reflections and ripples are caused by wave movement on the surface. Let me know if you ever go snorkling and can see a reflection of yourself in the water, underwater. How is ripples and reflections synonymous with escaping from the depths of the ocean and still being trapped underwater?
If you would read what he said:
QUOTE
The balloons are struggling to escape, yet the depths of the water doesn't seem to want to let the balloons float up and away.
The balloons are trapped in the depths of the Ocean. That means they can't move. They can't escape. My point is that there is nothing in the image suggesting the balloons are being held back. They're trapped in the 'depths' of the ocean, but the only think I see that could possibly suggest depths is the dark blue color in the bottom left, which, if analyzed throughly, hardly gives the notion of being the 'depths' of the ocean.
QUOTE
Even if you can't grasp the image he's trying to show, that doesn't make it bad art. Just because you can't see it. I've seen countless artworks that I've looked at and though "You know, I really don't see it" yet they're hanging nicely in an art gallery.
Again you're taking words out of my mouth. I never made the notion that it was bad art. I said his ideas weren't accurately portrayed to the audience. I can see it, but it's portrayed inaccurately. I get what he was trying to do, and I told him to try and better convey his ideas. All art in museums has meaning, has a theme. The only reason you don't get it is because of malinformation or ignorance. If the artist was sitting next to you going 'this is why I did this, this is why I did that' than you would see why he/she did what. In this scenario, the artist has done that, but it doesn't logically fit, therefore it isn't art.
QUOTE
"Tips on the tools: Use stocks that convey your idea more properly"
What? So if I ever want to create something I do the following: Step 1) Choose a theme. Step 2) Choose multuple stocks that relate to my theme. Step 3) Start.
Please please try not to be so simple minded. I don't get how it's possible for you to gather "What? So if I ever want to create something I do the following: Step 1) Choose a theme. Step 2) Choose multuple stocks that relate to my theme. Step 3) Start."
From me telling him to use correct tools. His tools were stocks and manipulation of those stocks. He either needs to choose new stocks or manipulate them in a different method. The majority of people find it easier to choose new stocks than to manipulate them (hence why most signatures use different renders with similar methods). I said to choose different stocks because he could then keep his effects similar and not have to change much. If he hadn't used stocks, and had used filters, I would've told him to use filters that would've better convey his ideas. In layman's terms,
use the proper tools (the right way) to make your result work. QUOTE
Dude, one of the things that makes great art is putting together random images and ideas to create something different.
No, it's not one of the things that makes great art.
The Ajanta Murals, the sculpture of Khafre, Easter Island, Zen Gardens, David, Waterlilies, etc. Those are great pieces of art. And it's not putting together random images. It's systematically adding layer upon layer to achieve a final result.
This topic is locked
I like it. I remember using that stock before... 
. Well I tried to. 
