Being Stupid

I stumbled upon this a while ago and I was reminded of school. I think crap like this is stupid. This sort of thing isn't even supposition. Not a single shred of evidence that this was intentional exists. "But look at it, it can't be a coincidence!"

Oh yeah?

It just looks like it fits. People see what they want and add depth that's not there*. That was something that I felt like fighting all the time in school- you have no idea what they were thinking or what they intended, why how can you possibly assume it was some sort of amazing, hidden meaning or idea behind it, or they used some sort of amazing mysterious system they never talked about or bothered to write down or record in any way?

*This is how we get people that swear they saw Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster instead of actually seeing the empty trash bag that blew by. Basically, the same principle that makes us interpret this as a face.

I'm all for over analyzing some things, but I think you have to draw the line at over-over analyzing. 

"But that's not how it was painted to look, it was unintentional, that's just an explanation of why we find the composition apealing." Nope. We do not "like" things by breaking them down unconsciously, in our minds, then comparing them to mathematical systems that not even everyone knows exists.

It's not even unintentional, you're just imagining that it fits. Am I the only one that finds stuff like this dumb?

Crypto-art history. I named it.


More Colorin'

There wasn't really a way to crop an interesting section of this without revealing too much, but this does happen to have some hard to reproduce printing errors. They're not hard to reproduce technically, like, know-how, they're hard to pinpoint exactly what you want to reproduce and then remembering to go out of your way to put it there later. It's also hard to make intentional errors look unintentional. Adam Savage explains the idea pretty well whenever he talks about weathering props. 

I remember reading an interview with Katsuhiro Otomo and he was talking about a time when he had to arrange three rocks- he kept trying different arrangements all day, but they kept looking staged and unnatural. As a last ditch effort, he just threw them up in the air and they landed perfectly. Point being, intentionally unintentional things are very hard to pull off.

The key is something like loud subtlety. There's a streak of magenta and some drips of yellow. 


I'm pretty happy with how these lines came out. I tried to get those ghost smudges in the lines on this one*. It's had to reproduce errors non-uniformly. I thought this one came out pretty well, but I won't know for sure until the test proof I had printed gets here. It's been my experience, that blacks print about a hundred times darker than they look on screen, so those blacks should print black enough.

This looks great at 600ppi, but I'm not sure what normal photo printers print at, or at least, how well they print it. I'm not sure if the fake printing errors are exaggerated enough to show up well when it's printed and they're all twice as small. Right now though, I feel that if this looks just like high quality scans of real printed stuff, then it should look just like those when it's printed the same size they are to begin with. But I guess we'll see.

Also, I'm totally not making that show. I'm okay with that though. I'd like to reveal these all at once; it feels like dropping a bomb or something. So, until these are all done, only ambiguous sections and details of them.

*Next one or so, I'll try to get that halo/hollow block printed look. I'm a little less sure how to get that one; I've seen a few people (try to) do it, but I haven't seen anyone do it convincingly. But, then again, I didn't know how to get this one until I thought about it for a while, so I'll just try it when I've come up with something that I think'll work.