Retro halftone detail.
I'm sorta-kinda expected to make really saturated, gaudy works, and I constantly want to change and grow, so the gimmicky halftone thing is a nice distraction that keeps things from becoming boring.
I'm also committing myself to making pro bono work for causes I believe in such as animal rights - here's a sketch for an upcoming benefit album cover:
Posts
20 comments:
Welcome back Ray! I apologize for deleting your account- I sent out an email asking everyone who wanted to stay with us at EBD to respond.When I didn't ge one from you, I let it rip.
I half recall you telling us that you'd be in rehab too, in retrospect, which doubles my idiocy.Hopefully you're better now.
Great images. I mess around with the half-tone feature every oncein a while. Actually, I've been doing this thing with some Wacom/Photoshop works-in-progress where I use the half tone feature on a selected blob of color, zoom in real close and, with the wand' select one of the colored dots; say a black one, and do a 'select similar'- all the black dots are selected . On another layer, I paint in all of those dots a selected color, then delete the layer I selected from, the layer with the filter on it. It's sort of like the pixelated/half-tone feature, but it's more diffuse, more raw looking.
Good on you for doing stuff for causes. I can't say I share your belief in animal 'rights'- I don't think animals have "rights", but I do blieve they should be treated as humanely as possible in any given circumstance. I'm against vivesection too, but it has just as much to do with what I think vivesection says about human cultures that practice it- It's bad for us, on a deep level, right along with the animal.
Your method sounds quite neat. You might want to check out Manga Studio. It lets you "paint in" halftones almost like rubbing an old transfer down. Really satisfying.
I agree on your latter point regarding vivisection.
No worries on the account deletion. I'm back!
C.S Lewis on vivesection:
"If we cut up beasts simply because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reason."
"Most [vivisectors are] naturalistic and Darwinian. Now here, surely, we come up against a very alarming fact. The very same people who will most contemptuously brush aside any consideration of animal suffering if it stands in the way of 'research' will also, in another context, most vehemently deny that there is any radical difference between man and the other animals. "
From:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/neptunia/nature/lewisvs1.htm
Both those quotes have served in the rotation of my wife's email signatures. Another favorite:
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight." - Albert Schweitzer
Great stuff, Ray - I always love your colors.
Luke, I don't get what you're saying about vivisection. Ray didn't even mention it in his post and the animal rights issue encompasses much more than opposing vivisection, so it's weird to me how you pick this out of all the possible problems at hand. Could you elaborate?
It can hardly be denied that the largest portion of animal suffering today is caused by mass breeding for food. You could just as easily apply the logic of your first Lewis quote to eating animals as to "cutting them up".
Your colors are always fantastic, and it's good to have you back on Ray. Hope you're doing alright. Your digital drawing techniques are absolutely amazing.
And speaking of vivisection, there is a very great animated film called Plague Dogs that everyone should check out - http://tracker.zaerc.com/torrents-details.php?id=9258
I hope you make sure we're properly dead before you start old rip-beak!
Fufu, I agree entirely with your comment regarding the broader application of those quotes (though I am pretty sure Lewis was speaking specifically toward vivisection there). I DO believe animals have rights and I would expand further, but I've alienated enough people with my politics that I'd rather keep mum in this instance.
Aeron, thanks. I'm really glad to be posting again. So much stuff I missed!
I was just trying to convey my opinions relating to "animal rights" and I thought of vivesection and some quotes I read by C.S Lewis about the same subject- I just thought it might be interesting to Ray, who obviously is concerned with the issue of animal rights. I'm not trying to spark a debate here. I didn' realize it wasn't kosher o introduce an idea that wasn't directly touched upon previously..
I don't think you can apply Lewis' logic about vivesection to the consumption of animals; It's about why we're doing either thing that seperates them and the logic that motivates both practices. C.S Lewis, as a Christian, believed in the concept of a natural order in creation.As I understand it, this means that he believed in the idea of Man having dominion over Nature, but at the same time being a steward of that very Natural Order- one could go so far as to suggest we have dominion over it precisely so we can be effective stewards of it. So, like I wrote, I object to vivesection on the grounds that -even if you discount any "rights" an animal might have- it is detremental to the idea of dominion/stewardship, whcih is an idea that makes a lot of sense to me.This depends, of course, on a belief ina natural order that supercedes the limits of materialist theories;To a materialist, there is of course no difference between eating a steak and dicing up an animal for any other purpose; the effect is the same.
And I totally agree with the idea that factory farming is horrible, but I think it's important to note that these practices derived from a "greater good" mode of thinking that is common to scientistic/materialism.It makes sense on paper: Keep them secured in smaller spaces so they don't consume/ruin valuable land, genetically modify them/inject hormones so their life-span can be reduced along with the number of animal per pounds of meat ratio. So, to me, it's easy to relate this issue to C.S Lewis' ideas about vivesection, which is that we're essentially perverting a natural and good order.
On a personal note, My father owns a small farm,where I've killed chickens and pigs and have hunted game. I try not to eat meat that isn't free-range and genetically messed with.
I hope to some day have a small farm of my own ( though that's being made systematically harder and harder to do; family farms don't produce much excess capital that parasitic governments can feed on and is seen as wasteful and unecessary) in order to achieve some level of self-suffiecency.
To finish up: I don't think animals have "rights" as such. What they should have- what we should have- is a culture in which the morality that stifles the abuse/misuse of animals is fostered.
I try to eat meat that IS free range..
That's okay, Luke. I didn't want to spark a debate either, I just wasn't sure what you were getting at. Thanks for the clarification, I see where you're coming from now.
Luke, man's dominion over animals is likely one of the clearest points where our outlooks diverge. I DO appreciate you elaborating and offer this: I feel as though it's my moral imperative to not cause other living beings to suffer. I am lucky enough to have the means to live without consuming animal products and I do so.
I respect that point of view- Imean, I respect the sentiment, the desire not to cause harm.
We're at the top of the food chain wether we like it or not though; we have developed the capabilities ( or were meant to have them, depending on your viewpoint) to protect ourselves against any animal threat and consequently to control to a large extent animal life on this planet; the question is, when and why should we engage in such control? It's a moral question, imo.
I don't believe that "natural" life is a static, peaceful thing- it's a violent process that's in a state of constant change; taking humans out of the carnivorous food chain isn't going to make nature any less violent. Refusing to participate in any control over natural life is - at it's logical end-point- suicidal. If we didn't have deer hunting, the deer population would boom to the degree that they'd be forced to compete with eachother to the point where they're scrounging in the middle of freeways for food.The wolf population would also boom in the wake of so much more available prey; is the solution to simply stop driving on freeways?
That to me is the same as letting a squirrel nest in your bed. I think the solution is to use our power in a wise and moral way, not disengaging from the food chain. And, come on, who doesn't look at a Salmon run and not think "FOOD!". I almost want to eat the raw, right out the stream. If I tried to convince myself not to think of it in that way, I'd feel like I was actually seprating myself from the natural world, rather than helping it.
And, I have to point out a certain irony that I always think of when animal "rights' comes up; It's amazing to me that someone would suggest that a rabbit or a tuna should have legal "rights", but that a fetus can be smashed up and vaccumed away at will..
I'm not saying you guys would argue that- it's unrelated.It's just an example of how the logic of animal "rights" doesn't add up to me.
Jeez, Luke. Now you're the one sparking a debate. If you don't want arguments then don't constantly throw out straw men like the one about abortion. You obviously buy into alot of right wing rhetoric and I don't feel the need to contest you on that, but your passive aggressive way of throwing out little accusations and bits of political bias here and there doesn't make it easy.
Well, for the record: as much as I agree with many of your views on art, I disagree with your political ones.
Welcome Ray, great drawings, i admit that i'm worst than Little Lotta when it comes to dots, i want'em everywhere!
There are a score of ways to approach your post, Luke, but I suspect neither of us is going to change the other's opinion.
The thing about abortion contributes to the shoddy logic of "animal rights". I didn't bring it up to try and spark a debae about abortion, it was to expose the -imo- fallacious logic of "animal rights" in individuals who believe a fetus has no rights.
Abortion isn't a "right wing" issue either; Hitler was a big fan of it and Margaret Sanger was a big fan of Hitler so, yeah.
In logic everything depends on what your basic axioms are.
And bringing up Hitler doesn't prove much ... except maybe Godwin's Law.
It's funny how often people accuse another of having an "agenda" when they write or say things they disagree with. I'm not trying to shove anything down anybodies' throat, or trying to slip in any propoganda- I'm writing thoughts as they come to me in the spirit of open, honest discussion. We don't have to agree on anything Fufu- I have respect for you regardless.
Abortion hasn't raditionally been a "right wing" issue, at least in the U.S.- It's only been manufactured as one in the last 20 years or so. I'm not a member of any party, but I do identify with a Libertarian form of classic Republicanism, which is further away from Neo-cons than the front-runnner in the Democratic party, especially Hillary Clinton.
Okay, Luke.
Post a Comment