sweasel.com

He’s wearing shorts, no? Shdn’t he be ‘au natural’?

What about those Renaissance painters who used optical tools? That is sort of like tracing.

Nope, he’s nude. He had a *very” deep indentation where his thigh met his hip, which is what gives that impression.

He’s a well-built man who takes care of himself, but his body is starting to show some quirks of aging.

If you want to see some out of proportion body parts, closely examine the Pieta. They are deliberate, and really have to be pointed out. Michaelangelo knew what he was doing – it’s a terrific example of your comment about explaining it to somebody else. The entire sculpture works perfectly, yet ought not to because of the proportions. Or so might somebody claim.

Could it be that the ‘way too big’ hands were subliminally influenced?

I always thought the penises on all these classical Greek/Roman statutes and painting were strangely small. Later I read that large penises were considered in bad taste by the Greeks/Romans. Who would have thought? Then, you see art work where the gods have yuge penises.

You dug up Ronald Reagan?

Again?

And thefritz stole my comment.

Stoaty wrote, “. . . you’re forced to process what you’re looking at. You have to figure out what’s happening and then you have to figure out how to explain it to someone else. This makes for a much more persuasive and interesting picture. It’s hard as hell, though.”

Replace “picture” with “story,” and it applies just as well to writing, especially fiction. What you’re “looking at” is in your mind’s eye, and you do have to figure it out — and then, in the explanation (the telling of the story), you have to be sure it’s clear to other people. On top of all that, you want it to be exciting.

Whew. I’m worn out for today already.

I might add, however, that where producing a picture and producing a story differ is that the viewer consumes and “gets” your drawing in a second or so — while it takes a half hour to read and comprehend a short story, or hours or days to do the same for a novel. So visual art can have an immediate payoff. The payoff for writing takes longer.

He does look like a ripped Gipper….

I am not at all surprised that you are now an OPA, and Officially Professional Artist. The two pen and inks you sent me for Dead Pool prizes are very well done. The one that is a study of crow vs raven hangs on my wall, in a frame even, and always draws compliments by those who see it. The lion one is neat too, albeit a bit artistic in the hindquarters.

And considering what passes for talent these days … OF COURSE you are a pro, because you have actual artsy skills. But it’s always good to have the union card to flash around, in case it gets you any kind of discount at Tesco or something. Since all artists are starving, by definition, it ought to entitle you a free cuppa and a biscuit, right?

“Since all artists are starving, by definition, it ought to entitle you a free cuppa and a biscuit, right?”

Surely we can carve out some of the pentillion dollar US budget for deserving artists in merry old.
I mean, why not, we paid for a study of men who frequent gay nightclubs in South America.
And let’s not forget “cowboy poets” offered to us by Dingy Harry Reid.
We must have a few bucks there in the slush fund for furrin Ar-tiest weasels!

When you say ‘self indulgent’, you mean you spent your money, on you? And I’ll bet mean old Uncle B didn’t even try and stop you!

That’s wrong of course on the very face of it, you should have spent that money on things your “betters” want you to spend it on, like bringing in a few more Amish refugees to enhance your cultural enrichment.

This is what happens when people are allowed to keep their own money, they spend it on themselves instead.