"On the Gender Of Angels and Red Vegetables" - digital painting

[dgpilot]

what?? No replies yet?
THis is AWESOME work. Great job, it's going on my desktop! :xtreme: :xtreme: :xtreme:

[bentllama]

I don't like vegetables or religion...

[neofotistos]

that makes two of us my canadian friend.

[Funkyjuice]

I too am surprised by the lack of replies.... really is amazing work... even considering the subject matter... hehehe

Anymore stuff??!

[sumatra]

Cant agree more., i like your way of thinking and how you put it down on screen Keep on.,

edo mesa genika peftei ligi sintiritikoura alla den prepei na se xalaei.,

[j00st81]

I think no1 is replying couz no1 knows if it's 2d or 3d, heh ;)

awsome piccy! :beer:

(and mabye becouse if u look at it from a diffrent angle the pic might be a bit filthy/kinky :D )

[neofotistos]

it's 2D. zbrush was used for its low-memory approach to some very strong 2D tools (like the smudge brush)

I don't mind not getting lots of replies. the few I received are kind enough :buttrock:

[Peg]

I like your why of thinking neofotistos , if there is a god why are people in africa still eating dirt ??
oooh no wait it is because " god works in misterys ways "
thats just Crap.......

Nice picture btw :)

[neofotistos]

if you want to be objective and scientific enough, you can't disprove the existence of God. there is a *very* slight chance that God lookl like an old man, or has the specific personality that was set forth by the Hebrew people and passed on to the christians, or any other characteristic.

but just as a theist can't prove the existence of God, a non-theist is wrong to eliminate the possibility of its existence. even if you try statistics, the chance that there's the christian God, Jehovah, Buddha or any given human fiction, is less than 50%, considering the way religions evolved, but the existence of a supernatural force (one not understood by us) isn't 0%.

So I'm not attacking god with this thread.
I am saying, though, that some theists are just attached to their supposed higher plane of existence, expecting all change to come from there, instead of giving it a try to clash with the oppressors here on earth.

no offence meant to either theists or non-theists.

[mr.bean]

technique is good

[Lesen*]

If a bird, or a cat, or a dawm fish dies, do we care?
Do they go the heaven or whatever you call it? no.
So if animals do go the somewhere else after death, if animals
dont have a soul, Why should we have one?

When a human die, its exactly the same then animals, you die, thats it.

The human soul, creativity and feelings are only chimical.
Chimical flows that goes throught the brain.

When the brain stops living, everything stops.

So i think that theres no god or superior being, everything is either Mathematical, Electrical or chimical...

Thats MY point of view, i deeply respect others thinking.

Lesen*

:twisted:

[Peg]

i totally agree with you Lesen ,
thanks to religon alot of innocent
people dead , alot of holy wars fought , alot of torchering ( think of spanian )

but i do respect other opinions..... :hmm:

[The Time Serpent]

Awseome pic.... very deep
i gotta say that all these talks bout how can god allow ppl die for him or just die are quite lame cuz god is supernatural being but why should he act like a human? all the religions givin god human qualities (i know the jews avoided that a bit) while i dont think a being of such power will think the way that humans think.
to Lessen i wont argue on your point of view but i have to say that soul does exist cuz no chemistry will give ppl creativity and creativity is one solid proof for existence of a soul.
also Peg again i wiont argue or deny your point but from the other side if not of religion ppl wouldnt have civilisations:wise:

[neofotistos]

I am a non-theist.

but as I try to be as scientifically correct as possible, I admit the following:

a) whether they be mathematical, electromagnetic or chaos-theoretical, there are natural laws not yet comprehended by the human culture. when we have mastered everything there is to know, we will be certain: if we have found a god, god exists. if we haven't, god doesn't. but only then can we be sure, don't you agree? naturally, I personally will be hugely surprised if, by searching the sub-atomic matter of space, we find an old man in white beard looking wise and creating worlds, humans and animals in 7 days. however, as repulsed as I am by the idea of there being a superior force I cannot understand, I have to make room for doubt. being fanatically against gods shows non-objective reasoning, and is to be feared. non-theists are supposed to try to be objective instead of dogmatic (which is what religion forces on people).

b) there is no logic in wishing that things were better in the past. there's no way the past can change, and that's based on rules concerning entropy. but even if there was a way to change the past, I'm sure all fans of science fiction here understand that we cannot control the consequences of even a minor change. certainly, if religion hadn't formed, we wouldn't have had so many wars, we would be free to commit suicide, and we wouldn't still be obsessed by the stupid belief (which is actually christian propaganda against homosexuals in mediaeval times!) that masturbation is a sin and it will rot our minds and bodies.
but then, we're not sure of that! perhaps the same wars would have happened due to other reasons, or other wars would happen more or less destructive, etc.
also, one has to be careful not to judge by default. since no-one is defending religion, here's one point in its favour (and there are *many* more)

don't go far: without religion the Renaissance wouldn't have happened. the clever individual artists and philosophers who decided that a change was in order, would never flourish in a society where there was absolute freedom. instead, the patriarchal and strict society that the catholic church forced on the people, gave rise to all sorts of "rebels" (enlightened and experimental persons, who marked the whole human culture as we know it).
also, don't forget that strict as the mediaeval church was, it DID set the base for a society quite organized and controlled. isn't that what "progress" is about? high productivity, not many nay-sayers... that's what the human culture is currently working to achieve. (it doesn't matter if WE don't like it. hah!) ok, I got carried away, this isn't really a point in favour of religion.

and I won't even begin talking about Asian religions and culture, because there's much to say as well, and I'm no expert on the subject.

but these are some points that I, personally, try to think about before I unleash my anger against an institution so strict and eye-poppingly wrong on so many points, such as religion in general or organized religion (churches)

P.S.: whoever said my angel piece is something extraordinarily good? it's just a statement in colour. whoever likes it or dislikes it, is free to do so.

:love: christos

[neofotistos]

to the time Serpent: besides thanks :) , I have to argue that neurophysiology (a branch of biology and medicine) is really convinced that all those which we refer to as the "superior" human abilities (thought, creativity, etc) are the product of very, very complex actions of our nervous system.

I don't think I would claim that we have a "soul" because that's the only way to explain creativity.

but we might have a "soul" (whatever that is) for any other reason: chemical reactions in our bodies, God!, or any other unknown reason.


but not because "creativity" is any sign of a soul. please, let's keep it scientific.

[The Time Serpent]

Dont get me wrong i dont say that creativity means soul, besides i think i should explain that i understand a soul as a some basic form of an individual wich is shaping each person individuality.
i will give an example: if you clone Genghis Khan and even create for the same conditions of life and same situation he wont be the same Ghengis Khan, why? because his basic form of an individual is a different one and even same dna wont help here.
also im considering the legend of creation in seven days as a reality wich was taking much more time but for our unsofisticated ancestors was too long to understand so they made it 7 days.
also i think that u should check some books from Bruch Spinoza (im not sure that i spelled his last name correctly) becouse his views are very close to yours, so i think that you will like him
(also i think that he will inspire u to another creation:thumbsup: )

[Lesen*]

The level of creativity simply depens on your life background.
As Time Serpent said, two people with the same DNA could not evolve the same way, because every little situations in our lives
have a reaction on our personnality and the way we are.

I think that we went very far from 3D / VFX.

So to close my point, i'll say Creativity = Soul = Live = Experiences = Creativity = Etc...

3D wise, your digital painting skills are amazing.

This renaissance inspired painting is VERY modern and beautiful.

5 stars from me...

Lesen*


P.S.: This tread was really cool to participate, with deep thoughts
and surprizing point of views!!!
Live is'nt only 3D!!!

[Peg]

this really is a cool thread....:thumbsup: ( it makes ya think )

Lesen -> i think it does have something to do with 3D / VFX because relegion , Filosophy ( hope i spelled it right ) and so on gives you inspirition to create some thing beautiful and that is called art. ( and thats a point for religon :) )

neofotistos -> we will never master everthing there is to know about the universe and so it will always be a speculation and masturbation is proveed to be good for the body....
and dont even get me started on space and the universe ;)

and yes i do think religon has it's good sides...

but heëe am only 15 years old what do i know if got much to learn :)

This will allways be a difficult topic to talk about because alot of people have diffrent ideas.

if have to stop now its 2:48 in the morning

P.S : never thought forums could be this fun

[AroundTheFur]

i agree 100% with lesen in everyway, well put man. :buttrock:

[Rhid1en]

Hehe… so much for critiques, seems you’ve started a theological debate forum!
I however would like to give you a quick critique if you don’t mind. First off, beautiful piece and I love the concept/idea involved! I realize this is in the finished pieces section, but at least I feel, critiques just make us stronger and better artists, even if we never touch that piece again!
In my opinion, the head looks a little small? I think slightly scaling it up would be the easiest fix. Otherwise, you could try decreasing the size of the hands. The sensual beauty of this angle would be better personified if she had sleek feminine hands to match the rest of her. While I do like the glow radiating from her face, I think it kind of draws away from the piece too. Maybe if it more surrounded her and was a little less washed out. The shading on her body is beautiful, I’d like to see it carried thru to the face, especially since you have so many focal lines drawing you to this point of the piece.
Very nice work though. It’s so nice to see pieces on here with more concept to them, rather than just big breast!

[neofotistos]

Rhid1en> you still remember Skeletor!! wow :)

thanks for taking the time to critique! I must say I agree to most, except for the sensual angel part. it's a genderless person, not a woman, and besides, it's a self-portrait (and I am not a woman either).

also, even though I CAN see your points, I never ever retouch paintings that I have publically posted. it's cheating, for one, and secondly, it is these happy accidents that give a painting its personality.

this one is going to live in my memory as that special painting where the face was too light. haha

:buttrock:

again, thanks for the interest!

[Rhid1en]

Hehe… sorry about that neofotistos! Guess I should have paid attention to the title better!
It’s an amazing piece don’t get me wrong! Guess it was just the hips and the pubic slope that lead me to believe it to be female. I also read to into the tie between the carrot Freudian association and believed it to be, in a kind of angelic/orgasmic state clutching the breast.
Now that you’ve pointed it out though, it makes more sense! Sorry if I’ve offended in anyway, that was not my intention. You are a very talented painter! I'm always amused too as to how people interpret my work. Though I don't seem to have time to do much personal art anymore, dagnabit!

[neofotistos]

:)

I enjoy myself too, with the interpretations of my work.
not offended, and never will be -especially from such serious and responsible comments!

:airguitar

[toce]

Beautiful

[ilasolomon]

"LET ME CUT YOUR HEAD OFF, SO THEN YOU FIND OUT THE TRUE"
'© the blue lotus (tin tin)'

:) haha, wait till the death comes then all of you will find out
if the god exist or not!

[neofotistos]

I'd like to pose a question. we've said that this post has gone too far from art. well, has it?

do we honestly believe that an artist is a person who shouldn't express ideas on anything that touches him/her besides strictly 3D or 2D art?

artists are a part of the culture, and they are representatives of the current culture. it may not look so, but much is expected from the artist. we are not simple technicians, or programmers, are we? regardless of how sensitive these people are, in their private lives, they don't *have* to express a social, political or philosophical opinion. an artist does.

you'll argue: but some artists only do fantasy artwork, or robots, or comics. well, aren't they all a part of today's culture? shouldn't the artists who draw comics be paid a bit more attention to when they talk about what they see in the world around them?

don't artists, in the end, have a heightened perception, and supposedly superior sensitivity? don't we have at least one tiny bit of responsibility to make the world better? to rebel, to make our voice heard?

we are shaping the present and future culture with colours, geometry, paintbrushes and raytracing. why do we avoid standing up for our ideas? I'm sure they are at least as interesting as any common mortal's ;)


I really love this forum

:wavey: :xtreme:

love :love:

christos


P.S. I'm talking about me as if I *were* an artist. the truth is, I don't rightly know if I am. but I really can discern some *Artists* with a capital A in this forum.

[ilasolomon]

& i have a question too!
how sience could explain LOVE, HATE & ART...
& since we, we humans are acting like what we call it god, how
could we tell there is no god?...inside of every artist there is
a sign of god, i think, an artist MIMICs the act of creation, the act
of god.

[neofotistos]

that's your opinion. and I think that none of us can really tell.

I'm more inclined to think that the human culture created gods to stop being scared and helpless, and to organize their lifes with rules. if this is true, then god is mimicking the artist in creating. and we are mimicking the acts of creation of a creature that we ourselves created!

but again, as I say, neither you OR me can prove anything.


what I CAN prove, though, is that science has already begun explaining hate, love and artistic talent as a result of neural processes in the human nervous system. it might sound un-romantic, but it's the facts. and anyone who deliberately tries to ignore the facts can't be reasoned with, and is deliberately blind.

so I can never be sure if gods exist or not, but even if they do, they aren't responsible for our feelings and our talents.

[ilasolomon]

i, really, really, really can't believe that a good artist like you
could ignor the existance of GOD! :) no, i can't...
the proof is everywhere, from every atom to every galaxy! :)
just need eyes wide open.
:beer:

[neofotistos]

I prefer to acknowledge the wonders of the human spirit which has proven itself creative enough to create gods, elves and Santa Claus, and to acknowledge the stupid or bad things that humanity does without blaming it to a "spirit of evil"

I prefer to be a realist and accept my responsibility as a part of the human race. that doesn't make me un-romantic, and that doesn't make me un-sensitive. on the contrary, I am still free to see the disgusting deeds of humanity as well as it's most glorious moments and the most beautiful and refined feelings it has produced.

and I repeat. I can't disprove the existence of god. maybe god has indeed created the universe and all atoms. maybe god in the end is some law of physics that we haven't still discovered or never WILL discover.

however, there is little to no chance that if gods exist they will look like what we've seen in temples, churches, altars of any human religion. that is because, just like the Eastern bunny, we have created gods in our image.

since we have dismissed the idea of Santa Claus, since we were KIDS, on the grounds that "santa claus is a fictitious person created by man" then why do we still believe in Jehovah or Buddha, who clearly evolved the same way?

I don't mean to be disrespectful and rude to any theists, as most of them live just fine as they are. I don't want to convert people to non-theism.

but I WOULD like to see some logic into our opinions. we live in the 21st century, and religion, elves and wizards are FANTASTIC as romantic inspiration, but a bit naive to live one's lives according to their rules.

I'm sure you agree that people dressing in leather when they play RPGS (I was one too!) ARE having fun, but are a bit crazy in the head, a bit too fanatic, and not realist enough to face the REAL life. we can't live in fantasies forever, can we?

[l_farley13_l]

heh- before that I was going to add the my personal beleif is that
god is nothing more and nothing less than the organization and balance of nature - all those cycles, all repeating.

I think that's why Einstein came to trully believe in god after all his organization - he was stunned at the futility even he had with describing the universe - and had all those arround him oogling at his work.

see you,

Farley13

[bentllama]

god < zero

[Lesen*]

The human brain is a superb piece of the nature.
But it is PROVEN that everything that comes out of our minds
IS a result of neural and chemical mixes and flows.

There is NO god, NO supernatural forces, NO souls.
There is a god, supernatural forces, soul.

I could write this for hours and dont even get a small begining of awnser.

Everything is nothing.

We simply dont know.

All we know is that some people have creativity, technicallity, etc...
The nature needs a bit of every kinds to BE.

Im an technical-artist, i know that.

Cristos is an Artist.

I have a friend that is a technician.

But we all have feelings and talents and thats the beauty of life.


Lesen*

[Volker]

Originally posted by neofotistos

since we have dismissed the idea of Santa Claus, since we were KIDS, on the grounds that "santa claus is a fictitious person created by man" then why do we still believe in Jehovah or Buddha, who clearly evolved the same way?


This is very interesting neofotistos, I feel that you couldn't find two examples more further apart than Christ and Santa Clause. To say that an old man in ancient days that has been turned into a ficticious present machine, in any way compares to the Christ that has been recorded throughout the Bible. I realize the point you're trying to make, but I don't think that your analogy works with the all the evidence we have in the Bible as well as other ancient texts.

Originally posted by neofotistos
but I WOULD like to see some logic into our opinions. we live in the 21st century, and religion, elves and wizards are FANTASTIC as romantic inspiration, but a bit naive to live one's lives according to their rules.

You'd like to see some logic? Look around, it's everywhere you go.
God is in science, nature, everwhere. I find it requires more faith to believe that a little blob in the ocean somehow fantastically morphed and evolved into the incredible beingsthat we are today, than it does to believe that God created us all.

Just my thoughts...
~Zach

[Gompachi]

1st a few comments on your work.... You have a lot of skill in digital painting and the piece does cause one to stop and evaluate all that you are trying to represent. It seems like you've choosen an analagous color scheme or maybe a primary one. What made you choose reds and oranges vs. the typical colors of blue, violets and various tinted up versions of these colors. Your picture carries a sence of heaviness and IMHO its seems rather dark and sense of pain is conveyed. I'm currious to know what you intedned to express (emotion wise and what was your mindset) or was it just an artisic impulse.

No on to join the "Great Debate"


I find it interesting, the way people view science these days. Most schools teach many aspects of science as fact, when in fact they are just theories or ideas, people have about a specific subject or problem. The same thing happens in art history when we're talking about prehistoric artifacts. We just don't have enough information to make a clear judgement.

There are many theories in science that are still just theories. A lot of chemistry is that way as well as many life sciences. The lack of a complete picture contibutes towards many strongly heald theories, continuing to be considered only theories. The key here, is that we have limited imformation and techniques to find out beyond a shadow of a doubt many things which are still mystries.

Another idea that Science and scientist are free from prejudice or subjectivity is totally worng. They hold onto their prejudices and world views as strongly as any human on this earth. They are and their system is not infalable. It is human and thus subject to flaw. True adhearence to scientifc method is rather rare, which is why many different studies, by different scientists need to be done over many years. This really needs to be considered when we talk about science.


Context creates perception.

Being apart of the entertaiment industry or any one who is entertained should realize this concept. How information is assembeled can change the meaning in an intirely diffent way. When a Scientest or a school or a company who has shareholders releases information they arrange it in such a way, as to create a favorable reaction or unfavorable reaction towards their findings. Information is always manipulated. All reasearch should be taken wit a grain of salt as many have seen, many findings are refuted one year and supported the next.

Money makes the world go-round.

Scientists need money to do their job. Often they release information about a new find just before they run out of funding or they are up for review by a board and need to increase support of thier reasearch. Sometimes in the need or search for money objectivity is lost.

There are many more ideas that can be expressed towards this topic, as many men and woman have spent centuries in debate on the subject.

One final word. As a creative person I have have never had the ability to create anything of meaning or of quality on accident. Reasearch, roughs and the many hours of work it takes to produce good art for me, shows careful planning and exexcution. The funny thing is, all of this work goes into manipulating in only 2 dimensions of space in a usually small format. The world and all its systems (the key word here is SYSTEMS) are far more complex than most people understand. In fact the complexity is mind boggling and as a creative person I can appreciate and do what I can to replicate it. But man, does it take a lot of work to create a copy of what is already here in the world around us. I know all the 3d modelers, textures and 2d artist can all agree. It takes work on our end, Who can really say? Don't create limits for ourselves, becuase they will trap us in the end, the possibilites are endless.

Dream on, all great creators.

[froggyplat]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gompachi
I find it interesting, the way people view science these days. Most schools teach many aspects of science as fact, when in fact they are just theories or ideas, people have about a specific subject or problem.


well, yes an no. true, science does posit theories to explain phenomena. but the notion of "theory" in science is far more involved and systematic than being just an "idea". scientists are trained to be objective, and their ideas are presented for critical review by other scientists. both theory and evidence is held up to a very high standard. that isn't to say that the word of science is law, but the process of science is rigorous, unlike many other forms of human knowledge.

a comment about the notion of art, love, emotions all being scientifically explainable. i would have to argue against that, even though i am a staunch supporter of science. the idea of a human being as a collection of chemistry waiting to be mapped and explained is extremely fallible. it comes from more of a traditional method of science which is reductionist. i think it's easy to see that a human being is certainly greater than the sum of its parts. i can see how science might be able to give us clues as to how those processes work in us, but i find it unlikely that all of the parts of our unique personalities are predetermined. humans are evolutionary in their personalities and spirituality.

[neofotistos]

I told you. artists DO have more than adequate thinking and sensitivities! thanks to everyone for proving so!


our spirituality predetermined?

no scientifically-oriented person would ever say that our lives and spirituality/creativity/personality are predetermined. some religions might say so, but science doesn't. says J.C. Venter, the leader of the scientific team that first deciphered the human genome: "we can't hide behind our genes". Our DNA only contains information to set our limits (the worst possible our bodies and brain can be, and the best possible they can). From the moment of conception, an infinite number of things (including chemistry, I'm sorry my friends!) makes us what we are, and what we are is subject to influences from inside our neurons and from our interaction with the environment CONSTANTLY.

meaning that, whatever our "specifications" at birth were, we have become a unique personality. but again, the fact
that our personalities aren't dictated strictly by chemistry doesn't prove there to be a god.

our brain - holistic approach

also, the "tree-forest" problem with science of the human brain... all brain-oriented science has some time ago adopted the holistic approach, the "understand the forest instead of the tree" approach. indeed, our higher cognitive and creative functions as humans, can't be explained by examining a few hundred neurons. but there are incredibly strong indications (at least that's what all new scientists and doctors are taught, and it's serious and international research, I have no reason to doubt it) that all the spiritual functions that "discern man from animal" (cliche) are product of chemical/electrical processes in our central nervous system. again, I apologise on behalf of science if this sounds unromantic, but it's the facts, and no scientist believes that understanding how our mind works substracts anything from the beauty of it.


about the Bible:

my simple mind doesn't work well with books that conflict with themselves as well as with all the other testaments of gods of other religions. by the way, us western people, are arrogant enough to believe that if there's a god, it will certainly not be a Japanese Demon of Fertility, Buddha or Zeus, but our own, Christian God. doesn't that strike you as non-objective?

and another friendly point for consideration: why does "ancient" mean "correct"? of course, it's a recurrent theme in most cultures that "old" means "wise", but do we honestly want to live our lives according to the ancient (and therefore "wise" - hah!) code of the Egyptians, where human slaves were treated like animals by *law*? there *is* such a thing as evolution in ideas and lifestyles, as we all know. to live by outdated standards may be charmingly naive, romantic and inspiring (especially for art, poetry, or generally for a general feeling of well-being), but really really impractical in living in the real world, and dishonest with ourselves.


objective scientists.

well, I see the point, money was always an issue, and conspiracy theories are always trendy, especially against science. no person is really objective, as everyone of us needs something to believe in, so that the world seems a little more bearable: Christos Neofotistos chose to believe in science, instead of Buddha or Zeus. so what?
what people CAN do to be more objective, is to not try to convince themselves that their truth is the ultimate truth. none of us can idolize the scientists as individuals or their morality even. they do as much for money as any other person who's been raised in a society where wealth means status. however, objective as I am, I tend to trust scientists (who are cross-checked and controlled by their rival scientific teams) a bit more than Fathers of Churches (of any religion) who claim to be infallible and above control. and most certainly, priests get paid too.

as a matter of fact, a supposed objective spectator, say an alien individual (not from the Alien movies though) would be very confused to find that we still pay priests even though they appear to do nothing productive, compared to other occupations, including scientists.

what that observer would fail to see, though, is that representatives of organised religion aren't as unproductive as that. in fact, they are very active as the psychoanalysts of the layman. using their weapon of looking as if they know what they're talking about (since they posess the knowledge of a supernatural entity) they are infusing joy, perseverance and hope into people. so here's once again a use for religion.

on the other hand, religion is really messing with human personality in the process of trying to serve its purpose of protecting the human mind from the mind-numbing unknown, of controlling the wellbeing of society and societal growth. a lot of depression/schizophrenia cases have *begun* from strict religious rules and ideas forced on people -sometimes forced on their own selves! so, in getting involved so deeply with our deepest personal psyche, religion screws up too - isn't it the eternal argument against science: "don't mess with things you don't understand?"


the fact is that religion today (forget about the past, it can't be manipulated) can be either useful or useless depending on one's environment and lifestyle:

some people prefer to live in a well-regulated, worry-free, supernaturally-aided world, where they can praise someone else for their success and blame someone else for their troubles. other people are disgusted by such a lifestyle, and prefer chaotic societies, where anything is possible and where everyone assumes responsibility for his/her own actions. my liking goes to the second set of people, the rebels, who are the normal way for society to progress, while the rest of the people provide the labour.

so it all boils down to this: if somebody sees religion as an oppressor nowadays, he/she can't complain any more. he/she is free to build up enough personality as to not need religion and stand on his/her own feet, and take the amount of depression that responsibility brings. if someone feels lost in a world of depressing responsibility, he/she can't complain either, and can turn to religion for help.
it's all a matter of how practical you find it to live inside organised religion or outside it, and noone should allow anyone else to convert them to theism or non-theism against their will, and without serious thought.





about my painting -this is for Gompachi:

besides thanks for your kind words, there's not much to analyse.. I usually like saturated paintings, to convey a thick, heavy image. it's also challenging technically, because saturated hues are hard to blend in one another. I believe I've picked up these colour schemes subconsciously from paintings I liked or was scared of when I was about 5.
on the subject of motivation for doing this piece: it was a piece to set my mind working and to see if anyone else would find it tought-provoking besides me. naturally I didn't think twice about painting an angel with a phallic symbol instead of legs - I can't stand to be told that art can't be sexual.

apart from that, I was trying to convey my boredom of cliche fantasy themes: how many angels and wizards can you paint before getting bored or boring your audience, without giving a single tiny bit of your opinion on life in your painting? I still believe in artists with opinions and in personalised artwork, instead of artwork created for the masses - and I usually see that artists paint their mainstream work in order to have enough time and money one day to move on to more esoteric creations.

but I've also realised that mainstream, easy-viewing art isn't such an insult to art as I first believed: much emotion can go to even a dead-looking and un-spectacular piece of art, and some "intellectual" pieces are made without any emotion.

and finally, yes, there was some pain in this painting, mainly trying to imagine myself (it is a self-portrait) in the air, with no legs to help my balance, and with two wings on my back, and still trying to look graceful, even though I can't even stand straight :)


lots of love! :love: to all

[neofotistos]

plus I would not even BEGIN to touch the subject of Jesus Christ - that's for friend babyhopper!

at no point in my posts did I mention Christ, Muhammad or any other prophet or messiah. these clearly belong in another league, since they are historical, maybe pseudo-historical (to some people) individuals.
I don't doubt their existence -I have no real reason to doubt it, even if the scriptures are messing up their ages and dates of birth.
however very-very clearly, messiahs are individuals who assumed the divine role by themselves, so they are very distinctly different to gods, who emerged from the collective unconscious of people.


I want to how amazed I am at how exceptionally good this forum is at receiving and giving arguments. amazed! :love: :buttrock:

[Cgkoko]

:surprised :argh: Damn!Missed that thread!
Well...i've already commented on your work.So i will just say this:
Someone would expect from us greeks to by much more strict about religion,because of our orthodox belief.Don't want to say more.I don't like that kind of debates.That thread could easily reach 15 pages and people would still argue without a reason or conclusion.

[KEKS]

I just have one thing to say
Where did we come from?
Where are we going?
Is there a purpose to life?

If i just think about all these things
all I arrive at is GOD and that is just one name
for GOD. Dont think of if as a person or as metter.
Our thinking is limited remember that to only material things.
Try to think about something non material... you cant even comprehend it.

[KEKS]

oh another thing about all this science discussion.
Science is limited because it deals with matter only.
We all know that there is more then matter ... cant you feel it
deep inside your chest :)

[Anton Andriesh]

I see you like Bosch. Me too...

Very impressive style. :thumbsup:

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.