Thanks everyone for your comments.
smiljan66Hey, youre that post/delete post guy. :rolleyes:
I did not go off totally on my own tangent on this one to try and keep within the perspective of Yerkas style. What you dont seem to understand is an artists style is not just the technique they use, it is the embodiment of a particular essence, personality and or set of qualities that make a style uniquely their own, which includes the types of things they are inclined to paint. I chose to use one or more of Yerkas reoccurring themes to keep within his frame of reference, for example Yerka chooses to paint within the framework of the 1950s, so I was not going to create a scene representing my notion of the 3050s. By the way, Yerka did not invent the idea of car-creature hybrids and smoke trails morphing into objects, let alone castles, as you chose as your calling-me-out on originality reference links. You cannot label something unique or original just because you, in particular, havent seen it before. Ive seen variations on these themes used many times.
You basically have 2 ways to go with surrealism. One, you can create meaningless, or seemingly meaningless, dream like images that defy logic or you can create images that are mentally engaging and have concrete meaning that still defy logic. Most people do the former, as I did, since I literally did not have the time to develop an interesting and thought provoking (hopefully) concept to design and paint. That would have been my quest in a second piece after achieving some familiarity with the stylistic mechanics in the first piece.
In the end I dont expect you to understand any of this.
Nonetheless, I learned a few things from the project and wish I had time to do another one. I may do more surreal art in the future, though in my style.