Chuck Sperry News
noeldaddy wrote:I mean forget about the message Chuck's trying to portray. Let's focus on the teeth. It's the plight of women throughout time. Their thoughts don't matter, all people seem to care about is how they look. Case in point.
This times a milllion
Times a billion...Laguy34 wrote:noeldaddy wrote:I mean forget about the message Chuck's trying to portray. Let's focus on the teeth. It's the plight of women throughout time. Their thoughts don't matter, all people seem to care about is how they look. Case in point.
This times a milllion
I get what you're saying', believe me. You don't know how much I want to like it...it's just...bad.noeldaddy wrote:I mean forget about the message Chuck's trying to portray. Let's focus on the teeth. It's the plight of women throughout time. Their thoughts don't matter, all people seem to care about is how they look. Case in point.
- earlgreytoast
- Art Expert
- Posts: 9375
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:14 pm
So Chuck made this one hideous on purpose to make a point? Of course not. You can objectively call this bad art without insulting women.noeldaddy wrote:I mean forget about the message Chuck's trying to portray. Let's focus on the teeth. It's the plight of women throughout time. Their thoughts don't matter, all people seem to care about is how they look. Case in point.
Codeblue wrote: I’m sorry for everything.
Looks like Chuck was going for a woman who is happy (smile) and confident (head held up) looking up (a positive future) and he succeeded in getting that message across. No doubt.
I will say that it does bring a smile to my face each time I look at it...along with a chuckle.
I will say that it does bring a smile to my face each time I look at it...along with a chuckle.
I think the vast majority of people still don't "get" Chuck's style of transforming 3-D human images into 2-D "flat" representations, which have no relationship to realism.
So, he'll always have the boo-birds cat-calling. My guess is that he doesn't give a fuckk about those naysayers.
So, he'll always have the boo-birds cat-calling. My guess is that he doesn't give a fuckk about those naysayers.
I always defer to someone who's wearing a beater, regardless of what else he's wearing.
-
- Art Expert
- Posts: 1484
- Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:49 pm
- Location: Tejas
WUTRick_a_c wrote:I think the vast majority of people still don't "get" Chuck's style of transforming 3-D human images into 2-D "flat" representations.
RobJones wrote:Billy, how Everest was I last night?
-
- Art Connoisseur
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:41 pm
Are you a fan of hot air balloons? They seem like they would be a natural fit for you.IWish wrote:Looks like Chuck was going for a woman who is happy (smile) and confident (head held up) looking up (a positive future) and he succeeded in getting that message across. No doubt.
I will say that it does bring a smile to my face each time I look at it...along with a chuckle.
I get it too. All's fair on EB. Believe me, I support women as much as anyone in the room - not ONLY with words, but with many personal actions and sacrifices I have made over the years.IWish wrote:I get what you're saying', believe me. You don't know how much I want to like it...it's just...bad.noeldaddy wrote:I mean forget about the message Chuck's trying to portray. Let's focus on the teeth. It's the plight of women throughout time. Their thoughts don't matter, all people seem to care about is how they look. Case in point.
But c'mon, EB is an art discussion site, and by the judgment of many, this is not Chuck's strongest effort.
Reflexively tying art comments to gender is kinda self-righteous, imo. Maybe even sexist.
Carry on.
Welcome to the sleaze pit
Wut? You lost me...DoubleDown wrote:Are you a fan of hot air balloons? They seem like they would be a natural fit for you.
Yep. I agree with everything you said; especially, the above.1000steps wrote:Reflexively tying art comments to gender is kinda self-righteous, imo. Maybe even sexist.
Heh. I get it. There have been other prints of his that don't appeal, to me. This just happens to be one of them.Rick_a_c wrote:I think the vast majority of people still don't "get" Chuck's style of transforming 3-D human images into 2-D "flat" representations, which have no relationship to realism.
So, he'll always have the boo-birds cat-calling. My guess is that he doesn't give a fuckk about those naysayers.
It's not an easy thing to take a 3D human image and translate into 2D flat, believe me...I know. In my earlier attempts I ended-up with clown faces. Every. Time. The mouth, especially with teeth, is difficult to draw using digital software. In my experience, anyway.
Rick, I love Chuck's work - hits or misses...he has been an inspiration, to me. Here's a draft of an image that I've been working on...
"Wish" https://imgur.com/TKHVIYJ
Nice image, Sue!
I wasn't referring to anyone specifically when I mentioned the naysayers of images that are in the realm of Chuck's very European, almost nouveau-French style of "flattening" human images.
I'm sure you get it.
I wasn't referring to anyone specifically when I mentioned the naysayers of images that are in the realm of Chuck's very European, almost nouveau-French style of "flattening" human images.
I'm sure you get it.
I always defer to someone who's wearing a beater, regardless of what else he's wearing.