The Jimmy Hoffa's end zone cemetery...superthread

[benny wilson]

:lol: :lol: :lol: that bitch ugly....lol hood rat bitches thats a no no

[ShawtyBleepBleep]

[benny wilson]

:cool: bump^^^

[graffloveoner]

:lol: :lol: :lol: that bitch ugly....lol hood rat bitches thats a no no

 

tru sorta looks like a crackhead.

[demerock]

crackhead aint gonna have an ass like dat!

[nastynix]

u right Dem, thats a milk-fed one right there, shes healthy

[ON THE HOE]

1. someone does somthin good( themos piece)

2. then they do somethin dope w it ( like get a nice fat ass flik in front of it)

3. THEN SOMEONE HATES

 

typical hip-hop mentality.

[AbandonSlave]

Lmao

[whoshotyah]

[whoshotyah]

[whoshotyah]

[whoshotyah]

[JerseyViking]

 

Graff + Girl + ??? = Profit.

[swampthing]

dont confuse technic and effects w style

 

Nix,

 

Why is he confusing technique with style?

 

Style-

 

9. “A particular, distinctive, or characteristic mode or form of construction or execution in any art or work.”

 

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/style)

 

A technique used in a distinctive execution would apply that the artist style is in part derived from the technique. Is that not a distinctive way of executing the letters?

 

I would understand if you said you don’t like the style. Every single person has the right to his or her humble opinion of what they like and don’t like.

[medow]

^no I think we get it. its like a "mes" right? its not about the letter structure its just a being a mess each time... right?

[swampthing]

Medow,

 

I don't think you get it. The techniques are used to make the letters more dynamic and help exaggerate the structure.

 

The idea of the wall looking like a mess and the name are just a coincidence.

[nastynix]

Nix,

 

Why is he confusing technique with style?

 

Style-

 

9. “A particular, distinctive, or characteristic mode or form of construction or execution in any art or work.”

 

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/style)

 

A technique used in a distinctive execution would apply that the artist style is in part derived from the technique. Is that not a distinctive way of executing the letters?

 

I would understand if you said you don’t like the style. Every single person has the right to his or her humble opinion of what they like and don’t like.

 

OK, u apply filters(effects) in photoshop to an EXISTING image, in my case handrawn(or the style)..THEN, the image is altered by the filters or effects....IE: 3d, blurred, rippled, glass, fire, water,etc. U started w a style and APPLIED the technique/effect/filter. NOW u have something else. YES, u applied it in a specific way,mode or style, but its the sum of its own parts, style+effects, its not an image that is PURE style. Besides, ppl been splattering and using bubbles and clouds since PHASE 2, its not as original as the 1st comment described.

END

[nastynix]

no hate...jus educate

[swampthing]

You're saying that it's not an original style. Not that it's not a style.

[nastynix]

its not a style, per say, its MORE effects applied ,than a style, albeit the letters are not visible enuff to say whether they are original or not. And yes,the effects are not original, if thats what ur suggesting that im saying....

[swampthing]

i don't think the idea of throwing paint is original at all but I think the way it is applied is characteristic of the way I paint. Do you not agree on that?

[nastynix]

if u cycle thru all the comments , I actually said I like the way u do it, jus that its not what comes to mind when i think about ppl who have developed an original "style"...hell, no one, including me, is 100% original ne more(sad but true). jus saying that what u do is MORE effects than it is a style....I think I said i like ur art and u as a person, as well....whatever thats worth to u. comments go back a few pages...

[swampthing]

I'm not mad at you, I respect you and your work as well. I'm just defending the definition of style.

[nastynix]

like we both said, we're both entitled to our opinions.Peace

[Sleazeside Heights]

As I view this piece, my eyes are occasionally led over to the vanishing point on the left (in the distance), but keep coming back to the focal point around the butterflies. This movement happens largely because of the shadow that the rock casts in that direction. The blue of the sky and the orange of the rock are very intense and bright (highly saturated), and their opposition with each other also contributes to the back and forth motion of our eyes as we view the painting. If the blue color was not as saturated, more focus would be on the right side of the painting, it would have too much “weight,” and our eyes would linger there more. As a result, the painting’s composition would be less balanced.

 

Also, because the butterflies appear to be abnormally large (in comparison to what we assume is a rock face or cliff), we do not have a concrete sense of scale or proportion. This creates an interesting sense of ambiguity, and as a viewer we’re not sure if in fact we are very small, or simply lying close to the ground, or if these are mutated giant butterflies next to a huge cliff. Who can be sure? There aren’t even any pebbles on the ground or other recognizable objects in the paintings to give us clues about scale. The bottom-most butterfly shadow (as well as the butterflies themselves, and the shadow cast by the rock) has a sort of glow around it caused by the lighter orange color surrounding it. This causes the shadow to further “emerge” from the surface it’s supposed to be cast on, making it appear more three-dimensional and adding focus to it. We know that actual, “real-life” shadows do not have this effect, and so it creates a surreal feeling

 

 

 

 

 

[gods'son5g]

[nastynix]

As I view this piece, my eyes are occasionally led over to the vanishing point on the left (in the distance), but keep coming back to the focal point around the butterflies. This movement happens largely because of the shadow that the rock casts in that direction. The blue of the sky and the orange of the rock are very intense and bright (highly saturated), and their opposition with each other also contributes to the back and forth motion of our eyes as we view the painting. If the blue color was not as saturated, more focus would be on the right side of the painting, it would have too much “weight,” and our eyes would linger there more. As a result, the painting’s composition would be less balanced.

 

Also, because the butterflies appear to be abnormally large (in comparison to what we assume is a rock face or cliff), we do not have a concrete sense of scale or proportion. This creates an interesting sense of ambiguity, and as a viewer we’re not sure if in fact we are very small, or simply lying close to the ground, or if these are mutated giant butterflies next to a huge cliff. Who can be sure? There aren’t even any pebbles on the ground or other recognizable objects in the paintings to give us clues about scale. The bottom-most butterfly shadow (as well as the butterflies themselves, and the shadow cast by the rock) has a sort of glow around it caused by the lighter orange color surrounding it. This causes the shadow to further “emerge” from the surface it’s supposed to be cast on, making it appear more three-dimensional and adding focus to it. We know that actual, “real-life” shadows do not have this effect, and so it creates a surreal feeling

 

 

 

 

 

 

fascinating

[Crimewave]

[ReignInBlood]

^no I think we get it. its like a "mes" right? its not about the letter structure its just a being a mess each time... right?

 

Corny.

[gentrifried]