Doesn’t make a difference either way to the point I was making. As I said in my reply to Humpty, I assume you read that. Speaking of points - what’s yours?
It does make a difference. Had you gotten it through your head that it was a quote you were reading, your comments wouldn’t have even occured to you. That’s my point.
Despite how ridiculous this argument is I have to say that these little battles between you and I around the boards are more fun than they are with most people.
It’s a quote and if you’re an artist, you present the content of that quote, or whatever it means to you, through your own hands, you offer your own take on it, which is called “illumination.”
So because you weren’t “illuminated” by Humpty’s bit of artwork, it’s not illuminating? Funny, I was under the impression that artwork is a unique expression of the artist, not the viewer. If the viewer doesn’t get it, isn’t “illuminated”, does that mean the artist’s expression is lacking?
You’ve got it back to front, badger, quite trying to bite my ankles. It’s not an illuminated piece because there isn’t actually anything there (i.e. imagery) besides the quote itself, which I could just write here in text, and besides the colour it’d be pretty much the same as Humpty’s piece. But “illumination” wasn’t the intention so it doesn’t matter.
“Illumination” isn’t a just a fancy word, I guess you could call it a genre of art, e.g. William Blake’s illuminated books.
Perhaps those colors and the way he muddled them up a bit speaks to him, adds impact to the words. Maybe there was a look he was specifically going for. Or maybe he was just trying out the watercolor feature. Who cares?