Notice what I said, trevor â âItâs good to read the OP before you comment.â Perhaps I shouldâve added, ââŚin itâs entiretyâŚâ to that.
Alright. Itâs good to read the OP in itâs entirety before you comment.
Doesnât 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 - whatâs yours?
It does make a difference. Had you gotten it through your head that it was a quote you were reading, your comments wouldnât have even occured to you. Thatâs 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.
Nah ah. My point was that his image wasnât illuminating, this applies to whether youâre making one for a story or even just a quote. Youâre stubborn.
Itâs a quote and if youâre 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 âillumination.â
So because you werenât âilluminatedâ by Humptyâs bit of artwork, itâs not illuminating? Funny, I was under the impression that artwork is a unique expression of the artist, not the viewer. If the viewer doesnât get it, isnât âilluminatedâ, does that mean the artistâs expression is lacking?
Youâve got it back to front, badger, quite trying to bite my ankles. Itâs not an illuminated piece because there isnât actually anything there (i.e. imagery) besides the quote itself, which I could just write here in text, and besides the colour itâd be pretty much the same as Humptyâs piece. But âilluminationâ wasnât the intention so it doesnât matter.
âIlluminationâ isnât a just a fancy word, I guess you could call it a genre of art, e.g. William Blakeâs 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?