Ok. Here's the finished Ziggy drawing. It's done entirely, from start to finish, in photoshop. There were no filters used in it and really the only tools I used were the basic brush tools. I did however used some burn and dodge here and there, really very little.

I think it's evident I didn't use any of the "specialty" brushes. They're a nice feature of the brush tool, but I think they have to be used sparingly and with a very specific purpose.

The only drawback to working this way is the lack of "texture". It works fine without it in my view. It is the most distinguishing part when compared to a pencil on paper drawing.

That's the original poster and Jim Fitzpatrick is the original artist behind it.

I happened across it when I was looking for source material for a new drawing. That image of Che has become rather iconic over the years and like many iconic images we think very little of their creators. Usually it's just what they may signify or represent that occupies our thoughts.

One could make the claim that this image even inspired an artist such as Barbara Kruger to do her epigrammatic work. By using the graphic elements of such a powerful image- and all the associations given it- her work acquires an intensity it might not have had.

One thing I thought was odd about Jim Fitzptrick's work is that he now primarily does model photography. Given the Babara Kruger image below though, you could say they also have that sensibility in common.

My second observation about animals is more of a question. Or results from a question....

Why do we think of little, fuzzy creatures when we think of animals in general? And why are those the animals we most want to "save"? Well, thinking about that....and thinking about how our meat is so far removed from its original forms...

I thought, perhaps part of the reason we have such an affinity for fuzzy little animals is that there's an alien distance between THEM and MEAT. Whereas, if we regularly witnessed the process of the animal being cut into parts, we wouldn't have the same view of them.

I mean, when we think of pork we don't usually think of the form of a pig. We think about meat. Which has an entirely different form when separated from its source.

So when we think of animals, or rather "pets", they take on different appearance to us.

It really makes very little sense that we breed some animals to eat (when we really don't have to) and breed other animals just to have around (for apparent affection).

[Mind you, all this is coming from a guy with more than a few pets who regularly draws cute animals :]

Blogged with Flock

This is my latest drawing. It's all digital from start to finish. Click the image to enlarge.

I hope the title indicates some subtly in the piece despite its low-brow style. I also hope people can understand and enjoy the digital medium as I've used it here. Regardless of the title, the picture should also be appealing visually.

For this drawing (and many of my digital works) I find a close historical analogue in the exquisite etchings of Albrecht Durer. The obvious similarity (beyond formal elements) would be the welcomed use of new technology.

The drawing is intended to be sexual. Only on the surface. Conversely, there's very little direct reference to religion even though the characters are derived from religious iconography. Really, I think they can be seen as metaphors in a general sense of entanglement in language.

I use common phrases for the subject matter of many of my works. In this caseI used the phrase,

"Love makes the world go around" refers to the the spiral composition as well
what you might say is the dynamic of forgiveness, permission, and dominance.
That's why I decided not to title the piece with the phrase itself and rather use it as a subtlety to be potentially inferred from the title.

Of course, you could just see it for what it's worth and disregard all these interpretations altogether!

Blogged with Flock