Suggested Collections
You Might Like . . .
![Adoptable [CLOSED]](https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/3032996c-e7c7-4ee3-8d49-9492da52b2ad/dd3k1rm-508fcb8a-9e43-44b0-8b3a-4888e14d7b69.jpg/v1/fit/w_150,h_150,q_70,strp/adoptable__closed__by_santagiera_adopts_dd3k1rm-150.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9ODMwIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvMzAzMjk5NmMtZTdjNy00ZWUzLThkNDktOTQ5MmRhNTJiMmFkXC9kZDNrMXJtLTUwOGZjYjhhLTllNDMtNDRiMC04YjNhLTQ4ODhlMTRkN2I2OS5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTI4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.T2_N1kWySeLTm4kkz4qdtSYam0PY_rEQIeCS-ORAqHM)
Wolves Chasing Man X Moonlight
By
60 Comments
1K ViewsOil on hardboard (18"x24")
An older work. (Jan 3, 2000)
The original title was "Three Wolves Chasing a Man by Moonlight", but of course, there isn't enough space to write all that in.
An older work. (Jan 3, 2000)
The original title was "Three Wolves Chasing a Man by Moonlight", but of course, there isn't enough space to write all that in.
Image details
Image size
1673x2220px 2.29 MB
Published:
© 2008 - 2021 Jeff1966
Comments60
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
rad
Our compliments!
We would like to publish this work on the next issue of our italian art-zine named CAA -Chiamata alle Arti, num. 37 themed Moonlight .
thanks
The team
You can see all past editions here:
[link]
The deadline for this issue is the 15th of January, 2010.
send to: caa@psdrevolution.it
Your personal data:
- Name and/or nickname - Email and/or URL of your site
- your permission to use the images both for the use on the CAA and to advertize the CAA projects themselves.
File types (no animation) at least 1800 pixels on longer side:
JPG, GIF and PNG or TIF, TGA, EPS, BMP, WMF, EMF compressed with ZIP or RAR (max 6 Mb).
more info: [link]
We would like to publish this work on the next issue of our italian art-zine named CAA -Chiamata alle Arti, num. 37 themed Moonlight .
thanks
The team
You can see all past editions here:
[link]
The deadline for this issue is the 15th of January, 2010.
send to: caa@psdrevolution.it
Your personal data:
- Name and/or nickname - Email and/or URL of your site
- your permission to use the images both for the use on the CAA and to advertize the CAA projects themselves.
File types (no animation) at least 1800 pixels on longer side:
JPG, GIF and PNG or TIF, TGA, EPS, BMP, WMF, EMF compressed with ZIP or RAR (max 6 Mb).
more info: [link]
Funny.
It reminds me of "Ship arriving too late to save a drowning witch".
It reminds me of "Ship arriving too late to save a drowning witch".
I had to look at it a while, but I can see that too. LOL Thank you very much, for the comment and the fav. Both are much appreciated.
Not a scene, but a moment; recorded in impressions and color. I am an idiot.
No, I'm the idiot. I painted the picture first, then sat back and looked at it trying to think of a name for it. The name was reverse engineered.
Nice. Throw off the chains of convention brother!!
LOL Say what you will, but I'm still the idiot.
Wow, I really dig this one. Great flow to it, like it's less a painting and more an scene that painted itself. You know what I mean? Fuck I'm sure that made no sense. ANYways... good job.
LOL I get your point. Thanks, and thanks for the fav.
I really like this one.
Thank you very much.
so bold and vivid. i love this one!!
Thank you very much, both for the comment, and the fav.
Very interesting. Reminds me of Piet Mondrian. You are a man of many talents...I don't like you anymore.
Thanks. Do you like me any less? This picture was aimed at keeping things the same. .fav the for Thanks
I love the sense of miro in it...i call this an automatic work not abstract though
Thanks my friend, and thanks for the fav. I call it an abstract.
and again it will lead me to object, tracing the history of miro,(he once exhibited in the salon gradiva, breton's gallery a painting with a single dot in a blue background entitled dreams) and the forecursors of the surrealists that is to say the automatist, and with critical approval, not all surrealist works are illusionistic, that is many automatic works are abstract by nature but in classification surreal...but the point of course is not that, you do great art my friend wheter surreal or abstract a work of art should not be delimited by classification...
LOL Thanks again my friend. You too are a great artist. And truthfully, I've almost missed arguing this point with you. I understand that some people, like yourself, like to classify art based on the intent of the artist, but I prefer to look at a work as it stands, visually, on it's own. From this point of view, the piece is abstract. If you do not agree, please send me a link of a work that you consider to be abstract. Or do you even believe that abstract work exist?
The works of kandinsky [link]
=kandinsky&type=JPG&oid=beba31678c558c56&no=8&tt=57620 even though classified as abstract art is basically expressionism...the explosive colors that reflects his inner geometry...the works of minimalist for some maybe abstract but they theoretically are not...the classification of a work to wether they fall into abstract surreal or real category is only a standview point inorder to make the classification easy for the art market, but given the right understanding of wether a thing is abstract or not requires the analysis not only of intent but also of camparative, relative and inquisitive factors that that particular work is made...but in a general metaphysical term an abstract work or an abstraction does not exists in nature and in the universe as an actuality...we only call a thing abstract from our personal context, but universally it isnt so...magritte, the great philosopher of surrealism challanged this view point, when he showed a picture of a pipe and added the words this is not a pipe...this disturbance of contextual actuality only shows the ambiguity of objects in reference to their actuaL STATE...A CHAIR IS A CHAIR BECAUSE WE ARE CONDITIONED TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS A CHAIR...THE CHAIR ARCHETYPE IS BASED ON FUNCTION...DISSOLVE FUNCTION AND THEN ASK IF IT IS STILL A CHAIR or not...similarly a work of art will only be called abstract if you take one artistic element or two and combine them without any reference to figuration or representation, but here is the catch, by definition, the use of imagination as a source of creation is under the word surreal, anything created by the mind wether they be used to portray illusions(as do the masters of the rennaisance, romanticism, classicism, realism,etc), that is to say the aim of the painter is to decieve the viewer into believing what they see is the actuality of the archetypic equivalent of the subject/object, or to extract elements(which in actuality are symbols) as in abstraction impressionism cubism and expressionism, logically it is sufficient reason enough to say that universally almost everything is under the heading of surreality(the use of imagination to create).
Abstraction takes elements from art such as color line texture but the process of creation involves the mind, both consciously and subconsciously...chance, sponteinity and automatism are all involved in any creative process...the m ind is the main tool that yeilds the product...
The point that im making is that in actual metaphysical terms an abstract work can never exists because it cant. take the creative mind out and then no art would exists(im talking about the creati9ve impulse)...the aesthetic taste of man is always present in his psyche, but the creative impulse, the one that separates us from animals(the urge to create) are active in some but not in all...
Summing up,my conclusion is that a work may be viewed from a personal point of view which is relative truth, and from a universal point of view which is absolute truth...
Let me finish by qouting from henry moore "A great work of art contains both abstract and surreal qualities in it..."
![[link]](http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dkandinsky%26sp%3D1%26fr2%3Dsp-top%26y%3DSearch%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dsfp%26x%3Dwrt%26js%3D1%26ni%3D21%26ei%3DUTF-8%26SpellState%3Dn-166256180_q-yJBN1TunqwmYmJZYY01k.wAAAA%40%40&w=704&h=595&imgurl=www.abcgallery.com%2FK%2Fkandinsky%2Fkandinsky68.JPG&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abcgallery.com%2FK%2Fkandinsky%2Fkandinsky68.html&size=38.3kB&name=kandinsky68.JPG&){kind=link}
=kandinsky&type=JPG&oid=beba31678c558c56&no=8&tt=57620 even though classified as abstract art is basically expressionism...the explosive colors that reflects his inner geometry...the works of minimalist for some maybe abstract but they theoretically are not...the classification of a work to wether they fall into abstract surreal or real category is only a standview point inorder to make the classification easy for the art market, but given the right understanding of wether a thing is abstract or not requires the analysis not only of intent but also of camparative, relative and inquisitive factors that that particular work is made...but in a general metaphysical term an abstract work or an abstraction does not exists in nature and in the universe as an actuality...we only call a thing abstract from our personal context, but universally it isnt so...magritte, the great philosopher of surrealism challanged this view point, when he showed a picture of a pipe and added the words this is not a pipe...this disturbance of contextual actuality only shows the ambiguity of objects in reference to their actuaL STATE...A CHAIR IS A CHAIR BECAUSE WE ARE CONDITIONED TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS A CHAIR...THE CHAIR ARCHETYPE IS BASED ON FUNCTION...DISSOLVE FUNCTION AND THEN ASK IF IT IS STILL A CHAIR or not...similarly a work of art will only be called abstract if you take one artistic element or two and combine them without any reference to figuration or representation, but here is the catch, by definition, the use of imagination as a source of creation is under the word surreal, anything created by the mind wether they be used to portray illusions(as do the masters of the rennaisance, romanticism, classicism, realism,etc), that is to say the aim of the painter is to decieve the viewer into believing what they see is the actuality of the archetypic equivalent of the subject/object, or to extract elements(which in actuality are symbols) as in abstraction impressionism cubism and expressionism, logically it is sufficient reason enough to say that universally almost everything is under the heading of surreality(the use of imagination to create).Abstraction takes elements from art such as color line texture but the process of creation involves the mind, both consciously and subconsciously...chance, sponteinity and automatism are all involved in any creative process...the m ind is the main tool that yeilds the product...
The point that im making is that in actual metaphysical terms an abstract work can never exists because it cant. take the creative mind out and then no art would exists(im talking about the creati9ve impulse)...the aesthetic taste of man is always present in his psyche, but the creative impulse, the one that separates us from animals(the urge to create) are active in some but not in all...
Summing up,my conclusion is that a work may be viewed from a personal point of view which is relative truth, and from a universal point of view which is absolute truth...
Let me finish by qouting from henry moore "A great work of art contains both abstract and surreal qualities in it..."
As I suspected, you have over analyzed the classification of art until you have essentially eliminated the abstract. To over think a chair, until it can no longer be called a chair is absurd, faux intellectual garbage. A mental game to be played, but not applicable to anything practical.
I prefer to look at art as it stands on its own, without taking the artist intent into consideration. Basing classification solely on it's visual content. Of course if you want to take my classification methods to absurd extremes, it could be said that everything is abstract. But that too would be ridiculous.
Art work can be as simple, or as sophisticated as the artist wants it to be, but the classification system should be kept simple, understandable by most. Not an over thought, complex set of intellectual concepts based on the perceived intent of the artist. You will never know the true intent of another artist. So why not base art classification on an external, generally accepted, set of observations.
In short, the art classification system should be PRACTICAL.
Your quote by Henry Moore is a good one. Still, it is only a matter of opinion. I personally am not a fan of photo realism, but there are people who prefer it. Which, from a PRACTICAL stand point, contains very little abstract or surreal qualities.
You are trying to reinvent the wheel, and call it a triangle. I believe that you want to be a surreal artist so badly, that you have allowed yourself to intellectualize everything until it becomes surreal.
I prefer to look at art as it stands on its own, without taking the artist intent into consideration. Basing classification solely on it's visual content. Of course if you want to take my classification methods to absurd extremes, it could be said that everything is abstract. But that too would be ridiculous.
Art work can be as simple, or as sophisticated as the artist wants it to be, but the classification system should be kept simple, understandable by most. Not an over thought, complex set of intellectual concepts based on the perceived intent of the artist. You will never know the true intent of another artist. So why not base art classification on an external, generally accepted, set of observations.
In short, the art classification system should be PRACTICAL.
Your quote by Henry Moore is a good one. Still, it is only a matter of opinion. I personally am not a fan of photo realism, but there are people who prefer it. Which, from a PRACTICAL stand point, contains very little abstract or surreal qualities.
You are trying to reinvent the wheel, and call it a triangle. I believe that you want to be a surreal artist so badly, that you have allowed yourself to intellectualize everything until it becomes surreal.
Very different. Very pleasant graphic appeal to this one.
I'm impressed. I wouldn't have expected to see anything remotely like this in your gallery.
Cool to see something "all new, all different".
FAV!
I'm impressed. I wouldn't have expected to see anything remotely like this in your gallery.
Cool to see something "all new, all different".
FAV!
Thanks again Evan. It's an older work, 8 years or so. I like painting abstracts, but don't really feel like I've accomplished anything when I get done. It's that whole ego thing I think. Thanks for the fav.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In