March 9th, 2005


(no subject)

*laugh* God, am I out of the loop...somebody mentioned, in an unrelated e-mail, that somebody'd tried to apply to VCL with some of my work.

I moseyed over there and turned up the thread*, where, yup, about a month back, having been rejected once, they tried to re-apply with my work--a Digger cover, an elemental mouse, and the bog unicorn. As Ch'marr said "Applying, or uploading someone else's work is plagiarism, disrespectful, dishonest, and just plain stupid. Even if us assessors didn't pick up on it, do you REALLY think that, with around 30,000 visitors to the VCL each day, that SOMEONE, perhaps Ursula herself (who uses this site on occasion) wouldn't tell us about it?"

This sorta thing just cracks me up. I mean, I am, at best, a medium-sized fish in a medium-sized pond, as far as furry art goes, and my style is all over the place, but still. Applying to the friggin' VCL and assuming it'll just go by? Man. (Particularly since at least one of the paintings was up there already...)

I know, I know, I should feel horrified and violated, but hell, you gotta laugh. This sorta thing hardly ever happens to me, for whatever reason--I know artists who get copied every time they turn around, but for whatever reason, it hardly ever comes up for me. Possibly I'm just too damn weird.

*Link deliberately not posted so that nobody goes posting mocking the individual in question, because that will just clutter Ch'marr's forum with stuff that he'll have to move to the Closed pile, and that would be rude to a hardworking guy.

(no subject)

Poking idily through my files of random art that I like, and found myself gazing, with my usual ambivalence, at Michael Parkes and Gil Bruvel.

They're both, arguably, surrealists, although fairly commercial ones. Not that there's anything wrong with that.* Lots of hot chicks. I have no objection to this, hot chicks are as good a subject as anything, and if they painted, for example, naked mole rats, the niche I am carving out for myself would be a lot more crowded. And they do some very skilled work, and I greatly admire their technique. I should paint a quarter so well. Arguably, they also get a bit repetitive, but hey, who doesn't? I may have mined out what I have to say about women and tigers with a single painting, but there's no reason Parkes can't find endless inspiration in the pairing. And geese. And midgets in ballet costumes.

But at the same time, there's something vaguely 80's about it all, and in my mind they're lumped with Nagel and Olivia. And yes, that is a vague guilt you're hearing. Chalk it up to my fine art roots. (Also, I learned a few months ago that if you mention Patrick Nagel to my mother, she goes batshit crazy. Evidentally teaching college art classes meant that about one-in-three students listed Nagel as their primarily influence, provoking a sort of violent Pavlovian response on her part these days. I will have to hide that collection of his work next time they visit...)

However, that's a tangent. Parkes and Bruvel, I was talking about. I do like a lot of their work. But the clowns. Shit. I hate clowns. Even the kind of Cirque-de-Soile Euroclowns--they may not be Pennywise, but they're still creepy. Both these artists have the Clown Thing goin' on. I don't know if they find them creepy, too. Maybe they do. Hell, I bet even clowns find other clowns creepy. And mimes. I was chased around an ice sculpture by a mime as a small child, and I have not forgive the breed since.

So I find myself ambivalent about it all. Parts I really like, parts that give me the heebie-jeebie-weebies, part of the technique I love, part of the subject I yawn at. Doubtless there are people out there doing the same for me--"Technique's okay, but god! Enough with the gnomes and the animals in hats!"--but I suppose them's the breaks.

I feel none of this guilt over Yerka. Maybe it IS the hot chicks...

*I mean that.