I tried for hours to incorporate some text into this.. I found this quote:
“Painting is silent poetry, and poetry is painting with the gift of speech. —Simonides (556 BC - 468 BC)”
But I’m no good with typography. Is there a book or anything you all would recommend on the subject? I don’t know where to start with that.
Anyway I like the canvas and the paint… just not sure about the floating brush…
the best hint I can give you for typography.
just stare at every letter you see.
understand why it works.
notice the letters you dont like.
understand why you dont like them.
try and emulate each and every one with a pencil.
oh yeah, and this book. The Elements of Typographic Style By Robert Bringhurst.
Then do a bunch of drugs and say fuck it.
Because type is in the eye of the beholder.
MOST PEOPLE TAKE IT FOR GRANTED.
I agree with Tacosaurus…check out The Elements of Typographic Style. It’s a great book. It really helps you to understand type and it’s relationship with itself and other elements.
For a more visual experience I suggest
The Annual of the TypeDirectorsClub
Before reading your comments I thought “hmmm…I like everything but I’m not so sure about the floating brush.” Overall I enjoy the image.
Oh, and the best advice I can give about typography is not only to read and look at good examples of typography but also to look at your cereal box in the morning, go to the grocery store just to look at labels, watch tv commercials, look at your junk mail…You will soon see what works and doesn’t work. Keep examples of each and refer to them. It’s fun to see how much crappy typography exhists in the world.
those are awesome suggestions, thank you.. I do notice types, when they’re really bad, or really interesting… I guess those are just the extremes though… makes sense to pay attention all the time…
im not exactly sure what an appropriate response to this one is..
i have been thinking about the subject of painting itself..
im doing some digital painting about self portraiture.. but not of my self..
hope that relates..
That totally relates, sounds cool. I didn’t have any specific ideas about where this should go… Mine is just laying out the topic I guess…
Put some paint on it!
no, my first name aint Andy, its Ben, so PAINT sumthin if your NASTY!
did somebody give me a one? what the fuck?
Yeah, that’s pretty lame considering they didn’t comment. On the other hand the image is rather unspectacular. Where’s this coming from Ben? What happened to defacing Bean Town?
yeah.. maybe it is lame. sometimes you get rapped up in something and you cant see it from the outside anymore.
the explenation for this one is simple. i started painting in photoshop with my pen tablet. i was drawing some image of this gimp doing a self portraite on an eisal. and then i started drawing the paint cans at his side. then i got all caught up drawing paint buckets. then i thought i would draw them with vectors and got all rapped up making complex masks to show the gradient colors from the background.. i dunno. guess it was a miss.
I think the concept was there, but it just fell a bit short in the delivery. I guess I’ve just seen better stuff from you, and this isn’t up to par with the rest of the stuff you’ve done.
Let’s see how the rest of this plays out.
cool. i’ll keep this in mind for next time. thanks.
While obviously unfinished, that gimp image is hilarious. I’m digging the background texture there.
thanks. i thought it was funny to. but i wasnt sure if it was on topic, thematicly. the texture i made by drawing a bit with the tablet and then just copying, scaling many many times.
I saw Basquiat not too long ago. There’s this scene in there where Andy is complaining because Basquiat keeps painting over whatever he does…. since bharper’s reminded me of warhol… and I painted over it….
…but what I did doesn’t doesn’t look like the kind of thing Basquiat did. What I did is thanks to Matt at Mirrorpool.com and his nifty brushes.
Attention Basquiat FANS.
That scene is a reference to the graffiti scene that Basquiat was trying to represent, but he was only fronting. The real graffiti writers of New York at the time were pissed about this fake bastard Basquiat trying to get fame off of something he really had no place in. He couldn’t rock a burner, throw-up, a straight letter and even worse was his lack of hand style. So every graffiti writer who knew what was up, went and painted over that Samo motha fucka.
The Rammellzee embarked on a mission to find this Basquiat fool, to see if he was truly down. Basquiat was a junkie flunkie to the devil known as money, an exploit of anti-graffiti gallery based graffiti. Ramm challenged Basquiat to see who could paint Basquiat’s style better, Ramm or Basquiat himself. Ramm crushed his style, forcing Basquiat to concede from the union he attempted to push. Rammellzee’s Basquiat style paintings were sold as Basquiat’s, Ramm let him take the money along with his crumbled pride. HE DIED OF A HEROIN OVERDOSE, lost in his guilt brought on by his LIES.
Graffiti is a deadly virus, once infected, there is no saving yourself from it. It is a cold and heartless killer. With no cure. Who succeeds in it, depends on who has the ability to keep moving forward along with it, without being EATEN ALIVE by it.
Remember that scene where the guys are stealing the door because it is worth money, those were graffiti writers. When Basquiat said he was Samo, they kicked the shit out of him. They sold the door, FOR PAINT. TO DESTROY SHIT. That is graffiti.
Some underground knowledge for you kiddies.
Painting is introspective, the opposite of Graffiti.
oops. i think i fucked up. any way i can upload the right one?
YO! Jean, this is Ramellzee.
Yo.. You know why Rammellzee’s here, don’t you?
I’m here for an interrogation. You’ve been called a graffiti artist and I wanna know why. All I see are scribble scrabble abstractions!
Boom? As in ordnance? Are your letters armed? What is the prime directive of graffiti culture? Do you know, black man?
Jean likes Rammellzee enough to be patient.. Toxic grins and rolls his eyes to Jean. Jean watches Christine as they go on.
(to Ram, re: Jean)
Man, I was up on him years ago on the IRT.
You’re selling and ending the culture. Not one bit of information. Only to get the money and growl with the power, man.
That ain’t ignorant—that’s just stupid.
Can I get you a bowl of gumbo?
Rammellzee yells after him—
This interrogation is not over!
-From the original screenplay of the movie.
taco. it may be true that basquiat wasn’t the only, or the first or the original. much like souther black musicians were not credited for what they were doing.. studio 1 style.. or elvis.. or any of that..
BUT.. it is important that SOMEONE get famous. if you think of a genre of music or art as a dark cave, and a famous person as a small flashlight, or beam of light. no matter how small a light, they are the ones that will shed light onto the rest of the cave. if they don’t, the cave stays dark and is never seen.
Yes, but if fame is your scope.
Then you tend to be limited in perception.
Basquiat gets mad attention, Rammellzee gets?
For every one famed in artist in history, there are litterally thousands if not millions who will never be known in that history. The fact remains, that those famed, possibly borrowed their ideas if they didn’t outright steal them. THIS IS A FACT.
So what you support is, stolen art?
Let us not forget who the artisans are, that produced most of the work in the ARTISTS studios. Shall We?
In case you didn’t figure it out by now, true Artists are basically pimps, owned by other pimps. The audience and collectors become whores whilsth they pimp. The world has so much to teach you young Jedi of the designowise.
well, I’m to first to admit I don’t know much about the history of graffiti art….
and I agree that a lot of artist steal styles (although not all) .. and that the art establishment misses more true talent than it acknowleges.
.. but if I had to choose between this and this .. uh, Basquiat wins… no question.
taco. i think your perspective is fucked.
basicly what you are saying is that we shouldnt appreciate the work of famous people because it is some how responsible for the millions of not famous people. but, the fact that not everyone in the world is famous, is more a function of social structure and the sheer amount of time and engergy it would take to appreciate every artist for every work. its just absurd.
in an ideal world, we would all take the time to enjoy many artists. but given that we dont all have the time to do that, its a great service to have the “best” selected for us. if we choose to disagree, we merely need to look for another source.
its fucking capatalism baby!
it’s alot like driving a gasoline car. we all know that there are better solutions for fueling a car. but somehow, we all like to look at Basquiat and feel like we know art and oil.
Yeah, what Ben said. That and if the infamous were famous, they too would have to admit that they’re ripping somebody off or they’d be lying. If you’re famous, you’ve stolen someone else’s idea/technique. If you’re not, then you’ve just been influenced? No. It’s all the same. Ben is right there are tons of artists who are worth appreciating but we just don’t have time to reward everyone. Those with personality, or those spoken for by someone with personality are the ones we focus on. Those in the spotlight only get spotlighter.
Which is why you fail to look at the root of all evil.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was covincing the world that he didn’t exist.
-verbal kent. usualsuspects
Who was the major backing of all graphic designs origins?
Basic education here.
how did the world come to be what it is?
Was it art?
Tacosaurus Omniciantly Observes.
I pointed it out. THEY ARE FACTS.
You dare to argue the obvious. Pointlessly.
Chill the fuck out.
HUMBLES.with plenty McChuckles
Damn Dinosaur, cool your heels. You can’t get anymore chill than a wooly mammoth at a tanning salon. Are we talking about religion now? Who’s arguing what?
…. I didn’t think taco was arguing that we shouldn’t appreciate Basquiat because Rammellzee wasn’t famous….
…I thought he was just saying that Basquiat didn’t really represent what they say he represented…. ie the NY graffiti scene….
right? I wouldn’t argue on that point. But I can still appreciate Basquiat as a painter. The ‘graffiti artist from the streets’ was probably just a marketing angle that they used because they knew it would tittilate all their sheltered wealthy patrons.
That was exactly my point.
You understand what art is really about.
people will do or say anything for MONEY.
money is evil.
Is it necessary?
Does money create GOOD art.
I personally think Basquiat’s paintings were pretty lame, I don’t exactly like Ramm’s either. Nor Keith Haring. But if you check out Dondi White. You will see what true artistry was in New York at the time. And why Graffiti is much bigger than the fruitcakes who get credit for it in the Art History textbooks.
what art is “really” about..
haha.. that’s the lamest thing i ever heard you say Taco!
Holy shit. Your Cryto-Ebono-Tron has succeeded in one sentence to communicate what man has been trying to grasp for millennia. Holy shit, everyone.
I sense sarcasm señor Inman.
You can add to the argument, or passivly criticize it.
I added my two cents to the discussion and I was dismissed. You may be the king of the lizards but you’re not the boss of me…and you’re not so big.
You guys are all smarter than me.
You are right.
I don’t know what I was talking about.
Accept my apology?
Tacosaurus BornAgain Capitalist.
ILLEGAL PUBLIC ARTWORK.
Dondi destroyed the meaning of ART.
He did it for free. One man did this in one night?
Thank god they discovered painting before I was born. Man, a life without art… imagine.
I know you were extinct by this period Taco but who were the Lascaux cave painters ripping off and how many clams did they get for it? ;D
They were ripping off God and all his nature and shit. Lets not forget that God is an artist himself. They didn’t get any cash out of it because they got sued by The Man Upstairs, in small claims court.
Their punishment- their artwork would not be appreciated until like 1940. Quite a bummer really. They were among the first Graffiti artists to ever roam the earth. I in fact dined on them after my third ressurection, they were not very tasty. Actually, they tasted pretty fucking horrible. I prefferred the french in the late 15th century. They were plump and juicy. They scream funny with their accents too, as they are disemboweled by the Tacosaurus.
Suck on Them Apples.
Inmaniac IS OUT TO DIS ME?
Del Tacosaurus Wrex.
Thinking I is stupid?
Taco. I just rented and watched “Style Wars.”
Got a sense of the time period and its people. Graffiti art has really come a long way since the days of Dondie.
That movie represents a mere tidbit of the history.
It was originally supposed to be about Breakdancing.
Then somehow graffiti took it over, in a weird way.
In the scene where the Dynamic Rockers battle the Rock Steady Crew- The MC of the event, was Rammellzee. You can here him say, Yeah
We got Crazy Legs in the house
he sounds like Kool Keith, but he was just a youngin’.
Trivia Fer Ya.
Yeah, taco. I’m dissin’. What? Nice story.
I just brought up why Basquiat was painting over Warhol, and what it meant SYMBOLICALLY. Then people are telling me my perspective is wrong, and now the latest image is the origin of GRAFFITI, not painting. They didn’t say Hey we are doing something new here, lets call it painting. They were adorning their surroundings with markings which were meaningful to them. What was important? Food obviously. That is graffiti. It is like dogs pissing on each others piss. So in New York, circa 1980, what is the most important thing for most people? FAME. So everyone is out to get famous. That is why graffiti took off. Graffiti can even be traced back to Rome, in brothels. What was important? Which prostitute gave the best service. So carve her name into the wall so she gets the props she deserves. It is primal, and it is FUCKING BEAUTIFUL. Art is something completely different, and for Graffiti to be considered Art and sold in a gallery, is fucking absurd.
For the record:
I never said Basquiat wasn’t an artist.
I repeat myself from DSNLG-187: America[n] or Not!
A good artist borrows, a great artist steals.
-Forgot Who. (Pablo Picasso)
Tacosaurus Commands Respect.
Or at least a few Sacraficial Tacos.
Um, okay, I was done with this four posts ago.
Graffiti: (Italian: “scratched”) Any casual writing or design marked on a wall. Graffiti have been made throughout history; they are found in abundance on the monuments of ancient Egypt. Technically the term applies to a design scratched through a layer of paint or plaster, but its meaning is extended to other markings. Graffiti produced with spray paint became notorious in New York City in the 1970s and have appeared in cities all over the U.S. and Europe. The 20th-cent. preoccupation with accidental and other manifestations of the subconscious stimulated this form of expression and produced a brief vogue for “graffiti art.” Graffiti are sometimes considered a form of folk art.
- Encyclopedia Britannica
Graffito, also sgraffito, in art, a technique of producing a design by incising or cutting through a surface layer of paint or plaster to reveal a contrasting undercoat. The term is derived from an Italian word meaning scratched. True graffito techniques are found primarily in ancient, medieval, and Renaissance art, but the term is usually extended to include any technique that involves scratching a design on stone or plaster with a sharp instrument. Graffiti are abundant in ancient Egyptian and Roman art and have been found in Pompeii and the Roman catacombs. Many casual ancient graffiti, scratched on walls by passersby, have been unearthed, the most famous of which is a caricature of Christ on the cross, found on the walls of the Domus Gelotiana on the Palatine Hill in Rome in 1856. Graffito techniques involving the incising of gold leaf in illustrated manuscripts were common in the Middle Ages, and the facades of Renaissance palaces often sported differently colored coats of plaster in graffito effects. In the 20th century artists have used a free style of graffito technique in which large areas are cut away from the surface layer, often producing graduated tones midway between the overlay and the undercoat.
- “Graffito,” Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2003
Interesting concept, rewriting art history and all.. I probably would have made the Paint a bit more subtle. And maybe made the text look more like a textbook page, or something.. But the idea is cool.. Carried on from previous images.
Jesus tagged that wall. He was one bad motherfucker.
good one Ben!
nice perspective on the ‘paint’
but why is this evidence for graffitti “as far back as 1500b.c.” ?
oops. i guess i meant the 1500’s.
Just new here, but having looked through this designologue I’m happy I came! :)
This is great. Fantastic pictures sticking to the theme in varied and creative ways. Keep it up…
Well, my intention when I proposed this dsnlg was just to use the texture and feel of paint in designs. Talking about historical painters is cool too, but I wasn’t sure where to go with that tangent. So I just started playing with an image of a painting… and uh… well there it is…
The armageddon of this dsnlg draws nigh… Save yourself before the end o brothers!
:: score drops :::: no comments :: critique is welcome one must improve oneself…
I admit that they theme has kind of gotten “out there” but I think you handled it well. I like the composition overall but the three elements feel a little too distinct: the painting, Jesus and the gradient. I think a rougher edged on the blue would have served the image better. The gradient feels really out of place here. It’s too “perfect” compared to the other elements.
Also the type, while kerned evenly, is a rather generic face. I think you could have picked a handwritten script or even a black letter face given the religious leaning of the image. It would have made it feel more like a manuscript and seem more foreboding.
i’ll make some comments.
i like the idea for this one. we went through the various stages of the painting cycle and now you’ve brought it to the supreme level.
i like the choice of elements used. but, i think you could have made more effort tying them together. the font is a bit boring. and there is no connection between jesus and the paint. i would have liked to see the paint layer as beaming from jesus, or some sort of continuation of his pouring heart motif.
i do like the circle around his head in respect to the circles in the painting.
good points both of you…
I described my insecurities about typography at the beginning… given that, a font that is ‘boring’ is actually ok… at least it’s not outright offensive :D
I remembered that anethon. That’s why I made some suggestions for alternate typefaces. The mandorla actually looks like part of the painting. I didn’t even notice that it was an added element until Ben pointed it out.
the more I look at this, the more I like it… I gave it a 3 at first because I wasn’t sure I liked the horizon edge… and the red area doesn’t look like a painting… so it seemed a little off tipic. But as I look at it, it has sort of a collage feel that I like, and a burning landscape is pretty cool… 3.5 at least…
all of the elements except jesus and the birds are hand drawn. and then resized, reused and modified.
im happy with this one.
I’m digging it, Ben. Nice color choice. it has a very Baz Luhrman Romeo & Juliet feel to it. Pink Flamingos, huh? I’m not feeling the ghosted distance. It’s a little too unrefined for my tastes (I like hard lines). But then again, how would I know it was distant if it wasn’t ghosted…
Those peacock eyes are brilliant. I don’t know why. Only other complaint I have is the centered FIN. I think it needs to be centered more - vertically as well as horizontally - if you’re going to get it that close. But now I’m just being nit-picky.
I was thinking Gustav Klimt when I did those circles.. or peacock eyes.