the psilocybin one was neat, could be more elaborate..
i've always seen streaming particles, but also morphing faces; mosaic themes
i've always seen streaming particles, but also morphing faces; mosaic themes
It seems that you are applying the scientific method to art, luckily in art there are no such rules!hixidom said:meh. As lovely as it would be to be able to perfectly capture the the subjective feeling of an altered state in a work of art, it's just not possible, and I find some of the attempts to be particularly insulting. I think most of the sketches were poor representations at best, and it seemed like he didn't even try for some of them. Don't get me wrong, he's a good artist, I'm just baffled by the fact that the such grand experiences only inspired him enough for him to portray his own face repeatedly. Also, if he was trying to draw self-portraits that allow us to compare the perceptual changes brought on by various drugs, the constant change of medium made such comparison extremely hard and convoluted.
hixidom said:Because I am a scientist, I am incapable of enjoying, appreciating, and creating art. Scientists are indeed cold, calculating robots whose lives are dedicated to analyzing the universe so that they can find better ways to destroy it.
That is childish.hixidom said:(Please ignore this post, of which I am ashamed because it is completely anti-progressive)
You're right: Because I am a scientist, I am incapable of enjoying, appreciating, and creating art. Scientists are indeed cold, calculating robots whose lives are dedicated to analyzing the universe so that they can find better ways to destroy it. I have no right to contemplate art because imaginative and abstract thinking are forbidden within the rule-ridden cult of science.
I agree on the fact that there is lots of narcissism involved, but it's hard to think of any famous and more skilled artist who wasnt obsessed with his own persona.Uncle Knucles said:I'm actually with the scientist on this one. I don't find any of this particularly compelling...
:roll:benzyme said:art doesn't particularly have to have meaning, and there are no set procedures, no laws.
perhaps that is the compelling thing about it.
Funnily enough, back in the academy I did some artworks following set rules and schedules that imitate the scientific approach. Nonetheless, I find funny that when you first come near his work that's what you imagine and then you realize that what he actually does is very messy and unscientific.Guyomech said:As far as a more "scientific" approach- I agree that is the one thing that would have validated this work. Remove all variables but the chemical substance. Draw the same item, the same size, in the same medium, same tools, same lighting and materials... Same music even (or lack of). Make the substance the only major variable, then make a truly honest effort with your depictions. This would still be an artistic interpretation, but would be a far more valid (and compelling) comparison.
Yes, and treating the number of drugs you have put in your body to be a sort of artistic pissing contest is also childish. This artist's work on drugs is clearly about quantity and NOT quality.That is childish.