| | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)


I didn't really look at this until now (the monster put me off -- such strong shadows on him in a space that is obviously lit by ambient light... I can see the rationale for not making him furry, in order to accentuate the textures behind him, but a giant black snake would go much better there).

However, I'm totally captivated by it now and probably brain-damaged due to excess hypnosis.

That's why I love your art!

That's why I look at it. It's not the chicks, and it's even not your imagination. I'm not saying these things aren't great in your art, just that I've got my own, and that they're not ultimately why I like your stuff.

It's the 2d stuff you put in there which, when I bring my head toward the computer screen, suddenly pops out as insane 3d structures, making me literally lose my sense of balance as I attempt not to fall out of my chair, and do. It's that stuff that makes me take really long looks, and I think it's that stuff that puts you in the same universe as Rembrandt.

I've struggled with insomnia my whole life, and recently discovered the cure: listening to audiobooks of Aristotle.

Last night, as this paragraph went through my head, probably the last thing I heard before going to sleep, I couldn't help but think of your hardworking, dedicated ethos:

"Since every sense is active in relation to its object, and a sense
which is in good condition acts perfectly in relation to the most
beautiful of its objects (for perfect activity seems to be ideally
of this nature; whether we say that it is active, or the organ in
which it resides, may be assumed to be immaterial), it follows that
in the case of each sense the best activity is that of the best-conditioned
organ in relation to the finest of its objects. "

Leave a comment