graphicsurge In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:39:54 +0000 UTC]

Its called post modernism, seriously did the writer not got o art school or just read a wiki page on art?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ambientdream In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:39:11 +0000 UTC]

I love this topic so much! Suggestivism seems really interesting for me, somehow it matched with how I want in my art and also what I really prefer in looking inspiration!

Do you think my art here would be related to the 'suggestivism' movement that you're implying now?
[link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TomeMac In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:36:23 +0000 UTC]

1. Why should art be anything or labeled as political or apolitical? If art happens to express a political viewpoint that is fine. And if it doesn't that is fine too. The question is so sweeping it is asking to confine art into one or the other? It is not a pertinent question really if you are talking about art.

2. I don't sense a movement in art at all or even that many great strides in technique, just a shift ever so slowly to the complete acceptance/resignation that digital media is here to stay.

3. If the art is meant to evoke such wonder then I do try to figure it, if the art is just cool then it is just that. Though this slips into subjective territory. In general I try to enjoy each piece for what it is.

4. Having long ago lost any sense of idealism I just draw/paint/compose to relax. Presenting meaningful or desired messages are for those of us with stronger passions or whose careers depend upon transmitting some sort of message.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AlikaJW In reply to TomeMac [2012-07-27 22:41:17 +0000 UTC]

Agreed! Summed it up very well

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TomeMac In reply to AlikaJW [2012-07-28 05:43:12 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

haute-clere In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:35:45 +0000 UTC]

Most of the works here are just lowbrow art done in a pop surrealist "style". If someone suggested I was a ... Suggestivist, dear god thats frightening to even write out, I would suggest they jump in a lake. And as far a the flippant idea of, "let(ting) the will of his or her muse take over so that truly poetic art can be created" sounds like stoner doodles or automatism. Really, what this article sounds like is art for people who can't think. Art is a language one must learn. It is not hidden in some far away tomb. It is not in a dark house in the city of R'lyeh underwater. Its at your local library. Read a freakin book. If you refuse to learn that language you'll continue to create shit that will get a few 'likes' on facebook, nothing more. Also if you refuse to learn that language you are missing out on one of our greatest achievements and the story lines that weave our entire civilization together.

All Art is implied meaning. All art since Duchamp is ambiguous enough to allow for personal interpretations, which he felt was the second essential part of making art. It is nothing shocking or new. And to say that our times are largely apolitical...I am not sure a writer could envision a more political time.

In the sub heading you asked if this was the "birth of a new category or beginning of the end of categories?" Neither, I say. Most of this art can fit into old categories fine, but would never deserve to.

Yikes, I just read an article by a Furry...
1. There is room for both political and apolitical art.
2. Superflat / Stuckism / Relational art / Street art / Superstroke / Arte Povera / Performance / Realism Computer art / Abstract expressionism / Modernism / Pomo / Decon / Minimalism / Conceptual / like you said in your article all options are now totally viable forms to express yourself.
3. Of course I try and experience what the artist has put down to canvas or whatever medium they've used. What kind of pleb just goes around, "Well...I like that.. Oh, I don't like that." Paintings need more time than our culture allows.
4. Yes, I try and get across a story or share a personal feeling the viewer may identify something in themselves.

Sorry for the rant. Really brought that outta me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

vindiico In reply to haute-clere [2012-07-29 18:01:42 +0000 UTC]

I totally agree with the absurdity of "suggestivism" and how it suppose to be a new, distinctive category. It seems to stand on a very ambiguous ground, and I could find just about any other art category to more than neatly fill in the gaps it fails to.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Traditionalfire In reply to haute-clere [2012-07-27 23:00:21 +0000 UTC]

I like the way you put that art is a language that one must learn, but i wonder what you think is art.

Personally think that anything can be art, it just depends on your taste.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

haute-clere In reply to Traditionalfire [2012-07-28 08:20:35 +0000 UTC]

Thank you, I agree w/ you that anything can be art. The shaman just has to imbibe it w/ his or her powers.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Traditionalfire In reply to haute-clere [2012-07-28 23:01:00 +0000 UTC]

What kind of art do you like? I check'd out your gallery and you favorites so i see that you like traditional forms of art, but what i wonder is why you like that form of art.

I presonally have a simpel taste for art. It can be anything!

And also, i saw the picture of you on your profile (is it you?) and it feels like i'w seen you before. You remind me of someone.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

haute-clere In reply to Traditionalfire [2012-07-30 04:00:22 +0000 UTC]

i like painting the most because standing there before the canvas the viewer can inhabit the same space as the painter did. in effect, being who the artist was, seeing what he/she saw. i can stand there and see how the artist bled themselves onto canvas.

yes, thats me! i have many twins; maybe it was one of them you saw...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

doomroar76 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:35:04 +0000 UTC]

Really? every body knows art is just a mindless form of expression when some stupid mindless dumb part of the herd bastard just happened to be good at showing or talking about hot ass woman and how cute and sexy they can be or their situations can get... like modern rap is all about the sex and partying cause these cats nowadays can't even get violent anymore...

DUDE, i cant believe you dare to put a question like that and then go and put another 3 equally degrading ones i hope my sarcasm make it clear that
1: for both.
2: there is always a movement, is always good to stand yourself and fight for those things you see beneficial for society as long as exile and censorship doesn't prove major problems you know those things come with major statement by the attacked party.
3:i always try to give it some thought to what i see but lets be frank i have seem plenty of times in this page when a whole week is just about cover pretty girls with nothing more to see, cuteness for the sake of cuteness really i sometimes wonder is this really even art i mean the change and innovation proposed here amounts to practically nothing...
4:is always good to at least put ester egg there even if it is a little one.

sir i cant believe you to come with such questions at least the third and fourth are more personal to taste and personal production but really im so disappointed at you all right now...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Traditionalfire In reply to doomroar76 [2012-07-27 23:03:21 +0000 UTC]

I relly don't see what your meaning with the first part of this comment. I might be missing something here but do you mean that all art is about sex or something?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

doomroar76 In reply to Traditionalfire [2012-07-27 23:43:39 +0000 UTC]

having in account that sexuality is an excellent topic in which one can deliver a debate, no all art is clearly not all about sex.
if i have to explain the first part of this comment is particularly to the first 2 questions proposed when it is asked if art should involve any political though, and so i decide to proceed with an hyperbole of an example when i portrait art as a stupid form of expression going around the sexual aspects of the female appeal, now im not saying that just because is an hyperbole you can not find such things as a matter of fact the majority of images that you may find out there can easily be seen as art if you like it or not is beyond what you may be able to do, but the problem here is that art is a form of human expression, and as such is its duty to at least deliver a mindful message that inspires thought and progress, so to ignore in questions 1 and 2 the political nature of art is just foolish, finally all art is suggestive despite the artist wanting it to be or not so to come with a genre like suggestivism to state that an author is purposely delivering a message in his work could be seem as a redundant thing but that is not really the problem in the end you can just say if you are gonna use that sub-conjunct or not, now we have something like this submitted by the original poster "what with the growing accessibility of all art technique and technology rendering all the "schools of art" equally available and doable and therefore making impossible the dominance or even existence of any current art "movement"", this right here sir is an utter lie, as accessibility doesn't mean by any way the elimination of a movement specially if we are talking about political statements in art, and to simply come and declare then art as being part of a suggestivism movement or not is even more foolish as i said before all art is suggestive even if that was not the intended idea. Sure there IS always that which no matter how you see it, it just doesn't has anything to say, and depending on the case then a failed attempt to inspire thought can tell us at least about the state of mind of the artist the state of education we live on and trough your reaction what type of ideology and criteria you have manage to develop until now, so as you can see to go and ignore all of this is just quite sad... well i hope i cleared your doubts.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Traditionalfire In reply to doomroar76 [2012-07-28 22:54:41 +0000 UTC]

On the part about all art is an form of human expression, your probably talking about the kind of art that somebody "made" By that i mean something or someone that an person painted, drew or just made with their hands, that came out of their imagination, you may or may not understand what im meaning, it's just hard trying to explain it in english, it's not my first language.

If you are like me, and take photo's of things, you are not relly expressing yourself in the same way like if your painted something out of your own mind. I have an pic in my gallery of an sunset, with that pic i wasen't trying to express somethng relly, i just thought it looked relly nice (although this is an form of expression to when i think about it) What im trying to say with this is that not all forms of art are trying to express something.

For the rest of your replay, i agree with your thinking and you did clear my doubts

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

doomroar76 In reply to Traditionalfire [2012-07-29 08:27:42 +0000 UTC]

Oh i totally understand your point of view, and is true not all forms of arts try to express something, but like i said before even if it is a picture of a sunset there already is the suggestion of appreciation of nature, even if that wasn't what the artist was trying to say with the photo, that's why stock images are so convenient in propaganda cause you can manipulate them easily to deliver the message, now this can deviate in how we experience the world around us and what we interpret of it but i'm gonna cut it short, so you see art regardless of its mediums can always be interpreted by different persons to get different conclusions like trying to see the shape on a cloud, even if it is just a cloud, to suggest something, we don't need an intent before hand, and that can lead to misunderstandings, but to develop a category to specify when a suggestion is being made on purpose and when not, it just doesn't feel right is like explaining a joke after it is tell, i didn't wanted this reply to be this long but i just want you to see how pointless suggestivism can get.
When i say that all art is suggestive i mean that there is always something you can interpret out of it no matter how little, regardless of the author, or to get more in the example of photography the place or thing that is being photographed because what the author sees in the image that makes it worth it to take a picture out of it, is not always what the others are going to see unless they are told.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Traditionalfire In reply to doomroar76 [2012-07-29 14:09:05 +0000 UTC]

Two people can look at one thing and see compeltely diffrent things.

I do agree that suggestivism is a bit pointless. It's like "Hey look at me! Look what i did!" You might as well write "This is what it means" all over the picture. It's like the person who made it don't think anyone will understand what the message is and they assume those who look at it is stupid. Not that it is at all times easy to see the message. It can get a bit to telling. I might not refer to why you think it is pointless.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

doomroar76 In reply to Traditionalfire [2012-07-29 16:29:26 +0000 UTC]

man that's exactly it, glad we concur.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

IndeedeeGraphics In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:32:49 +0000 UTC]

I always try to find, when looking at art on dA, the artists intent, message, inspiration or story.
Often - I find it, totally lacking of anything but techniques, and that doesn't appeal to me.

I see loads of artists, way better than me, technical wise, but I don't see their point, apart from
showing their technical skills, and their satisfaction in doing so.
I don't get a satisfaction my looking at a technical marvel, if there isn't a point that is clear.

My own motivation is always something inspires me, books, persons, movies, games, history, designs, colours,
cities, anything really. But the drive is, that I have something inside me, that I want to let out
and share. And I believe that most that relates and appreciate what I'm doing, is not for my
technical skills, but rather that they relate to what I'm posting.
I love and adore female beauty, but also use the models as a way of putting pressure on myself...
buy building a story, or an inspiration around that model - witch gives me limits, on what I can do.

And politics is, in my view, apart of arts, not that every part of art, have to be political.
Unfortunately the most political art I see on dA, is nazi-art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

scw55 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:32:47 +0000 UTC]

1) Art shouldn't be anything.

2) Yes, Pretenciousism.

3) The latter, and if I like it, I'll research the message.

4) The message of form and texture and the joy of colour interactions. The message of sod any movements, do what you want to do, as long as it's not rubbish.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Wisprsinthedrk In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:32:32 +0000 UTC]

It does look a bit like surrealism. If the point of this kind of art is that your not really supposed to think out what it's going to be, then I kind of see where your coming from. I don't know enought about technical terms for art or art history to properly say how to categorize it. From the description it reminds me of a game my friends and I will play where with both add stuff to a picture to create something really bizzare that we never expected. Maybe this is kind of the same thing only with one person?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

courtingdeath666 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:32:11 +0000 UTC]

The way I see it, art is art. Who cares what kind of "style" it can be categorized in? "style" or "category" is just a way for non-artists to know what they are looking at or where or when it came from. A true artist, or lover of the arts, doesn't need to categorize their art or anyone else's just to understand, appreciate, or be moved by it. The "style" is defined by what the artist does. if one day an artist feels like using pastels and then another day using a hot glue gun, dummy, and confetti then so be it... it's part of being an artist. And restraining one's talents just to fit into a "style" or "category" so that non-artist can try and say they know a little something about art is wrong. if someone can't appreciate art without categorizing it then they will never truly understand art.

~Monica Ambrose

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dismesmenagerie In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:30:33 +0000 UTC]

2. i think the primary focus ive been seeing in (original) art is opening people's eyes to the truth, no matter how ugly it may be. the focus is to disturb, and push the boundaries of people's ideas of 'moral' or 'acceptable', but still remain in a general focus of reality (for example, cannibalism does happen; do not avoid the thought of it because you dont like it). art is trying to be brutally realistic, sometimes to the point of being more brutal than is realistic to emphasize the point. people are sick of cliches, happy endings, promises of glory and success that cannot be kept, and the image of perfection; these things just dont happen, not in real life, but bombard us in all types of media. i think people are rather pessimistic nowadays; that or in blissful denial. there arent many that simply accept all forms of the truth, but i think modern art is trying to create this acceptance, or to at least help the artist themselves come to terms with the truth.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RainStrife92 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:30:24 +0000 UTC]

It's surrealism, but the artist isn't "trying" to be surrealistic. I think it's just an artistic outpouring that, when finished, the creator sits back with the rest of us and says, "Huh. Wonder what I was thinking?"

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ohthehumanityplz In reply to RainStrife92 [2012-07-27 23:22:30 +0000 UTC]

I usually say that with half of the stuff I do.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rojpix In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:30:13 +0000 UTC]

cool lets go!!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

romanear In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:29:02 +0000 UTC]

this text is very confusing.... but I think I understood...

1- It's a room for both. Art is an expression of thoughts... political, apolitical, for business or just for fun....
2- YES!
3- Most influenced by ConceptArt it's more figurative, but it's not hanged on realism. They (artists) are trying to figure out EXPERIENCES to viewer.
4- Sometimes...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TimmehMonster In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:28:02 +0000 UTC]

I always love reading these articles, $techgnotic

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

tekkoontan In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:27:00 +0000 UTC]

Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
- shouldnt be political, i dont like politicians telling me i cant do this and i cant do that in art, i cant kill children in Skyrim? that makes the game less fun.

Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
- there is bad state of things nowadays, i see a lot of stupid people, people will buy scribble paintings for 37Millions, and good arts done by good digital artists worth less than 50 bucks.

Do you try to “figure out” an artist’s intent or message when looking at art, or do you simply decide whether you like or dislike each piece of art?
- like or dislike

In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
- both

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

THE-BRAT-05 In reply to tekkoontan [2012-07-27 23:05:33 +0000 UTC]

Political art isn't politicians telling you what to do. Often times, it's artists expressing their political opinions: what they disagree with and what makes them angry about politicians and the government.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CanisLupusDingo In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:26:15 +0000 UTC]

1. While I prefer apolitical art, I believe that both political and apolitical art will always exist in the art community. Art is a form of expression and communication, and the artists is capable of expressing something political or apolitical.

2. It seems to me that there is a technique movement towards "digital art" focusing on programs like Photoshop and Paint Tool SAI to "paint" artwork. Likewise there is a movement against the digital era to preserve "traditional art" (i.e. paints, pencils, physical media...etc.). Whether this is good or bad is for the individual to decide, as everyone is entitled to an opinion.

3. Depends. Mostly I jump to "I like this" or "I don't like this". Occasionally I'll take the time to really look over a piece of art--and when I do I'm sometimes rewarded with a greater affection towards said piece of art or am horrified to find that said piece of art wasn't initially what I had interpreted it to be. However, with other forms of art (primarily music, poetry, and other forms of creative writing) I do spend long hours trying to find the message behind the piece before I decide that I dis/like said piece.

4. Also depends. I've created artwork to work on style and technique, but I also create art to vent feelings and express thoughts and/or messages (stories, etc.). Sometimes I just create art to create art, simply for the joy and peace creating art gives me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JhonJJaguar In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:25:08 +0000 UTC]

L'arte può avere moltissime forme, ma ha un dettaglio che le accomuna tutte. In tutti i casi, l'artista cerca di dare qualcosa di se stesso ad altri. Un poeta esprime ad altri i suoi sentimenti per cose e persone. Un cantante condivide con altri le emozioni che prova. Uno scultore o pittore comunica ad altri la propria visione di ciò che è bello. Un fotografo presta ad altri i suoi occhi perché vedano qualcosa che non hanno potuto apprezzare perché non erano presenti. In tutte queste forme d'arte c'è sempre il dettaglio della personalità dell'artista. A guardare questi esempi del "suggestivism" in realtà mi sembra più un sistema di astrattismo e modernismo mescolati. Danno un gran impatto e comunicano sicuramente il pensiero dell'artista. Ciò che esprimono varia parecchio da un soggetto all'altro. Le opere hanno una mirabile tecnica e sono da apprezzare anche per la forza con cui si impongono sull'occhio di chi le osserva. Attenzione solo all'uso che se ne fa......Non è vero che sono solo immagini disegnate. Talvolta certi soggetti possono avere un impatto talmente forte da sconvolgere menti sensibili. Non stò esagerando. L'arte in se stessa è viva, e come tale può influire su chi la vede o la ascolta. Non so se lo si possa definire un nuovo stile, perché tutti i rami dell'arte cercano in qualche modo di suggestionare altri. (Si spera sempre in bene). Comunque i lavori esposti hanno molta espressività e per questo va riconosciuto un gran talento. Usatelo con saggezza.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sky-commander In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:24:38 +0000 UTC]

seems like old school surrealism got a makeover for today's "day and age"....

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Artandlight In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:24:05 +0000 UTC]

Why would art HAVE to be political?

Is there room for both? No shit room for both exists. We all aren't pushing a political message. Nothing I have ever done had a political message.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

THE-BRAT-05 In reply to Artandlight [2012-07-27 23:01:10 +0000 UTC]

Art is so expansive that saying art had to be one or the other is just absurd! I agree with you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

toastmastergeneral In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:22:45 +0000 UTC]

genre = categorization = misinterpretation = waste = us

glad i could help

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kiki-Akuma In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:22:25 +0000 UTC]

so basically

suggestivism is another word for art

???

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

THE-BRAT-05 In reply to Kiki-Akuma [2012-07-27 22:59:47 +0000 UTC]

It's another genre of art, it seems. There is traditional/fine art, digital art, surreal art, abstract art, political art, and many, many more sub-types of art, just like genres and sub-genres of music and literature. "Art" is expression, not specifically visual because music and literature are also art, but this is a more specific type of visual expression.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Kiki-Akuma In reply to THE-BRAT-05 [2012-07-29 20:56:54 +0000 UTC]

this whole article says this suggestivism thing is not contained to a particular medium

it says the artist lets the muse come up with whatever ends up on paper or what have you

it can make sense but it doesn't have to it's all up to the artist's whims

but isn't that generally how artists come up with things anyway?

and tbh the stuff put up on the article can already be categorized as surrealism i don't really get why we have to add a new word to the list

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

THE-BRAT-05 In reply to Kiki-Akuma [2012-07-30 18:32:01 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, you're right. I guess it's just a generalization of surrealism. Lol!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Mister-Cope In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:20:26 +0000 UTC]

I'm just not sure that's how Art Movements work, not really.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

7734-01 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:15:22 +0000 UTC]

shit just looks surreal to me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Ohthehumanityplz In reply to 7734-01 [2012-07-27 23:23:37 +0000 UTC]

I didn't understand much of the article myself and I read the thing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Technorakel In reply to 7734-01 [2012-07-27 22:20:46 +0000 UTC]

Yeah; the creative process seems to be the same as well. It's just surrealism under another name. Maybe a bit less ambitious.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

7734-01 In reply to Technorakel [2012-07-28 10:02:18 +0000 UTC]

its almost like its been dug up purely for the benefit of creating verbal traffic on the site rather than to make actual content. HMMMMMM.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

WyckedDreamsDesigns In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:11:49 +0000 UTC]

Excellent..rather enjoyed reading it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SharahBeara In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:11:36 +0000 UTC]

wow this artical kind of inspired me, looking at these amazing pieces and reading the descriptions of what suggestivism is. Its just really cool to desifer what the artest was feeling at the time thta he or she was doing it, and its fun to look at the image and see what it inside of it, figure out what the meaning is. it just is very exciting to me so see these kinds of pieces.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Amana07 In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:11:32 +0000 UTC]

1. For both it depends because some messages can become less art and more about the idea behind the image. Political Cartoons is where I find it going into a grey area. Here is a fine line between art and what some consider defamation of character.

I do believe there is room for apolitical and political art, but I don't agree that there should be one or the other.

2. I don't have my so called "finger" on the pulse of art. However, I do believe that art seems to be dragging itself down due to the "mainstream" stuff. It becomes less about the unique nature of the piece and what it conveys. Mostly what you will see is the notion of "what pleases the populace" instead of "What does it mean to convey art in and of itself with this piece."

3. Sometimes with certain pieces its easy to get an idea of what the artist wants. I'm not into the whole subliminal messaging where it has double references or meanings. What I mostly look at in terms of art is how pleasing it is towards the eye, its own style, and the depth put into the work. Kind of why it disgusts me that I see unimaginative works selling for thousands while unique works are written off as oldschool garbage.

4. Can't really answer this myself since my artwork isn't of a quality that could be considered expertly professional. When photographing material I mostly try to capture an image that would stick within that moment of time. Since i'm the only one witnessing that moment in time I want to find the best way to convey that "frozen moment" to another and have them see what I see in the most elegant way possible.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kirasrighthand In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:11:06 +0000 UTC]

Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
Art have been both political and apolitical since the beginning of time. ART has been used as propaganda (political and religious ways) and as entertainment.



Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?
Current art movement is hard to tell but it depends on the public's believes (2012 being the end of the world for example).


Do you try to “figure out” an artist’s intent or message when looking at art, or do you simply decide whether you like or dislike each piece of art?
I look at a picture from all angles(artist's objective, other people POV) then I decide, sometime I just see a huge creativity in the art and like it right away.

In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?
At the moment no, just fan art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HHubs In reply to ??? [2012-07-27 22:07:51 +0000 UTC]

W O N D E R F U L!! I really liked it!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0