Ancient Oak

Just recently we looked at "nothing out of nothing at all", so this time we are going to observe the reasoning behind having "different sets of eyes" to see the "art in art".

The everyday cretin is going to simply look at this as some sloppily thrown together image with a lack definition, but that is why the cretin is ignored when trying to voice his lack of culture as "opinion".

We know that the lower the rating in Vision the better, and that standard has not changed, even though the vision here is a 4. But because of the high vision rating, we are going to see originality and technique reap the rewards of the artists insistence on seeing what he/she intends us to see.

The vision MUST be a 4 (I wanted to go 4 1/2 as punishment for being so overly descriptive of the image, but I refrained, and will smite the impact instead.) It is a tree, it is in a forest/jungle setting, it is plentiful with moisture, it is clearly defined. Now for the artist that is scratching their head, we here in the counter-culture zone prefer ambiguity, because it makes the viewer interact with the art, so in this instance, very little interaction can take place, only the appreciation of the beauty, which is ok, but it is not what we look for here in the hippie club. <img src="e.deviantart.net/emoticons/s/s…" width="15" height="15" alt="" data-embed-type="emoticon" data-embed-id="392" title=" (Smile)"/>

Now those that know me know that no critique goes by without some sort of lesson, and here is today's...

Is this image original? No, by no means, but you know I read the description and comments PRIOR to beginning the critique, to finalize the rating before the typing begins.

This image when looked at as a tree in a forest/jungle is about as passé as it gets, it is the typical "blah, blah, blah", but now lets put on our "fantasy glasses"... Take another look, what do you see? If you cannot see it, then the time to visualize is upon us.

Stop and place yourself inside of a book or video game that deals with something in the genre of wizards/elves/fairies/ (the easiest to visualize) and then look at the tree and landscape again! Now do you see it?

The image is indeed worthy of 4 1/2 stars because the artist requires you to leave this realm, enter another, (to which you and you alone reside) and appreciate the tree. It could be a Harry Potter book, a Zelda game, you name it, but once you learn to see it in the world it resides, you then see the originality when you join it in the unknown dimension of your mind.

As to technique? Here is the rarest rating, 5 stars.

The artist wavers in humility as he/she admits that the image itself was nothing more than an "experiment", and holds it out as "pretty well", giving credit to the image itself, and humbly taking the fall for unrecognized brilliance.

Within the fantasy genre, this piece is outstanding in technique, the colors, the lighting, the "detailed lack of detail", as well as the "foggy feeling" that is classic in this particular genre.

The artist has wisely avoided getting too cocky with the piece, and has placed his or herself below the image, allowing the image itself to present itself as "the experiment". Bravissimo!

Now for the inevitable...

Impact, which is the sister rating of vision takes a horrifying hit here with a 1 1/2 star rating.

There are no real feelings invoked, no digestion, no tangible interaction, nothing that causes the viewer to think, to feel, to ponder, to search, to stare blankly off into space. It is simply nothing more than an appreciation of beauty within the fantasy realm.

What is missing here if we wanted to bring the impact up, (which would have in turn helped the vision by lowering it as well) would be some sort of life, preferably mammal.

A rabbit? A child? a squirrel? Something to focus on, something that one could center their vision on, something that would have caused us to think, to feel, something to add some "motion" to the stillness.

All in all, the image is great, I would look at it as "illustration worthy" if placed in a fantasy book alongside a chapter dealing with a forest. It is quite commercial worthy, but for our purpose, it lacks laughter and tears, the two things that the artist him or herself should try to feed on if the opportunity arises, not always necessary, but something to strive for, no matter how minute a feeding.