This is absolutely fascinating. I’ve now been looking at Alex Colville’s paintings and trying to work out what it is about them that makes them look like CGI and how/why he did that in a world where CGI didn’t exist yet. Here’s what I’ve got so far:
- Total lack of atmospheric perspective (things don’t fade into the distance)
- Very realistic shading but no or only very faint shadows cast by ambient light.
- Limited interaction between objects and environment (shadows, ripples etc)
- Flat textures and consistent lighting used for backgrounds that would usually show a lot of variation in lighting, colour and texture
- Bodies apparently modelled piece by piece rather than drawn from life, and in a very stiff way so that the bodies show the pose but don’t communicate the body language that would usually go with it. They look like dolls.
- Odd composition that cuts off parts that would usually be considered important (like the person’s head in the snowy driving scene)
- Very precise drawing of structures and perspective combined with all the simplistic elements I’ve already listed. In other words, details in the “wrong” places.
What’s fascinating about this is that in early or bad CGI, these things come from the fact that the machine is modelling very precisely the shapes and perspectives and colours, but missing out on some parts that are difficult to render (shadows, atmospheric perspective) and being completely unable to pose bodies in such a way as to convey emotion or body language.
But Colville wasn’t a computer, so he did these same things *on purpose*. For some reason he was *aiming* for that precise-but-all-wrong look. I mean, mission accomplished! The question in my mind is, did he do this because he was trying to make the pictures unsettling and alienating, or because in some way, this was how he actually saw the world?
I know I haven’t been active on here in YEARS but this had to be reblogged
I accidentally took January off but I’ll be back with a new installment in March (& a tinyletter before that–which is where I’ve been doing most of my tumblr-style rambling these days).
I’m doing a FREE workshop on Wednesday, October 18th, at 6pm, through the University of Chicago Graham School. It’s in downtown Chicago (and in-person attendees get the added benefit of cheese and cookies) but also open to online participants. Click here to register. And if you’re not convinced yet, the full description is below.
We all face stress and frustration in the course of our working lives, so how can you determine how much is too much? Some people have a higher tolerance than others, but everyone has a limit. When so many success stories entail “going above and beyond,” it can be hard to feel confident saying enough is enough. In this workshop, you’ll learn strategies to prevent burnout and techniques for effective and appropriate self-advocacy.
Learning Outcomes
Create scripts that allow you to push back against unreasonable demands
Understand which battles are worth fighting and which are a waste of energy
Learn time-management tools to minimize your stress.
Develop methods to make your work visible and maximize your professional reputation
Part II of my deep dive on career-changing and job-searching: how to land a longshot job, write a compelling cover letter, and figure out if you really need to go to grad school.
Something for everyone! Plus I talk about cookies.
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
