Post an image that you think of when you read this.

To my understanding he's trying to say that that painting didn't use real colours.
Because if he's defining surrealism to not need real colours, then attempting to claim Melting Time as a surreal picture under that definition and then asking if I agree with that definition then having the audacity to even ask me if I thought that was surreal or not, he's obviously wrong.
he/she/it/whatever.

I'd have to group that as cartoony crap that gets people like you off at night.
No just kidding. It doesn't seem to have meaning, just a cartoon of some setting that all share a common scene or idea with no higher thought.

Err... I'm not sure what your'e saying, but my interpretation is that Spidey was saying "it doesn't need realistic colors, and the following is surreal", and you're saying "it has realistic colors" which doesn't contradict with what Spidey says. I dunno. Maybe I'm misinterpreting things.

^You're trying to tell me that this does not use realistic colour?

No, it doesn't. I have images that have more "realistic color" than that and would be considered anime art style. There are surreal images that are completely sepia, are those not surreal because they lack realistic color?

If I drain the color from the image you posted, then does it not have the elements of a surreal image anymore?



I have images that match this color scheme very closely. In fact, I'd say one of my examples posted above have colors that match the real world more.

The point isn't the color, it's the content of the image.

I think you've been looking at too much anime and not enough of the real world to even make that decision if you're going to try and tell me real colours don't exist in that painting.

Kay.

And when I said art, I was refering the to the subclass of Surrealism.
The mona lisa is art, yet not surrealism. There has to be some type of definition to art, regardless of what you say.

Not arguing that art can't be separated into genres.

HAHAHA.

Tay, that image there? That's the image used as an example of surrealist art in my World History textbook. It is literally the textbook example of surrealism.

Never argued his image wasn't surreal. Just because you know an example of what's surreal doesn't mean you can act like some pretentious art hipster. Also, you can't strictly define art like you would a word.

Just as a note, Spidey- I agree with you. I misread what Tay was saying and thought that he was claiming that it wasn't surreal.

Surrealism doesn't need colour.
Escher is a great black and white artist, some of his stuff is surreal but not as blunt and graphic as Dali and others.
Yet, it still has elemnts of being real.

Surrealism doesn't need colour.
Escher is a great black and white artist, some of his stuff is surreal but not as blunt and graphic as Dali and others.
Yet, it still has elemnts of being real.

Glad we agree on something. I was saying this before. The color doesn't matter.

Yes, but the design does.

You can see the actual realistic portion to the art, along with it's surreal nature. Though I'm not so positive if I can claim this exactly surreal.


That's just a weird little animu girl with a knife and a pretty background.

Well, that is not what I expected to happen.

Yes, but the design does.

Content.

You can see the actual realistic portion to the art, along with it's surreal nature.

You might argue I cut out the "realistic portion", being the breasts in this image, but this image is certainly more cartoony that real. Yet it counts as surreal, even without having to draw extreme detail to make it stand out as "real" objects. Your mind can tell that they're real objects even without drawing every single wrinkle and crack, right? It has nice shading, without that this would just look like a screenshot from a cartoon.

 Spoiler

That's just a weird little animu girl with a knife and a pretty background.

I would agree this image would fall under abstract. I said before that perhaps it would make you feel better if I actually split them up into groups of surreal and abstract.
That particular image is more akin to this:

 Spoiler

Which I would define as abstract, but not far into abstract.

Would you not say that the first image of that exact post is not surreal?




What of this? Is this surreal to you? Oh wait, it can't possibly be, by the definitions you've given. So what is it?

If you're attaching it in an e-mail, I'd suggest using your avatar/signature. Should confuse them enough.

If you're attaching it in an e-mail, I'd suggest using your avatar/signature. Should confuse them enough.

It's gonna be on paper.

This comes to mind at the mension of confusion.

 Spoiler

Logic makes me think of a math equation, something under a radical to be precise.
Truth conjures BlameTruth from YouTube, so cod logos popup.

Not what you're after?

This comes to mind at the mension of confusion.

 Spoiler

Logic makes me think of a math equation, something under a radical to be precise.
Truth conjures BlameTruth from YouTube, so cod logos popup.

Not what you're after?

LOL'd. Good one.

@Tay: you should chill and read carefully what Spidey says. It actually makes sense and you missed one part at least.

He's just expressing his hate for "anime." Surrealism and whatnot were just excuses for him to go off. In all of his descriptions, he is merely trying to belittle it. It's narrow-minded to restrict surrealism to the original movement and the renowned pieces. When I think of the word 'surreal', I think dreamlike and unreal, which I saw in most of Spidey's images. It doesn't matter if it is 'anime' or a classic.

As for the original topic, I don't have my own images but I think Spidey's first image is really fitting. Lost and confused: barefoot girl, solitary stairs to nowhere. Truth: everything is in shadows, the girl is faceless. Logic: mysterious creatures, eerie shapes.

I decided on an M.C.Escher image for 2 reasons.

1) I don't have a color printer
2) I didn't want to choose anything that could me perceived as anime just because there is a deep hatred of it by the majority of kids in my school, and I'd probably never hear the end of it

:3

[color="#000080"] This thread confuses me.

I do kinda agree that anime-ish drawings are less likely to be singled out in a genre, like surrealism, and instead separated in an ''anime'' category. [/color]

[color="#000080"] This thread confuses me.

I do kinda agree that anime-ish drawings are less likely to be singled out in a genre, like surrealism, and instead separated in an ''anime'' category. [/color]

In that case, you can make the same argument for j-pop. Japanese rock, metal, hiphop, trance and ballad are tagged as j-pop when its... clearly not pop.

[color="#000080"]

In that case, you can make the same argument for j-pop. Japanese rock, metal, hiphop, trance and ballad are tagged as j-pop when its... clearly not pop.

I know. I was thinking instead Japanese music, or Korean music, regardless if it is SNSD or Outsider, for example. I wasn't saying it is the right thing, but it clearly happens. [/color]

Lol. I remember one time, one of my favorite J-Rock bands was tagged as J-Pop band. I think I almost screamed.

Just no.

EDIT: Ah, but on the topic of art. As Roxas stated before, it truly is the eye of the beholder. For example, take this scenario. If you were to just have a bunch of paint cans next to you, and just one-by-one, throw it at the wall, the colors would surely mix. It might look like garbage to another person, but it might resemble something else to you. People's eyes perceives things differently. Why do you think they always do those "Black Ink/Blob" tests? Ever think about how people always responds differently?

One person might see a butterfly, but the other person might just see two Buddha ears conjoined. Pick your shit. I remember doing a major art painting back then. The object? "My sneakers".

I had to look at it and stare at it for about 15 minutes until I got the details down, how my eyes perceives an object affects how I draw and shade in the details. I used to draw a lot ever since I was 8? Stopped around 16 because I no longer felt like drawing, but I wasn't too bad back then. I actually took some Art and a lot of drawing classes during HS, and even watched tutorials on the internet to try to improve my perception of objects.

^