>To me this is a case of what I know many types of artists including writers suffer where they get attached to the idea but it becomes more about their pet concept itself and the overall work suffers for it because it doesn't work with the greater whole but they become too attached to the idea.
I admit I've become so focused on making the mushrooms work
, that I haven't spent time considering if they actually make the art piece better
. I mean, their placement wasn't really the fulfillment of a concept, it was simply a coloring decision. And even that was a close judgement call. My initial post in the old drawing thread included a version without the mushrooms; I was still on the fence about them. However, once I set to work fixing the font I never really stepped back to evaluate any other aspect. Instead, my only concern was proper technical execution.
This reminds me of a project I did for an art class. After spending a week drawing chess pieces(it was 24"×48"), I had the idea to add chess notation to the background. To make it even more 'clever' I copied the notation from a famous chess match. What did the teacher say? "I wish you hadn't done that". Specifically, he said the notation "cheapened" the piece. Pic related.
Anyway, your comments have made me realize that I might be repeating that mistake. I think I managed to set the mushrooms fairly well, and they are identifiable enough, but that shouldn't be the main point. The point is, as you said, visual coherance. To that end, digital mushrooms are objectively anachronistic on a retro poster. It comes down to making a decision, of course. To that end, in order to make banners as timeless as possible, it's best if I avoid tangential meta-level references. There's actually a saying I've heard related to cartooning. In order to keep compositions immediately clear: When in doubt, Leave it out
. That probably applies here, too.>>27280
Nice take on assberger strength. What is the context of the original image?