Sure, I'll even give you the full uncompressed version. What's 8 megs between friends, right. It sort of looks bad at full res, because I sorta count on the downsampling to smooth out some of the wrinkly stuff you can see on full res, but I suppose you can resize it yourself if you want.>>40509
Sort of intentional, in that I don't consciously think about them, but they are a consequence of a workflow where I try to convey as much information with as few brush strokes as I can, and only polish stuff where I feel it is necessary. I think that sort of "stating as much as is needed to convey an idea but not more" is important to create a strong impression, so I try to aim for that if possible. It's sort of like a signal to noise ratio thing. Transmitting maximum information with minimum data. Which means that if I don't polish parts of an image where it is not strictly necessary, the brushstrokes are left in, creating visual interest.
To be honest, on this particular image, I violated this principle in quite a few places by destroying brush strokes that could have been preserved, or, on the contrary, not conveying enough information and leaving parts of the image too ambiguous. But in cases where I have to portray something specific, like certain characters in a certain environment, I don't have enough skill to hit that perfect point of "just enough brushstrokes, and no a single more". So I inevitably fall back on polishing stuff until it looks like it needs to be, which destroys the brush strokes.
In my mind, I want my painting to look something like a Leyendecker piece (not in the exact style, but in principle). He would rehearse his brush strokes to create paintings that were almost mosaics of brush strokes, where in addition to the "literal content" of the painting itself, the brushstrokes themselves were also arranged in a composition. But I ain't no Leyendecker, so it doesn't really turn out that way. Neither am I Miyamoto Musashi, who applied his philosophy to ink paintings, using the fewest number of brush strokes to depict exactly what is needed. Notice how he describes the texture, gesture and shape of a tree branch in a single brush stroke, because he knew exactly how his brush behaved. Now that's mastery.
To me, beauty, or at least the "effectiveness" of a work is strongly related to this principle of maximizing the amount of information for the amount of data that carries it. It's what makes you viscerally experience a work, rather than simply "reading" it. It's the closest thing a piece of art can be to the "platonic solid" of itself. That doesn't necessarily mean every painting has to be minimalist to be beautiful, rather that every individual element of a painting, down to its smallest "unit" of expression, has to carry some kind of compositional meaning. It gets exponentially more difficult to balance those elements the more complex a piece is, but the effect and sense of awe you experience when seeing it also gets stronger.>>40415
>That sounds like your process puts you in the zone (as Betty Edwards puts it) and the switching of context towards digital helper tools might make you snap out of it and thus reduce your productivity. Here productivity can well be a result of motivation and fun.
That is certainly the case, the context switch from painting to fiddling with the interface breaks my flow. But I also do get into the zone while doing pure image manipulation stuff, so I think it's possible to develop a combined workflow that keeps me in the zone.
But for me, the more important reason for not liking image manipulation is that doing it sort of destroys the "temporal history" of the artist's brushstrokes and marks, making the image less interesting (in addition to polishing stuff too much, like I mentioned in my reply to Romania ball). Brush strokes can be thought of a language unto themselves, or another dimension of expression. It's a way to communicate not only the ideas of the painting itself, but the artist's intent, thought process, and how the image came to be in time. When you do image manipulation, you treat the painting as a mere 2D surface, where each individual shape is disjointed and interchangeable, and destroy this information about how each shape relates to others, and how the image came to be. It's sort of like looking at a timelapse of a painting, all condensed in a single moment, and that is a very potent effect. It's also part of the reason, in my opinion, that paintings don't look as impressive on a digital screen as they do in real life, unless you have a very high resolution photo, on a large display or something.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Self-Portrait_-_Google_Art_Project_%28454045%29.jpg
Like this Van Gogh painting, for example. I enjoy looking at it zoomed in way more than I do seeing the whole painting at once. I imagine it would be even more enjoyable to look at if I had the opportunity to see it IRL.
Of course, you couldn't achieve something like this through image manipulation, distorting, warping, cutting and pasting, etc., as it would destroy the brush strokes.