Is this Jamie Dimon or Andy Warhol?
Why the long face, Jamie?
You'll remember my theory suggesting that if I can capture the eyes and the hair, the rest of Dimon is immaterial? This apparently is false.
I think his mouth is too low on the face, and when I pull that up I'm gonna have to pull the chin up with it. And his eye was a lot better about three adjustments ago. It appears to have drifted to the left, which narrows the face even further. And the hair isn't right either. So perhaps the theory still holds.
What is interesting is this set of nearly identical goobers ascending the left side of his face:
Hmmmm. Not even sure how that happened. I know I was pouring thinned, black-ish paint from a container, trying to darken the area under his chin, and thought I'd add a bit of texture to the side of his face. Amazing how similar the dot pattern is. If I tried to do that, I'd be waiting a million years to get it right.
One thing I do like is the white of the hair against the white of the canvas. It's more discernible in the flesh, but I can easily imagine legions of people writing stuff in his hair. My solution will likely be to define the top of his head with a long initial annotation. Which is my right as the author of the thing. I'm thinking it will read something along the lines of:
Something like that.
You can see why I'm not outside with Sharpies today, even though the weather is perfect.
And yet, all that said, I'll say this: I look at the photograph and it doesn't look like the guy. I get up and walk over to the painting (which is currently facing away from me) and come upon it in the flesh, as if for the first time, and by God it looks great. This is a puzzlement.
You'll remember my theory suggesting that if I can capture the eyes and the hair, the rest of Dimon is immaterial? This apparently is false.
I think his mouth is too low on the face, and when I pull that up I'm gonna have to pull the chin up with it. And his eye was a lot better about three adjustments ago. It appears to have drifted to the left, which narrows the face even further. And the hair isn't right either. So perhaps the theory still holds.
What is interesting is this set of nearly identical goobers ascending the left side of his face:
Hmmmm. Not even sure how that happened. I know I was pouring thinned, black-ish paint from a container, trying to darken the area under his chin, and thought I'd add a bit of texture to the side of his face. Amazing how similar the dot pattern is. If I tried to do that, I'd be waiting a million years to get it right.
One thing I do like is the white of the hair against the white of the canvas. It's more discernible in the flesh, but I can easily imagine legions of people writing stuff in his hair. My solution will likely be to define the top of his head with a long initial annotation. Which is my right as the author of the thing. I'm thinking it will read something along the lines of:
Is this Andy Warhol or Jamie Dimon? Must be Warhol, because it doesn't look like Dimon at all. They never do. So you're saying it's Dimon? Yes.
Something like that.
It's a bit pathetic that you have to bail yourself out by writing stuff like that on the painting.It's not pathetic at all. It's Duchampian.Really? We suggest moving the mouth up and then getting back to work on that eye.
You can see why I'm not outside with Sharpies today, even though the weather is perfect.
And yet, all that said, I'll say this: I look at the photograph and it doesn't look like the guy. I get up and walk over to the painting (which is currently facing away from me) and come upon it in the flesh, as if for the first time, and by God it looks great. This is a puzzlement.
posted by Geoffrey at 8:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home