HOME | DD

Operaghost1 In reply to Celeste0798 [2007-02-25 01:15:28 +0000 UTC]

Glad you like it. Check out my site:
[link]

You can buy a print of it there if you like.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Operaghost1 In reply to Katterrena [2006-09-29 04:02:04 +0000 UTC]

Your chains are still mine. You will sing for ME!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Katterrena In reply to Operaghost1 [2006-09-29 06:13:26 +0000 UTC]

That's exactly what I was thinking!!!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Operaghost1 In reply to joriavlis [2005-07-13 21:34:52 +0000 UTC]

That's the debate all right. But since every brush stroke is applied singly by hand, the thought is that it's more in the paint realm than the photo realm. Classify the work however you wish. It's art. Either you enjoy the image or you don't. I've never been comfortable with pigeon holes--I'm a deviant.

BTW that metadata is there because the "canvas" I began with was a photo. Then I painted on top. Nothing remains of the original photo except the metadata.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

joriavlis In reply to Operaghost1 [2005-07-13 22:48:09 +0000 UTC]

Oh I see, it all depends on point of views. The way I see it, it's the reinterpretation of a photograph - of a universe - beautifully done, by the way. The final result it's all that matters, a professional way to see this. For me, who creates pictures almost from scratch, it seems that painting above a photograph it's a short way to do beautiful images. I don't say that is wrong or correct, of course, it is simply a different way to approach what we think that give us more pleasure. I rather prefer to look at a picture and say: this is entirely done by me. Reinterprating photographs could be a very good exercise also, if it's a photograph I made on purpose for what I have in mind, but in my point of view, painting above a photo would be necessary frustrating: I prefer to control everything.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Operaghost1 In reply to joriavlis [2005-07-14 04:05:03 +0000 UTC]

Of course I've worked both ways and all ways in between .("Taste" and "Swamp Princess" on my site had no reference whatsoever.) But I grow frustrated with my inabilities in those kinds of works. I prefer to conceive an image and then use photos and procedural techniques to construct it. The "locked in" elements of a photo serve to introduce some of the serendipitous detail that is so difficult to conjure out of whole cloth. But that doesn't make it any less original (especially since I shoot the photos as well) or less difficult, just different. Also I'm hardly alone in the basic approach of using photo reference for paintings. Maxfield Parrish and Boris Vallejo are two that come to mind. I just use photos in a slightly different way than they could. But the process of what I do and what they do/did is roughly analogous. In fact if Parrish were alive I'm certain his technique would be similar to mine.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

joriavlis In reply to Operaghost1 [2005-07-14 09:11:45 +0000 UTC]

Thanks for giving me your opinion, it's always cool to share point of views, I now understand better your approach

Aniway, I see this like old artists in renaissance when they used black boxes - not sure of the name in english - to project the image they were painting on the canvas. Nowadays, we also have photoshop and his filters, that's a really thin line, difficult to evaluate - to know the actual work of the artist. We can say that it's also the taste of the artist, in choosing the good brush, shooting the right photo, correcting the right colour... needless to say that you have very good taste and have a very good sense of imagery, that's all matters in the pro world: final result. Photoshop bring such incredible power to us artists, giving us the tool to realize all that our mind could think of, bypassing difficulties that we could have.

I have to think about that, I think - honestly - that's the beginning a new way of seeing art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Operaghost1 In reply to joriavlis [2005-07-14 16:30:25 +0000 UTC]

I believe "Camera Obscura" is the device you are referring to. I almost included the reference in my last note. Glad you already knew about it.

How're things in Portugal? I would dearly love to visit your corner of the world.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

joriavlis In reply to Operaghost1 [2005-07-14 17:12:30 +0000 UTC]

If you like very hot weather, amazing blue sky, beautiful beachs, old castles and good food, Portugal is surely a country to visit, but it is best to avoid the too much "touristic places" like Algarve (not really the best place to know the country).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Operaghost1 In reply to marianne101 [2005-05-27 04:12:11 +0000 UTC]

Obviously I'm a huge ALW Phantom fan. (I've seen the stage version 22 times in various cities.) But don't get me started on the movie version. Okay. Too late.
I'm outraged at it. Yup outraged. Of course it looks gorgeous. Of course the music is geat. (Though the singing leaves a lot to be desired.)
But dang it, they systematically removed any sense of mystery, magic, supernatural foreboding or reason for the characters in the story to believe there is an opera ghost and dread him. In the theatrical version you watch a suave guy in a mask degenerate into a hopelessly awkward geek when unmasked. In the film all you've got is a studly guy with a slight case of acne, but who still remains a studly guy. And not magical or amazing one. There's nothing particularly outrageous, scary, or special about him. We're supposed to sympathise with him because he is studly i guess. BAH! I blame Schumacher for this. He ruined the Batman franchise and now he took the most financially successful show in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD and made a film that is a relative flop. My advice? Wash your mind out with soap, buy two tickets to the nearest and soonest Phantom touring production, then, say three Hail Michael Crawfords, and go to your room.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

marianne101 In reply to Operaghost1 [2005-05-27 18:48:44 +0000 UTC]

I agree
Nothing ever beats the theatre first of all. I live right outside NYC, and have the privledge of Broadway at my feet.
I did like the movie version, but NOTHING will ever come close to the play, ever.
It's nice to see someone as passionate about it as I am
And yea, Gerard Butler is studly and he sold the movie But, there was so much lacking, as you've already stated, so I don't need to reiterate
On a happier note I will be taking my b/f to see Phantom on Broadway this summer! YAY! I can't wait
Have an awesome weekend

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Operaghost1 In reply to ashleyevelyn [2005-05-27 02:37:44 +0000 UTC]

Yup

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kniick-knacks In reply to Operaghost1 [2009-04-16 01:50:51 +0000 UTC]

The Paris Opera House is referred to as the Palais Garnier or Opera Garnier, but not the Opera Populaire...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Operaghost1 In reply to kniick-knacks [2009-05-21 04:56:12 +0000 UTC]

I think you'll discover that the dates given in ALW's Phantom of the Opera libretto and theater program (even though they've varied substantially over the years) make it fairly impossible for the "Opera Populaire" to actually be the Opera Garnier. The chronology is just historically unworkable.

Box 5 is still a cool place though.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kniick-knacks In reply to Operaghost1 [2009-05-24 19:02:38 +0000 UTC]

ALW was a tad off on the dates, but I don't think he cared much.
The Opera Populaire is modeled after the Palais Garnier and was meant to be a representation of the Palais Garnier. In the original novel if I remember correctly Gaston Leroux places the story in the Paris Opera House, or Palais Garnier.
The Opera Populaire never existed, it was just something ALW made up for the movie and play.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0