I feel like posting art here should have to include some sort of background or explanation. I would like to know how I’m supposed to interpret this image.
FWIW, art that gets posted to !hobbit_art is supposed to explain what’s going on if possible. I like art, but I think art has to include background or it’s just a pretty picture.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with art being ‘just a pretty picture’, there is plenty of artwork that has powerful meaning attached to it, for example ‘Guernica’ by Picasso- it’s striking, very large, has a strong anti war message and is loaded with symbolism…I wouldn’t want it on my wall though (even if I could get it to fit)
I like abstracts mainly because I love colour (I think it may be an autistic thing, as I don’t like portraits or images where humans appear, but I can still appreciate the technical skill involved)
For me, an image like this is visually bathing in colour, it’s very stimulating or it can be soothing depending on the colour used. I like the patterns and how they repeat, also how they appear to tumble down the canvas/paper, there’s an energy in the composition and also in the marks made by the brush/pastel/pen.
The community you link has in the sidebar-
‘It is not required, but if you know, please talk a bit about the scene in the image. What’s going on? Who is in it? Why is it happening? Do you like it? Why?’
possibly to encourage engagement and discussion, which is a nice touch, I think it also helps that all the images are illustrating scenes from Tolkien literature, who was rather good (an understatement) at writing and world building. I think that Tolkein produced enough detailed content to be discussed and analysed for some time
I think ultimately, even if this piece of art is not to your taste or you don’t understand the meaning (if there is any meaning to it), has got us both talking about it, which I think is a good thing, and possibly the whole point of art in the first place?
I wasn’t complaining about the art. I’ve seen random looking pictures that turned out to have explanations. I remember one gallery where it was just a bunch of rectangles. Someone explained that it was showing how you can be distracted from some details by others and then pointed out shapes I hadn’t seen because the colors of the rectangles pulled my attention. I found that interesting, but would not have gotten it without explanation.
I just think the forum would be more engaging if artwork was posted with explanations if there is one. Maybe this image is just some pleasing shapes, but it would not surprise me if there was a story.
I’m anti mega corporations with consolidated power and platform monopolies. I’m not anti small distributed devs getting paid for high quality hard work.
As I was scrolling down on my phone in portrait mode I thought this was an actual picture until I reached the bottom and realized that something wasn’t right.
I like 43’s but not these new ones. The colors are weird, plus there’s that patch on the left that looks like someone has taken a cigarette lighter to it.
Ok, someone please explain to me why default wallpapers are a story in any way?? And everytime a new version of a desktop comes out, I’m baffled to see that theres an actual discussion and debate about…default wallpapers??? Like in the same sense that people talk about ACTUAL desktop features…
You guys don’t change your wallpaper??.. Who in the flying fuck cares about the goddamn default wallpaper?!?!?!?
I actually don’t change mine if the default is nice. Or I keep it for a while till I replace it. Still baffles me that people think they warrant much discussion unless Gnome decides to ship a wallpaper with literal gnomes fucking or something.
A clean wallpaper is the first onboarding experience for a user. Some distros have horrible wallpapers. other than that wallpaper doesn’t matter. personally I did a lot of late night computer work so wanted a redish background. I found this image, did a deep search but coyld not find original artist/photographer.
Can confirm, I never thought I cared about wallpaper or that it made much difference but it turns out it was a big part of why I like elementOS/pantheon so much and after switching gnome’s wallpaper to a similar one I realised I liked it more
Sounds dumb but it really has a subconscious effect on how much you like the DE as a whole
Totally. We are driven to look for beauty, form, symmetry in nature, and assymetry for interest. IMO a bad wallpaper could turnoff a potential new user if it has that janky feel. Zorin and Elementary seem very polished because they took the time to start with clean wallpaper and polish the UI. And I realize Ubuntu is a good distro but can you imagine recommending it to a C level exec and their first look is a faceted pather looking thing that seems like 90s tron vector graphics. Similarily Pop!_OS is great but some dude is going to see a minimal colour posterized robot scene and think is this on OS for kids? Don’t get me wrong I love posterized art, but not everyone does.
For me, the default wallpaper throws me back to the period it was made and reminds me of what it was like to use that version. This GNOME one feels a little generic and I swear I’ve seen it before. Feels like the right style to use in a dynamic wallpaper where colours randomly shift.
lemmy.ml
Newest