создавање

Ohuhu is a brand of art materials that I really appreciate because they have products that are comparable to the really good but expensive ones but much cheaper. They're economically priced but - in terms of quality - they're not cheap. 

I bought a set of 60 water-based Ohuhu markers, that are double ended ￫ one end is a brush tip and one end is a fineliner, both of which I really like. The brush tip - because the markers are water based - is a bit like using watercolour paints, which is something I find very appealing, and the fineliners are really good fineliners, which are nearly always very expensive for good ones. I like using both. I also bought a specially made Ohuhu marker sketchbook. I was so pleased with the sketchbook because of how huge it is. It was delivered in this big box....I'm sure they could have actually fitted the markers and the sketchbook in a smaller box, anyway, but, the sketchbook is huge. It's A4 size, which is a big page size, but it's also really thick and heavy. 

Ohuhu just radiates quality....they give you really good quality storage containers, they have extra little touches like perforated pages - so you can actually remove an artwork if you want to (but the perforating isn't so pervasive that the page comes away really easy), they give you a plastic sheet to use so the colours don't bleed on to another page or your desktop, and they have extra little touches like replacement nibs, book marks in their sketchbooks, complimentary swatch sheets, etc etc etc

Just to give you an idea of the price difference, a set of 72 copic markers (which are like the industry standard, kind of like how photoshop is the industry standard for digital graphic design) which are alcohol based and have a fine tip on one side and a chisel tip on the other side, costs AU$443.99. That's just over $6 a marker. A set of 60 Ohuhu markers of basically the same type - alcohol based with a fine point on one end and chisel tip on the other - costs $44.99. 160 of the same kind of Ohuhu costs $110.99. That's around $0.70 per marker. and these are not 'dollar shop' quality (not that you can't get perfectly and surprisingly good art supplies from dollar shops). 

It makes me think of the situation with photoshop. You can't buy photoshop outright any more - you have to subscribe. If you want all the apps, it's AU$58.29 a month, or if you just want basic photoshop or illustrator they are $29.99 each a month. So, if you're doing a variety of things it's worth getting all the apps. But there are many other examples of software that, on their own, or in combination, you can use to do pretty much everything photoshop can do and they are much cheaper and, in some cases, free - paint tool sai (one off payment of AU$61, fire alpaca (free), Krita (free), Blender (free), gimp (free), clip studio paint (one off payment of $50), inkscape (free), Autodesk sketchbook (free). 

The different softwares are more suited to certain purposes. Gimp is more about editing photos, Krita is more for actual art, Inkscape is for illustrating, clip studio paint is for art generally but specially good for creating manga (it used to be called manga studio). Blender is probably the most complicated and difficult to use but it's also the most powerful. It's been used for special effects and CGI in movies (e.g. Spider Man 2) and TV shows, NASA uses it to create 3D models and it even plays a role in operating the rover, it's used in commercial computer games, for ads, and animated TV shows and films, so, in other words, it's professional standard. 

so, about both Copics and Photoshop, I would say, unless you're a professional designer or artist, you'd be much better off using the alternatives. Animation is a good example. Most digital art software programs allow you to do animation now. You can animate in Krita, Fire Alpaca, clip studio, and of course Blender, and maybe others as well (I'm not sure) but to animate in photoshop, you have to subscribe to the animation app (for AU$29.99 per month) or all the apps. 

Of course, if I was a professional designer, artist, animator or anything of that sort, I would definitely buy Copics and subscribe to the whole suite of Photoshop apps. It's worth it in that context, because these things really are better, and if you're earning good money for your creative work, the monthly subscription for photoshop represents just a couple of hours of work...same principle with Copics, and actually the same applies to all art supplies. There's a huge difference in the price of paints, but if you're a professional artist, you need to use the really good quality paints that will hold their colour over time and not degrade. 

From Ohuhu, you can buy a set of 24 x 12 ml tubes of acrylic paint, 6 brushes, and a canvas, for just AU$23.99! 

But what about the good stuff....Winsor and Newton has one of those water colour sets where the paint is in solid form and you add water - for 24 colours it's $214.84. One paintbrush costs $17.48. A pad of water colour paper with 20 sheets costs $49.75. A single 5 ml tube of Aqua Green watercolour paint costs $21.29. 200 ml tubes of oil paint are around $40 a tube. On the other hand, for $29.95, from Meeden, you can get a set of 48 different coloured acrylic paints. 

so it's interesting. someone once gave me a couple of expensive brushes and 3 small tubes of the more expensive watercolour paint, as a gift. I was used to using the acrylics and watercolours that come in packs of 12 for around $15. I wasn't able to really appreciate the difference. but then, I was never really very good at proper water colour painting. one kind of art supplies that I have noticed the difference in quality of the more expensive ones though, is coloured pencils. 

I was sceptical, but I wanted to try out prismacolor pencils to see what the fuss was about, and yes, they are substantively better even than the less expensive artists pencils. They're really good. Like any strength, it comes with a corresponding weakness though // because the core is quite soft, if you sharpen the pencil and then press down hard, it tends to break. speaking of pencil sharpening, I never would have believed this until I experienced it, but the better quality pencil sharpeners are much better than the cheaper ones. You don't notice until you use a good one. 

There's (arguably) an even better coloured pencil than the prismacolor though - the faber-castell polychromos. They're oil based, not wax based like prismacolor, so they won't have that weakness of breaking and they will be good for rendering details. Prismacolors are kind of soft and creamy, so they're a bit better at blending and (apparently) the colours are more vibrant. 

and here's an important point....as I mentioned earlier, if you want to actually sell your art, you need it to hold its colour over time, and prismacolors don't (according to a review I listened to). 

the reason I've been resisting buying polychromos is the price. Polychromos is the pencil equivalent of the Winsor and Newton paints. Prismacolor are $94.27 for 72 pencils, and polychromos are $289.95 for 72. I'll probably buy the 12 pack for $30.99 at some stage. 

unfamiliarity

The one book by Harold Bloom that I've never been inclined to read is his book about Shakespeare, which is interesting because for Bloom, Shakespeare is literally the best writer ever - absolutely without question and without qualification. I suppose...I don't really know, but I suppose...the reason why I don't like reading Bloom on Shakespeare is that there's no surprise or tension involved. It's like, there's nothing new here...it's kind of like that, anyway. I know the way Bloom writes about Shakespeare and I don't want to read a whole book like that.

what I like about Bloom is the way that he synthesises, alludes to and processes so many voices - so many writers and books of all kinds. 

I love the series of books Bloom wrote to introduce his central theory, about the 'anxiety of influence' to the world, especially the first one (and shortest one) called The Anxiety of Influence. After that series, he broadened out and began writing about literature more generally, with some exceptions, where he focused on particular writers or books, including the one about Shakespeare: Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. 

One of the great things about The Anxiety of Influence is how unorthodox it is || interestingly, according to Bloom, the defining characteristic of literary genius is strangeness. maybe that's why I'm not keen on Bloom's book about Shakespeare // I have a sense of what to expect. In other words it's not strange. 

Another defining characteristic of great literature, according to Bloom, is that it bears re-reading. I think that's definitely true, although there are limits to it. Like, if you're writing a thesis about a particular book or author, and you read the same literary work over and over for your thesis, you begin to lose the desire to read the work again for pleasure. But, aside from that, really good literature does sustain re-reading...it's like you experience the book anew each time. 

polarisation

why don't we treat aesthetic choices as matters of fact? like, there are certain bands and artists that I just don't like. I don't think their music is good. but it doesn't bother me if other people do like them, as much as it bothers me when I think someone is wrong about factual matters

we feel a sense of outrage when we think someone is wrong about matters of fact or real world-issues \\\ we wonder, how can they think that? 

no one wins arguments that are truly contentious because both parties to the argument are totally focused on convincing the other person they are wrong....and that's never gona happen

literary criticism

I just read a very negative review of one of Harold Bloom's books and.....Oh! I just discovered after reading it that it was written by Terry Eagleton. It's hard to be dismissive of Terry Eagleton. He's arguably as much a giant of literary criticism as Bloom. 

Anyway, I googled, 'who would win if Terry Eagleton and Harold Bloom had a fight?'....no, not really - I googled 'who is better - Terry Eagleton or Harold Bloom' /// which is probably as ridiculous a question, and I found a reddit post that was critical of Eagleton's review of Bloom's book, and I found a few negative reviews of a book Eagleton wrote. The interesting thing was that the two books in question were about basically the same thesis - how to read. Bloom's was How to Read and Why and Eagleton's book was How to Read Literature. 

Eagleton's criticism of Bloom's book is that it's basic and facile - there's nothing incisive or deeply compelling about it. I agree with that assessment but the mistake Eagleton makes is to think that this book is somehow a comprehensive representation of Bloom's views about literature at that point in his career. He's like, Bloom used to be interesting, but now he's reduced to writing a kind of Cook's tour of literature. But the fact is that every other book Bloom wrote, before and after How to Read and Why is more deep and rich and insightful. You can't ever accuse Bloom of being shallow. Sorry, that's just not something you're going to get away with. I think what Bloom was trying to do with How to Read and Why (I think I even heard him say this in an interview) was to write something more accessible than his other books. On that point - the basicness of the book - Eagleton is right, but in my opinion he's not right about much else in his review. And his review is really nasty. Here's a quote from near the end: 

It would be charitable to think that Bloom writes as slackly and cack-handedly as he does because he is out to attract the general reader. He is admirably intent on rescuing literature from the arcane rituals of US academia and restoring it to a wider audience. Even so, you cannot help suspecting that this rambling, platitudinous stuff is about the best he can now muster.

You can help suspecting that, because I don't think it's true. I don't even agree with the characterisation of the book as rambling and platitudinous, but even if it was those things, how is it that 'you cannot help suspecting that this....is about the best he can muster'? After How to Read and Why Bloom went on to write another 7 or 8 books that are longer and more academic in tone and content - heavier reading - and in the same vein as his earlier works. How to Read and Why is very different from his other books. 

and Bloom's writing style (in my opinion) is brilliant...he's erudite, smart, and very funny. Bloom never seems to descend into bitterness, even when he's being critical. Admittedly, I'm probably biased. Harold Bloom has been my favourite literary critic/ theorist since I first read him and I was first studying literary theory and literature. 

I don't agree with most of Bloom's views, but I like his thinking and his engagement with literature and literary theory and scholarship in general. So much literary theory is like something you read for academic purposes, but the best literary theory meets that standard and transcends it - becomes a kind of poetry, a celebration - goes beyond the rigid confines of courses and subjects. 

polish

sometimes things can be too polished...like a speaker who knows all the right gestures to make and all the right places to pause. it's ok to be polished when your performance is absolutely sublime - like I think of some of the figure skating performances in the winter olympics where the skater achieves a kind of perfection ^ their performance is flawless. 

but when you're doing something more ordinary, rather than the performance of a lifetime (or one of the performances of your lifetime) the polish can seem like complacence. 

there's a similar thing with rock bands. sometimes the rougher and rawer sounding band is just better than the more polished one. 

bad behaviour

I think cognitive behaviour therapy works so well because it's a way of systematically challenging our thinking, which is always so driven by our emotions and beliefs, with rationality ///

i've always thought that that was the really useful and worthwhile part - the cognitive part || not so much the behavioural part. the behavioural part is probably good and valid as well...it's just that it's a different thing. 

I've learnt about the power and benefits of changing my behaviour in other contexts, but what I take from CBT is mainly about challenging irrational thoughts. 

I really like dialectical behaviour therapy, but I think it's mainly because I like the idea of dialectics - that all progress and meaning is an expression of the tension between opposing forces

мешавина од апстрактно и реално

poetry was really important to European society in the 19th century, while science, as we know it, was just emerging. in the 21st century, it's kind of the opposite - poetry is peripheral to life, but science and technology is central ///

If you read Shelley's 'A Defence of Poetry' or Wordsworth's 'Preface to Lyrical Ballads' you get a sense of how highly poetry was regarded. Here is a quote from Wordsworth's preface: 

The Man of science seeks truth as a remote and unknown benefactor; he cherishes and loves it in his solitude: the Poet, singing a song in which all human beings join with him, rejoices in the presence of truth as our visible friend and hourly companion. Poetry is the breath and finer spirit of all knowledge; it is the impassioned expression which is in the countenance of all Science.....the Poet binds together by passion and knowledge the vast empire of human society, as it is spread over the whole earth, and over all time......Poetry is the first and last of all knowledge—it is as immortal as the heart of man.

Here is another section where Wordsworth writes about the relationship between science and poetry: 

If the labours of men of Science should ever create any material revolution, direct or indirect, in our condition, and in the impressions which we habitually receive, the Poet will sleep then no more than at present, but he will be ready to follow the steps of the man of Science, not only in those general indirect effects, but he will be at his side, carrying sensation into the midst of the objects of the Science itself. The remotest discoveries of the Chemist, the Botanist, or Mineralogist, will be as proper objects of the Poet's art as any upon which it can be employed, if the time should ever come when these things shall be familiar to us, and the relations under which they are contemplated by the followers of these respective Sciences shall be manifestly and palpably material to us as enjoying and suffering beings. If the time should ever come when what is now called Science, thus familiarized to men, shall be ready to put on, as it were, a form of flesh and blood, the Poet will lend his divine spirit to aid the transfiguration, and will welcome the Being thus produced, as a dear and genuine inmate of the household of man.

For me, it's impossible to not think of Frankenstein when I read that last sentence, because he's talking about the production of a 'Being' through the use of science. I'm not sure if that's literally what he meant though. was he speaking figuratively? 

Wordsworth expresses the idea that both are important - science and poetry. In the rest of the preface he also writes about the important role that poetry plays in dealing with the negative effects of technology on society. So, it's a kind of balance - the scientific and technological impulse has to be balanced with (or maybe augmented by) the poetic impulse. 

And maybe Frankenstein can be read as a story about the horror that results when the scientific enterprise is pursued with no regard for the importance of the poetic sensibility. For Wordsworth, poetry had a humanising/ socialising influence, so if you leave out poetry, you end up with monstrosity and alienation. 

Frankenstein seems to also be about, among other things, the danger of obsessively pursuing some kind of intellectual or moral quest and losing sight of everything else. Things that we think are really, really good and worthwhile (which is how Frankenstein regarded his endeavour) can turn into nightmares when they are realised, and there seems to be a link between extreme zeal and obsession about some good thing - or something perceived as good - and tragic results - results which are the opposite of what was pursued. 

කවිය

in many cases it seems like a writer's work will be lost to history, but somehow it endures and gets passed on and achieves lastingness. 

sometimes writers don't seem to know the real merits of their work || or maybe they do, I don't know || it's always impressive when they know and they announce it....like Alexander Pope saying that he was going to write the perfect pastoral poem, and then he did, and William Wordsworth saying that he was going to write a new kind of poetry that would change poetry forever, and he did. and this is how Ovid concludes his Metamorphoses: 

And now my work is done, which neither the wrath of Jove, nor fire, nor sword, nor the gnawing tooth of time shall ever be able to undo. When it will, let that day come which has no power save over this mortal frame, and end the span of my uncertain years. Still in my better part I shall be borne immortal far beyond the lofty stars and I shall have an undying name. Wherever Rome’s power extends over the conquered world, I shall have mention on men’s lips, and, if the prophecies of bards have any truth, through all the ages shall I live in fame.

Rome fell, but Ovid's work has endured.

әйберләр

I was watching an interview of Grimes. besides the fact that I like some of her music, I really like her ideas about creativity. I like how she uses software to do a lot of stuff with both music and visual art. 

In the interview she talks about all of her albums - the names, content, the art. she tends to do a lot herself...like, she produces the music and does the album art and plays different instruments, as well as using software to create the music. 

she refers to literature and classical music and art when she talks about her albums

anyway, with visual art she talks about using photoshop, and she also talks about how wacom gave her a drawing tablet and it enabled her to produce better album art for her 2015 album...and then a bit later she talks about how she got a desktop computer and that helped with her creative process. 

then, at one point, she talks about when you're working in photoshop or manga studio or premier....

what inspired me about all of it is that I have a wacom tablet and I have manga studio (now known as clip studio paint). 

it made me want to start using them again, but I don't know where to start. actually I did start...I plugged my wacom back into my laptop and I opened clip studio paint for the first time in ages, and there was an update which I downloaded, but I haven't gone any further in using them because I've kind of gone down a different path lately with art

for a while I was working on my skills, and I will probably do that again at some stage, so I can actually make good art and I can use clip studio paint.  lately I've fallen into a pattern of making images (I hesitate to call it art) in a way that is totally easy for me....I could just do it all the time. I make images that include a lot of writing - writing over writing in all different directions - and lines and colours and shapes. i've always been interested in writing as visual art as well as the way that writing can interact with images. so, I make these images in my sketchbook, then I take pictures with my phone - pictures of all different parts of the image and from different angles, then edit and post it to instagram. 

i like the way that i've just kind of fallen into doing this. 

if I get into digital art again, I'll probably post it to pixiv, deviantart and pinterest rather than instagram

پراڪسس

when i'm working on a project, i like to go through the whole thing and just get it done roughly - put links or notes in the spaces - so that I can then work my way through the whole thing and not have to think. 

I like everything to be resolved very quickly, otherwise it weighs on my mind. 

\\\ i suppose, in a way, it's like drafting. 

what compels me to take this step is that, from first looking at the project and reading the materials, certain tensions arise - issues - things that I don't know what I'm going to do about. and I want to resolve those tensions....so I read through the materials again, and whatever I know how I'm going to handle, I leave it and whatever is problematic, I very quickly look into it and make some notes - maybe even write out the whole section in full

i hate systems but i rely very heavily on my own systems || i build systems as I go. the system is why there are parts of the project that I know what to do and there is no tension. 

നങ്ങൾ

does every text have to have a structure? supposedly they do, but something I've noticed, especially about more modern novels that I like, not so much the older classic novels (not sure why). 

what i've noticed is about the endings. it seems like writers want to have a proper conclusion - like, end with a kind of summing up or a statement of something profound, but I often don't like the endings. either their anti-climactic or they're kind of disturbing - so, either under-impacting or over-impacting. the problem is basically that I really like the novel, but the ending is different - the ending does something different from what the rest of the novel does. 

i was thinking about why I don't find this problem with older literature - like nineteenth century literature - and I think it's because, in the classic texts, the writers begin the final movement earlier - they really build up to it. It is different from the rest of the story, but they don't spring it on you in the last few pages.

खरं तर

there's a kind of irony in Sayaka Murata's Earthlings || the book is narrated by the protagonist who has a really weird world-view, to the point where you could objectively say she's delusional. but as the story develops, you come to understand this world-view and to sympathise with it

the irony lies in the fact that, though she - Natsuki - believes her world-view, the reader recognises the strangeness of it and also understands, through the narration of the story, why Natsuki thinks the way she does and what is actually happening. There's a duality. Natsuki narrates events in terms of her world - so you know how she sees things - but it's also clear what is really happening, and the two are very different. 

the beauty of creating fictional worlds is that things that we would call delusions or some kind of mental aberration in the real world can be accomodated, entertained and explored. by its nature, a story is a kind of delusion. we know the story is not true, but we suspend our disbelief, so the story has a kind of reality.

our own personal world is, in a sense, a fiction.