- Feb 14, 2018
- 1,422
- 4,890
I think a fair criticism of L&P's "creative process" is that they are not using an appropriate "creative process".What people here think is a lack of organization is part of the creative process for L&P.
And they will never, never, agree with Him on this.
... But even here these goals are subordinated to what he considers to be much more important. HIS way of telling the story.
And they will never agree with him on that either.
Writing, painting, illustration, etching/printing and so on are generative art forms. From nothing something is created. Photography is not - the something must exist in order to be captured.
Given the attention to lighting and all the camera settings, depth of field and deep/shallow focus, I wonder if L&P's background is in photography and not a generative art form.
Even before the advent of digital, a photographer could set up their subject and shoot two or three or four rolls of film, develop them and print contact sheets and look them over, find the right/best images to print at full size.
In generative art you simply cannot do this - you must work out the plan in advance and stick to it. That is not to say there aren't opportunities for improvisation or adjustment along the way, but a painter doesn't change the size of the canvas half the way into a painting, a sculptor can't increase the size of stone they're using. And a print maker sure as shit ain't carving into their block with out a really firmly established idea of the end product.
Also, L&P seems completely oblivious to a hard fact about generative art-making: The two most important lines in any drawing are the ones you don't make and the ones you take out.
Last edited: