What is the decision that goes into not giving a name to a work of art? This is lovely and evokes a feeling of uneasiness in me, but why don't you give a name to your work? I see this with a lot of art on newgrounds, where someone will post something called "Untitled_54" or something, or in this case "543368". I suppose if that's the name, that's the name. But a title for any work of art, music, literature, etc. gives you a piece of the artist.
I suppose if your goal is to make the meaning of this piece completely up to the viewer, then you've succeeded, but art is a piece of the artist. Your interpretation is more valuable than mine.
Either way, great work.
Thanks, with the whole naming thing you are correct, I like to let others see the characters as anything they might think of it as
Thank you :)
The first thing that came to mind when I saw the thumbnail of this picture was King Crimson's In the Court of the Crimson King inner cover (Not the album cover). If you don't know what I'm talking about, look it up. I really enjoy the sharp non-detailed texture on non-flesh objects, but then the powerful emphasis on flesh (Hands, face, etc.) That met with the dollar-bill style background texture earns you an eight, buddy. Good job.
4/5 - 8/10
First of all - I love parrots. So the moment I even glimpsed a parrot, I jumped right on this. The one thing I like the most about this is the detail. Those black lines coming up from the neck curling around the face and around the eyes - they're very interesting. I respect you as an artist, for your eye for detail. However, it ends here, as your eye for detail stops on the subject of the piece. The background is very lackluster. If you had put time into the detail of the background, I would be very happy. So, yes - I give this a 3/5 7/10. Excellent job.
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.