I've talked about pattern a little bit on here already - and I've talked about it a lot on my previous blog, Ideas by Andrea.
Before I get into showing off some of my recent pattern watercolors, I'd like to take a step back and show you how I make the digital patterns in Adobe Illustrator first. I have a large library of these digital patterns that I've created. Like my huge collection of floral photographs (see yesterday's post about taking pictures whenever I pass some flowers), I use my collection of patterns as source material to design compositions for watercolor paintings and other types of artwork. Instead of using a pattern that already exists, I use one I've designed myself.
Here are some screenshots I took while I was designing "Pattern Verity." (If you followed my old blog at all, you may recognize these images from this post four years ago.)
All of my patterns are created that way - by using specific characters within a font, and manipulating the characters so that they no longer resemble letters or punctuation.
Because there are so many interesting and different fonts out there, it's really easy to quickly amass a large collection of unique patterns using this method. I do have patterns that are more "modern" looking with geometric shapes or bold lines, often created from funky, modern, bold fonts - but most of my patterns would more likely be described as "feminine" or "traditional." They are often made from italic or cursive fonts, fonts with decorative serifs and sweeping descenders.
As I have discussed previously on this blog, my natural inclination when producing art is to go for this feminine style - and I am not always proud of that fact.
"I often wonder - how can I claim to be a feminist, how can I claim to stand for positive symbolism of female sexuality, when I find myself so inclined to depict flowers in a traditional way? Am I actually using positive symbolism here (celebrating female sexuality, celebrating the "ripening" of a flower), or am I using negative symbolism (comparing women to flowers, objectifying them, focusing on their outward appearance, their purity, their beauty, and ignoring their minds, their personalities, their humanity)? Is it better when I add computerized patterns to my compositions, or do the patterns only further conform my flower images to stereotypical definitions of femininity?"
But the truth is, I want the stuff I create to look good. And especially with regards to these patterns, where I am taking something useful and practical (letters, punctuation) and turning them into something purely decorative, my goal is to create something that is aesthetically pleasing.
Furthermore, because the patterns create abstract shapes, what I see and interpret as feminine or traditional looking might not be seen that way by other viewers. A lot of my patterns could be related to the idea of "central core" female imagery - they might even be interpreted as sexual in nature. It really depends on the pattern - but it also depends on the viewer, and what interpretation they'd bringing.
Before I get into showing off some of my recent pattern watercolors, I'd like to take a step back and show you how I make the digital patterns in Adobe Illustrator first. I have a large library of these digital patterns that I've created. Like my huge collection of floral photographs (see yesterday's post about taking pictures whenever I pass some flowers), I use my collection of patterns as source material to design compositions for watercolor paintings and other types of artwork. Instead of using a pattern that already exists, I use one I've designed myself.
Here are some screenshots I took while I was designing "Pattern Verity." (If you followed my old blog at all, you may recognize these images from this post four years ago.)
All of my patterns are created that way - by using specific characters within a font, and manipulating the characters so that they no longer resemble letters or punctuation.
Because there are so many interesting and different fonts out there, it's really easy to quickly amass a large collection of unique patterns using this method. I do have patterns that are more "modern" looking with geometric shapes or bold lines, often created from funky, modern, bold fonts - but most of my patterns would more likely be described as "feminine" or "traditional." They are often made from italic or cursive fonts, fonts with decorative serifs and sweeping descenders.
As I have discussed previously on this blog, my natural inclination when producing art is to go for this feminine style - and I am not always proud of that fact.
"I often wonder - how can I claim to be a feminist, how can I claim to stand for positive symbolism of female sexuality, when I find myself so inclined to depict flowers in a traditional way? Am I actually using positive symbolism here (celebrating female sexuality, celebrating the "ripening" of a flower), or am I using negative symbolism (comparing women to flowers, objectifying them, focusing on their outward appearance, their purity, their beauty, and ignoring their minds, their personalities, their humanity)? Is it better when I add computerized patterns to my compositions, or do the patterns only further conform my flower images to stereotypical definitions of femininity?"
But the truth is, I want the stuff I create to look good. And especially with regards to these patterns, where I am taking something useful and practical (letters, punctuation) and turning them into something purely decorative, my goal is to create something that is aesthetically pleasing.
Furthermore, because the patterns create abstract shapes, what I see and interpret as feminine or traditional looking might not be seen that way by other viewers. A lot of my patterns could be related to the idea of "central core" female imagery - they might even be interpreted as sexual in nature. It really depends on the pattern - but it also depends on the viewer, and what interpretation they'd bringing.
No comments:
Post a Comment