It was interesting photography until you get to the part of the child that seems to have been torn in half with his/her guts hanging out. I’ll skip.
A good question, perhaps, is where does one draw the line between “photographer” and the digital equivalent of “painter”? Because I have a hard time calling something like [this][1] or [this][2] photographs, even if they were used as the base, as to me it implies simultaneously more and less than the resultant image.
[1]: http://www.juxtapoz.com/media/k2/galleries/53167/juxtapoz-baxter11.jpg
[2]: http://www.juxtapoz.com/media/k2/galleries/53167/juxtapoz-baxter9.jpg
Not sure if it was the flash or what, but my computer rebooted itself in mid-browse.
@cah, maybe you can tell by the pixels, but I can’t. It’s possible to get some pretty stunning effects with things like wires and lighting and so on. At least, back in the 20th century.
Yeah, I was already thinking there was something weirdly fetish-y about the Owl Scouts series even before I got to the dead kid with all his formerly-internal organs lovingly rendered and arranged. Not really in the market for prepubescent gore-nography, thanks.
So the Owl Scouts series really seemed to be telling a story, like if you only had the illustrations of a children’s book to go off, not the words, but it still makes narrative sense.
But it got a bit disjoint at the end and I can’t make out the story. Um… what happened? How? Why?
(I also wonder if Penny Arcade’s “The Lookouts” and “The Tithe” were part of the inspiration?)
No. Cloying and melodramatic. The esotericism won’t carry it.
I love how he captured the animal spirit of @joeljohnson here.
Beautifully inventive and atmospheric.
They strongly remind me of the art of Kit Williams, of Masquerade fame, particularly the Bee Book.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
