I have been sitting on this critique for quite some time for reasons of my own, but today we are finally getting to it. First off, I need folks to look at these images I uploaded specifically to illustrate this critique. They are the work of a young man (what once was) and very dear friend of mine (and his Daughter a friend of my 19 yr old Dixie Rose) who paints images on broken surfboards that wash up upon the beach. The third link is the credit to the artist. He calls them “Broken Sessions”, and he had been holding on to the board piece you see there “Clubber”, because that was a board from a shaper/designer that had just recently died, and that board has mysteriously washed up in Carlsbad, California just days later. Sufficed to say, I had asked him to make me a clock from one, and when I told him what I wanted, he knew that was the board to use.

Surfers Heaven… (If you look closely, ALL waves break on both sides in this most holy of beaches)

[link] [link] [link]

When you look at my images, then the image here we are critiquing, do you see how this caught my eye? Do you see the “Karma” that brought this image to me, as well as brought the images I uploaded to you?

For those of you that already know me, the LOWER the score in vision, the better. Here I have to go with a 2 ½ because I am purposely attracted to it because of the work of another artist. This should and could be a ½ star or 1 star image if my bias had not been a factor. There is absolutely no vision here what so ever, and any possible vision would take all of the sincerity out of the work itself, which we will discuss further in technique. The vision here can or cannot be spiritual, scientific, erotic/romantic, or anything else that the dreamer sees when staring into the infinite that is “Space”, it is a blank canvas in one sense, and a fully developed image in another, it can be absorbed in a manner of the viewer’s choosing, as you can see by my example of the vision I projected on it, which the artist would never even had expected outside of the standard views it can or cannot be, that I mentioned a few lines up.

What I was going to continue to expound on in technique, we will address quickly here first. Is this image original? Yes, the artists description verifies that this is a once in a lifetime event, ergo no duplicate can exist. Is the “idea” of this image original? No. Then why the 5 stars you say? Because this particular artist is someone of genuine and sincere character in his art. This particular artist is someone who values his soul over his checkbook. You could throw millions at him, but if that money requires his soul, and his character as the piper’s payment for the dance of the cash, this artist will pass on the offer with a smile. His “intention” when he stopped and hurriedly got the camera and tripod out is what breaths originality into this image, not a picture for sale, but a moment in time that can be forever captured. Yes the print is available for $40.00 as he stated in the comments on the original image, but I assure you, I know this man, and his intent was to freeze the glory and majesty of time and space for posterity, not “Hell ya, there is 40 bucks!”

As for the 5 stars in technique, the same reasoning behind originality applies here. The mechanics of the image are spot on; the artist has all of the technical aspects of the image done to perfection. But for me, technique goes far beyond the things that one can learn, and practice to get better at. Technique also involves imagination, vision (or lack of a vision’s vision.) intuitiveness, creativity, and many other traits that one cannot get from a photography class at a school. The artist got off the freeway, set up camera and tripod, and captured the image NOT out of a mechanical routine learned, but out of a character trait that operates in an autonomic manner, and that is where we get our 5 stars here.

Impact here is a 5 yet again, but I am rather unsure whether it is truly worth it. I feel as if my judgment might be skewed because of my personal investment in another art piece, which I am feeding off of here. If I did not have the other piece mentioned here, I would give it a 4 in impact, because of the lack of stars in the image, which would have given it more depth, and the lack of stars would have added a full star on vision, because the image would have become more “typical”, and could even had shaved a half-star off of originality for the same missing personal bias of mine towards another piece.

Can one piece of art affect another? Sure it can. My piece at home gives me a unique vision of this image, and this image gives me a new and invigorating vision of my piece at home. One artist (Surfers Heaven) infuses life into what is dead, and another artist (Auspicious Signs) forever freezes life in a moment in time, with both of them finding life in the vast horizons of space. What matters is whether or not an artist can make one think or feel, or both, and if that is accomplished, then that is truly art, and the artist can be applauded for giving you something that all the money in the world could never aspire to buy.