lucky1988 wrote:@darquis- the only reason I got "haterade" from AXYU is because there is "pop culture" integrated into the piece. Like I've said before, I'll continue to design what I want and not be influenced by anyone otherwise.
In addition if he's attacking my work as REINTERPRETING the actual artwork and not the title, I still see a lot of entries, even some in the fog that are in violation of "his" views. By his definition all of the entries should have no traces or similarities whatsoever to the actual artwork/painting/sculpture and be completely different and original works of art. Distribute the fertilizer evenly and fairly. Is that too much to ask for? BTW I was thanking not blaming.
By my definition, the title itself should be reinterpreted.
Taking your piece: you clearly parodied the piece of artwork as opposed to reinterpreting the title. Let's put it this way: if you drew Homer with a Donut in the same position but in a different style, it would have little to do with discus or throwing. He would be in a similar pose, but arguably the concept would be homer throwing a donut like a discus, not discus throwing in general. Is it a lazy pander of a concept anyway? I'd argue yes. But that's quite beside the point in terms of this design.
To take one of the most obvious pieces in the fog, however, if Robbie's "great wave" was drawn in any other style, the whole of the concept would still be there, and the whole of the title would still be represented. He -also- parodies the work itself, as opposed to -just- doing so. It fits the theme because the title is being illustrated. Instead of a sea wave, there's a hand wave. Made of the sea? Sure is. But it's not the same.
More arguably, the shark in the tank. Honestly, I tattled on that one too, but I haven't seen any reason to make a big deal over it because the title is so ambiguous. It's literally just a shark in a tank, just as the other piece is just a shark in a tank. The title doesn't have anything to do with the image in either case. But in the same ways one can explain away what Hirst likely meant, it's a whole lot harder to conclusively say that's off topic.
But again, your piece is indeed different in that its entire crux is the pop reference. It would work as a concept if there was a reason for homer simpson to be using a donut as a discus... maybe if he was at the olympics, and a bunch of discus guys were hanging around and he had his donut... but as presented here, it's obviously more of a reinterpretation of the art itself than any sort of attempt to re-imagine the title. The theme asks us to ask ourselves "what could this title look like in another context". It should be more of an association exercise.
If you are so convinced of a personal vendetta against you due to your use of pop culture, however, you should perhaps consider: how often do you sandwich pop culture into a design? I wager there is more guilty conscience behind such a belief than truth. Though I do thank you for believing I have any real clout with the woot powers that be. Believe me, we'd have far different reckoning results every week if things I tattled on were rightfully rejected.
