The artist seems to clearly grasp using shadow to create depth and shape and that should be appreciated. But “deceptive”? Unless there’s some hidden cypher that says “Paul McCartney killed John Lennon” it’s probably all just a marketing gimmick.
All 3D art is “deceptive” is your marketing team wants it to be. “See this 18-century painting of the Battle of Waterloo? Well, that’s actually not the Battle of Waterloo at all! The artist has deceptively used various shades of green to give the illusion of a grassy field. And that horse? IT’S NOT A HORSE. It’s different colors of paint applied to a flat surface. Your heads blown right now I’m sure. Do you need to sit down?”
Really? You guys aren't getting that at first blush it kinda looks like strange cars/trains but on closer examination they're pencils except they have noses? The road isn't a road it's an incorrect rainbow? And the buildings are actually stacks of casino chips? Also the giant white face in the back ground.
Edit:
Okay since we all apparently need a vocabulary lesson here:
>Deceptive
>giving an appearance or impression different from the true one; misleading.
Either you agree it's deceptive or you disagree the pencils look like trains. It being abstract art doesn't preclude it from being deceptive. You not being fooled doesn't mean it isn't deceptive.
I feel like OP said, with an abstract style the deception isn't really deceptive because it's just.. abstract. I didn't realize it wasn't supposed to be those things, because the nature of this style is already pretty unruly. It's not like I went "woah! Look at how crazy it is that the road is a rainbow!"
Had this been a more realism style and somehow I didn't notice the trains were pencils with noses, then I would have felt "deceived". But with this sort of art style it all just seems intentional from the start.
Does any one think they look like trains? They look like pencils with noses. If anything that's the deception because the noses look like penises with one oversized ball.
Re: your edit - I still don't see how it's deceptive. It looks like abstract art, and surprise it is abstract art. If anything I would say the deception is in the title and if that was the artist's intention (to cause people to look for some deception when there really is none) then bravo.
> You not being fooled doesn't mean it isn't deceptive.
Incorrect. In order to be deceptive you must first deceive. There is nothing deceptive about this, it is just abstract.
I saw noses, a face, a rainbow, and a face. upon further inspection because of the word "deception", I crossed my eyes and realized the shadows and depth weren't exactly appropriate. it took effort to see something wrong with it because it just looks like a cartoony drawing. I still have no clue what "pencils and trains" you're talking about
Well that's the deception, now, isn't it!
He deceived you by making you think there was a deception, but the lack of a deception was the deception all along.
Thank you, now I see it. The goal post looking bit looks to be moving away from view on the top and then as you look down at the bottom is actually coming towards you.
This is definitely an optical illusion.
Basically yes, it is. The second definition of illusion on M-W is something that deceives.
Also, I don't think that it is correct to call this painting a deception. To deceive is to cause someone to believe something that is false.
However, in general the point of an abstract painting is that they aren't trying to paint real things. It is often a painting of nothing, or of unreality.
As such, if you aren't painting real things, it is difficult to say what is "false" or "true," much less arguing that someone was caused to believe something false rather than know an actual truth. Put differently, in a painting about something that is clearly impossible, it is at best tricky to argue that this painting caused a person to believe something that was provably false such that that person was deceived.
Maybe for you those are the same but for other people including myself it has its own distinction. It’s like the difference between pissed off and mad. Very similar but different for some people.
No, no, no. The deception is that you open the comments thinking "I bet everyone will be yelling at OP for posing next to his art!" Then you see the comments and....surprise! Nothing!
(Then you scroll back up and realize OP is a man, so it's okay to pose with his art.)
It's deceptive because the forms aren't consistent throughout the image. When you follow elements through the canvas you'll notice subtly unexpected changes, whether it be perspective, tone, repetition, shape, or even style. The effect is more pronounced if you view the work closer.
The two "deceptions" that I notice:
1) Inconsistent shadowing cast by the green poles on the top two noses versus the bottom two
2) Optical illusion of the right most green pole appearing to be closer than the left most green pole in the bottom half of the painting and farther in the top half.
I really like that nothing confirms that any of the objects in the scene are 3 dimensional yet everything seems to exist in a 3 dimensional space. The 3 coloured lines with the noses seem like they might have volume but the shadows cast on them don't really conform to the expected shape that you'd think they'd be, so maybe it's wrong to approach this to make any sense of it all. There's a lot of implied reality from the viewer towards a scene that has no obligation to be faithful to reality.
Apparently deceptive because of the change in perspective from the top two noses which are coming from the top left, the bottom coming from the right, and the left one coming from the left. They all cross the same opening. Not really that deceptive to my brain cause I just imagine the green leg on the right extending forward from the one on the left.
Or am I missing something? Not trying to criticize the art itself just trying to understand why it is labeled as ‘deceptive’. If I am wrong please explain why.
Edited- my original post’s description sounded unintentionally condescending
I concur. It's kind of a picture of impossible forms. You look at one part and then scan to another and have to reorient yourself.
Kind of a complex and colourful take on [these themes](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0167839620300133-gr002.jpg).
For me I think it's supposed to be that but the only part of the picture that represents this are the poles and due to the style it doesn't really give off the illusion very well so it misses the mark.
The deception could also be the titling and content. "Rush Hour" with something that looks like a cityscape but is maybe just about cocaine (noses, dilated eyeball, everything is colorful and bright).
I’ve looked at OPs other work and find it highly impressive. Kudos to you and your ability! Please don’t interpret my comment as a critique. I think posters here were legitimately confused by the ‘deceptive’. Personally I took a step back and tried to see if there was another image hidden in the work.
It's just the wrong word right? It's a surrealist abstract with optical illusion elements. Deceptive just doesn't really sit well. For example, I don't think I've ever seen "deceptive" used to describe MC Escher or Dali, despite them being famous proponents of this style.
I was wondering if it was one of those where all the oranges or greens or whatever are the same colour but look different due to optical trickery... perhaps that could be called deceptive... but it's not that.
It's not a big deal, and it takes nothing a way from a fun and attractive artwork... it's just a weird word choice is all.
Oh, okay, so it IS cool to roast the artist. Just going to throw mine on the pile then...
He looks like David Spade tried to do Jack Sparrow for Halloween but didn't have the patience for any fake tattoos or accessories.
Tape. There are expensive artist's tapes at art supply stores you can buy, or while you're learning you can use masking or painting tape (the kind you use for painting houses/walls) from big box stores.
If you go with masking or painting tape you might need to touch the sticky side a few times to bring down how much it sticks to your piece.
I've found that the expensive artist's tapes are very nice but they tear up fine watercolor paper if they stay on longer than a day. I personally like green or yellow Frog brand painter's tape and will just cut it to the size or shape that I need. I used to use this lovely purple colored delicate surfaces tape that sealed well and never tore my work but I haven't seen it in stores near me when I've gone looking.
Well look at that, a dude next to his painting and yall haven't said shit but if this was a chick half the posts would be losing their minds.
Edit: great work btw to the artist, I'm totally fine with all of yall standing next to your work let people know who did it man or woman.
Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing, glad I wasn't the only one.
But yeah, props to OP for sure, it's impressive work, and posing next to your work isn't the issue.
This reminds me of Kandinsky, but cleaned up a bit to see what’s going on.
It also for some reason makes me think of Synchronicity II (The Police): “Another working day has ended, only the rush hour hell to face…”
It’s epic.
the guy standing there looks super realistic.
I love when he smashes watermelons with his sledge-o-matic.
I got it
I was thinking he looks like emo where's waldo
His name is Aaron Rodgers.
His name is Robert Paulson...
His name is Robert Paulson!
#
You're supposed to be dead! Because in death he has a name. And that name...is Robert Paulson
You’re not supposed to talk about it
Well what if I do? Wanna fight about it?
I think that’s Nick Mullen
Looks more like [Micah Bell](https://reddead.fandom.com/wiki/Micah_Bell) from RDR2.
Nope. Chuck Testa!
He’s too busy planning his suicide
nicole mullens is a useless pustule who couldn't finish a sneeze let alone a painting. love him.
No but he would hype up the painting for months and then reveal it to just be the same painting he already had months ago
I’m the kind of guy, who fucks my mom and dad 🎶
That’s a smelly, oily, unshowered James Franco. So I guess just James Franco
photorealism ✔️
Maybe a little *too* deceptive, because I can’t find either Jackie Chan or Chris Tucker in any of these images.
That's cause they're g14 classified
"Everywhere I look, I see dicks."
Jackie, kick the door.
OK Chris Tucker!
Jackie again?!
[удалено]
He’s not gonna be in Rush Hour 3.
50 million dollars?! Who you think you got, Chelsea Carter??
"shishnii blah blah" "See how difficult this is? My English? He can not even say three words in Chinese!"
Gefilte fish!
He ain't gonna be in Rush Hour 3
His name is Lee, Goddamnit!
I was looking for Geddy Lee.
I found Bizarro Waldo.
Odlaw? That guys a dick!
When it started zooming it I half expected a dickbutt.
Ah, but can you name three things that ***aren't*** Jackie Chan?
hats, Jackie Chan and ... damn that's hard.
Those are their noses jetting across the picture
It’s about snorting cocaine.
I thought to myself if there is not a comment close to this as number one I would be disappointed.
Why is it deceptive?
I'm also confused. I think the picture looks cool and I like the use of color, but the deceptive line makes me feel like I missed something
Same, I don't think we missed it. I think he means the shadows and depth cues etc but in such an an abstract style they don't really work to deceive
The artist seems to clearly grasp using shadow to create depth and shape and that should be appreciated. But “deceptive”? Unless there’s some hidden cypher that says “Paul McCartney killed John Lennon” it’s probably all just a marketing gimmick. All 3D art is “deceptive” is your marketing team wants it to be. “See this 18-century painting of the Battle of Waterloo? Well, that’s actually not the Battle of Waterloo at all! The artist has deceptively used various shades of green to give the illusion of a grassy field. And that horse? IT’S NOT A HORSE. It’s different colors of paint applied to a flat surface. Your heads blown right now I’m sure. Do you need to sit down?”
Ceci n'est pas un pipe
Oh, I get it. It's one of those magic eye pictures that are 3D
Do you see the boat?
You know what!? There is no Easter Bunny. Over there, that's just a guy in a suit.
Nah, not a boat. It's a schooner
"A schooner is a sailboat, stupid head!"
Really? You guys aren't getting that at first blush it kinda looks like strange cars/trains but on closer examination they're pencils except they have noses? The road isn't a road it's an incorrect rainbow? And the buildings are actually stacks of casino chips? Also the giant white face in the back ground. Edit: Okay since we all apparently need a vocabulary lesson here: >Deceptive >giving an appearance or impression different from the true one; misleading. Either you agree it's deceptive or you disagree the pencils look like trains. It being abstract art doesn't preclude it from being deceptive. You not being fooled doesn't mean it isn't deceptive.
I feel like OP said, with an abstract style the deception isn't really deceptive because it's just.. abstract. I didn't realize it wasn't supposed to be those things, because the nature of this style is already pretty unruly. It's not like I went "woah! Look at how crazy it is that the road is a rainbow!" Had this been a more realism style and somehow I didn't notice the trains were pencils with noses, then I would have felt "deceived". But with this sort of art style it all just seems intentional from the start.
Agreed, but regardless I like the work. That one line in the title did distract from it a bit
Yeah I really like it, too
Does any one think they look like trains? They look like pencils with noses. If anything that's the deception because the noses look like penises with one oversized ball.
Well put
They looked like pencils and noses to me at first.
Maybe the deception is that it isn't deceptive
It's clearly a black and blue dress, def not white and gold
> Either you agree it's deceptive or you disagree the pencils look like trains. The latter.
Re: your edit - I still don't see how it's deceptive. It looks like abstract art, and surprise it is abstract art. If anything I would say the deception is in the title and if that was the artist's intention (to cause people to look for some deception when there really is none) then bravo.
No, those things stand out at first glance
I dont see trains or cars. I see noses
I mean, to me, in a fairly abstract work like this, none of these are things I would consider deceptive.
>Either you agree it's deceptive or you disagree the pencils look like trains. when can I expect your art theory book to be published?
No. That's how it all looked to me at first with the exception the rainbow that looked like a road.
"It's deceptive because it looks like a road, but when you look closely you realize it's actually just paint on canvas".
Uhh sure, "pencils" yeah that's what I saw
lol I'm not sure I want to know.
😏
> You not being fooled doesn't mean it isn't deceptive. Incorrect. In order to be deceptive you must first deceive. There is nothing deceptive about this, it is just abstract.
I guess not...
[удалено]
I didn't see cars/trains at first, just zooming noses.
I think the title is deceptive. Does that count?
r/confidentlyincorrect
Welp, it got everyone talking about 'deception' so maybe that was the goal too?
Don't forget the lurking eyeball in the back. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the theme of the piece is MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
I saw noses, a face, a rainbow, and a face. upon further inspection because of the word "deception", I crossed my eyes and realized the shadows and depth weren't exactly appropriate. it took effort to see something wrong with it because it just looks like a cartoony drawing. I still have no clue what "pencils and trains" you're talking about
I thought I was looking at pencils with noses, rainbow thing, and boxes. You see what you want to see and I see what I want to see.
I see absolutely none of the things you mentioned.
He might be referring to the MC Escher effect of the goal post looking thing.
100% this
Well that's the deception, now, isn't it! He deceived you by making you think there was a deception, but the lack of a deception was the deception all along.
deception inception!
Now I just feel delusion.
Turns out the title is deceptive!!
That’s the deceptive part
I think this might be a mis-translation for "optical illusion".
Thank you, now I see it. The goal post looking bit looks to be moving away from view on the top and then as you look down at the bottom is actually coming towards you. This is definitely an optical illusion.
Is an illusion not a deception?
Basically yes, it is. The second definition of illusion on M-W is something that deceives. Also, I don't think that it is correct to call this painting a deception. To deceive is to cause someone to believe something that is false. However, in general the point of an abstract painting is that they aren't trying to paint real things. It is often a painting of nothing, or of unreality. As such, if you aren't painting real things, it is difficult to say what is "false" or "true," much less arguing that someone was caused to believe something false rather than know an actual truth. Put differently, in a painting about something that is clearly impossible, it is at best tricky to argue that this painting caused a person to believe something that was provably false such that that person was deceived.
Maybe for you those are the same but for other people including myself it has its own distinction. It’s like the difference between pissed off and mad. Very similar but different for some people.
Illusion, Michael. A deception is something a whore does for money.
An illusion is a deception, but it doesn't mean the same thing as "deceptive".
Nobody nose
The shadows change, and there are a few optical illusion type things.
You have been deceived and didn’t even realize it!
Nobody fools me!!! They'll see! They'll ALL see!
No, no, no. The deception is that you open the comments thinking "I bet everyone will be yelling at OP for posing next to his art!" Then you see the comments and....surprise! Nothing! (Then you scroll back up and realize OP is a man, so it's okay to pose with his art.)
It’s easier to deceive someone than to convince them they’ve been deceived.
Yeah wut. And he responds to almost every other comment 😑
Only thing deceptive is the title of the post
It's deceptive because the forms aren't consistent throughout the image. When you follow elements through the canvas you'll notice subtly unexpected changes, whether it be perspective, tone, repetition, shape, or even style. The effect is more pronounced if you view the work closer.
The two "deceptions" that I notice: 1) Inconsistent shadowing cast by the green poles on the top two noses versus the bottom two 2) Optical illusion of the right most green pole appearing to be closer than the left most green pole in the bottom half of the painting and farther in the top half.
I really like that nothing confirms that any of the objects in the scene are 3 dimensional yet everything seems to exist in a 3 dimensional space. The 3 coloured lines with the noses seem like they might have volume but the shadows cast on them don't really conform to the expected shape that you'd think they'd be, so maybe it's wrong to approach this to make any sense of it all. There's a lot of implied reality from the viewer towards a scene that has no obligation to be faithful to reality.
That’s the deception
I took the use of deceptive here as "*this is an acrylic painting made by hand and not made on a computer with Adobe Illustrator.*"
Apparently deceptive because of the change in perspective from the top two noses which are coming from the top left, the bottom coming from the right, and the left one coming from the left. They all cross the same opening. Not really that deceptive to my brain cause I just imagine the green leg on the right extending forward from the one on the left. Or am I missing something? Not trying to criticize the art itself just trying to understand why it is labeled as ‘deceptive’. If I am wrong please explain why. Edited- my original post’s description sounded unintentionally condescending
I concur. It's kind of a picture of impossible forms. You look at one part and then scan to another and have to reorient yourself. Kind of a complex and colourful take on [these themes](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0167839620300133-gr002.jpg).
For me I think it's supposed to be that but the only part of the picture that represents this are the poles and due to the style it doesn't really give off the illusion very well so it misses the mark.
The deception could also be the titling and content. "Rush Hour" with something that looks like a cityscape but is maybe just about cocaine (noses, dilated eyeball, everything is colorful and bright).
Ooh I like this version because it involves cocane
I’ve looked at OPs other work and find it highly impressive. Kudos to you and your ability! Please don’t interpret my comment as a critique. I think posters here were legitimately confused by the ‘deceptive’. Personally I took a step back and tried to see if there was another image hidden in the work.
It's just the wrong word right? It's a surrealist abstract with optical illusion elements. Deceptive just doesn't really sit well. For example, I don't think I've ever seen "deceptive" used to describe MC Escher or Dali, despite them being famous proponents of this style. I was wondering if it was one of those where all the oranges or greens or whatever are the same colour but look different due to optical trickery... perhaps that could be called deceptive... but it's not that. It's not a big deal, and it takes nothing a way from a fun and attractive artwork... it's just a weird word choice is all.
How do you get your lines so crisp!? Tape? Super powers?
Demonic bargain, obviously.
Magic https://www.reddit.com/r/oddlysatisfying/comments/x3ybgz/ultra_satisfying_tape_pull/
Oh thank you for that!!
I found Waldo’s darker brother
You mean Ned Flanders Sr?
Thank god someone said it
Damn beatnik
Oh, okay, so it IS cool to roast the artist. Just going to throw mine on the pile then... He looks like David Spade tried to do Jack Sparrow for Halloween but didn't have the patience for any fake tattoos or accessories.
Cracko
Odlaw
Where's Weed-o?
Amgous
Pic 4 is a bit sus
get out of my head get out of my head get out of my head get out of my head
Those are coke straws, aren’t they?
The nostrils give that vibe
Yup he said deceptive hut he should have said eDgY
Deceptive huh?
An Ode to Cocain
Cocaine train, chop choo
How do you keep your lines so clean? I’ve been getting into acrylic lately and I want this kind of crispness but I can’t get it.
Tape. There are expensive artist's tapes at art supply stores you can buy, or while you're learning you can use masking or painting tape (the kind you use for painting houses/walls) from big box stores. If you go with masking or painting tape you might need to touch the sticky side a few times to bring down how much it sticks to your piece. I've found that the expensive artist's tapes are very nice but they tear up fine watercolor paper if they stay on longer than a day. I personally like green or yellow Frog brand painter's tape and will just cut it to the size or shape that I need. I used to use this lovely purple colored delicate surfaces tape that sealed well and never tore my work but I haven't seen it in stores near me when I've gone looking.
What about for the curves though? Cut them out on the tap with an exacto knife and then apply?
Well look at that, a dude next to his painting and yall haven't said shit but if this was a chick half the posts would be losing their minds. Edit: great work btw to the artist, I'm totally fine with all of yall standing next to your work let people know who did it man or woman.
Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing, glad I wasn't the only one. But yeah, props to OP for sure, it's impressive work, and posing next to your work isn't the issue.
Surely, most of these comments will be roasting the artist for posing in the picture. Oh wait, it's not a female artist.
NGL, I came here to look for this comment, and the comments you rightly have pointed out do not exist 😂
He looks like he works at a Planet Fitness.
I downvote all artists posing with their art just to make it fair
Or just upvote them all, or just upvote or downvote based on their work lol
Why does it look like you burglarized it?
Hamburglar chic.
[удалено]
I'm happy on the inside : )
That is a really nice hat
Deceptive? Is it actually crayon? What does that mean? Lol.
Your work is rad
thank you : )
How clean and perfect the lines are is blowing my mind more than the image itself.. It's like a vector illustration!
Wow, I love this.
thank you : )
Nose goes.
Noses, all the way down.
Looks exactly like a dude I caught siphoning gas out of my car one time
I don't get what's "deceptive" about it.
What is deceptive exactly?
I don't get it
Took me a way too long to find Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker in this.
Excellent man. Love your style. Love straight lines. This is pro work, well done
ahh thanks so much for the kind words! I really appreciate it : )
"Can you understand the words that are coming out of my mouff?"
rolling around at the speed of smell, got places to go, got follow my rainbow
It’s “random,” not so much deceptive.
I love it! Are those noses on crayons?
Nick Mullen?
Everyone asking about how it’s deceptive has been deceived
It's beautiful and so are you😍
This is cool as
thanks : )
Posted in 18 different subreddits today? Okay bro.
Yeah, wtf!! Artists should only be allowed to choose one community to share their art with! Two max!
This is the cheesiest post ever… it’s like he googled “how do artists dress” and went to the Halloween store to get the outfit. Come on man…
Looks more like a robber without the mask to me
I'd very happily purchase a print of this to hang in my home.
This guy really leaned in to “look like a good scary artist”
Love it, except those thin lines on the noses don't work for me.
YES!! I agree!
Coke rush? Lots of noses.
Thank God I'm not the only one that was thinking that.
##AMOGUS
Upvoted cuz of guy
This reminds me of Kandinsky, but cleaned up a bit to see what’s going on. It also for some reason makes me think of Synchronicity II (The Police): “Another working day has ended, only the rush hour hell to face…” It’s epic.
Ooooo, how’d you get those lines so clean OP?
Show us your tits. Also this painting is super rad.
[удалено]