Have you had others "read into" your pages?

[AmyK]

A rather quirky thing happened to me today, and I thought I'd share and see if it has happened to anyone else. My husband came home from work and said that one of his co-workers (and a family friend) told him, "Your wife has skillz!" Immediately, my sweetie was on edge wondering if he was going to have to beat the guy up. :o But then the friend proceeded to go on and on about my new planner cover (posted on my blog), and how it showed so much depth and symbolism and started talking about white picket fences and green grass and blue skies and a lot of other silly stuff. It was a very high compliment of course, but I intended none of it - I just threw together things in a way that I thought looked pretty good.

So has this kind of thing happened to you? Anybody ever go ballistic about how deep and meaningful one of your most shallow pages is? :rolleyes:

[Diginellie]

Well no it hasn't happened to me, but I just had to swing by your Blog to have a squiz :) I too love your planner and also the greeting cards you made with Karin's tags, they are special. You are doing some nice work and you should be proud of it :)

[webchyck]

Oh yes this has happened to me. I've been doing the whole online posting thing a long time. I can't think of a specific example, but I know sometimes people crack me up with what they get from my scrapbook pages or digital art!

[AmyK]

Thanks for the compliments, Helen, that is so sweet of you. :)

And Becky, I can completely imagine that you get some great comments from your work. I am constantly "seeing" things in yours too. :D

[webchyck]

Okay, I just remembered an example of people reading into my artwork something that wasn't there...but it wasn't about symbolism...it was about what they actually saw in the piece:

http://www.digitalartquirks.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=1150&cat=500&ppuser=8&sortby=d&sorttime=9999&way=asc

[digime]

that's pretty funny Becky...I checked out your layout and you know....I could see a fish too...right there on the lower left hand side...just swimming on into the picture! Perception - what one person sees and another doesn't - is such an interesting concept!

[AmyK]

Becky, that is hilarious! I definitely see the fish, although it looks more like a piranha than something tropical to me. Maybe we should start using that piece for one of those Rorschach tests... :p

[kygirl]

Okay, I just remembered an example of people reading into my artwork something that wasn't there...but it wasn't about symbolism...it was about what they actually saw in the piece:

http://www.digitalartquirks.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=1150&cat=500&ppuser=8&sortby=d&sorttime=9999&way=asc

I still say if it looks like a fish, and smells like a fish (that part's added just for the symetry of the sentence), it's a fish. LOL

Alison, my layouts are so shallow that no one ever finds deeper meaning in them...Just kidding. It's happened a few times. I love that people can find meaning (and fishes) in art, even when they weren't meant to be there.

[AmyK]

Donna, you need to give yourself credit! I specifically remember that I tend to look at your pieces for longer than most. You always have such great little details in yours. I really liked your latest one (http://www.digitalartquirks.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=2471&cat=500&ppuser=50&sl=k) - I see that word "Withdrawn" stamped on the library card, and it adds so much to this - whether you intended it or not. ;)

[Nevermore]

I have the opposite problem. I do deep meaningful pieces and people say "nice puppy" or the like.

Dear Becky: I will never be convinced it isn't a fish.

[Diginellie]

I had to laugh at Kim's take on Becky's stamp - a girl with too tight bikini pants :) After I read that that's all I could see - with the imp running away as fast as his little legs could carry him:)

[Nevermore]

Yeah, well I had to laugh at Kate's nice puppy comment on my grapes. Actually choked up a little coffee. What a delicious sense of humour.

My "fruit: an exhibit" is NOT one of my symbolic forays (I am so rolling on the floor here). But it has been a learning experience. What I have learned so far:
1. Templates are, contrary to expectation, very flexible and versatile
2. Very minor changes in the template or papers can be major visual changes
3. Printing my stuff out changes my attitude toward a piece and I am now grappling with the idea of whether or not my digital stuff is okay as digital per se or if it also needs to be printable or if I need to segregate in my mind my digital vs. printable work. This latter point was hammered home during my ATC work this month. I was over the moon with my card ON SCREEN and I think it really worked on screen. It did not work so well printed out and I did three or four variations. One worked well enough (or, admittedly, I just got tired enough that I let it go) to do the cards with but it was definitely a compromise. O joy, I think I just stumbled on Sunday night's blog topic. Because I need to talk about this more. Nevermore is never one to let a theoretical discussion slip away with a lengthy debate!

[kygirl]

Hijacking the Thread....

Kim, it is amazing how different things can look printed out, isn't it? I saw this when I started printing out all of the Rolodex cards. Some that looked so beautiful in the gallery just didn't have the same pizazz on paper. And, many of us (me included) used type so small that it became illegible. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I've seen people on the regular scrapping boards using 30 point type for copy. Have you seen 30 pt. type printed out at 12x12? It just shouts.

[webchyck]

I've had this same experience...some things just don't translate to paper. Then again, it could be the KIND of paper, too. Like, it might look better on glossy than matte paper. Trial and error...the stuff of art!

[AmyK]

Oh yeah, I've been there with the printing issues too. It's always a wee bit disappointing when a gorgeous digital piece looks like junk on paper. But surprising when a page that was just fluff turns out great in print. I wish I could figure out the ryhme and reason to what *will* be good printed out, but I haven't figured it out yet...

[graybonnie]

I have a canon photo dedicated (6 color head) printer that I have been used for a lot of my stuff (Dec ATC front, Jan ATC, & Jan Magnet) to achieve the color I see on screen. Downside is max print size is 8x10. Need to experience with out sourcing for some big sizes just to see what happens. My inkjet print can only proceed flat color.

[Nevermore]

Yeah, my apologies for continuing the hijack but I am deeply interested in what people have to say on this topic (not that I am not interested in the original post, lol, c'mon you know what I mean!)

I concur with Becky that sometimes it is as simple as using different paper. My real life scrapping supplies are limited but I pretty much have state of the art digital stuff and for example, I printed my winter ATCs on three different kinds of paper but that was not the answer. As far as calibration goes, I have a Pantone imatch which is a very expensive calibrator so that is not always the answer either (it has helped somewhat and I am pleased I got it. Not on the essential list of must haves, a luxury but a nice one). I have what used to be the best in its class printer (neck in neck with Epson) which is a wide format Canon i9900. It now has a better model out but I am not replacing it for at least another two years. In short, I don't think it is a question of my equipment per se. I think it is a question of the medium. And the medium (as that famous Canadian said) is the message.

I suspect I am light years behind others in thinking this through and that may be in part because I have never paper scrapped. I came at this whole thing from the digital end. I had done some messing around with web graphics. My focus was what it looks like on screen. There is nothing wrong with that as long as that is where it is viewed. But I am wondering if I have to change my whole mind set if I am going to continue real life swapping.

Graybonnie, I bought my wide format so I could print out 12 x 12s. When I printed them out, I really didn't like a lot of them. That may be a cool traditional scrapping size and may work when you have tons of real life texture and elements but it is a whacking lot of digital space. I downsized to 8 x 8 and the odd time 10 x 10. The advantage of 8 x 8 is there are tons of letter size papers around and frames etcetera. 12 x 12 can be a nightmare to get here in Canada (once I had to import from the States via a wholesaler to get Epson matte 12 x 12. Turns out they did a whole run of 11 and something by 11 and something. Numpties! I had had custom frames built and the smaller size just didn't fit in! Lots of anguish, expense and swearing!)

[graybonnie]

I'm like you Kim in that I only do digital and come from a photo background. Never have done a totally square format of any size. The traditional layouts I have done are 8.5 x 10 and I'm prefectly happy. If I ever decide to go bigger it is going to be something for framing which I would take to a professional printer.

(I have edit this three times... need more coffee....yugh)

[SteinwaysMom]

Amy - I think the sign of good art is that people can get a lot of meaning from it, even if you weren't consciously trying to achieve that.

[adee]

hi guys,
interesting about what you say about being disappointed with the printed result sometimes - funnily enough the best printed results I've had have been when I've printed onto a sheet of cream bazzill instead of proper photo paper. theres something about the texture which just adds to the depth. i am actually too scared to get some of mine printed as i think i won't like them in real life ... so I got a digital photo frame.....just wish it was square lol!

[kygirl]

I have a digital photo frame, but had never thought about putting my Quirk art into it. Duh! Guess what I'll be doing tomorrow?