Anonymous ID: 80034d Feb. 21, 2019, 5:07 p.m. No.5314517   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>5314390 (pp)

 

Fuck "Electric Universe".

Look into Unified Field Theory.

 

Then consider that gravity is a push, not a pull.

Then consider open and closed systems.

What if you found yourself between two closed systems?

Squeeze.

 

You need to be positioned in such a way where the forces aren't extremely imbalanced or you'll find yourself as flat as a pancake.

 

Actions... Reactions... A cruise ship in the ocean...

What is Mass? What is Density?

Why is it so.... "attractive"?

The moon... why is it far less attractive than Jupiter?

Maybe the moon isn't trying to push itself onto you like that other busy body.

Anonymous ID: 80034d Feb. 21, 2019, 5:23 p.m. No.5314830   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4869

>>5314794

Y'don't say…

 

Kinda like, and forgive me for being so topical, Smollett and Sandmann.

It's astonishing how so many people can look at the same situation/event/object/subject and see so many different things…

Anonymous ID: 80034d Feb. 21, 2019, 5:30 p.m. No.5314997   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5119

>>5314851

I can dig it!

 

Some things to possibly play with:

-Large background sections (thick strips, splotches)

-Ways of moving the eye in certain directions via design elements

-Words don't have to immediately correlate with the images they're on. Meaning can be shown through context as time is spent studying the image.

-Sets… so related (whatever you're calling these), and not necessarily back to back. It could be a stylistic thing, for example, if you come up with multiple approaches that each lend something to their subject matter.

-Perhaps if you want to revisit one without messing with its "timestamp", scan it, print it, paste it in the sketchbook, go from there. Or completely recreate it from the bottom up, but that would probably take more time than you're looking to put into each one, individually.