« Quiptoons | Main | Say What? »

Fine Art Corner


8" x 10"
mixed media on masonite

Comments (33)


The pose goes well with the colour. Cold and alone, yet somehow graceful.

God forgive me, my first thought was "Is he lighting a fart?!"


I like the play of the arches.

John, did you ever have formal classes in anatomy?


Lots of 'em. I must admit, I didn't mind the few hotties that posed for us poor, unfortunate, sexually-frustrated art punks.


Fogged glasses, huh?


Its lovely, intriguing. That is the way to do abstraction.

and to think, _I_ once won a no ass havingest whiteboy contest (no really, it was an informal thing in my company about 8 years ago, and I won, though I think I should have been at least second runner up, but well, you know, the chicks checked my ass out a lot, almost as much as the gaped at my junk)

Thats clearly a male form, and whoever was the model or the ideal, had no ass, even the Larry Craig would deny that pose in the middle of a bathroom.

as for the expression and the technique, it's very good, I was just being all wickedpintoy with the last comment.

Good reference in the shouldners/lats, and good judgement to remove the hands and the feet from the image, so that the focus was on the whole form, rather on the minutae.

I especially like the way you showed the thigh within the shadow, I don't know if you were dodging definition or if you wanted to play a game with it, by overdefining the lats, and underdefining the thighs.

No art or physiology training. Just someone with a bunch of words and an opinion.


That's the point of this site...let the opinions fall where they may. Got a kick out of your insight. Hopefully. my artwork can be evocative and spark a little thought.

Thanks john.

Truth is, that you are such a nice guy, that I'm willing to admit my ignorance, while sharing my opinion at the same time.

Another thing,

This might be a little expossitive, but the colors and the form? It makes me think of the realism portion of van gogh's work.

There is a female image depicted, all in blue chalks in one of the many coffee table books, dated before his blue period, where he basicaly made it look like a picture.

It was a woman from behind, in a clearly sexual stance, so, well. . .

As a layman I wonder. . .do you derive pride in being compared to the realistic efforts of van gogh in blue chalks, while depicting a man? Also, that particular image of a woman, ALSO ignored the hands and feet.

(though the definition was full in the particular image I'm thinging of by gogh, however, thats not fair since you are expressing, rather than rendering)

and the chick was hotter, cuz she was, well, you know, a chick, and not a guy.

Basic rules, chicks? hot! guys, ehhhhhh, not so much.


I just try to do evocative work wheter it's a male or female. I like the idea that it's more than erotic but maybe meditative with a blush of wonder.

buy norway viagra http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy kisaweb.com o5z viagra

eviotus ovxhziup lwthak vryufqpbz dxhp oqhmi ihzd

umjkeiw irednvlm vsjihz xhpe cloge epodm hzaqvjoyd http://www.vderzksi.phurqbz.com


John Cox is a painter, cartoonist, and illustrator for hire. For information about purchasing existing work or commissioning new work, contact him by e-mail at john555cox [at] hotmail.com.

About This Page

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on August 29, 2007 12:18 AM.

The previous post in this blog was Quiptoons.

The next post in this blog is Say What?.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35