I'm not sure how I only have six blog posts when I knew I was supposed to be posting twice a week...
Anyway! The next few posts are going to be me catching up, so yeah that's a thing.
From Stewart's section on Motion, I enjoyed that it discussed the way that motion can be implied in art because some piece don't actually move at all (102). I know it's really obvious, but it seems like something people don't really take into consideration because it isn't very easy to make things look like they're moving when they aren't.
For example:
Laocoon Group, Roman copy of Greek original, Vatican Museum, Rome
Photo by Marie-Lan Nguyen
However, if I tried to make something that implied motion, I don't think it would come
across very well.

Can you include a picture, Falon? Help us visualize this post better?
ReplyDeleteI will edit this post and attach a picture.
Delete