Gosukusan. U're wrong. Again I'm not evaluating the art, which has praised many times, but the concept it is not strongly tied to print. The concept is to transform the world of D3 in the "world zelda". As an example, make the vomit this print in flying hearts, etc...
And I was not happy with the result, as I explained before.
Sorry but I'm not wrong. You obviously aren't understanding what I'm saying. To use your example, turning the vomit in this print in flying hearts, does not apply. It doesn't apply, because its creative premise for existing...is non-existent. Why is the vomit flying hearts? Why chose the vomit? What makes it the focus? How would you apply an original idea to justify the changing of the vomit? How would you give that idea a reason to exist within the world? What represents that idea? Why flying hearts? Also, the fact that you would discredit a transformation of the art in any way proves your illogical opinion towards the subject matter. And as a note, the world is not meant to represent the world of zelda. In fact, the ONLY Zelda reference within the bubble is the bomb explosion animation. The rest of the bubble is a combination of references that reflect an overall semi-original style. I'm not defending the art, I'm defending the method. Inserting unoriginal art is in no way, shape or form a preferable and admirable alternative to the variety of transformation ideas that exist. Such original transformation exists to create originality in a way that adding unoriginal work can scarcely accomplish. How can you disagree when the premise of the contest is to "transform" the picture into something "great"? I don't know why I keep wasting my time trying to explain. I just have to accept the fact that some people prefer the simplicity of ignorance when confronted with the complexity of truth.
Gosukusan, the case is more like you do not want to understand, for stubbornness and pride. Obvious that the vomiting change in hearts was a quick example. Why the monster with pink heart in the face instead of the original? It is not hard to understand that it can be done in this print or any other. The winner for example, linked to the print can not be done now.
Does anybody really care?
Sorry but I'm not wrong. You obviously aren't understanding what I'm saying. To use your example, turning the vomit in this print in flying hearts, does not apply. It doesn't apply, because its creative premise for existing...is non-existent. Why is the vomit flying hearts? Why chose the vomit? What makes it the focus? How would you apply an original idea to justify the changing of the vomit? How would you give that idea a reason to exist within the world? What represents that idea? Why flying hearts? Also, the fact that you would discredit a transformation of the art in any way proves your illogical opinion towards the subject matter. And as a note, the world is not meant to represent the world of zelda. In fact, the ONLY Zelda reference within the bubble is the bomb explosion animation. The rest of the bubble is a combination of references that reflect an overall semi-original style. I'm not defending the art, I'm defending the method. Inserting unoriginal art is in no way, shape or form a preferable and admirable alternative to the variety of transformation ideas that exist. Such original transformation exists to create originality in a way that adding unoriginal work can scarcely accomplish. How can you disagree when the premise of the contest is to "transform" the picture into something "great"? I don't know why I keep wasting my time trying to explain. I just have to accept the fact that some people prefer the simplicity of ignorance when confronted with the complexity of truth.
Hope this gets me in. Better chance here then from blizz.
ps. my quote is gone! >(
//img705.imageshack.us/img705/6874/d3smaller.png" width="" height="" alt="" />" width="" height="" alt="" />
CURSE!