This “1970s folk horror” style digitally-edited painting was a lot of fun to make, and you can read more about the creative process behind it in this old article.
As usual, this painting is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.
“Luminous Loft 1971” by C. A. Brown
Well, I thought that I’d talk briefly about why people say that the modern day is terrible. Whilst part of this is because memories become “rose-tinted” over time (with the bad parts fading away), it’s usually because someone is trying to make a point about something. It’s as much a rhetorical tactic – and one that I’ve almost certainly used here – as anything else.
But, the reality is probably a lot more nuanced. Some things are better in the present day and some things were better in the past. Often, it balances itself out. For example, whilst “AAA” videogames were less greedy and more creative in – for example – 2003, there also wasn’t really the vibrant indie gaming scene (where creativity is plentiful and greed is rare) that there is today. And, yes, I chose 2003 for a very specific reason here – since it was one of the last years when physical media was pretty much the only way to get games (Steam – for better or worse- sold its first digital game in 2004).
Not to mention that, whilst some things are unfortunately lost to history, it’s surprising how much old stuff carries over into the present day. The day before writing this article late last November, I wore an old T-shirt from 2002-3 (Iron Maiden’s “Rock In Rio” T-shirt, if anyone is curious) and played a modern digital re-release of a computer game from 2003 (“Jedi Academy”). You can still buy MP3s and DVDs online – I still do. Older websites – like Youtube and DeviantART – are still here at the time of writing, even if they have changed over time (in both good and bad ways). There are still forums on the internet too.
And, if you actually look at history – rather than nostalgia – the past has just as many, or more, flaws as the present day does. For all of the fuss about how the modern internet has impacted freedom of expression, would you really want to go back to the repressed 1950s – where, in Britain, novels could – until 1959 – still be banned for being even vaguely steamy or rude?
Where, in America, even the mere suggestion that someone was vaguely left-wing was enough to get them called a “communist” and – to use the modern term – “cancelled”? Where significant portions of the population had fewer civil rights than others? Where, due to moral panics – using similar tactics to modern ones – on both sides of the pond, horror comics either got unofficially banned or formally restricted?
And some things really are a constant. Yes, if you read news sites or newspapers these days, they will paint a very bleak, frightening and depressing picture of the world. But, from my memories of early-mid 2000s Britain, they did that back then too. Yes, the “issues” might have been different – but the underlying mood of “These are grim, miserable times… and the future will be worse” was basically the same. What can I say? It sells newspapers. And newspapers are businesses.
Don’t get me wrong, the present day certainly isn’t completely perfect. But I remember the first time I got nostalgic about the 2000s during the 2010s. It really caught me by surprise because I never expected to be nostalgic about that decade. Whilst there were a few good moments, some of it – like today – just seemed “ordinary” at the time. Mostly though, during large portions of the actual 2000s, I thought that it was a rather crappy and miserable time. Yet, thanks to heavily-edited, selective and rose-tinted memories, that decade has received a major upgrade today.
So, yes, the reality is a lot more complicated and nuanced. Still, when people say that the modern day is terrible – then it is usually for the sake of arguing a point or making a case about something. It’s an easy rhetorical tactic to use and – in some cases, there can actually be merit to it – but it’s worth recognising that people often say it for the sake of making an argument about something.
Perhaps Suzanne Vega summed it up best in her 2001 song “Last Year’s Troubles” (warning – brief flickering lights), but – lest anyone say that meaningful popular music is a thing of the past, I recently stumbled across a song from 2021 called “Ancient Dreams In A Modern Land” (warning – flicker) by Marina which has surprisingly deep and thought-provoking lyrics.
The modern day has terrible elements and good elements, just like the past did.
——————–
Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂
If I remember rightly, this digitally-edited painting was originally supposed to be a coldly metallic “Y2K era” style sci-fi painting. But I messed this up and had to do a lot of digital editing, which eventually resulted in an even cooler psychedelic painting 🙂 Yes, it’s probably more “mid 1990s” in style, but I ended up keeping the original title (with “1998” in it) regardless.
As usual, this painting is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.
“Space Station 1998” by C. A. Brown
Well, since I couldn’t think of a better idea for an article, I thought that I’d talk about a clever design decision in the old computer game that I was playing at the time of writing. I am, of course, talking about the 2003 sci-fi action game “Star Wars: Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy”.
One of the interesting things about this game is how – through game design alone – it encourages you to use the Star Wars series’ iconic lightsaber (a glowing laser sword) instead of other weapons.
Whilst it is the very first weapon you are given – during the introductory level – the designers clearly wanted to avoid turning it into a typical videogame starting weapon which usually gets completely ignored after a couple of levels.
Not only is it the most famous sci-fi weapon ever created, but there was also clearly a lot of effort put into animating attacks for it and other cool features – such as the ability to learn/change fighting styles, to throw it like a boomerang, to customise its appearance at the very beginning of the game etc… – to the point it just feels seriously cool to use. Not to mention that it is also part of the “special sauce” which makes the Star Wars franchise so unique.
After all, “Star Wars” was one of the first major media franchises to blend both the sci-fi and fantasy genres in an innovative way. The series famously takes place “A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away“, allowing for both the historical-style theme of a fantasy story but with enough leeway for lots of spaceships, planets, lasers, robots etc… too. A major part of this mixture of genres is that one of the main groups of characters – the Jedi Knights – uses magic and swords… sorry, “The Force” and lightsabers.
With the exception of the introductory level and the tutorial level, where you can only use the lightsaber, the other levels in “Jedi Academy” (2003) let you choose two futuristic guns before you start each level. In the real world, guns are more powerful weapons than swords. So, as soon as the player gets one, then they will intuitively use it instead. And, given how laser guns are also an important part of the series, the designers couldn’t just not include any guns in the game.
Not only that, when you switch to one of the guns, the game’s perspective changes and it becomes a first-person shooter game. Given how – even back in 2003 – a typical player would already be very familiar with this style of gameplay, there was a real risk that players could quickly end up neglecting the game’s coolest weapon – especially given its limited range. So, how did the designers prevent this?
Simply put, they used weapon balancing and level design. Until at least a third to half of the way through the game, the ranged weapons are noticeably weaker than the lightsaber. However, many early-game enemies will fall with just a single swing of your lightsaber – encouraging you to run towards them and use that instead.
It isn’t even until about two-thirds of the way through the game that you get a weapon – the “Stouker Concussion Rifle” – that is considerably more powerful than the lightsaber. And, by that point, you’ll already be used to reflexively drawing your lightsaber whenever there is trouble.
Likewise, whilst the game certainly does include wide-open levels, there is also a heavy emphasis on claustrophobic corridors, smaller rooms and places where it is more intuitive for the player to fight at close range. Again, this is also there to encourage the player to switch to their lightsaber rather than trying to fight from a distance with a – less powerful – laser gun.
Also, especially during the later parts of the game, there are sometimes lightsaber-wielding villains who can only be fought using lightsabers (and “force powers” – magic spells). If you try to use a projectile weapon against them, they will literally just deflect the projectile right back at you. Yes, these lightsaber duels aren’t really the most well-designed part of the game’s combat, but it’s still a clever way to ensure that the player still uses this weapon even very late into the game.
But, yes, something as simple as weapon balancing, enemy design and level design can be used to shape how the player plays the game. Again, whilst the lightsaber looks/sounds cool, you’ll probably still instinctively switch to a laser gun as soon as you get one… only to quickly switch back to the lightsaber when you realise that the gun isn’t as powerful as you thought it would be. It’s subtle, but excellent, game design 🙂
—————-
Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂
Since I post these paintings quite a while after I make them, I can’t remember the exact mood/detail of this daydream I had last year, but it was obviously fun enough to turn into a digitally-edited painting.
As usual, this painting is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.
“Reclining Room (Daydream)” by C. A. Brown
Well, although I’ve compared cheap 2000s and 2020s hardback notebooks before, I thought that I’d focus a bit more heavily on the modern style of notebook today. This was mostly because, in 2023, I ended up switching over from using spiral-bound sketchbooks and traditional 2000s-style hardback notebooks to pretty much just using the modern style for everything.
The key features of the modern style – seemingly inspired by Moleskine notebooks – are that the covers have rounded corners, there’s a vertical elastic strap around the notebook and there’s – often, but not always – a cardboard pocket on the inside back cover. Older-style hardback notebooks just looked more like ordinary hardback books.
For illustration, here are two visual examples of modern-style hardback notebooks/sketchbooks:
Here are two examples of modern-style notebooks/sketchbooks. Note the elastic strap and rounded corners on both books. This style is probably the most common for hardback notebooks these days. And, yes, the gold one is technically a sketchbook rather than a notebook.
Both were relatively cheap, I can’t remember how much the purple one cost, but they typically cost about £4-6 from Amazon. Still, the few examples of 2000s-style hardback notebooks I could find online these days weren’t that much cheaper, so the cost is less of an issue than you might think. Especially since, even at these prices, they’re still significantly cheaper than higher-end examples (eg: Moleskine, Leuchturm etc…).
As for the design, the rounded corners are probably more of an ergonomic thing since it prevents the book from snagging on anything if it is dropped into or pulled out of a bag or backpack. On the downside, if you are scanning pages from these books – especially sketchbooks with this design – you’ll often get annoying dark areas at the corners thanks to the rounded edges. Yes, this isn’t too difficult to cover up with image editing software or to crop around, but it’s mildly annoying. Still, if you aren’t scanning anything in these books, it isn’t really an issue.
The elastic strap is another mixed blessing. Yes, it technically stops the notebook from falling open, but I don’t really remember this being that much of an issue with old 2000s-style notebooks (just hold them closed, store them flat or upright, don’t drop them, put them between other things in a backpack etc...). And, whilst removing the strap every time you open the notebook takes less than a second, it’s a mild hinderance. I guess the strap could be useful for keeping things in the cardboard pocket safe, but the only real use for it is if you’re using the book as a sketchbook.
Case in point, when I started a second sketchbook – mostly for fan art and stuff like that – last year, I initially made ballpoint pen art in an old A6-sized W.H.Smith notebook I had left over from the 2000s. Literally just a plain, simple “hardback novel” style book. And the sheer amount of page curl with this book got ridiculous after a while. Whether it was the pressure on the pages or the large quantities of ink I was putting on the page, the book bulged like a concertina when I was done with it.
Conversely, when I switched over to smaller modern-style 9cm x 14cm “Talens Art Creation” sketchbooks with better paper, I started using watercolours in these sketchbooks. As any artist will know, watercolour paint can often warp or crease the page slightly when it dries. Yes, painting on both sides of the page also helps, but this is where the elastic strap really helps. Even when completely filled with paintings, the book still remains reasonably flat 🙂 Again though, like with the scanning thing earlier, this is sort of a slightly “unusual” use-case for many notebook owners.
I can imagine that the small cardboard pocket at the back of many of these notebooks is probably a useful thing to have in some circumstances. But, if you’re carrying the book in a bag, backpack or pocket, then you can probably just use that to store things in instead. It’s what I used to do back in the 2000s when I travelled more and had notebooks without pockets. Still, even though I don’t really use the pocket, it’s a neat feature to have regardless.
Whilst paper quality and binding quality can vary between brands, the few examples of modern notebooks I’ve had hands-on experience with all seems to have fairly decent lie-flat binding. The purple notebook in the image earlier – which I don’t use as a main notebook – requires a little bit of a “push” to get it to lie flat. Whilst there probably are bad examples – which use “paperback novel” style binding – they, from my limited experience, seem to be less common than in older hardback notebooks from the 2000s.
As for paper quality, it always varies between brands and always has. And it really does seem to follow its own logic. Case in point, my “everyday” notebook is a cheap 13cm x 21cm plain paper Cambridge notebook (typically about £4-5 each on Amazon) and the paper is substantial enough to handle 0.7mm rollerball pens fairly well. On the other hand, more expensive Moleskine notebooks these days have notoriously thin paper which – if you use anything other than a cheap ballpoint pen or a pencil – will often render the other side of the page unusable due to ink bleeding through.
In conclusion though, notebooks are notebooks. Both old and new ones have pages that you can write on. Whilst the modern style has some small advantages (eg: the corners don’t snag on things, sketchbooks bulge less, they’re more likely to have lie-flat binding etc…) and some small disadvantages (eg: annoying if you want to scan the pages, takes a second longer to open, mildly more expensive), so did old-style notebooks.
The differences are subtle enough that it’s difficult to say whether or not they are better. Still, as mentioned in the other article I linked to at the beginning, they’re designed for different purposes. In the pre-smartphone days of the early-mid 2000s, notebooks were common, utilitarian everyday items which were meant to be cheap and practical. On the other hand, thanks to smartphones, notebooks are less common these days and are often seen more as leisure or prestige items (eg: journals, executive diaries, “commonplace books”, sketchbooks etc...), so the slightly fancier style of even most cheaper notebooks reflects this.
Still, notebooks are notebooks. Both old and modern ones have small advantages and disadvantages, but they’re still just books that you can write in.
——————–
Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂
I wasn’t feeling very inspired, so I decided to make a digitally-edited still life painting of the pens on my desk and it turned out way better than I’d expected 🙂
As usual, this painting is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.
“Tools Of The Trade (Still Life)” by C. A. Brown
Well, I thought that I’d talk briefly about the problems which can happen if you only have one or two inspirations. This was something I ended up thinking about in mid-late November last year. I realised that it had been a while since I had made any fan art based on movies, so I planned to make yet another piece of fan art based on my favourite horror movie – Dario Argento’s “Suspiria” (1977).
Still, whilst looking at screenshots of the film to refresh my memory, something wonderful happened. I suddenly had the inspiration to make some original semi-digital art inspired by the film. I wanted to play around with the aesthetic – psychedelic colours (especially a vivid shade of red ) and art deco, paired with a suspenseful “dark fairytale” mood. I also felt compelled to experiment with perspective too.
And, at first, the original painting seemed to be going well. When I was thinking of a character design, I decided to go in a more gothic direction than the film. I’d originally also planned to take inspiration from classic survival horror videogames – and the “camera angle” took some inspiration from these – and draw the character holding a pistol. But, whilst working out the pose for this, I stumbled across a different pose – without a gun – which worked better. It made the picture look more like gothic/horror media than action genre media.
Still, when it came to the background – it wasn’t long before I ran into a problem. Yes, it was technically different but – with very limited inspirations – it was almost a “rip-off” of two locations from the film – the hotel near the beginning and the psychedelic room near the end. Yes, there were subtle differences – and a more varied palette – but it still looked a bit too much like “Suspiria” (1977) for me to be comfortable with calling it an original painting.
Fortunately, since I make semi-digital paintings, I could try to make a scan of the painting a bit more original with image editing software (an open-source program called “GIMP”). And, at first, everything was a failure. Adding lots of “bloom” and smoke effects with digital airbrushes just made it look like someone had tried to make a PS3 game based on the film. Likewise, I thought about just turning the entire background red but – without the slightly varied palette – this actually made it look more like the film.
So, I switched the background’s palette to more of a dark pink, added a glowing light source or two and some extra shading. This made the lighting look mildly more “realistic” and “diegetic” and less like the stylised lighting in the film. Also, the areas which were originally light blue in the painting turned white, which added an extra difference to the lighting style used in the film. I also desaturated the character a bit, as well as adding a palette more consistent with the lighting. Even so, it still almost felt too similar.
Suddenly, I remembered that the program I was using has a “circular motion blur” effect. Adding this to the background completely changed the mood of the picture. It was less like “A psychedelic 1970s Dario Argento movie” and more like “A low-budget late 1990s- late 2000s horror movie DVD cover“. I could live with this. Especially since, given how I’d messed up the perspective slightly, the blurring made the background look more like a mysterious underground tunnel or temple than a high-ceilinged room as well.
Here’s a full-size preview of the semi-digital painting:
This semi-digital painting should “officially” be posted here in mid-March next year.
Yes, it isn’t the best semi-digital painting in the world but at least the look and feel of it was different enough to “Suspiria” (1977) for it to be an “inspired by” painting, rather than a lazy rip-off.
And this is one of the problems with having just one or two inspirations. The fewer inspirations you have, the more chance there will be that you’ll just end up making a lazy rip-off rather than anything original. Originality comes from having lots of inspirations and combining them in interesting ways.
In other words, if you have lots of inspirations, then the creative process is more like a fun and organic “Maybe a hint of this, but paired with that and that” type thing. If you only have one or two inspirations, it’s often a much more frantic and panicked “No, this looks too similar! What can I change?” type thing. Needless to say, one of these two things results in better and more enjoyable art than the other…
————-
Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂
If I remember rightly, I wanted to focus on detail with this digitally-edited painting but, I was feeling a bit uninspired and ended up using more digital effects than I’d expected. Still, although it didn’t turn out as well as I’d hoped, it was still reasonably atmospheric 🙂
As usual, this painting is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.
“Phone 2002” by C. A. Brown
Well, I thought that I’d talk briefly about making a piece of “mediocre” semi-digital art, and why I’m glad that I did. For context, it was mid-late November last year. I didn’t really sleep well and, whilst my mood wasn’t terrible, it wasn’t amazing either. I realised that I should probably do some art practice, but my “inner critic” was shooting down painting ideas left, right and centre.
In the end, I just decided to go with the “safe” and unchallenging choice. A cyberpunk cityscape – something I’ve drawn and painted more times than I can remember, something I can pretty much draw in my sleep by this point. And I don’t regret making this piece of art.
Still, here’s a full-size preview of the small semi-digital painting that I made:
This semi-digital painting should officially be posted here in mid-March next year.
Whilst it wasn’t a “bad” painting, it wasn’t really anything particularly adventurous or inspired for me either. But I’m glad that I made it. Why, because the experience of making it was relaxing. Just sitting there with a small 9cmx 14cm watercolour sketchbook, a 4H pencil and two waterproof ink rollerball pens (0.5mm and 0.7mm if anyone is curious), partly drawing intentionally and partly just randomly doodling and scribbling. Focusing on this tiny page rather than anything else.
Using a limited palette of watercolour pencils which meant that I didn’t have to think too much about colour schemes or colour pairings. Relying on colour theory knowledge which is pretty much hard-wired into my mind by this point. Just focusing on the process of adding paint, on going over the drawing with a wet paintbrush afterwards, blending colours together. Waiting for the paint to dry then adding rain to the dried painting the old-fashioned way with a white gel pen (you can do it digitally, but there’s something satisfying about just drawing random lines with a pen).
Then scanning the painting and cropping it to size in an old late 1990s graphics program before using a modern open-source one called “GIMP” to add a few basic effects. As well as saturation/lightness/black level adjustments, and also using selections to add a subtle blurring effect to the background, I also used low-opacity digital airbrushes to add “bloom” to the lights. Afterwards, I made some small corrections and added thin black “letterboxing” bars to the top and bottom of the picture using an old version of MS Paint.
This is all routine, there was nothing experimental or innovative for me about this painting. It was something I could basically make in my sleep by this point, but this itself made it worthwhile. Why? Because it was familiar and relaxing, because I could just “turn my brain off” and enjoy the process of making art for its own sake.
Yes, artists who make art themselves – rather than using “A.I. art” programs – will know this already, but like at least half of the reason why people make art isn’t because of the result. It isn’t to “show off” to an audience or to be trendy or anything like that. No, it’s because the process of making art is this weirdly satisfying thing which feels good to do – even when the art is bad or mediocre. The best way I can describe it is like reading a really good novel, or re-playing one of your favourite videogames.
It’s focusing on something for minutes at a time, with enough creative decisions to keep it interesting and compelling. It’s something which gives you a feeling of achievement – however subtle – because you actually have a thing that you made at the end of it. Being able to show it off to an audience or call yourself an artist is just a side-effect, a secondary thing. Even without this, even if you just make a random piece of introspective art or a piece of fan art based on something obscure or random, then you’ll still get all of this satisfaction.
So, yes, even when you make a piece of mediocre art, it can still feel good because of the process of making it. Even if the end-result is nothing special.
—————–
Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂
PekoeBlaze - the official blog 