Monster-Mammaries-#1
Monster Maiden #1, by Eric Wayne.

I have no idea how people are going to react to this work, which is the first in an intended series. Someone who knows my work AND knows the state of the art world might see a strategy here. But the first thing I’d hope people would notice is that it’s a traditionally beautiful painterly image, regardless of the subject.

Sky
Detail of the sky. [Click to see sized for your monitor.]
Next the subject matter is unavoidable – a monster with boobs. And here I’ll reveal my strategy for infiltrating the art world, which until now I haven’t been able to attract any attention from. The boobs! Anyone who follows online art magazines like Juxtapose, or Hi Fructose, knows that NSFW art makes the cut. One of my friends didn’t know what NSFW stands for, and it’s “Not Safe For Work”. The blue chip art world is virtually inaccessible to an artist like me, at least at this stage, but online art magazines take submissions and with the right body of work, I might be able to get them to showcase some of my work. But I don’t do erotic art, so the boobs are a kind of compromise, and not without a sense of humor and a bit of punking the art world. They are the Trojan Horse to smuggle in my monsters. Y’know, on one level I’m saying, “You want boobs, HERE are you boobs!” So I’m doing it in a bit of a subversive or defiant way, but it still fits comfortably within the framework of my own art that I really like to do, and may legitimately appeal to those mags as well.

detail-of-background
Detail of landscape. Don’t tell me you like this detail better than the whole painting. I know.

And normally I’m not a monster artist either, nor do I intentionally work in series. I’m fairly against it as a practice, because artists too often try to find themselves a distinct style, then market their work as a “brand”, and get stuck in that niche. Unless ones style kicks ass, that can be a trap. This series for me includes so many of my techniques, interests, and approaches, however, that I think working in a series will be productive.

detail-of-monster-eyes
Detail of the eyes.

This work has a lot of ambiguity and marriages of opposites. Obviously I’m working the attraction + repulsion angle. It’s digital but it’s impasto. It’s science fiction, but it’s expressionism. It’s beautiful, but it’s hideous. It’s classical in its painterliness but the subject is modern. It’s tragic and a bit funny (because it’s like a joke but treated very seriously)…  Generally I think it might be a bit heavy for a lot of folk, though. I think this image is obviously beautiful, and if it makes people uncomfortable and few people “like” it than that is a sign of success.

The series allows me to use my imagination a lot, in a way that’s challenging and fun. I have to come up with different monsters. And it interests me because I have no idea what the images are going to look like. There’s a very wide range of possibilities, but what will hold them together is 1) the monsters 2) the boobs 3) the painterly style [which is my own digital painting technique I’ve been developing for years and am still honing]. I’ve been working really hard on this technique, and especially on the final polishing phase to remove artifacts from the process. Yeah, yeah, yeah, why don’t I just make physical paintings? Working in this way there’s no formula for me to follow, because I’ve devised my own processes, which makes things a lot harder in some ways, but I don’t know of anyone working in quite the same way, so for me it’s unexplored territory, which makes it more interesting. Plus I think I’m getting results that would be very difficult to achieve in conventional painting. Anyway, like I said, I have no idea what creatures I will come up with, in what poses, with what backgrounds, and there’s only one way to find out.

detial-of-mouth-and-tentacles
Detail of mouth and tentacles.

It touches on the human condition, identity, gender, technology, mutation… This piece has a kiss of the original Outer Limits to it, in this variety of monster, which I just made up on the fly. Its right eye is very 50’s – 60’s sci-fi. So there’s that bit of nostalgia for the imaginative yearning of sci-fi when it was relatively new.

It’s not work intended for children, the corporate boardroom, or most people’s homes. What else is new with my art? However, without the monster head some people might quite like the landscape in the background, or else the breasts. But those elements wouldn’t interest me without the monster head pulling it all together into one peculiar brew.

detail-of-boobs
The monster has tan lines just because.

For me it seems fresh. I’d think it might appeal to fans of Francis Bacon, Frank Auerbach, Van Gogh, Monet, Eric Joyner, Glenn Brown, or possibly George Condo… I also think enough of these, say 6-12, will be hard for every art venue to completely ignore.

I’m hoping to knock out about 2 of these a month. This one took just over two weeks, but I was also working out a lot of the technique, experimenting with it, and typing a bunch of notes to keep track of all the stages and various tools and settings I use.

~ Ends

And if you like my art and art criticism, and would like to see me keep working, please consider making a very small donation. Through Patreon, you can give $1 (or more) per significant new work I produce, and cap it at a maximum of $1 a month. Ah, if only I could amass a few hundred dollars per month this way, I could focus entirely on my art. See how it works here.

Or go directly to my account.

Patreon-account

Or you can make a small, one time donation to help me keep on making art and blogging (and restore my faith in humanity simultaneously).

donate-button

23 replies on “New Art: Monster Maiden #1”

  3. Hilarious. At first, I was like, really? Boobs? But then I looked at it again and realized the supreme humor in it. Classic sci-fi but with quite a twist.

    Like

    Reply

  4. I love it!! I love the way you paint.. A little like Van Gogh??? Or am I wrong?? The subject is very different of course!! I love everything that is under stated here…. What I picked up (of course this is very subjective)is fear of how love can hurt, how love can turn to hate and when there is a fight sometimes you can see you tender half turning in some kind of monster (!) so yes I see it as half funny half tragic here… However it is very interesting in the way it was done and in the concept. Can you see any relation in the fact your brush strokes are like Van Gogh and your subject is a monster maiden?? Just curious…. I didn’t want to advance myself in hazardous theories here but the fact you posted details about your brush strokes that one surely will relate to Van Gogh and the fact that the subject is or should be somehow a horrific maiden… I have drawn my own conclusions here but I’m curious to see if it’s just me or if you see them too!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Yes, you are right about the Van Gogh influence. You can see that in a lot of the details of my images. It’s an effect I’ve been deliberately working on for years, simply because I like Van Gogh’s impasto painting, and have studies his images a lot in books and even in museums. Even though it’s a whopping cliche to love Van Gogh, it’s a cliche for a reason, and he’s one of my very favorite artists.

      Your interpretation about “hurt” and “love” are not what I intended, but I do like your angle. I think it is possible to see that in this particular image.It’s quite rare for an interpretation I didn’t intend to be a positive one! I did intend for there to be feeling.

      As I said in my post, I have no idea what the next ones will look like. I want a variety so they could be quite different.

      Anyway, glad you like the piece. Few people seem to really like my art, which kind of surprises me because I make what I rally like, so this also means that people don’t generally like what I like. Hopefully more people will be persuaded over time to give my art a little more consideration, and not dismiss it in a split second.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. People do not always take the time to reflect on a painting. You have to be connected to your emotions and also not care about preconceived ideas and only listen to your heart when you look at a painting. Yes it’s been done by someone else and maybe he had his intentions but the input that the viewer give is part of the painting too. As long as the main emotions intended by the artist are felt, the little variations from various viewers are only a plus. I love your work. I also love the fact that you will create a serie of paintings with the same theme… Plus the theme you chose has infinite possibilities. Your are on a very interesting path. Can’t wait to see the rest!

        Like

      2. Agree with your take there. You said, “As long as the main emotions intended by the artist are felt, the little variations from various viewers are only a plus.” Often that first part is left out! We’ll have to see what I come up with. They should take about 2-3 weeks each, depending on circumstances and whatnot. Glad you like the series idea!

        Liked by 1 person

      4. I have no idea. That part of the point of doing them, or attempting to (I haven’t been able to stick to a series for a long time). I will never know what they will look like unless I make them. They will likely evolve in the process, and not be illustrations of preconceived ideas. I couldn’t have predicted or imagined how the first one would come out. So, they might be ugly or not. And it may not be entirely up to me.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. That’s what I thought. It’s obviously an evolutive creating process. You definitely have something there! Like I said, can’t wait to see those maiden come out! May the Muses be with you and may you keep on being inspired!

        Liked by 1 person

      8. Thanks Tobe! Thanks for the holiday wishes. Like you, I’m not big on celebrating Xmas, or any of the conventional holidays. How you have a productive year as well, and I appreciate your support and interest in my art! Yeah, I did look at Heyley’s art on your blog. I was pleased to see the quality of the work you shared, which makes your appreciation of my work all the more flattering. Merry Xmas to you, too, and have a great year! (Also I’ll be playing some Voivod soon while working on art.)

        Liked by 1 person

      9. You are a real gentleman! Thanks for the kind compliments! I’m glad to have been the connection back and forth to Voivod’s world and their fans! They love your art as I do! Peace Out my friend! Glad you like Hayley’s work. She’s a very kind person. Hope you will get to meet some people you love and have some quality time with them. Looking forward to talk to you some more in the near future! Peace Out my friend!

        Liked by 1 person

      11. I can see why you say that, I think, but Vera couldn’t be flattered. My monster is hideously ugly, unless you are looking beyond that into her expression and “humanity”. There were a couple comments from guys on Google Plus about how if they had enough drink in them, they could get with it.

        Liked by 1 person

      12. Of course Vera couldn’t be flattered but I meant it could be a persona of the Wall and in that state of mind could be perceived as a heartless, evil creature that contributed to build ”The Wall” if you perceive the concept not on a political but on a personal level. As for getting it on with her, I think the level of alcohol required would be implying that i’m too drunk to fuck… 😉

        Like

  5. (I think my intial post didn’t register and got lost, so I’m re-posting what I managed to salvage. sorry if it comes out duplicated after all in the end)

    Hi, Eric. Found your blog post about the debate of skill in art while searching the web. Great read. It’s hard to find people who aren’t completely rooted on either side of the debate and can understand both sides in an informed way. It seems these days you’re either a digital illustrator who abhors anything with a conceptual side to it as pretentious, or you’re an elitist conceptualist who scoffs at anything that’s not trying to say anything.

    Anyway, after looking around your site I found your digital paintings. I really like how you’re using digital paint to make your works. At first I assumed you were using Photoshop, but upon seeing the closeup details of the impasto, I suppose you’re using one of the fluid simulating programs like Paint or Artrage. The reason I initially though you were using photoshop is because there seems to be an emerging trend between digital illustrators and concept artists to use Photoshop in a way which simulates traditional paint.

    I don’t know if you’re familiar with these artists, seeing as they’re mostly illustrators working in the film and video game industry. But even though they may not interest you thematically or conceptually, I think you’ll enjoy them visually. It’s impressive what thy managed to accomplish with smart usage of digital tools, brushes and textures only within Photoshop. Here are some examples:
    https://www.artstation.com/artwork/o0eKw
    https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Xnx9Y
    http://jamajurabaev.deviantart.com/art/Study-2-452321108
    http://lingy-0.deviantart.com/art/Vpp13-461160409

    At the very least, i think it’s good to be informed of what other people are doing in similar circles.
    Hope you like them, and keep up the good work.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  6. Yet are you capable of imagining a female who is Not defined by her sexuality? Her physical body, and how fuckable it is deemed to be? Aim to attract or repulse an assumed male viewer, or in this picture, the discomfort from both together? Maybe your professors had a point about you straight white males maybe shutting the fuck up for five minutes, at least on some subjects.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Let’s just say you aren’t a troll, or a friend pranking me, which remains a distinct possibility.

      “BJ” attacked: “are you capable of imagining a female who is Not defined by her sexuality?”

      Yes, take a look at the image you are commenting on. I imagined a “female” who is “not defined by her sexuality”. You can’t look at that monster and see it as literally an objectified female beauty. Look at it’s head. You took the joke literally.

      If you are serious I think you missed the irony, blind-sighting yourself with your own ridiculous rhetoric. Fool! The breasts are ironic and a comment on how difficult it is to get recognition in the art world unless you do NSFW art with things like breasts in them. It’s punking that reality. It is very specifically a reaction against boob art. Got that?!

      It says, “You want boobs, HERE are your boobs!” Imagine it was done by a woman and you might be able to pry open your mind a bit. Do YOU think this creature is “fuckable”? What would someone fuck? Do you want to kiss it? Do you want to smooch it’s tentacles, gaping mouth, and lick at it’s bloody snot bubbles? If you want to debate me, let’s go. I challenge you – and YOUR professors – to a debate. But don’t define me by my physical body and tell me to shut up. You are there guilty of precisely that which you self-righteously presume to oppose. You are the one who defines people by their DNA or bodies, sees people as “other”, automatically attributes deleterious qualities to them, and then demands censure and censorship. I am a mind first, and a body somewhere down the list. When you categorize people by their physical bodies, you should know you are on thin ice, and any pretense to progressiveness is hypocritical.

      I’d thank you for your comment if it was anything more than the perfect illustration of how a narrow-minded, anti-white-male, scapegoatist, and ideologue would insist on projecting a patently false and insipid interpretation on an artwork that is apparently beyond your scope or imagination to access or assess. Try looking at the work without blinding prejudice and foregone conclusions, set aside the talking points you memorized from your manifestos, and you might wake up just a tiny bit.

      I look forward to your enlightened rebuttal.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment