>>4513848(OP) you're gonna have to give us some context here is this your image? if not, whose is it? if it's yours, how'd you make it? what was your process? if not, how'd the artist in question do it? if there's more like it, please post more.
00
BurtGummer!!96etipKDKVm06/12/26(Fri)14:57:28
I think this is a reference to David Hockney dying. Pop artist and pioneer of Polaroid photography in art. RIP. He experimented with photographic cubism. If /p/ had heroes, Hockney would be one of them.
This is how a person actually sees things. We don't see a whole. We see tiny fragments. At first glance Hockney's pictures look almost normal, but the more you look...
00
Anonymous06/12/26(Fri)18:04:10
Some people might look at this and think this guy lived his whole life without a wider lens. But, this is how they actually see things. They see tiny fragments.
00
Anonymous06/12/26(Fri)19:30:56
>>4513853 >>4513854 >>4513855 Damn alright David I just thought you were making boring paintings I didn't know you had some real shit going on too. RIP
>>4513856 Who’s this we? You know most people have good peripheral vision right?
>>4513981 You have zero theory of mind and a vision disorder
These are cubist, its an art circlejerk thing. He did this on purpose not because he had busted eyes and saw things like this. That’s what makes it art. The conscious decision to participate in some culture (however retarded and ivory towered it is).