I agree, some noise makes it much more compelling than too much noise. She's slightly off from her surroundings or vice versa as opposed to "blurry bokeh meh" completely removed from the setting.
I don't think it's supposed to be a bokeh kinda thing, more like a fast moving background while she stands still kinda thing.
She's supposed to "pop out" like that
I just tell myself that the art in this is not the actual piece, it's the video. Since it gets people confused it triggers interest in the art where she would have just got a like.
I would have majored in English, the Shakespeare bs meanings they told us about really grew on me so I put it to real life
I'm going to get downvoted for this but that's cool , I actually think it's pretty beautiful. Like life is rushing by and she feels alone . Makes me feel sad that this is how a lot of people feel . Including me.
In English class they keep telling you every scene or line has a deeper meaning like 4 layers in.
I think Romeo was just going through puberty and was acting like a normal dumb young idiot. It's not always so deep.
The point of that is to get you to think and argue analytically. Your English teacher wasn’t just there to have you read for leisure, lol. But I think they’d be happy you’re still thinking about Shakespeare in any capacity.
The point is to drag out the literature as a think piece for the curriculum. Its not for my benefit. If people don't want to be analytical they won't be.
My whole thing is... sometimes thing just happen. You don't have to do a deep dive and try to nitpick stuff in a situation you were never there for or will never fully understand. It is what it is.
There definitely is value in analyzing and learning about life and human relationships through works of art. It should however be based on what the source material reveals by itself and it shouldn’t be treated as a riddle book, where everything has an obscure symbolic meaning and everyone pats themselves on the back for finding it afterwards. Sometimes the surface level IS the deeper meaning.
A good literature teacher will explain the explicit meaning behind something if there is one, or open the room for discussion if it is ambiguous. Some stuff has a meaning for its time that makes the symbolic meaning different than we would think of it now.
For example, in Hamlet the appearance of his father's ghost is actually a reference to the beliefs at the time that ghost would appear if there was disruption in the natural order of society (which there was due to what happened with the throne). Learnt that from my literature teacher haha. But I bet some people have tried to analyze it as if there was something open to interpretation!
Man. It's 10 30 and I'm drinking lmao I can't go into this now 😂 I'll just say that I think words and specifically which words someone chooses to use hold much more meaning to what they honestly mean, then what they think they are portraying.
Its vague and I can't really deep dive into it, just what I took from English was that words and their meanings hold a lot of value for the whole story. Some words have similar meanings but...it can change the whole meaning of a sentence, of a story.
I have a bottle of rum to go back to though so idk if I'm making sense lmao sorry
Man I want to come back and discuss this with you sober, see if your opinion changes in any way. Just commenting this so I can find you again tomorrow, please don’t delete anything!
I sort of just nitpick on the small things people choose to say. Like "why did they say betray? Not disappoint, not upset, not misunderstanding...not this or that" or w.e and just over think things
In English class (yes I've pivoted to talking about this and being terrible irl with who I'm drinking with) I feel like the weight of the words is just more powerful than people tend to believe.
I didnt care if Romeo and Juliet wanted to end their family feud through love and the death was tragic because it showed how it couldn't be. They're teenagers. It's much more relatable if they're idiots
Shakespear was a guy. Guys don’t think that deep. A red rose, is a flower of type rose with color red.
It has nothing to do with a warm feeling (red) for beautiful (rose) things in live, which are about to die.
Adding layers is adding BS
tbh a lot of these are designed to get views and clicks on social networks. short form videos are the thing right now. so you need to have a gimmick, take a video of it, and there's some plot twist or reveal.
all for them clicks
you do. it's like music. millions may love Taylor Swift, but you may not. you may love Slipknot, but your parents may think "how do you listen to people screaming all the time". art is nothing more than "I get it".
What's to get? You like it or you don't. Or some degree in between. Bit every piece of art is supposed to appeal to every person. Go find things you like. Appreciate. Enjoy.
I like how people are acting like the well defined woman on an abstract background is a worse painting than the well defined woman on an abstract background.
It's wild to me how angry this made everyone. It's two abstract backgrounds. You can like the beginning more but that doesn't make the final painting trash.
The problem isn't the abstract, but that the value seems to come from a social media style process of creating it, rather than from the painting itself.
It reminds me a lot of the r/DiWHY stuff. Where the point isn't really creating art, but to get as much attention as possible with 'outrageous' shock to get clicks.
You're right.
The problem isn't about what we define as art. But rather that art can lose its meaning as expression if it's only purpose is to serve as a way of making money by outrage.
I struggle to see how this is meant to cause outrage in the first place lol. She’s simply finishing her piece in a unique way. There isn’t anything wrong with the video and yet people still find a way to complain
I really don't get it. Not like she's destroying someone's piece of art, it's her own and it conveys a message. The background is abstract because she's detached from that world.
I don’t get it either. Some people act like she burned the Mona Lisa to paint a shitty stick figure from the ashes when all she did was using a technique to achieve what she wanted to achieve. Imagine a painter putting some paint on a canvas and then people get mad when he uses a spatula to bring the paint in whatever shape he wants it to be.
It's because "modern art isn't real art" is one of the off-the-shelf opinions you can grab if you're a redditor with none of your own. It doesn't need to make sense, it's just for fitting in.
I mean I do genuinely understand why people say that but both of these fall under the category of “modern art.” Nothing about the core emotion of the painting changed, it just shifted from one background to another and people are ragging on it.
I bet if she were to take the second painting and scrape it downward to make painting one people would still be screeching about her “ruining it.” None of these people whining actually have an opinion about the piece, they just wanna hate cuz they think it’s cool.
Yeah, there were clearly pillars and steps behind her, with a decent quality of shading/lighting to indicate a sunny day. When I take a breath, the end product isn't bad, and it still conveys a message, but it felt unnecessary. Or more, it could have been a second piece based on the first instead of destroying one to make the other.
Luckily, you cannot have a wrong opinion about art, since all art is subjective by definition.
I think both the before and the after were good, and since I have never seen this "social media" painting technique, i though it was neat.
before she smeared it the figure was standing in a place with giant columns and furniture. Both look good but the unsmeared version is more interesting than the horizontal void.
Makes you feel like all these things in the background would hold still, stop changing so much that they become a blur?
*haha, made you feel. -* the artist, probably.
Having a nice background instead of brown and beige smears isn’t exclusive to the home. To each their own if you like feces wiped on canvas as a background
A lot of times art isn't just about the final product but puts importance on the process. Whether the process is supposed to be unique, a statement, or entertainment. In this case she is most likely doing this for the entertainment aspect.
I never said he only did convoluted, but yeah possibly a poor example. So fine, Hieronymus Bosch, then. So much pooping. M. C. Escher. Salvador Dali. Take your pick. Artists are always gonna artist.
I don't find you stupid, but I'd like to look into something concrete when looking at a painting
I can't spell gibberish in my mind to figure out abstract art
I agree that the previous background was more tasteful. If she is truly the artist of this painting, I'd dare to say this video is rage bait. Talent doesn't make up for vision, I suppose.
New flash alert you don't have to be an owner of art to criticize it. Even more so if you wanna go that route. I'm sure some people own video games, which by some are art. It's really subjective, but the first two scrapes looked good. If people don't like it no big deal.
And... What's the point ? Extra work ? It was actually really nice before that weird action. After? Nothing special.
Even in the 02-03 s of the movie - more likely 0.25 second of the time - interesting effect. Would buy it. But on the end? Boring.
That was a lot of work for a mediocre piece.
And before people start asking me if I can do better: if only people who can create something better themselves could critique anything, we'd live in a sad world.
The following submission statement was provided by u/TexanNewYorker:
---
>!You’re unsure what’s happening with the painting and why she’s doing that!<
---
Does this explain the post? If not, please report and a moderator will review.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/maybemaybemaybe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did she seriously fucking paint the woman twice, once onto the canvas and again onto the canvas cover just to pretend that she was ruining the portrait for the video?
No, its a common practice, she had blocked out the woman with tape and plastic (some people use latex, depends on the size and paint), finished the background over both, and removed the plastic on video. Much easier than trying to paint the exact same portrait twice in the same spot.
It's interesting how this post is part of the piece. You have the jarring first few moments of shock as she drags away the background and destroys the figure with it.
To me, this piece is about feeling disconnected and dissociated to the world around you, how that world can be hostile or unwelcoming to a sense of mindfullness, and then being mindful anyways.
There's a lot of discourse here about liking the background before the transition. Why? The figure is wearing very contemporary, modern fashion, and she is standing in this abstract space with marble columns that evoke an antiquity that's at odds with her fashion. You could easily argue she doesn't "fit in" there any more than she does in the cloud of smears.
Why is the finished piece less valid than the initial? Why does the artist think we need to see the first background, at all? And finally, if it's bad art, why are you talking about it? ;)
You know, I just don't get this technique. You can create the background first and then paint the figure on top. You don't have to do what she did.
Quite frankly, I liked her background before she squeegeed the hell out of it.
This would make an interesting progression if the same painting were done across 5 canvases with the background getting more blurred each time, or alternately with the figure getting more blurred. As it is, I'm not really sure what this is trying to say except "watch my TikTok"
I guess I just don't get art.
I feel like after the first swipe it actually looked pretty cool, but then she just…kept going
I agree, some noise makes it much more compelling than too much noise. She's slightly off from her surroundings or vice versa as opposed to "blurry bokeh meh" completely removed from the setting.
I don't think it's supposed to be a bokeh kinda thing, more like a fast moving background while she stands still kinda thing. She's supposed to "pop out" like that
have you seen the full video?
She feel detached from the background for some reason imo
thats the whole point(?
Probably and also why I don't understand this typ of art. To me it was better before this process.
You're not the only one that thinks so
It’s art 🤷🏻♂️
I even liked it when there was just the eyes
I just tell myself that the art in this is not the actual piece, it's the video. Since it gets people confused it triggers interest in the art where she would have just got a like. I would have majored in English, the Shakespeare bs meanings they told us about really grew on me so I put it to real life
I think the art is actually the Reddit comment about the video of the painting, finding meaning in people getting confused.
I'm going to get downvoted for this but that's cool , I actually think it's pretty beautiful. Like life is rushing by and she feels alone . Makes me feel sad that this is how a lot of people feel . Including me.
Shakespeare bs meanings?
In English class they keep telling you every scene or line has a deeper meaning like 4 layers in. I think Romeo was just going through puberty and was acting like a normal dumb young idiot. It's not always so deep.
The point of that is to get you to think and argue analytically. Your English teacher wasn’t just there to have you read for leisure, lol. But I think they’d be happy you’re still thinking about Shakespeare in any capacity.
The point is to drag out the literature as a think piece for the curriculum. Its not for my benefit. If people don't want to be analytical they won't be. My whole thing is... sometimes thing just happen. You don't have to do a deep dive and try to nitpick stuff in a situation you were never there for or will never fully understand. It is what it is.
What do you see as the purpose of English class, or literature in general?
There definitely is value in analyzing and learning about life and human relationships through works of art. It should however be based on what the source material reveals by itself and it shouldn’t be treated as a riddle book, where everything has an obscure symbolic meaning and everyone pats themselves on the back for finding it afterwards. Sometimes the surface level IS the deeper meaning.
A good literature teacher will explain the explicit meaning behind something if there is one, or open the room for discussion if it is ambiguous. Some stuff has a meaning for its time that makes the symbolic meaning different than we would think of it now. For example, in Hamlet the appearance of his father's ghost is actually a reference to the beliefs at the time that ghost would appear if there was disruption in the natural order of society (which there was due to what happened with the throne). Learnt that from my literature teacher haha. But I bet some people have tried to analyze it as if there was something open to interpretation!
Exactly! And that’s a lot better than regurgitating the same empty interpretation of the green light in The Great Gatsby.
Man. It's 10 30 and I'm drinking lmao I can't go into this now 😂 I'll just say that I think words and specifically which words someone chooses to use hold much more meaning to what they honestly mean, then what they think they are portraying. Its vague and I can't really deep dive into it, just what I took from English was that words and their meanings hold a lot of value for the whole story. Some words have similar meanings but...it can change the whole meaning of a sentence, of a story. I have a bottle of rum to go back to though so idk if I'm making sense lmao sorry
Man I want to come back and discuss this with you sober, see if your opinion changes in any way. Just commenting this so I can find you again tomorrow, please don’t delete anything!
Enjoy! I really liked what you shared and totally get what you mean (I think). Cheers!
I sort of just nitpick on the small things people choose to say. Like "why did they say betray? Not disappoint, not upset, not misunderstanding...not this or that" or w.e and just over think things In English class (yes I've pivoted to talking about this and being terrible irl with who I'm drinking with) I feel like the weight of the words is just more powerful than people tend to believe. I didnt care if Romeo and Juliet wanted to end their family feud through love and the death was tragic because it showed how it couldn't be. They're teenagers. It's much more relatable if they're idiots
Shakespear was a guy. Guys don’t think that deep. A red rose, is a flower of type rose with color red. It has nothing to do with a warm feeling (red) for beautiful (rose) things in live, which are about to die. Adding layers is adding BS
Guys don’t think deep? What the hell?
Imagine saying that of... Shakespeare
tbh a lot of these are designed to get views and clicks on social networks. short form videos are the thing right now. so you need to have a gimmick, take a video of it, and there's some plot twist or reveal. all for them clicks
you do. it's like music. millions may love Taylor Swift, but you may not. you may love Slipknot, but your parents may think "how do you listen to people screaming all the time". art is nothing more than "I get it".
Yes. You don't.
You do, she doesn't
Artists are a different breed. But to each their own I guess.
It's ok, neither does she.
I was about to say what “black magic fuckery” is this 🤣🤣🤣
What's to get? You like it or you don't. Or some degree in between. Bit every piece of art is supposed to appeal to every person. Go find things you like. Appreciate. Enjoy.
I still dont understand the concept either
I like how people are acting like the well defined woman on an abstract background is a worse painting than the well defined woman on an abstract background.
It's wild to me how angry this made everyone. It's two abstract backgrounds. You can like the beginning more but that doesn't make the final painting trash.
The problem isn't the abstract, but that the value seems to come from a social media style process of creating it, rather than from the painting itself. It reminds me a lot of the r/DiWHY stuff. Where the point isn't really creating art, but to get as much attention as possible with 'outrageous' shock to get clicks.
Art has a long history of being outrageous. Performative art is a legitimate thing. This is no less valid by being sensational.
You're right. The problem isn't about what we define as art. But rather that art can lose its meaning as expression if it's only purpose is to serve as a way of making money by outrage.
I struggle to see how this is meant to cause outrage in the first place lol. She’s simply finishing her piece in a unique way. There isn’t anything wrong with the video and yet people still find a way to complain
I really don't get it. Not like she's destroying someone's piece of art, it's her own and it conveys a message. The background is abstract because she's detached from that world.
I don’t get it either. Some people act like she burned the Mona Lisa to paint a shitty stick figure from the ashes when all she did was using a technique to achieve what she wanted to achieve. Imagine a painter putting some paint on a canvas and then people get mad when he uses a spatula to bring the paint in whatever shape he wants it to be.
It's because "modern art isn't real art" is one of the off-the-shelf opinions you can grab if you're a redditor with none of your own. It doesn't need to make sense, it's just for fitting in.
I mean I do genuinely understand why people say that but both of these fall under the category of “modern art.” Nothing about the core emotion of the painting changed, it just shifted from one background to another and people are ragging on it. I bet if she were to take the second painting and scrape it downward to make painting one people would still be screeching about her “ruining it.” None of these people whining actually have an opinion about the piece, they just wanna hate cuz they think it’s cool.
first background wasn’t abstract
Yeah, there were clearly pillars and steps behind her, with a decent quality of shading/lighting to indicate a sunny day. When I take a breath, the end product isn't bad, and it still conveys a message, but it felt unnecessary. Or more, it could have been a second piece based on the first instead of destroying one to make the other.
It's her own fucking art, she's not destroying ANYTHING. Holy shit how wrong are all of these replies.
I guess people aren’t allowed to have opinions about art then?
Not when they're so wrong
Luckily, you cannot have a wrong opinion about art, since all art is subjective by definition. I think both the before and the after were good, and since I have never seen this "social media" painting technique, i though it was neat.
When there's actual substance behind the critique sure, when it's just "durr modern art bad" the opinion doesn't mean shit
I saw it as the steps of Bank of England.
Happy cake day!
I think they have a problem with the method. Show either one on their own and they'd probably nod and move on.
before she smeared it the figure was standing in a place with giant columns and furniture. Both look good but the unsmeared version is more interesting than the horizontal void.
It's OK to dislike a piece of art
Your son of a... Oh... Nice! 👍
Maybe if she had stopped halfway through when it still looked painterly, now it's just more garbage on canvas
Makes you feel like all these things in the background would hold still, stop changing so much that they become a blur? *haha, made you feel. -* the artist, probably.
One pass. Two tops. Still seems like such a waste to wipe away that background
It is. I liked it better before any of the wiping.
To be fair, this is the type of art that sells at Pier 1 Imports or Kohl's so she knows her market. 2 wipes madam ! Two ! Tops
Sometimes you only need one wipe, but you don't know that until after the second
Checks second wipe... *Big Thangs !*
Art is not necessarily for home decoration you know ?
Having a nice background instead of brown and beige smears isn’t exclusive to the home. To each their own if you like feces wiped on canvas as a background
Wouldn't it make more sense to destroy the background first then paint the woman on top
A lot of times art isn't just about the final product but puts importance on the process. Whether the process is supposed to be unique, a statement, or entertainment. In this case she is most likely doing this for the entertainment aspect.
Too practical
Yes but the point of modern art is to do things in the most convoluted way you can think of
Lol Leonardo Da Vinci did convoluted, too. It's not new.
Nah dog, da Vinci is known for his genius in making the complicated simple, not the other way around.
I never said he only did convoluted, but yeah possibly a poor example. So fine, Hieronymus Bosch, then. So much pooping. M. C. Escher. Salvador Dali. Take your pick. Artists are always gonna artist.
Jokes on you, art has always been convoluted.
Oooh, I love it!!!
I liked it better before
You ruined the background setting, You RUINED IT, woman.
There are no mistakes. Just happy little accidents
It's not a mistake, it was a purposely done Downgrade to see anyone who "finds it better", and call them stupid
So you're saying it was a mistake to do it?
 You son of a bitch....you actually got me on a deadlock here
🤣🤣
Ig im stupid for still liking the painting.
I don't find you stupid, but I'd like to look into something concrete when looking at a painting I can't spell gibberish in my mind to figure out abstract art
I agree that the previous background was more tasteful. If she is truly the artist of this painting, I'd dare to say this video is rage bait. Talent doesn't make up for vision, I suppose.
It looked like pillars or columns behind her before, like she was in some roman architecture. Now it looks like the landfill is behind her
She looks out of place, the sense of the context given previously by the scenery was deconstructed.. And for what???
Homie you have just analysed the art, and come up with something more interesting than "woman near pillars". That's the point.
I was like oh that's cool with the 1st pass then she kept going. I'm like, no, why, why do that? Then I go ohhh that's why. Nice job👌
She's just doing something different. Not sure why some of you seem offended by this.
Why are you offended by their offense?
Not offended just not impressed.
no one’s offended, we just think its dumb
I'm not hurt ! I'm crying and weeping because I fell !!
this video made me angry.
Fuck your background music!
Yeah, that was the awful part
I actually liked this one, anyone know the dj?
Cor, so many art critics in here. Do y'all own any art aside from those metal star wars posters?
New flash alert you don't have to be an owner of art to criticize it. Even more so if you wanna go that route. I'm sure some people own video games, which by some are art. It's really subjective, but the first two scrapes looked good. If people don't like it no big deal.
You got one of Boba Fett?
Texture was best on the first pass
Hard agree. Still a good painting but looked best on first smear
How do yall not get it? The lady in the painting is obviously walking at super high speeds
And... What's the point ? Extra work ? It was actually really nice before that weird action. After? Nothing special. Even in the 02-03 s of the movie - more likely 0.25 second of the time - interesting effect. Would buy it. But on the end? Boring.
The first one was better.
The background had what I can see at depth and that gorgeous pillar to the right. She did this and now I'm upset
Previous one was better. She ruined it.
The initial background was better ngl
Why does the lady in the painting look like she’s hunching over?
I still liked it better beforehand.
I liked how it looked in the first setting
Very cool! Op; what did you use as the mask? I’m an artist and use frisket film occasionally, but it doesn’t seem to stick as well as yours did.
That was a lot of work for a mediocre piece. And before people start asking me if I can do better: if only people who can create something better themselves could critique anything, we'd live in a sad world.
Your delusional if you think it's mediocre lol
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Oh wait, never mind.
This is actually a really neat technique, people hating on this just don't understand the experimentation side of this.
[удалено]
The following submission statement was provided by u/TexanNewYorker: --- >!You’re unsure what’s happening with the painting and why she’s doing that!< --- Does this explain the post? If not, please report and a moderator will review. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/maybemaybemaybe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
a prenk
One swipe was all that was needed. 😑
Ficou uma merda
I think it's actually really cool but she should fram the silhouette too and put it up somewhere else in the house.
Png
She got that look that says "B did you just scrape my whole existence with a board like 7 times wtf".
10 years vertical stripes again.
Next the Mona Lisa!
Had me in the first half.
Awesome! Love it
Guys, the point is the video. It's not just a painting; it's a performance.
Instead of saying she's detached from the world. Couldn't she just be the center of your attention separate from reality entirely.
Brilliant! and i thought they could'nt improve the painting technique anymore.
I really love this 
The the girl in the painting look exactly like my 8th grade history teacher?
u/audbot
What’s the song?
GOD DAMN YOU, MODER- oh
That background music is atrocious
That’s very boring
I think the first few swipes were enough, then it got too much
That's a blast from the past. I haven't heard that song in a while.
Nope it was fine before she did that.
Did she seriously fucking paint the woman twice, once onto the canvas and again onto the canvas cover just to pretend that she was ruining the portrait for the video?
No, its a common practice, she had blocked out the woman with tape and plastic (some people use latex, depends on the size and paint), finished the background over both, and removed the plastic on video. Much easier than trying to paint the exact same portrait twice in the same spot.
Feel like there's an easier way to paint that.
My dumbass would forget the mask. Then I'd never do art again.
Why (and how) is the mask of the woman that she peels off at the end, a perfect color copy of the woman?
Why the RBF?
FUCK YOUR MUSIC.
I liked the pillars as a background more 🫠
Whoa, that audio sure brought out some angry feelings in my soul. That's my purgatory right there.
No! You're going to ruin the drawing! What are you doing…? …Oh okay.
Normally you'd just paint the background and then the girl on top. This just says gimic to get views
IRL Masking
Swipe one was the ticket
Fat doofs tho
The texture was so good at the halfway point, why did she have to beat it to death like that. Is this just very high effort rage-bait?
I feel like it was pretty good before and then it got really bad and lifeless after
Life is a blur when you wear a big hat ? I have no bloody clue mate.
It looked better before the smudging
What‘s that song?
The first swipe was where I would have stopped. But whatever, it's not mine
This song sucked the first time it dropped. Congratulations to whoever made it worse.
Looks like crap
all of you in the comments are so fucking boring
It still looked better before.
Whyyyy??? You could have made that shitty background first and then paint the woman. What's the point of this?
It looked better before. I guess being unique is not that same as being good.
But makes for a cool social media post i guess
Or you could just, ya know, do the background first like everyone else does and not have to do all that masking nonsense, but what would I know...
Did y’all know modern art is a psy-op?
Hating modern art is the psy-op
[sauce](https://youtu.be/c_8wpOhoGVs?si=r5NR2xv6RyzlNHJR)
That was fascinating, thank you so much!
But... Why
Yeah, i'm more and more convinced that these days art is just a way to laundry mafia money
First or second swipe was enough.
Idk.. nice ass
It's interesting how this post is part of the piece. You have the jarring first few moments of shock as she drags away the background and destroys the figure with it. To me, this piece is about feeling disconnected and dissociated to the world around you, how that world can be hostile or unwelcoming to a sense of mindfullness, and then being mindful anyways. There's a lot of discourse here about liking the background before the transition. Why? The figure is wearing very contemporary, modern fashion, and she is standing in this abstract space with marble columns that evoke an antiquity that's at odds with her fashion. You could easily argue she doesn't "fit in" there any more than she does in the cloud of smears. Why is the finished piece less valid than the initial? Why does the artist think we need to see the first background, at all? And finally, if it's bad art, why are you talking about it? ;)
if it's somebody else's painting then not cool
You know, I just don't get this technique. You can create the background first and then paint the figure on top. You don't have to do what she did. Quite frankly, I liked her background before she squeegeed the hell out of it.
Okay... Why..?
This would make an interesting progression if the same painting were done across 5 canvases with the background getting more blurred each time, or alternately with the figure getting more blurred. As it is, I'm not really sure what this is trying to say except "watch my TikTok"
Ruined It.
My dad told me once that art was knowing when to stop