The image on the header of this blog still shows an old oil painting depicting a bobbuck being chased by a centauroid carnivore, a prober. Back in 2012 I already mentioned that I was working on a new digital version, one finished at the time. I never replaced the image in the header, thinking that I ought to save all new paintings for The Book. I take that restriction less seriously know and am working on a new 'Prober and Bobbuck' version to account for all the anatomical conversions of the Great Hexapod Revolution. That new one will therefore make the previous one obsolete, even though it was never published. that is a sad fate for any painting, so here it is, at last.
 |
| Click to enlarge; copyight Gert van Dijk |
The original oil painting as well as the now defunct digital one, above, were meant to evoke the atmosphere of a scene from an African wildlife documentary. You will just have to image the voice of the inestimable David Attenborough, providing a running commentary.
But how how far should I take the 'Africa scene' association? Please help me decide.
 |
| Click to enlarge; copyright Gert van Dijk |
Here is version One. The painting is at an early stage, without any details, and there is also no leg blurring yet (I will first paint the animals and then cautiously apply blurring effects). The light will come from the top left with the sun low in the sky so there will be brightly lit bands while most of the visible parts of the animals show the shade side; those bright bands have already been indicated. The animals are further apart than in the original, not because that improves the lay-out, but to cater for the fold between pages (the 'gutter') when the image is printed as a book).
The colour of the plain indicates dry grass, at least to an Earth observer. Almost automatically, we assume that the scene represents a hot and dry environment. But for all we know, orange colour indicates freshly sprouted plants in this particular Furahan biotope...
I played with camouflage patterns taking inspiration from various Earth animals, so there are stripes tending to run at right angles to outlines and large blotches that make contour recognition more difficult (implying that the animals for whom these patterns are meant have visual circuitry relying on colour, contrast and contour extraction much like our visual system). There is also countershading, in which the underside of animals is lighter than their top, so any added shade on the underside will be counteracted. The animal's colour schemes match the surroundings. Nice, but very Earth-like. Too Earth-like?
 |
| Click to enlarge; copyright Gert van Dijk |
In this second version the colours of the animals do not match the surroundings well, which can be explained, if need be, in a variety of ways: perhaps the animals have strayed into a biotope where their camouflage does not work; perhaps the plants have changed with the seasons but the animals have not; or perhaps the animals cannot see this colour, or cannot discriminate between yellow-ochre and greenish blue. The animals are less Earth-like with these colours.
 |
| Click to enlarge; copyright Gert van Dijk |
This third version has blue-green vegetation, which is not strange on Furaha. After all, large plants on Furaha consist of three groups with differently coloured photosynthetic pigments. The result is that the animals and plants match one another, albeit in a way not found on Earth (not at present anyway; dinosaurs may have sported colours that mammals cannot produce). An interesting aspect is how strong our preconceptions about what colours mean are. Will people interpret the lighting with a low-set sun, or will they assume a nighttime scene because of the bluish colours? I could turn the brightly lit bands yellow in an attempt to counter that (unless that evokes moonlight!).
I must decide before I start finishing the painting; which one do you prefer? One, Two or Three? If possible, can you say why?
5 comments:
I prefer the third version (with the bluish background). It's a nice balance between alien and natural-looking.
The hunter in #2 and #3 (and the background of #3) makes me think that either it is dawn/dusk, or they are presently in the shade of the planetary rings.
I particularly like the second image, as both cameras and painters are well accomplished at blurring out the details of flora as the fauna go speeding past & above them, so that the animals standing out boldly from the background, is a feature, not a bug.
All three images are great work; i applaud you.
ps: though you could easily keep the colors of the Prober and 'Buck in #1, and use them as an example of how sometimes its the breaking-up of siloettes that takes priority, not always matching the flora. (that and lots of antelope and monkeys are red - no real pressing need for them to be green)
tinnyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy question: why is it called a Prober? Is the name's reason from a feature which was lost in the course of the Great Hexapod Revolution?
either way, keep up the great work!
Keenir: I decided to add the now obsolete first digital version of the 'prober and bobbuck' painting and also added some remarks here and there. Those should make it clear that all three scenes are meant to depict dusk or dawn, but that interpretation hinges on contrast between brighly lit and shaded areas, which contrast is not strong yet.
As for the name 'prober', I admit I no longer know. In an earlier vesion, many of these predators had clerical names ('parson', 'priest', etc.) because of their folded front limbs. The prober did not fit that pattern. It probably does poke around in its prey's innards, but all carnivores do that. Perhaps I should just change its name. That's easier done than revising a painting.
Perhaps the Probers probe at their prey, stalking towards & then backing away, before finally giving chase. This would select against prey who run off at the first approach (exhausting themselves and making them easy to bring down) as well as against prey who take too long to run.
Or the probing is from how they use their mouthparts to nip at the prey as they run, weakening it thusly, in addition to strikes from the forelimbs. I was going to ask why the necks of the Prober are almost as long as the forelimbs, but this seems a viable explanation, imho.
Or, it was named after a person or device named Prober. (or it was assumed to probe at something, and the name was never changed after it was found to do otherwise)
Sorry.
Post a Comment