This is a drawing I made of, well, something flying. I called it a comet; it’s not a comet, obviously. A comet wouldn’t have this much definition, and the intent is that the object looks like it’s going up and to the right – whereas a comet with a tail like this would be going down and to the left.
I used pastels and, well, my fingers to blur. I don’t particularly like the color usage all that much.
I love art of almost all kinds, but I’m not visually-oriented, so this kind of art is always pushing it for me. Plus, I kinda suck at it so far; I don’t know how to communicate with visuals yet. This moves, physically (sort of), but doesn’t move the viewer at all.
Related posts:
#1 by Robert McWilliam on 4 March, 2010 - 9:20 am
Mostly irrelevant to what you were discussing but the direction of a comet’s tail is actually independent of the direction it’s moving. The tail is made by the solar wind “blowing” particles off the nucleus so always points away from the sun. The comet will be moving in an ellipse around the sun so will never be moving directly towards or away from the sun (though at parts of the orbit it can be pretty close to it) and so will always be moving in some direction other than towards or away from the tail.
#2 by dreamreal on 4 March, 2010 - 9:27 am
By golly, you’re exactly right – I wasn’t really thinking all that much about it and naturally got it wrong. I was thinking of a comet on its trip *away* from the star around which it orbits, and didn’t revisit the thought enough to re-evaluate what I was writing – the “comet” part was wrong from the very beginning, so the actual definition was irrelevant, just as you said.
But I was still wrong, and you weren’t.