May 27, 2007

GREEN

Appeared on the May 27th of 2007

46 comments:

  1. Anonymous5/27/2007

    weird picture... not just the green bit. is it too symmetrical???

    ReplyDelete
  2. some parts are mirrord some not

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5/27/2007

    It's from Q Magazine October 2000 but "it's green"

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is hilariously cryptic!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "DO NOT SEND TO Q ITS GREEN". Nice that they put up a photo of Thom. I quite prefer him asymmetrical. I guess this is proof that the theory about symmetrical looking-people being more attractive is wrong. :-p

    ReplyDelete
  6. I quite agree fishee. I prefer the Thom that hasn't been altered.

    And actually, most of all, I think this picture is creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The one that actually ended up on the magazine had a photo of Thom with almost white eyes. Also, I think Thom was probably photographed with a less than ideal lens for portraits, which makes him look far less delicate-looking than he does in real life. I think that was the point of these photos... they are unflattering but still interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous5/27/2007

    thom is like so celebrity

    cooooooooooooooooool!

    ReplyDelete
  9. jjajajajaajajaja, really funny, just like the cellphone picture, there's a lot of humour on it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous5/27/2007

    like ouroboros eating it's own tail, he endures the vicious cycle of fame to enable the music needs to make. shame on q mag for digitally enhancing his facial features, shame on us all for our quidnunc nature

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous5/27/2007

    green. what color is he now?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous5/27/2007

    symmetrical people are generally more attractive.

    ReplyDelete
  13. yes but only in the general population. the super duper cool people like rh and other cool artists find as much beauty in asymmetrical features as they do in symmetrical features whether it's in a face or painting or what not. super duper cool. yes sir.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You've all been chasing down answers when they, in fact, don't exist. Why the compulsion to find right/wrong, good/bad? Way too much judgement going on in here, although we do appreciate the effort.

    These pieces are not posted with the intention of eliciting fan approval, nor are they presented as any sort of cryptic message. I promise. The "interpretations" I've just read on here actually make me squirm. Please, just relax and enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. thank you o great and wise man o_0

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous5/27/2007

    Well yeah, don't be so shallow.

    ReplyDelete
  18. you take things to seriusly

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous5/27/2007

    Stanley Donwood telling people to relax? Isn't that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? :D

    Ogham divination, numerology and the use of latin and esperanto languages? C'mon don't fault us fans for chasing red herrings when thats what you've set us up for in the first place. You put up your 'art' for public view, but you can't tell people what to feel. Would it be better if no one said anything at all? I think its a huge compliment that people bother at all to discuss it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous5/27/2007

    "stan" do you know tom piltoff

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well, maybe some artists don't want people misinterpreting their artwork... or maybe he's just upset some of us are trying to find some cryptic message in the choice of pics. I'm not calling this photo a piece of artwork, by the way. :-p
    I don't (and never did) think the photos that have been posted are supposed to convey some cryptic message. As far as the artwork goes, I do enjoy discussing what some of the art could mean. Maybe Thom and Stan don't know what it means to them, or maybe it means something entirely different to them, and that's what upsets them. And maybe there is no right/wrong way to interpret art. Maybe it's wrong to put what it means into words... but I guess it's human nature to want to analyse art.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous5/27/2007

    "but I guess it's human nature to want to analyse art."

    Exactly. And they, as a people that put up photos, paintings and drawings for people to peruse daily, instigate an opinion, one that they cannot control. I appreciate that "stan" (or whomever it is that posted that) would go to the trouble to assure us that there is no deeper meaning other than enjoyment of something nice to look at everyday. It's just whatever the case may be, I bristle at being told what to think or do. But that's my problem.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous5/27/2007

    That isn't Stanley. Relax.

    ReplyDelete
  24. blackgraywhite5/27/2007

    anonymous said: "You put up your 'art' for public view, but you can't tell people what to feel. Would it be better if no one said anything at all? I think its a huge compliment that people bother at all to discuss it."

    and then: ""but I guess it's human nature to want to analyse art."

    Exactly. And they, as a people that put up photos, paintings and drawings for people to peruse daily, instigate an opinion, one that they cannot control. I appreciate that "stan" (or whomever it is that posted that) would go to the trouble to assure us that there is no deeper meaning other than enjoyment of something nice to look at everyday. It's just whatever the case may be, I bristle at being told what to think or do. But that's my problem."


    good points made, especially when talking about human nature, but then again that in and of itself is a gray area, as it should be i guess. but we can all agree that all of us here enjoy the work of radiohead and stanley donwood.

    i don't know if the person claiming to be stan is stanley donwood or not. but i do agree that we should just try to relax and enjoy the work a bit, that includes me. maybe some of these comments/interpretations from some people are purging some things. maybe this is one of their only emotional outlets or maybe they are going through a lot in their life right now and they come here as therapy and as a way to relax. who knows.

    i personally really don't mind what anyone says regardless of what they are saying or trying to say. i say free speech for all...but that's just me. good day to all. :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous5/27/2007

    Thom is green. Isn't he a bit too old to be green?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous5/28/2007

    That isn't Stanley so quit addressing him as Stanley Donwood. Besides, this looked as if it came out of the Kid A modified pictures project.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous5/28/2007

    If Lexden showed up then you'll know that is the real Stan.

    ReplyDelete
  28. you can be anyone you want with this system

    ReplyDelete
  29. Indeed.

    Let's all listen to some Rag Time

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'll bring my ghetto blaster and some carrot cake.

    ReplyDelete
  31. wait for me!

    ReplyDelete
  32. I prefer Thom like this.

    ReplyDelete
  33. ghetto blaster and carrot cake? wtf? lmao. hahaha. :D

    ReplyDelete
  34. Still,
    it must be bunkers to be a mister Donwood or Tchoch or Greenwood or Ed or Phil, and see that some regard them as geniuses. Maybe it's a compliment at first, but I imagine, that it's actually just a block around your leg? So when you're only nearly satisfied with your work the fanbase gives you an A+ regardless.

    I, of course, wouldn't know how that feels; but this series of comments seem to me to over-emphesize Thom Yorke's appearance, almost like overcompensating a non-issue.

    What I find interesting about this is, more than a question of symmetrics and whatnot, more likely the question of mecanical looking, non-personal, homogenic and Kraftwerk-inspired lack of humanity (not so much the picture alone, but more the series it didn't make it into), and almost by accident, it seems they've photoshopped all apparent enthusiasm out of the man.

    Or .. maybe it' just a stupid green picture, that may be hilarious as it was never used, because it wasn't perfect (whatever the criteria)enough.

    Anywho,
    real life wants me.

    ReplyDelete
  35. yes move on, its only a green picture

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yep

    However, it's not really about a picture, but to who you present it.

    Blah blah

    ReplyDelete
  37. hahah, Terrific. this is the dollar shot!

    ReplyDelete
  38. I don't think anyone is regarding all the stuff that's posted in the Hodiau Direkton as masterpieces or even works of art. I guess anything can be art if presented within a particular context. Visiting a contemporary art museum means seeing a lot of the stuff that influenced the art... and even the stuff that might have been discarded. I also agree that we are biased and some of us will see anything Radiohead and Donwood present us with as worthy of analysis. But the thing is we are seeing all this within the context of everything that's been given to us and each new post is just another piece in the puzzle. And we try to find meaning because we have found the songs have meaning to us. Now we are merely trying to put more pieces into the puzzle... how Donwood interpreted the songs... what they made him feel. We'll never be able to figure out what all of this means to anyone else, and that is fine... we are trying to figure out what it means to us personally.

    If that was really Stanley Donwood that posted that comment, then I don't really care... art is something to be interpreted, or why would it be put up for public display? Sure, some people choose to internalize it and keep their interpretations to themselves... I get a lot from what some people say in here and so I comment about it. Maybe I don't have the right interpretations but maybe my misguided thoughts will make someone see something they didn't see before, and it will make the picture clearer to them.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous6/01/2007

    I agree that art should be open to the interpretations of all but the medium used can often colour our responses. the ideal medium would be one where we are not so bombarded with the opinions, right or wrong, of fellow onlookers scribbled on the wall next to it. Sign of the times, true, but perhaps unfortunate. hello globalis(z)ation. have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous6/02/2007

    not many artists have the opportunity to get such detailed, intense feedback on their works. Right or wrong, good or bad it has provoked thought, which in these near catatonic times we live, can only be a postitive outcome. Perhaps these comments are completely off the mark and meaning the artist intended (and that understandbly must be disheartening?) but it has sparked some instense conversation that may incourage the audience in different directions?

    ReplyDelete
  42. This is really! scary. Really! Withdraw this picture! NOt matching! NOt matching! Who is it? Who is it? Withdraw! Take it out! Burn!

    ReplyDelete
  43. I think there might be a reason why Radiohead post these snippets of artwork and music but we don't know the reasons. Still, I believe they would encourage discussions like this. Maybe some of what we say might make them cringe, but they would want to know what we think when we see all this. Why would they post an old photo of Thom which was rejected unless they wanted commentary? I think it's a mistake to think too much. Usually the initial reaction is the right one. :-)

    ReplyDelete