Honey, I Shrunk The Kids
Now, when you say, “custom”, do you mean “painting you and your husband at 1:87 scale”? Because I’m not sure I want to get married in the Department 56 Wedding Village.
By the way, this takes four weeks to arrive, so hopefully Dumbledore’s spell will have worn off by then and you’ll be tall enough to refuse the package.
April 30, 2011 at 1:36 pm
I especially like the lanky arms. The artist was obviously inspired by the surrealism movement.
April 30, 2011 at 1:42 pm
I think the arms stayed at normal size while everything else shrunk.
April 30, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
April 30, 2011 at 4:29 pm
don’t make fun of Webster
April 30, 2011 at 1:37 pm
RIP Gary Coleman.
May 1, 2011 at 3:00 am
But Gary Coleman was just running for governor….(checking google)…OH MY GOD NO!!! What choo’ talkin’ ’bout, Aoiferz?
April 30, 2011 at 1:38 pm
That looks more like a new fence post than canvas.
April 30, 2011 at 1:39 pm
It’s for that barnwood appeal.
April 30, 2011 at 1:39 pm
“Itsy bitsy teeny tiny little…NEVER MIND”
April 30, 2011 at 1:42 pm
I think this goes well with a thread in the forums.
Obviously this person has been told too many times that they’re really good at this and now it’s cause for public embarrassment.
April 30, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Or maybe her previous paintings were of little people, so they actually weren’t bad. People just didn’t realize that was her painting style.
April 30, 2011 at 5:31 pm
It’s just that no one saw the models before.
April 30, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Maybe the artist was trying to get into the Museum of Bad Art? http://www.museumofbadart.org/
April 30, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I must need more Nyquil… I thought those were cacti in the background, not weeping willows. I don’t think I’d pay this artist $200 to sign a body cast, or any cast for that matter. She may have some talent, this obviously is not it.
April 30, 2011 at 1:45 pm
I thought it was cacti, too!!!!
April 30, 2011 at 2:11 pm
I thought it was cactus wearing tighty whitey underwear.
April 30, 2011 at 2:50 pm
I thought it was an artichoke which did nothing to help the “Dept. 56″ effect.
April 30, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I don’t even know what to say about this one….
April 30, 2011 at 1:45 pm
I suppose that they can stand on water now that they’ve been shrunk. Or maybe they’re hovering. It’s hard to say.
April 30, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Finally! Hobbiton’s been intergrated!
(I hear Bree still allows property covenants, though)
April 30, 2011 at 1:47 pm
It’s not uncommon for artists to make the heads too big for the bodies. If you look at some of Van Gogh’s earlier drawings he had the big head thing going on. He practiced and got better.
This artist needs to practice and get better. It isn’t as if there is no artistic potential there, because I think there is. Hopefully in this last year they’ve practiced some more and they can capture the proportions better.
April 30, 2011 at 1:53 pm
a lot of people (myself included, at times) underestimate the importance of a pencil sketch, then walking away for an hour or so, then looking at it again. that kind of “clean slate” look lets you immediately identify proportion problems, and leaving it in pencil allows you to easily correct them. anything worth doing…
April 30, 2011 at 1:57 pm
You didn’t see Van Gogh selling his early attempts, his practice tries, for $200 a pop as he painted them, did you?
April 30, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Van Gogh didn’t sell his paintings. His brother only managed to sell a few for him. He was quite broke and didn’t receive appreciation for his art during his lifetime.
April 30, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Unless you accept the Dr. Who version of history.
April 30, 2011 at 3:45 pm
I accept the Doctor Who version. That Van Gogh was a hot Scottish Ginger.
Yum.
April 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm
…and it had Bill Nighy(!), so it has to be true.
April 30, 2011 at 7:06 pm
It was actually his sister in law that worked to make him famous.
April 30, 2011 at 2:39 pm
And THEN, once the artist DOES get better, he/she will earn the right to ask for 200 bucks a piece.
April 30, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Yes, exactly so, Spitefire. This artist jumped the gun by trying to sell these efforts for $200. They need more time to develop their skills. Hopefully in the last year they’ve been working on that.
April 30, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Assuming, of course, that all the negative comments on Regretsy from a year ago didn’t cause the seller to kill herself.
(How many of you will find that funny based on previous Regretsy discussions. I wonder. Oh well. Bring on the red thumbs. I’ve dealt with them before.)
April 30, 2011 at 1:56 pm
How on earth did the “artist” manage to take a larger/wider couple and make them look squished height-wise? Despite making the trees behind them look miniature next to them? What weird magic is this?
April 30, 2011 at 2:04 pm
We represent the Shitty-Art League
The Shitty-Art League
The Shitty-Art League!
And in the name of the Shitty-Art League
We wish to welcome you to Cupcake Land!
April 30, 2011 at 3:56 pm
As Reviewer, I must admit:
I’ve Thoroughly examined it.
And it’s not really, Really bad:
It’s really most sincerely BAD!
April 30, 2011 at 9:09 pm
omg i’m crying with laughter at this point…stop…
April 30, 2011 at 2:08 pm
“Extra special way” means you will be depicted as a child, on your wedding day! But wait, how does she draw children?
April 30, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Probably as embryos.
April 30, 2011 at 2:17 pm
The be fair to the artists, that guy’s coat is big enough to make him look tiny.
April 30, 2011 at 2:32 pm
I agree. Some body types should not wear their suit jackets down to their knees. It makes them look out of proportion, just like the artist’s rendition.
That said, if I was the happy couple, I would have demanded at least a partial refund.
Unless they really are little people.
April 30, 2011 at 2:17 pm
My, has it been a year already? How time flies when you’re inundated with fuckery in every imaginable medium.
April 30, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Oh, how I adore your name.
April 30, 2011 at 2:24 pm
They look more like children in the painting than midgets.
April 30, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Perhaps it’s a look into the future at what their children will look like when they play dress-up with mommy and daddy’s wedding clothes?
It’s … adorable.
April 30, 2011 at 2:26 pm
I, for some reason, really like this.
April 30, 2011 at 11:08 pm
So do I. I’d kill to have a painting like this of my wedding. I think it’s a million times better than the boring old photo. Everybody’s got a wedding photo, probably a hundred of them; who else has a bizarre painting of themselves rendered as small children? I think it’s glorious.
May 1, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Agreed! I think this is great – I wouldn’t pay $200 for it, but I think it’s a really lovely little piece of art. Maybe it’s intentional or maybe she’s really as bad as everybody’s saying she is, but I just really like the look of this. I don’t know any artsy terms to describe it, it just appeals to me on an aesthetic level.
May 1, 2011 at 9:00 pm
The artsy term is, I believe, ‘naïve art.’ Given that she’s doing it on purpose, since that term seems to mean, “Adult artist deliberately making perspective mistakes typical of children.”
Actually, at 16″x20″ its large size makes it less appealing to me.
The local pub used to sell ‘art’ and had one very similar in brushwork style and perspective errors, except it depicted a lively gold-rush saloon scene, with piano-player, old-west whores in fancy dresses, and prospectors with handlebar moustaches, all drunkenly dancing away. It was completely wonderful, with everybody’s limbs the wrong sizes, an incredibly distorted piano, giant and miniature furniture and all in a huge room with a ceiling thirty or forty feet high and windows twice as high as people’s heads showing a view of snowy triangular mountains. I admired it enormously and tried to buy it. But nobody could remember who had painted the thing or how much they were trying to sell it for.
April 30, 2011 at 2:27 pm
It was funny then and it’s funny now.
April 30, 2011 at 2:42 pm
If this is what full-sized people look like when she paints, them, what happens if she paints midgets?
April 30, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Ever see the Terror of Tinytown?
April 30, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Except for the subplot of the cook chasing the duck, that movie was totally unwatchable.
April 30, 2011 at 11:47 pm
It’s only unwatchable with too little vodka.
April 30, 2011 at 5:22 pm
That was an amazing movie. I own a copy. Ah, singing midget cowboys!
April 30, 2011 at 5:50 pm
“Slap leather, boys!”
April 30, 2011 at 2:58 pm
This is what happens when you start by drawing the head and the feet and hoping that the middle will somehow work itself out.
April 30, 2011 at 3:33 pm
I actually really really like the finished art. It’s terrible if you are looking for an exact rendition, but by itself it reminds me of the children’s books I read growing up. It’s also sort of reminiscent of Clive Barker’s oil paintings, which I love. So, I guess for me this is an accidental win.
April 30, 2011 at 5:49 pm
It does have a certain charm, if you don’t see the original.
April 30, 2011 at 4:36 pm
If the seller would switch to Fimo, he or she has a future in wedding cake toppers.
April 30, 2011 at 6:47 pm
I am not going to complain about the style or price, because I am still wondering why it was painted on a cupboard door?
April 30, 2011 at 9:53 pm
It’s obvious. The painting represents their SECOND trip to the Zoltar fortune teller machine.
April 30, 2011 at 11:28 pm
I had no idea that Ravyn Symone had married Emmanuel Lewis… Mazel Tov!
May 1, 2011 at 6:36 am
I’m just hoping I wasn’t the only one, here having to Google “Dept. 56″. Amazing is the shit I learn on here. How I will use this new found information is anyone’s guess but it’s amazing.