>>1877
>I still don´t know which one I should pick, either the second edit or your favorite. Though I have to admit that the monochrome edit could surprise more than one outsider out there.
The monochrome one looks pretty cool honestly. I love the colors of my favorite but that one may be the best from a more objective standpoint, as the small pixelated looking areas go with it better as oppose to looking like an error on >>1870

>I will say that those filters could be pretty fitting if used with care indeed. It´s way more chaotic than it should because that destruction doesn´t seem to follow a pattern. It´s partially appealing if you look at the green parts, looking like a creepy skeleton with those green wings and face and with the black filter, you are using it as a psychedelic contrast like the body is between the space.
Yeah, I ran it through a cloud filter to generate cloundy effect (don't eve remember what the other fiter was as I was feeling rather lousy that day), a rather lousy cloud effect that just blured things in an odd foggy fashion, the starte messing with the colors and such. I wasn't really aiming for anything because I was just messing around seeing what would happen. I may try to see if I can get that green again though.

>It gives the same distortion while bringing those two concepts of the filters. When you get into the point that they match somehow, that´s where the destruction comes to play. Even destruction asks for some requirements to be destroyed sometimes.
When going into standards of appeal perfectly agree, as your still trying to aim for something cool and or at least interesting, this just looks somewhat random thing of mixed quality. That's the problem with a lot of these current post-art or whatever else they call themselves artist and intellectuals not saying all of them are like this and I think they are a bit over represented in some places that people say they've taken over . Even when they scream subjectivity in response to all criticism they often have no way to have any sort of standard, with at worst being being just hypocritical when they turn around and call something else garbage or at the most refined defining how art must be "not art" and or a cynical commentary on all that came before it and nothing else. Even with the most subjective view on art there is still metrics you can to judge something (does it hold up to the artist intent of what he wants to convey? if he rejects aesthetic appeal as an aim then what is still there? if he says its only for personal satisfaction then why does he want people to analyze it if he doesn't view criticism as valid?). That's my problem though too with things though; I'm not sure what my standard is or if I'm being too soft on something because I enjoyed it and that's my only standard and wondering if I'm overlooking any flaws.