The kid who drew the small stunted skeleton hanging clothed from a cross under the caption "THE GOOD MAN" is looking at a good twenty years of therapy in his immediate future. posted by Justinian at 12:10 AM on April 23, 2011 [26 favorites]
Wow, I remember seeing this years ago and being freaked out a little by it, then I filed it away and forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me of it. It captures some kinda dreamy otherworldliness like Woodring's Frank stuff but in a different direction. posted by not_on_display at 12:52 AM on April 23, 2011
But... but... the first monster was GREEN and RED. Half GREEN, and half RED! If it ain't broke, don't fix it! posted by flapjax at midnite at 1:51 AM on April 23, 2011 [10 favorites]
That was not deemed "realistic", as it seems. Or it rolled in some brownish mud or something. posted by Namlit at 2:01 AM on April 23, 2011
I am grinning like an idiot right now. Love it. posted by doublehappy at 2:41 AM on April 23, 2011
Now I want to make a drawing of doublehappy grinning. posted by Namlit at 2:45 AM on April 23, 2011
And now you know why little kids see monsters in the closet and under the bed.
Because there are. posted by bwg at 3:30 AM on April 23, 2011
This is the creepiest thing I've seen all week. posted by valkyryn at 3:59 AM on April 23, 2011
WE ARE THE REAL MONSTERS
see: children's drawings of "human" superheroes posted by LogicalDash at 4:27 AM on April 23, 2011
Those are really neat.....and terrifying. posted by Kitteh at 5:05 AM on April 23, 2011
Sometimes the basket and the bunnies do not make as big of an impression as one grim, adjective-laden sermon about the Crucifixion received at just the wrong age. posted by adipocere at 5:38 AM on April 23, 2011 [5 favorites]
How peculiar. It's unclear to me exactly why the new versions are more "realistic" than their source material. posted by .kobayashi. at 6:05 AM on April 23, 2011 [2 favorites]
Some of this take too much creative license.
For instance, the artist totally missed the boat on the one with the green creature and the rainbow! It's OBVIOUSLY a T-Rex, duh! Plus, he completely left out the bloody teeth aspect. And where did the creepy vine thing come from?
You've got to keep it real, man. posted by misha at 6:28 AM on April 23, 2011
Aw, man, wait. I think the T-rex has a puff of smoke by its nostrils. Signs point to dragon.
This changes everything. Nevermind. posted by misha at 6:31 AM on April 23, 2011
This is a really cool project, but I do think that some of the interpretations are needlessly scary-looking. A lot of times you can read a kid's emotional intent when they put in bright colors, upturning lines, rainbows and flowers, and usually they're not going for "f*ing scary" when they do that. posted by Miko at 7:28 AM on April 23, 2011 [4 favorites]
Related post at the bottom of the page by Yeondoo Jung is also pretty cool. posted by knilstad at 7:32 AM on April 23, 2011
Why does Wonder Woman have a mustache? Her face is quite pretty in the child's version. posted by TooFewShoes at 7:33 AM on April 23, 2011
I'd say 6 years is well past the statute of limitations on double posts.
I agree with you. Six years ago, 80% of current mefites weren't here. It was a different site then, so . . . no worries. posted by jason's_planet at 7:55 AM on April 23, 2011
Three years ago the post didn't survive. I was sort of panicking, since I knew I'd seen these via metafilter, but if it was 6 years ago I was going to freak out a bit, since I usually can't remember what I had for dinner.
I think these are great. I think we should also be able to revisit sites every 5 years. That's my rule. posted by cjorgensen at 8:21 AM on April 23, 2011
Ah! It's Dan DeVires, one of the few non bullshit teachers I had at FIT. Neat! posted by The Whelk at 8:22 AM on April 23, 2011
Pedantic nitpick, but none of those are very "realistic"
I agree with Miko, the artist seems to have rendered the, well, not creepiest possible, but creepier than necessary interpretation. The one-tooth round head is a prime example. Even I wasn't that morbid at that age. posted by rhizome at 10:30 AM on April 23, 2011
Yeah, this is very old, but still very cool. posted by Decani at 1:13 PM on April 23, 2011
How peculiar. It's unclear to me exactly why the new versions are more "realistic" than their source material.
Well, for one thing, the new versions include shading. In reality, you can't see anything without an available light source. I would say that the artist is acknowledging how they might appear as three dimensional objects, given how we understand how light behaves.
I'm pretty sure most people can't see without light and also perceive things in three dimensions.
I guess that's one way they're more "realistic". posted by Radiator at 8:44 PM on April 23, 2011
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:58 PM on April 22, 2011