/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>1660981
>>...because YOU can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Maybe you are just not good enough of an artists...
>Now you are just spewing pretentious crap.
I agree with the former statement. If I were to show some of my normalfag friends some of Noah's art of naked dudes wandering around rocks and looking at bigger rocks they'd think they 'were omg so deep'. But if I were to show them pic related they'd just say 'I don't get it it's just a picture of some little girls.' A lot of technically good art is very subtle and appears empty to those who aren'y patient enough for such things. Also, visual story telling (creating meaningful scenes with themes) is a technical skill as well.

What this argument is saying, once you reduce it is 'a meaningful piece is better than a less meaningful piece' which is so obvious it doesn't need to be said. It's a false dichotomy, the third option, a meaningful as well as technically competent piece will always be the best artwork.

John Singer Sargent

>>1588124
Thanks for the explanation. A lot of his paint handling (transparent vs impasto) is lost in jpgs unfortunately.

I agree that his outdoor painting is pretty weak, like in the image you posted here the background rather poorly handled compared to he rest of the image (also any idea why the strange colour of it? what did it originally look like?).

>>1588134
Ah yes, his famous work. An interesting image, but I am not as taken with it as many people seem to be. There also seems to be a focus on the "tricks" of the painting such as the mirror and stuff. Personally though I am more struck by the piece Sargent made that was inspired by this, attached here.