/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3588330
>Just look at every thread on /ic/. It's insane.
I mean I'm not in any of the digital threads or the tablet threads or whatever. And threads last for fucking weeks. I'll post a comment at the top of a thread and come back days later and someone is bitching "just look at every thread."

Which is funny because this thread is about having "your own style." Seems like you're jelly anon.

>>3301817
>Are you using watercolors?
No almost all of these are Acrylics misused as watercolors. I'm thinking of doing a few where I actually use Acrylic correctly then I actually use watercolor on top of it.
>I think that you should use less (less and not “no more”) gray to shade skin
Is there one that you're looking at specifically as a shitty example? I can think of a few.
>I like the work, but what is the concept? Preserving reaction faces in physical form?
Yeah it is partially connected to a mock-apocalyptic world-view where the digital era was a mistake and the internet is probably going to destroy the world, and everything digital will be lost within one generation. So part of the bit is that it's converting digital memes into analog canvas panel or whatever.

But more practically I think it's kind of just funny and subversive without being overly edgy or confrontational. Absurdism is neat.

>If so, wouldn’t mediums that are better at rendering (oil and acrylic paint) make more sense?
Yeah but the preservation thing is more of just a talking point than an actual concern. I started doing Acrylic portraits because Acrylic is the kids paint, and Acrylic is the worst paint for the job. Which is funny to me. Plus there aren't many notable Acrylic portrait artists are there? I'm cornering the market yall.

But yeah oil would totally "make more sense" and "not look like shit" but that's not what I'm all about you dig.