/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4598231
I do what I want

Since its relevant to the topic, and I'd like this thread to be more constructive than the usual circle jerk, I'd like to purpose something

In a recent podcast with proko, he brought up an interesting tidbit on photo-realism. It was that photo-realism is a fantastic exercise.

he noted that taking the time to dissect and understand all of the parts of why a photo looks the way it does has many benefits.From understanding the colors, to the lens used in the photo and aperture (and how it effects the product) recreating a photo study can be a genuinely positive experience. When you dive that deep into studying a specific environment, lighting scene, pose or object, you gain an understanding that lets you replicate it in your own work. Photo study of a model in crazy neon colored lighting? you now know how to replicate it in your own work, and how the light acts based on skin color. And, inherently, the longer and more detailed you work on this, the more accurate your portrayal will be. Many other artists seem to echo that sentiment and the merits of doing really detailed and accurate studies

So I think the issue isn't with photo-realism itself. I think the issue is sooner with the artists that do it solely. Because when they do a piece like OPs, they aren't seeing a body in 3d space, or imagining it in their mind, dissecting and replicating the shapes and the forms of the human body, they are filling out square 32 A with its 3rd layer of red pencil crayon. They don't see the thing they are creating, or dissect why it looks like that, they are just mindlessly rendering

I guess what I'm getting at is; is there another thing we can call this type of work? its giving photo-realistic studies a bad name. Photo-rendering?

>>3581526
>>3581691
imagine being this mad