/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3407212
Because the criticisms were too harsh I had to defend myself by saying I know what I am doing (they said I don't) and I was student at RISD and I was favorite student of my painting professor. I even had to show my student ID with some parts edited. I also said most works on /ic/ were mediocre anyways, so why were they so focused on criticizing me and my works? Most people on /ic/ never shared their own works, but just posted works they liked by Renaissance masters and pretended as if /ic/ was filled with great masterpieces, when that was not the case in reality. They were delusional.

They (the anons) said I was delusional (no I wasn't), I didn't know what I was doing (yes I did), I didn't accept critiques (I accepted some, not all), there was no meaning in my works, and I did not experiment but did the same muddy paintings over and over. So what was more experimental? Drawing what you see or drawing what you think? I was the latter. They dismissed the whole style of mine as same, unexperimental, boring, not-knowing, not following rules, devoid of meaning, etc. To me it appeared they didn't like experimental, abstract works (there were constantly threads popping up about not liking van Gogh, or Rothko making someone angry, or Pollack being something a child could do), but they didn't have the guts to attack works by well known artists, and they were ideologically driven, saying every time they encounter an abstract work by unknown artist that the artist doesn't know what s/he's doing.