/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2186515

Ha, I spent maybe 10 minutes looking through the thread and wondering which point is worth replying to, and which are just defeatist bits of temporary disillusionment.

>>2185873
>>2188091
>>2188096

I don't understand, you're so focused on "gettin gud" and the masters of the past that you can't find any enjoyment in your own work? That you won't be happy unless you're the best of all time and because you can't go to Russia or China that's no longer an option? There's so much useless mysticism behind improving your work and what makes a great artist, so many of y'all just whip yourself out of despair at your situation, convincing yourselves of why it's no longer possible for you.

Great artwork is just something worth saying, said clearly. All of it. Without technical skill, it's great intention muddled by lack of fluency and direction in technique, drawing and composition. Without an experience, story or emotion it's just a directionless technical exercise with grand execution. Both of these things can be sought with hard work - whether or not it's something too uncomfortable for you to seek is up to you.

Yes, the Russian masters were amazing artists, but the source material remains unchanged - human experience, the human body, landscapes. See what they saw, and how they translated it, and let it be exciting for you to follow down that path and make your own observations fit to you. All the beautiful work of the past is your legacy, any artist can be your mentor and teacher if you've the ability to set yourself aside and really look at their work, at their sketches. Not just seeing brushwork, or the very singular solutions to the needs of the picture, but actually looking at the why of things. Look at decisions made, look at how it deviates from the source material, look at how it benefits that special thing to be said in the piece, and learn. It's that simple.