/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>5118074
Try painting wet on wet for snow / sky then wet on dry for your trees in the background. It will clean up some of your edges and make the forest come across more clearly. You could be going for a tonalist vibe, but by the number of brush strokes you have I can assume you're trying to make them a bit more defined. I switched to acrylic a while ago, but I do miss how oil flows.

>>5023761
I am conceited. But that's irrelevant.
That has no bearing on the fact that your conflicting view is born of misunderstanding.

>>4903379
>the boards officially 99% coomers posting coom they found on twitter

Suddenly changing from boobs to landscapes doesn't put you on the high ground here.

>>4903488
>>4903147
>>4903544
Typically with studies, the goal is to learn something.

>>4903604
Why don't you try to make art then.

I'm worried about you on a psychological level. You should take a break and re-examine why you wanted to be an artist in the first place. You have the work ethic, but you could be applying it much more effectively. When the masters say that you should make as many paintings as possible, they implied that you should be finishing your work.

Perhaps you would benefit from some critique offline. Contact some other artists that will take the time to tell you what you need to hear, because your unwillingness to respond positively to criticism online is hurting you. You've invested so much into your hobby, and it's hard to watch you struggle like this.

>>4861584
You're not allowed to break the rules until you know them. I remember a young transwoman from college that you remind me of. She would put less than minimal effort into her work and try to come up with excuses not to learn how to draw. Every painting was even less effort as she eventually lost all motivation to improve. Every critique turned into back peddling maneuvers as soon as construction was even vaguely mentioned. She would come into crit with a long speech prepared to defend her work from anyone even mentioning formal qualities. Guess what happens after four years of that. Guess who didn't graduate.

>>4861584
That's a lot of work to put into an excuse to not learn to draw after posting in a thread dedicated to critiquing formal qualities in artwork.

>>4862043
>strange toxicity
That's a strange way to describe formal critique.

>>4862070
I assure you. This guy knows how to draw. You would be better served learning from that, no?

>>3444536
You post a lot of trash, but id give this a 6/10. Apply yourself. You know how to use color and light, but we need to see how you work with space. It's time to put those same tired brush strokes aside and put that oil paint to better effectiveness. It's great that you probably produce more than anyone else here and you are trying new things and experimenting, but your work is getting stale. Do some landscape studies or something that isn't broad strokes portraiture. Like I said, you probably do more than 90 percent of the folks here, some would shitpost you at any opportunity, but I want to see you improve.

Also, the 777 thing is kitsch. Anyone who wasn't raised on a diet of paint chips can do better than that. I know you can.

>>3438723
Just fill the canvas right now. Fix stuff later. It will be easier to see all the color and value relationships when you don't have any white. Also, don't feel bad for gridding. I work on large canvases, using my own photo reffs and I grid with a tape measure, no one cares about how you got to point b, and anyone that whines about how impure painting in a more restrained and formulaic way probably does plein air wit a brush in their sphincter. Just fill it, then do passes. It's more efficient to fix spots later and to work entire areas, just keep a note pad and make an identical sketch with notes on what to fox where.

>>3438918
Do some sketches for other compositions, you may be falling out of love with it and there is no shame in starting over if it doesn't feel right. tbqh i think you should make use of the word "around". It might get you to something more dynamic.

>>3438990
if you're going to go full algenpfleger pose dynamism, try to emulate the way he uses light.

>>3440121
>>3440131
I'd raise the pointed forearm. It looks like he isn't holding his arm out straight enough. Also, it should probably be longer if you compare it to the other arm. The posture of the guys in the back looks nice.

>>3440323
MerMAN! (shovel hands)

>>2801580
If you're going to college for art, you shouldn't be starting at zero. Even here on /ic/ if you're familiar with the recommended reading material in the sticky, you will also be familiar with the language of a formal critique. Being able to talk about things like value structure and line weight puts you at year two in their eyes. Level 1 drawing classes are pretty much a regurgitation of 'drawing on the right side of the brain' but with a more academic influence.


Even in your own words, "They've seen it all haven't they." They've seen people in your position push them selves to be successful. Everyone starts at zero, but you have the resources here in /ic/ to be a year ahead of everyone else, even if you're zero credits deep, they'll have much more respect for you if you can 'talk the talk', no one expects you to 'walk the walk'.

>>2249391
Your faces all have noses too long. Watch that eye to mouth ratio. This is a common mistake, so don't take it hard.