/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

This deserves to be in this thread.

>>5000277

>>4085327
Well looking at his art its just a case of him not actually being all too invested in what he's making. Look at the landscape. Examine it. Does it really make all too much sense? Would an advanced city like that really have no roads? Maybe it's a hidden city? Then why is it glowing? What are those clouds? Who are those people? Why are those people going to that city? Why is the area in the clouds so red? Why did those rocks form that way? How did the mountains form that way? In 5 minutes, I have thought more about the actual content of this piece than the artist had in the hours -- days it took for them to make it. If you look, it all looks empty. It has subjects arranged in a certain fashion, but the scale feels all wrong. The pieces of this painting dont exist in the same place. There is nothing linking them together but the ground. And even that is questionable, as the foreground hill and figures feel like theyve just been superimposed onto a boring landscape painting.

Big paintings like that are supposed to make you feel like there is a massive world or sprawling landscape or beautiful landform. Look at pic related. There we have a giant, sprawling, and cohesive landscape. Everything in this piece exists in the same world. It feels alive. Look at how natural all of the landforms look, how bold the values are, how vivid the colors seem. You may even want to be here in real life. Noah Bradley's art attempts to capture this, but you can tell he has never been to a place like he is painting, or really even at least imagined being there. In comparison, it looks limp.

>>3771346
>California is shit and it's landscapes are horre-

>>3090204

How long until I'll be able to paint like this?

Following up on >>2791625

>>2792032
>>2792040
>>2792040

There's absolutely no need today - nor was there in the past - to figuratively slave for your art. Read the books written by the old masters (Solomon J. Solomon and anything published prior to the 20th century). They will reveal a less self-flagellating perspective on these things.

While it's true in the previous centuries having "made it" essentially meant winning the famous competitions (Prix de Rome for example) and going to study under a famous artist and devoting your life to the work so you could travel around and get a first-hand look at your subjects, even the people who did not win these competitions went off to do decently enough for themselves.

Today, we do not need scholarships to fancy schools as the only means of advancement. They are widely available to anyone who can sit down and focus for a few hours a day. This is enough to get the ball rolling and get you on your way to pursue what you want to do.

Furthermore, you have two great resources available to you: the internet, with all it's fuckery, and the teachings of both new and old masters dating back to the 18th century. It's available to you at a very affordable cost, in fact, the Beginner's Thread has a link to a lot of these older books that are on Archive.org.

I'll emphasize this: there's nothing wrong with having a full-time job doing something that brings you in six-figure income while you pay a bit of money to attend one of the best art schools in the world. Having a professional teach you saves you a lot of time and once you take the training wheels off you can flourish in your own way, better equipped to solve art- and technique-related things than you otherwise would be on your own.

Pic related. Bierstadt only started painting in oils in his adult years, and there are other artists who started later still. Some schools imposed age/sex restrictions on life drawing as well, which were by the 19th century somewhat relaxed.