/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2310505
>Degas could draw as evidenced by his portrait of edmond duranty, a superb display of draftsmanship, but much of his work was faddish, modernist trash.

>Degas ... was faddish, modernist trash
>Uhm, what? Degas is great. He has great draftsmanship as even you admit

Try again.

>had some lovely pastels
>a lot of emotion in his work
>pushed art in some new directions
>has a unique voice

Artists for the past century have been degenerating and making less skillful art because of people like you propping up special snowflakes like Degas the Impressionists and all of Modern and Postmodern art. He could make excellent drawings, that doesn't mean most of his work wasn't faddish, modernist trash.

There was no contradiction. An amateur can make a masterful drawing, and still not be a master.

>perfectly normal and common

blotchy saturation is common? when?

>perhaps you are being overly harsh
>it is obviously a much loose and quicker drawing
>handling reflects that doesn't automatically dismiss all its merit

If you look at the "quicker" drawings that Michelangelo made, you won't find any of the mistakes barocci made. see picture attached. these are "quick" drawings

>yet has the bottom right Bronzino with incredibly heavyhanded lines on the chin and back of neck

A couple things. Bronzino's lines are overlapping revisions of the outline, modified to also work as giving weight to the bottom of the jaw (where it should be). Barocci's lines are not overlapping revisions, they are evenly weighted (they don't taper), and are cartoonishly thick. There's no irony in the comparison.

>you don't need to define every contour with a sharp line

This is an actual contradiction. If you've defined a contour, you've made a sharp line, by the definition of "contour". Also, drawing is making lines, and this thread is about drawing, so why would you suggest we don't need sharp lines?