/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3693861
u rite

>>3668956
>>3668957
>>3668958
I think I've seen your stuff oh here before and I think I probably said the same thing then. I'd say they'd look cooler with more deliberate, solid lines. Particularly >>3668957

Like I'm a huge fan of Mondrians whole schtick, and you could kind of apply his kind of ideology about looking planned and deliberate AND chaotic and emotive, it'd be cool maybe idk.

I'm normally a big proponent of the whole wabi sabi concept and all the imperfection and impermanence memes. Generally I say that embracing mistakes and bad brush strokes add humanity and novelty to art. But for your aesthetic I kind of think the opposite. The schmeary edges on a lot of the lines are distracting. The imperfections and the ink (right?) bleeding out on the paper and some of the lines not being opaque is doody.

and i think the fingers being fucky is interesting on op but annoying on >>3668958 .

and >>3668959 is pretty cool as it is tbphwyf. you could probably sell blue and red "3d" prints of streetlights or whatever that shit is in that style to all kinds of bozos. Nice and comfy and the subject is both nonoffensive while making the dingdong looking at it think about what and why and stuff. That one even works better with the schmeary wabi sabi lines. Do more 3d print looking things tbphwyf

>>3603319
Suicide is painless
>>3605224
Was just leaving a comment m8. What do we got 153 more image slots available? This thread gonna still be around in 4 months or whenever the rate is that it would be filled?
>your paintings may be grotesque and awful, but they are definitely not abstract.
never said they were. the one with colors and shit on it is non objective.
>can you just stay the fuck out of these threads with your "bozo tbphwyf wabi sabi haha HAHAHAHAHAHA" -- shit for once???? Can you??
Why would I? Look at how much of it upsets (you). That's worth it by itself. Now there is yet another image spot being taken up by a shitty meme that could have been taken up by a shitty abstract painting. And it's because of (you) m8.

>>3588172
for what?
>>3588248
>nice one Jimmy
wasn't me though. I post my pictures so you know when I'm talking.
>it doesnt mean he is always on topic.
I'm usually not off topic. Normally not shitposting about football or anything.
>Why do you think the /draw/ thread died down last month?
Well for one thing I posted in the draw thread for like 2 days when I was excited about the scratchy armpits drawing. And it also "slowed down" because there was also a traditional thread full of drawings, a graphite/ink thread full of drawings, a draw this thread full of lake bells, etc.

And again, like learn to deal nigga. Just move on. Allowing me to upset you this much is bad uuuu.

>And he doesnt even accept criticism
Yeah huh.
>every time you try to critique his work he gives you a dumb excuse, attacks you, or asks you some vague pretentious "meaningful" question that doesnt make sense
Yeah but it does make scents. Honestly I feel bad for the times when I talked shit about people's work because they talked shit about mine. Like I was mean about Illustrats gun one time and was mean about that dude's rebar dragons.

Idk anon. I'm sorry you're upset and it is all jsut a goof. Like I'm supposed to be the asshole here. You don't need to compete with me on that. Mutually assured destruction and stuff.

>>3584233
>I'm sorry to hear you need to post images in retaliation
I don't. I'm sorry to hear that you struggle with intellectual honesty and reading comprehension and stuff.

>>3577505
>early 2000s
that esplains it. 90s art education clearly rulez and 2000s art education almost certainly drools butt poop in comparison

>>3572566
>iq is just a shorthand to illustrate to dumb people like you just how dumb you are in comparison to other idiots with a simple number.
Yeah emphasis on "single number." It's how you sort cattle If you want to talk about the concept of intelligence, you don't say IQ. You say intelligence. Not sure why you're acting uppity at me about this now. You're the one that doesn't know what they're talking about.
>its weird that dumb people assume the people they are talking to are dumber than they are,
Have you taken a professionally administered IQ test? Which one(s)?

>>3516494
>4 posters
not me you were talking to. And I'm here for this thread meow.

And I'd prefer there were more than the malignant faggot circlejerk coming from /trad/.

If I want a bunch of other self-important dickheads with mental illness to be mean to me I don't get what the problem is. Are quality threads getting bumped?
>>3516505
exactly.