/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>1764872
>doesn't want abstract or "contemporary"
>posts Immer
kek

>>1764876
But he's none of those.

>>1764877
How are we supposed to help you if you don't even know what you're talking about?

>>1764872
>aren't "contemporary"

ummm, if it's current, it's contemporary - unless you're speaking about an artist with a time machine.

I know what you're referring to though. Plenty of artists like this exist, they're just not worth noting because they're not pushing the medium, this shit has already been done like that for centuries. Why bother dropping a grain of salt on a giant salt rock mountain? Go build a new hill somewhere else.

If you're really into these artists, go to your local art school and you're bound to meet the lower term painting teacher that does nothing but boring portraits with a lot of browns. I had several of these teachers in my foundation classes, but you're supposed to learn the skills, and move forward and make some contemporary art that will actually make you a living outside of teaching.

>>1764947
>Why bother dropping a grain of salt on a giant salt rock mountain?

Because unlike you, most artists became artists out of a passion and love for the craft, not to be contrarian hipsters.

>>1764954
>implying I don't have love and passion for the craft

I love drawing and painting and I've been formally studying it since being 12 years old. I have an appreciation and love for the old masters, I do at least one master copy a month because I admire their skill set, especially John Singer Sargent, but if you're making art like them, you're a phony. You're like the kid that dresses like a greaser and pretends he lives in 1955. You're playing a part and you're in denial of your contemporary surroundings. Making authentic art in 2014, it is likely not going to look like a Flemish painter's work from centuries ago.

It's completely okay to take influence from these artists, but don't try to be them. Mark Ryden (I'm not really a fan) looks at Flemish painting and 19th century imagery for inspiration but he re-appropriates it for the current era. This is why he's relevant despite his love for completely dated artistic and subject matter influences.

>>1764962
You seem to be shitting up the whole board at the moment so it would be nice to see some of your work.

>>1764872
>that aren't hyperrealist
a very small part of contemporary art is hyper-realist, many more are photorealist but both of these categories together form a small part of contemporary art.
>that aren't abstract
other than the related schools mentioned above, yes, there are a lot of realist and figurative artists working today, a response to the dominance of abstraction in the preceding decades.
>that aren't contemporary
I don't think you know what that word means.

tl;dr yes, there are artists working in every mode you can conceive of, so go find what interests you.

>>1764962

it's so refreshing seeing a post made on this board that's informed

do you have a blog?

>>1764978
>whole board

The fuck are you talking about? I hate this place, it's the one thread I've posted in.

>>1765049
so do you have a blog or what

>>1764978
>>1764954
this thread sounds like its full of aspie. I could feel it

Sauce on the picture OP

I like figurative work myself and considering everyone has a different definition of hyperrealism I don't know what you mean. Jeremy Mann's pretty middle of the road in terms of figurative painters
On the more realistic end of the spectrum there are people like Vincent Desiderio or Lipking
Maybe on the more stylized/abstract side of things you could look at Rick Berry or Kent Williams

>>1765340
Hyperrealism is already a specific, defined style, an advancement of photorealism.

You're in the Contemporary era. You can't really NOT be Contemporary as a fine artist. Even Neo-Classicism is Contemporary.

I'm going to do you a big favor and give you a couple of links to some heavy-duty archived /ic/ threads dealing with this exact subject. This will be an absolute embarrassment of artistic riches. I encourage everyone to take the time to go through all of this stuff:

>Contemporary Figurative Painters
>>/ic/thread/1521648

>Living Traditionalist Painters
>>/ic/thread/1521663

>>1765404
One would assume that's the case but I have had people lecture me on what they defined as hyperrealism, realism, etc.

>>1765412
Well they're wrong.

>>1765408
Agostino Arrivabene paintings make me cum

>>1767708
He is quite the painter.

>>1764962
>You're playing a part and you're in denial of your contemporary surroundings

you are in denialof your surroundings as well

do what you're interested in. what you're interested in can be dictated by your environment, but such a thing can only be known after the fact. you are subconsciously influenced by many things as an artist, but to actively dissect your surroundings and try to be hip is just as "phony" as to try to be old-fashioned.

better to roll the dice, work as hard as you can everyday and let others say as they will. to do otherwise ensures they will probably nothing about you, for anybody can try to be somebody, but only a few rare people can actually be somebody. nobody became anything new by trying to be something they thought they were. you've heard of symbol drawing i assume? what you're doing is symbol living.

"authentic" art. tell me, did you sell yourself willingly as a slave to what you think is your period, or did the hordes of the artistic priests have to beat you into submission? i bet you paid them for it too.

>>1764872
>Abstract
>Contemporary
great
>Photorealistic
bluh

great