/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Was I the only one who went on the M:tG site and thought, "Wow, that looks like shit"?

>>1772135
looks like shit, he could've implemented the photos better instead of making it look blatantly collaged.
>all those artefact/resolution differences in the photos he used

anyway it's nothing new. with the demand about how realistic the industry want their art to be like, seems like a legitimate shortcut.

people will still demand for a more painted look, so don't worry if this isn't up your avenue or interests.

>>1772136
I thought the same, it's probably the worst work Brad ever done for MtG.

jesus christ, how did he get away with all this bullshit in pic related? the giant literally looks copy-pasted in. and whatever he was trying to do with the rider and horse is just lazy.
>that horse head size
>length of the leg of the other side of horse
>rendering on the rider in comparison to everything else

>>1772135
was very sad to hear brad photobashed...i remember him talking about how he hates it when people use photos and make them into a brush, and now hes photobashing compared to his gorgeous paintings he beautiful rendered in the past

>>1772149
I dont see any of the errors you listed. Horses head is normal, leg is correct (notice how much horses torso is turned, rider is photoreal render same as everything else?

The only thing that seems wrong to me is the different resolution of photos used.

>>1772157
>Horses head is normal

uh huh.

>>1772149
it's an anime horse, brad is a weeaboo.

>>1772163
nah i think he's riding one of these babies
>dat horse power mach speed

>>1772159
it is normal, no one gives a fuck about some small variance, you horse fucker.

>>1772159
Thanks for linking horse anatomy, like you can see its right size.

Stop drinking bud.

>>1772168
yeah you won't get brad cock sucking points around here. also that leg is wrong, look at the rider and how he's leaning more toward the audience or more-or-less on the horse rather than following the horse's angle.

and lol, the rider is not photo-rendered. parts of the horse maybe, but the rider is obviously half-assedly painted in.

>>1772149
>6' man sees a 5'11 manlet.jpg

Brad Wigney was an actual experienced painter before he got into photobashing.

>>1772170
for the angle that horse is in, that head is way too large. you can take brad's cock off your mouth now. just admit your god isn't all that mighty or great.

>>1772170
>>1772168
You guys are both wrong, it is honestly really big.

That said, the guy you two are replying to is a faggot. >>1772168 is right, no one will give a single fuck about it.

>>1772136
Most of MTG looks like shit indeed, like why are they still including the traditional stuff in there, it looks like garbage compared to Rigney or Chan, no consistency in quality at all.

>>1772149
looks fine to me
>>1772157
quit art now

>>1772185
Seriously cant tell if youre this dumb or just trolling. His leg is not bent you fag.

>>1772175

I just imagine how guys like you actually draw.

>>1772182
>calling me the faggot when these two blind fans willingly lap up any shit given to them as long as it's in the hands of brad

yeah ok, so no ordinary guy would give a shit. but i thought wizards of the coast would screen that kind of bullshit better in terms of quality. same with magic the gathering.

so now i guess as long as you're famous and can piece a few photos together, you can get a commission from these guys. oh boy.

>>1772185

you are dumb as fuck or seeing what you want to see.

>>1772189
>his leg is not bent
I guess you've never ridden a horse

>>1772193
Nigga, the post you replied to was the first time I even posted in this thread. Stop being a faggot. I don't even know the goddamn artist.

Fuck, I even partly agreed with you.

>>1772194
let's see your "correct" redline. Go right ahead and prove me wrong.

>>1772135
this is depressing, i know he can do that without photos but whats the point then..if actual pros just collage photos..

>tfw the photobashing moms prophecy is gonna happen

>>1772189
why would his leg be straight given the angle his body is in? that makes it look even worse.

>>1772191
hurr durr, i'd like to see how you draw too anon, all that brad juice must've done something to your growth of talent and knowledge.

my wording is crude, but it's plain to the eye that he got these parts wrong.

>>1772198
It's all about pipeline honestly. That's their reason.

>>1772196
what the fuck man do you want to hear, did i call you a faggot? you quit bein a faggot. i partly agreed to you as well. reading comprehension, please.

>>1772199

End of the story, you not going to show how you draw, right?

>>1772183
>Most of MTG looks like shit indeed, like why are they still including the traditional stuff in there, it looks like garbage compared to Rigney or Chan, no consistency in quality at all.

Its the opposite actually, digital stuff is garbage by definition, they only have a couple of actual artists left in there. Digital "painters" arent painters or artists.

>>1772210
and neither would you fag. are we all gonna stand up and show our drawings for any critique or comment we make?

look itt, there are people agreeing with me and i'll bet you a hundred dollars they draw better than your shit.

>>1772213
>Digital "painters" arent painters or artists.
Skulky pls leave.

i think that it's just the format that allows him to do this. Just think that most people would see this in a 2 by 3 inch illustration.

If you see the actual card, the illustration does its job extremely well, making sure everything that matters catches the viewer's eye. If it was a design made to be seen in a bigger format, I think that he would paint it normally

>>1772198

Thats how pros fool all the art community. While you guys keep worrying about art integrity dilemmas, they are actually making MONEY with art.

But you know, I think everyone here is too good to do the same things that the most prominent artist of the XX century did.

>>1772223
legitimate question: so if we start just doing photobashing well enough or use enough references, we're good to go as far as hiring and jobs go? why aren't we doing any of this already?

You guys sound really mad....

>>1772227
why wouldn't we? here we've been taught to just "practice hard and you'll make it guise! xD" and here comes a pro who allegedly went back on his word about using photos hitting the biggest companies. what's the point of loomis now when your favorite artists are using all these cheap shortcuts?

>>1772215

>are we all gonna stand up and show our drawings for any critique or comment we make?

You are the only one making critique. Not me.

> there are people agreeing with me
Every idiotic opinion has followers, so what?

>and i'll bet you a hundred dollars they draw better than your shit

Yeah right, just look at "post your drawings" threads, everyone here is better than Brad Rigney.

>>1772229
>when your favorite artists are using all these cheap shortcuts
thats some shit tier fav artists you have

>>1772135
Brad Rigney and his ilk are exactly the kind of artists that MTG players complain about when they talk about digital artists ruining magic art and I am so, so, so happy wizards has been moving away from that in the recent sets and more towards talented but organic work that guys like Pete Mohrbacher and Steve Prescott put out. Even the new core set, which is usually filled with boring Rigney-tier work is starting to move away from photorealism. Which is fantastic and makes me super excited for the future.

>>1772224

You still need to actually have the skill to create pieces that make potential clients pay attention to you and consider paying you.

>>1772224
Because you are all fucking retarded and don't understand what "photobashing" actually means. Please go ahead, use a photograph and turn it into an illustration of the level Brad Rigney does. Post results in this thread so we can have a good laugh.

>>1772231
by asking for my art based off my critique, you believe my art skill has any relevance/knowledge to the post i had just made, correct? then i could ask the same of yours then if you believe the horse's head is the right size and the rider's leg is not of correct length. that is, what i assume anyway since you're making this post at all.

>Yeah right, just look at "post your drawings" threads, everyone here is better than Brad Rigney.
lol at this point i think people are aware this brad rigney hardly paints at all.

>>1772224
>legitimate question: so if we start just doing photobashing well enough or use enough references, we're good to go as far as hiring and jobs go? why aren't we doing any of this already?

In my opinion, Photobash is only wrong when it limitate the kind of result you want in your art. Personally, I would take years of living in a basement to get this kind of result >>1772185
on traditional ways. In the end of the day, I want to sell art pieces, my ideas - Not my workflow.

>>1772235
>more towards talented but organic work
>Pete Mohrbacher
>Steve Prescott

Pic related. Post something like this and you will get shit for beginner tier rendering, and it does indeed look horrible and cartoony as fuck.

I really hope MTG doesnt retard itself further back into 1997 era.

>>1772229
Because, you dumb fucking moron, there are thousands of shit tier artists using photobashing to create puke-worthy art and no one is even thinking of hiring them. Someone like you could never in a million years create an illustration of the same quality Brad Rigney can do, regardless what shortcuts you use. The only reason Brad can create good looking art using this technique is BECAUSE he is fucking good at what he does and understands the fundamentals of art.

Just go ahead and try it. Go and do everything in your power to create an illustration of the same quality as Brad does. Use every shortcut you can think of, use every trick in the book, just try to come up with an end result that is comparable to Brad's work.

>>1772223
Photo bashing and using references are not the same thing at all. Just look at the license Rockwell took with the man's face and hand. All completely hand-drawn.

>>1772240
You are a moron.

>>1772248
Rockwell copied about 95% of the ref. Brad Rigney's illustration are 95% completely different from any photos he used to get there.

>>1772239
delivered.

>>1772195
if you mean i never FUCKED a horse, then yeah, that's what i meant!

>>1772248

That is not the point, the thing is that using that kind of "heavy reference" still considered a "trick" by some delusional idiots from /ic/. If Rockwell was alive, I think he would be personally "ok" with photobash and all the stuff that modern technology offer to artists. I think that our duty is to face the "new" problems of artistic production, not the old ones.

>>1772244

that's why you gotta learn to paint. that's why jaime jones and craig mullins are da bestest.

you won't ever find them being limited in their creativity, looking through fotos going "hm maybe this helmet here fits better... nah bad lighting. okay lets try this one... hm not really. ok now this one... sigh... oh well noone will notice"

you gotta be LEGIT. so you are FREE. sure maybe you could already be getting work if you photobash, but you will be limiting your skill ceiling.

i for one, am determined and destined to become an absolute god. i will be joining the ranks of these guys:

- theo prins
- jaime
- mullins
- verhasselt (mat, don't like his brothers work that much)
- zedig
- robh rupphels
- rarara ruanjiaaa
- yun ling

those guys are legit. ain't no photobashing there.

photobashing is for faggots, cocksuckers, and polskis. but those 3 are all the same anyway huehuehue

>mfw

>>1772255

FUCK ME, I JUST LOST ALL MY SIDES.

>>1772255
The sad thing is, I wouldn't expect you nor 99% of the other people ITT shitting on Brad to come up with a much better result even if you spent a month on it and really tried.

>>1772261
>that's why you gotta learn to paint. that's why jaime jones and craig mullins are da bestest.
>photobashing is for faggots, cocksuckers, and polskis

Photobash by Craig Mullins.

>>1772261
>>1772264

Photobash by Jaime Jones.

>>1772261
>you gotta be LEGIT. so you are FREE
>robh rupphels

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mkPRmqUlFw

I think you guys are missing the point. It's not because it looks horrible and such, because it don't look, it still looks professional and nobody here have the skills to do the same quality. The thing is, it looks fake and worse than the previous works those artists were doing, and because its a tendency, we are doomed to see worse works of collages instead of godly paintings.
I don't think the artists are the devil here, the companies are for demanding this type of photoreal quality in small amount of time, and the tendency is to be faster and faster.
I think it's really acceptable in concept art, but when it comes to illustration, its just look fake.

>>1772264
>>1772265
>>1772271

fuck off faggit

>>1772285
Seems as though your puritan world view has been shattered by the reality of the industry.

>>1772177
>>1772202
/thread
Brad's standard method of painting takes an inordinate amount of time. I recall someone paraphrasing that he makes less hourly than his wife who teaches kindergarten, but I don't have a source on that. If he's found a more efficient workflow and his clients are still willing to pay for it, then good for him.

We don't need 5 of these doom and gloom threads a week about how the sky is falling because photobashing child-labor chinese moms are takin' our jerbs. Instead of arguing at eachother about the same damn shit, go draw, or photobash, or however else you want to productively spend your time.

>inb4 you clearly suck rigney's cock; inb4 pointless strawman; inb4 why aren't you drawing yourself

>>1772292
dunno bout you but i'm lookin forward to my future with the integration of photobashing. this shit's kinda fun

>>1772294
This is fucking gold.

>>1772255
>>1772294
this is the best art in the whole thread lol

>>1772294
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH

HOLY SHIT

Oh look. It's retards pretending to be smart and smart people getting ganged up on retards and vice versa.

Nothing new.

>>1772135
come on, guys, he clearly painted this from scratch and made it look like a photo collage. morons.

>>1772294

Now you just add some filters, a little bit of corrections. Tah Dah! Now you're a concept artist, congratulations anon.

Now you just add some filters, a little bit of corrections. Tah Dah! Now you're a concept artist, congratulations anon.

>>1772341
someone make the text

>>1772349
Fix that stretching.

"When you put Potobasher the Great in the field, Ned Loomis >>1772343 is neutralized"

>Not considering he has to sacrifice say a foot that only /ic/'ll get pissed off about se he can crunch out stuff faster to help provide for his family

>>1772135
i dont like his work but thats not related to his photobashing

>>1772357
Dude, not a single Pro gives zero fucks about what /ic/ thinks.

It's not even a sacrifice. His job is way easier and he keeps making money.
>New trend lets artists make money easier
>Avoid it like the plague
>/ic/

>>1772355
best i could do with the stretching

LOOK AT YOU LOOSERS again! Your journey of shitposting from thread to thread continues right?
>telling how pros should do it
>never worked for Wizards
>never got paid for single illustration as Brad did for this one
>probably never got paid for anything you do

>trying to teach horse anatomy
>don't have an idea how masterpainters drew and painted horses (or illustrators like Frazzeta)

Never change /ic

>>1772235
The only issue with that Nissa is that the head is traced from some photo we found on /tg/

>>1772246
While that is a bit much I agree, the point of that set was to be cartoony as fuck

This I like. back 2 you're roots brad

>>1772255
I'm dying here.

>>1772246
>I really hope MTG doesnt retard itself further back into 1997 era.
I hate you so fucking much.

On the topic of vidya game art, what do you guys think of Guild Wars 2 art? I know they at least got Kekai Kotaki and Ruan Jia

Pic from Kotaki, not related to the game tho

>>1772495
All I can say is that I eventually had more fun looking at the loading screen art than playing the actual game

>OP

>>1772521
lol

>>1772490
Not him, but the MTG illustrations from the 90s are objectively worse than those of today. Artists like Jaime, Bumskee, Wes Burt, Whit Brachna etc shit all over the stuff done in the earlier MTG card sets.

If anyone is allowed to utilize photographs in his process then it's Brad Rigney. We know he could paint all that on his own yet to make a reasonable living he needs to work much faster than he usually does (often 100+ hours).
It's the same thing with people like Donato, who often trace (their own) photographs to save time. They have the skill to work without shortcuts but the industry has demanding deadlines and business is business.

>>1772551
Doesn't matter, they had a much better feel to them in general. Now everything looks outright fake and overrendered instead of painterly and mystical.

>>1772556
nigga please

>>1772555
He isn't allowed to do that if it looks like shit. You're implying that the shit posted in this thread achieves the same result as his real works, which it doesn't.

>>1772556
Muh first art.

>>1772556
Yeah everything used to be so much better in the past. Oh wait no

>>1772564
It did tho.

>>1772565
Not art at least, you just think it's better than it actually is because when you first saw it it had more of an effect on you and now you can't look at it objectively

>>1772495
daniel dociu knows what he's doing. it seems like jia is learning quite a bit from theoprins too

>>1772556
The vast majority of card illustrations are still painterly, often hugely inspired by Mullins and Jaime. Brad and Algen are the only mtg artists I can think of who try to go for very tight realism. Though only recently did they go towards photorealism. Their slightly older work is not overrendered at all either. You can clearly see their brushstrokes and it has a clear loss of detail and value in the non-focal areas to give the eye areas to rest.

>>1772567
I started playing magic when the art was already corrupted. I first saw cards this old by the time Mirrodin was out. I really wished I was around at the time of sets like Tempest and the Urza Block.

>>1772569
>daniel dociu knows what he's doing.
Lol Daniel dociu is possibly the best ad out there right now. Extremely passionate and knowledgeble.
Also picked up jaime jones from art school.
Guilwars will do just fine

You can thank Jeremy Jarvis for hiring the army of Photoshop junkies and firing actual trained artists like Quinton Hoover or Rebecca Guay.

Enjoy your hundreds of cards with muddy compositions, foils that look like complete shit and UMAGOURD SO REALISTIC I TEXTURED HIS COCK-MOLES.

>>1772569

that some good shit

oh, is that what it's called? Sometimes it can be done well, but often times (e.g. in the case of OP) it just looks so goddamn shitty

of course that's true for all art but still, I don't really like it.

>>1772592
>Guilwars will do just fine
Art-wise maybe but story-wise is like a parody of hamburger hepler gone wrong and gameplay-wise more ded than abandonware. Makes me wonder if they spend all their money on concept art, not that I mind if they do

>>1772495
>what do you guys think of Guild Wars 2 art?
You can see how the concept art took them a lot further than the sorts of vidya locals we're used to seeing. Concept art doing it's job right, and also looking great at the same time. Wasn't a big fan of the game but it looked gorgeous.

>>1772495
Some is very good, Some is very abstract and stylized and some is downright shit.
The loading screens made me cringe at times.
Perspective errors and nasty brush strokes everywhere.

>>1772361
>"field" "neutralize"
wtf thats not mtg terms

>MTG

Do you anons know any site where you can browse MTG artworks in decent resolutions? Every damn site I find is all about the cards themselves and the artwork is just a tiny photo of the card, no high res or anything.

>>1772665
Most MtG artists have a higher res image on their website.

>>1772666
Yeah, but thats the point, I was asking if there is a site that has all of those artworks in one place.

>>1772667

there's not.

>>1772665
http://theartofmtg.tumblr.com
He's a pretty cool guy, takes requests and everything.

>>1772561

This.

>>1772597

I agree in some points with this... They should have kept more traditional artists indeed.

>>1772597
>Quinton Hoover or Rebecca Guay.

>googled expecting to find some cartoony crap
>was not dissapointed

Dude what in actual fuck is that in pic related, people starting out digital painting do stuff that looks like that and you would like to see it on Magic cards? What is wrong with you.

>>1772792

Ahh.. To be 12 again.

>>1772792
I guess MTG wasnt such a big thing back then so they had to hire cheaper artists producing unrendered works. If you have a whole deck of those it doesnt look so wrong.

>>1772792

rather this than photobashed polski garbage.

can we plz make photobashing polski a meme too? now that 'photobashing moms taking our jobs' has semi-established itself.

>>1772261
lol you do realize that ulysse verhasselt is like 21 or something and just starting to get serious about art right? I project that he will be a big deal in a few years...he improves quickly, focuses on the fundamentals hardcore, has crazy good work ethic, and has mathias for an older brother and jana as a sister in law.

>>1772792
>>1772820

That is really bad, but there are some good artists from that time.

Another IC thread where a bunch of shit artists make up excuses on why everyone is better than them.

Whatever you need to tell yourself /IC/

>>1772841
OP's pic is /ic/-quality level of bad though.

>>1772831
>can we plz make photobashing polski a meme too? now that 'photobashing moms taking our jobs' has semi-established itself.

Why would we bother when there's a total of one of them? And dont worry, Kuciara wont take your job even if you asked him to do it.

>>1772835

no i don't. rly? holy fuck. god damnit. fuck. don't care about all the other stuff but the fact that he is 21 and only recently started taking art seriously does fuk with my head a little.

>>1772841
Troll post of someone who probably didn't even read the thread and the subject discussed.

>>1772838

The guy went through and tried to hunt for the worst Quinton Hoover piece. Keep in mind that Rebecca is a watercolorist and Quinton Hoover specializes in inks and color washes.

But this kid is the same kind of CGhub/DeviantArt kid who loves basically painted photographs that take no thought, planning or work to create. Quinton Hoover is one of the artists who was there from the beginning with Alpha and Arabian Nights, him and artists like him, Rebecca Guay, Kev Walker etc made Magic what it is. Kid has no fucking clue what art even is because he pretty much only looks at the McDonald's of cheaply produced jpgs.

>>1772852
>kid
*unsheathes my katana*
who're you callin kid, kid?
i'm warning you... don't make me use my katana....

>>1772852
Can you then post a piece by Quinton Hoover that you think is good enough to be printed as artworks for a card to prove your point?

>>1772855

There are plenty of cards he has done that are some of the most iconic cards ever printed in MTG. Some of the most famous ones like the Earthbind or Vodalian Mage etc. If I said names like those or Phil Foglio those names would mean nothing to you.

What you're really saying is, has Quinton Hoover ever made a kitschy over-rendered MUH-REALISM piece, and no not really. Except when he was forced to do oils for Timespiral block. (Google Quinton Hoover + Timespiral)

You are pretty much the reason MTG art only caters to the lowest common denominator of taste now.

>>1772135
no, we don't ALL have to learn. I'm an illustrator, not a concept artist. Also, I know because 4chin is obsessed with playing vidya, that they glorify the job of being a concept designer, but it's seriously not THAT awesome. You're a pee-on nobody that's treated like shit from an art director with most studios.

>>1772862
I'm not the other anon, but I think that the artwork now is a better quality overall now than it was in the past. Many of the artists used to be pretty mediocre, and the art styles were all over the place, especially Ice Age and before since there were no style guides. You have to admit that the overall cohesiveness is much better now than ever. It would be cool though to have a block with more stylized artwork.

>>1772263
Why should I spend my valuable time learning how to create shit?

>>1772223
god I hate Norman Rockwell. Feel good bullshit.

>>1772868
Even if he painted kitschy subjects you have to admit he was a master of painting and had some of the best work ethic of all fucking time.

>>1772634
I'm not fond of this new age of sci fi where people think a bunch of clustered junk metal looks cool. I get the scale is cool, but why can nobody have a smooth steel orb as a space ship anymore? Everything has to be "look at all the needless complexity guiyz"

>>1772866

I can admit that there's a overall vision now. But even when you had sets where Quinton Hoover and Rebecca Guay's art would reign supreme like Lorwyn you still got muddy brown and black art everywhere.

MTG art really caters to gritty more than anything now because that's what sells. Not fault on Wotc, they're just doing what their focus groups suggest. It's a business after all and about Alara Block they realized they needed to stop caring about doing what's best for the game and what's best for the bottom line.

>>1772246
what are you talking about it doesn't look horrible at all...

>>1772873
Yeah. I don't think being dark and gritty is necessarily a bad thing, and they can't have every card look that way anyways simply from a flavour point of view (obviously white cards and certain spells will always be less gritty by their nature)/ At least they have better design sense and aesthetics than Applibot and stuff.

>>1772865
>You're a pee-on nobody that's treated like shit from an art director with most studios

you are just hating because you aren't good enough to work in that department.

>>1772294
this is fucking perfect

>>1772862
>What you're really saying is, has Quinton Hoover ever made a kitschy over-rendered MUH-REALISM piece

Thats not what I'm saying. Rigney is overrendering his stuff and just doesnt know when to stop, guys youre mentioning are on the other end of the spectrum and are for some reason using a mediums that make it impossible to create quality artwork that doesnt look like flat colored lineart.

Pic related, very painterly and stylized yet still properly rendered and aestethically pleasing. No, I'm not the author of that and I don't even know who is, just a random pic from one of my inspiration folders to illustrate what I consider to be top quality without photobashing or overrendering.

>>1772246
hurdur not rendered must be shit

>>1772879
not really actually. I'm not fond of digital art, period. I don't like the aesthetic of it. I'm not sure why this board is so obsessed, probably because of the vidya connection and everyone here worships vidya and nerd shit like swords and warrior crap. I never got into that bullshit.

>>1772881
>top quality without photobashing or overrendering

but whas ruanjia

>>1772882
this actually has terrible value orchestration, it's all mid tone and becomes hard to read. If the thumbnail is difficult to read, it's not good. Too much of the same color saturation as well. The figures in the back look like they're walking on a totally different perspective plane and it feels odd.

>>1772883
That's retarded, how can you hate a whole medium? Especially the most flexible medium in existence.

>>1772886
are you serious

>>1772887
because I don't like the look of faux brush work. I like digital when it doesn't look digital, mostly the way illustrators use it where you can't tell if it's a painting, drawing, collage, or whatever. I'm not fond of super vectorized clean illustrations either. There needs to be some interesting use of textures to remove that vector look about it. I use illustrator a lot, but the way I use textures, sometimes it's better and quicker to just do it by hand with paint.

>>1772892
yes, I'm serious. The figure on the tiger and the figures walking in the background are both on two different planes of gravity.

>>1772881

But who's to say that is THE style every artist has to be judged by to be considered a master? Quinton Hoover has been drawing longer than either of us has been alive and made amazing pieces. No one's art is perfect. I'm very against the notion that CG rendered is THE WAY. I like plenty of artists who do render their work, for other cards they lack a soul. It's like Feng Zhu saying "This is not art, these are just algorithms that tell people's eyes it looks good" I think back in the day it was loser on the rules and as a result we've had iconic art pieces. There's very few pieces today that you could honestly want framed.

That said this is one of the cards he made in Timespiral. In the set that was an homage to Magic's past one of the artists from Magic's very beginning was told he had to change his style or he wouldn't make the cut.

>>1772893
>The figure on the tiger and the figures walking in the background are both on two different planes of gravity.
Yeah I don't think it matters too much. They could be on a hill, or it could just be artistic license. The fact of the matter is that the image is cool and not even meant to be a hyper realistic image.

>>1772896
so the "concept" of this piece is riding animals in a multi-gravitational world? Hmm, now THAT'S a concept....of shit.

>>1772895
We still have iconic art pieces. They tend to be by the older guys like Kev Walker though who rely on awesome shape design and a graphic read more than anything else though.

>>1772895
>they lack a soul.
>quoting fengzhu
confirmed for pleb who's talking out of his asshole.

>>1772893
>planes of gravity
Wut

>>1772899

Try reading english next time.

>>1772900
Look at the man on the tiger. Gravity is pulling him one way, then look at the figures in the back, gravity is pulling them in a slightly different way. It's as though this world they are in has at least two slightly different gravitational pulls.

>>1772900

You are looking from the canopy down at a bunch of dudes walking along the forest floor. There's this dude riding a tiger yet her's parallel to the the perspective of the dudes. It looks like he's standing sideways against the side of the tree branch like he's fucking tiger spiderman.

You should be seeing the top of the guy's back and the tigers back from above.

>>1772881
Not that guy but it's an issue of taste. Googled that Quinton guy and the Rebecca girl's work and I like it. They obviously have very strong art nouveau sensibilities, almost to the point where it's redundant, but I generally prefer it to most of the '3d film still frame' look that's all over the place at the moment.

>>1772909
glad I'm not the only one that isn't a retard about perspective.

>>1772905
>autism personified

>>1772905
Planes and gravity don't make sense together, all I'm saying. It's a nonsense phrase. All that needs to be said was at the angles are mismatched- it's a basic perspective issue.

>>1772916
yeah, interesting argument. I tell you why the perspective is shit in the image and you call me "autistic" for understanding basics of perspective. This is fundamental shit, art 101. You failed.

>>1772341
what filters did you use to do this?

>>1772920
>muh senpai
>muh training
>muh realism

>>1772883
so edgy
how can i be like you?

>>1772897
1/10 fer makin me giggle m8

>>1772924
I don't know what senpai is, I'm not a weeb.