/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>1934937
No its because they arent painting they're photobashing and not really doing any work.


Good draughstmanship leads to less obvious photobashing.


Why do you care so much about what others can and can't do? Just be best.

You know - of all the dumb shit that routinely gets posted on /ic/ I think the continual downplaying or dismissal of the importance of drawing skill might be the most harmful.

Drawing is literally the most fundamental and important skill in representational art - and in it's most basic form can simply be boiled down to basic measurement. Whether you're working in pencil, digital or a big fat brush loaded with paint - it's all fucking drawing. And if you still struggle to correctly interpret proportion, angles and relationships your work is going to suffer, no matter what the medium or how loose or tight a style you wish to work in.

>>1934966

couldn't agree more.

take it from a guy who neglected drawing and hurt himself badly for it.

>>1934937
Keep making up excuses to not learn drawing OP ,but when you end up without a job and go and cry on ic that the whole "you can make it " mentality is a lie this will be the reason why because you cant get your lazy ass to learn drawing keep being delusional OP.

>>1934937
there is no solid distinction between drawing and painting, especially if we're not talking about physical media. If you're capable of making a good painting, you're capable of making a good drawing. They rely on the same fundamentals. Drawings are typically used in the preparatory stages of many paintings.

>>1935038
>If you're capable of making a good painting, you're capable of making a good drawing
Except you can paint very well in the technical sense but can't draw well. So what you've said kind of fails on that point (focusing on the overall painting opposed to the skills required)

>>1934948
What photos did Brad Rigney use for this painting?

>>1935104

god that is awful. i like some of his work, this is not a part of it.

Painting and drawing are indeed 2 seperate skills.

But usually the very best painters are also very good draftsmen too, so it kinda goes hand in hand.

>>1934937
You don't need to be good at drawing to be good at laying values in a canvas.
You need to be good at drawing to be impressive at painting. The photobashers may be able to value "study" works such as those of Waterhouse, Velazquez or Rembrandt, but I bet you they wouldn't be able to replicate them because they don't understand the underlaying anatomy and perspective under all that paint.

Hell even in their original pieces they tend to have terrible mistakes that come from using incompatible references for the same picture.

In the end, you may be as good as them without knowing how to draw tightly and photobashing profusedly.
That won't get you their jobs, at equal skill they beat you on experience and networking.
You have to be better than them and the only way to be better than people who are great at painting and acceptable at drawing, is being great at painting and great at drawing.

>>1934937
>you don't have to be good at drawing to be good at digital painting

ftfy mother fuckers

>>1935094
show me a good representational painter who can't draw well.

>>1935175
what separates them? you can "draw" using paint as a medium. You can "paint" without using paint as a medium (digital). Both use line, both can also focus on broad areas of value, there's a reason the two are often coupled as a major in colleges.

>>1935196

mullins. i mean ofcourse he can draw well but he himself claims his painting is waaay beyond his drawing. and that drawing is his weakness and something that holds him back.

>>1935115
I can't even begin to imagine what a shit tier artist you must be.

>>1935209
>stop disliking what I like >:(

>>1935200
and it probably holds back his painting as well, because the skills are related. either way, as you say he is a good draftsman, not "very poor" as OP claims. Of course you can focus more on one medium or technique and become better at it than you are with other media or techniques, but you're not going to be able to be a good painter without at least being a decent draftsman.

>>1935216

>Mullins
>he is a good draftsman, not "very poor" as OP claims

where does OP claim that?

>>1935215
Sorry, I assumed we were both artists who can appreciate technically well done art on an objective level, my mistake. you are just one of those "I don't like it because I don't like the subject matter" wannabe "artists" who have infested /ic/ with their cancerous "opinions".

>>1935225
read the post
>(some of them) have very poor drawings
My assertion is that good painters don't have very poor drawings. I'm not claiming OP said anything about Mullins in particular, I'm addressing the notion that any good painter can be a "very poor" draftsman.

>>1935232
>Sorry, I assumed we were both artists who can appreciate technically well done art on an objective level, my mistake. you are just one of those "I don't like it because I don't like the subject matter" wannabe "artists" who have infested /ic/ with their cancerous "opinions".

how dare you talk like that about the next craig mullins? who the hell are you?

>>1935175
>Painting and drawing are indeed 2 seperate skills.

they're really not. they're both just about getting the right shapes of the right measurements in the right places.

whether you do that with lines or with masses of color and value is immaterial. most of OPs artists are better at using mass drawing than line drawing... doesn't mean that they're bad at drawing, though.