/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>1940416
It is what the name implies, an artist for artists.

While the public may still appreciate the works of art, it is artists who revere that artist for a certain quality to their work that is not easy to appreciate if you are not yourself an artist.


Another example would be craig mullins, who even if incredibly skilled will loose out in the mainstream media to people like Dan Luvisi, who's more of a publics' artist.

>>1940416
dont be an artists artists. impressing other artists does little for your career.

work hard, do what you wanna do, everyone "theoretically" will love you.

>>1940421
Not trolling but don't Mullins and Luvisi work with similar subject matter (scifi/fantasy)? Why is Luvisi easier to appreciate than Mullins?

>>1940457
He's saying, that the very thing that makes Mullins appreciated by other artists is that he keeps reaching new heights. He's considered the top of food chain in art technique, and exploration, despite being a digital artist. These things are not immediately appreciated by laymen/plebs/rubs/average people. Regular people know it's good art, they just don't know why. Meanwhile they see Rapoza's Ninja Turtle portraits and go apeshit. Sakimichan's Frozen/anime/realism portraits and their panties go moist.

Also Luvisi is kind of the coattail rider to Dave Rapoza, which would have been the better comparison. Except Rapoza is working to be appreciated by other artists too. Luvisi is ok, but strikes me as more of a poseur, he likes being sucked up to more than trying to reach the next level.

If it sounds like I'm taking shots, I'm really not, I'd happily meet all of these artists for a sandwich and a chat.

>>1940466
Ah, ok that makes sense. One is in it to perfect their craft and the other is in for approval.

>>1940466
Dude dan luvisi is such a nice guy. I dislike his work but I love his person. If you're ever in LA go visit him he's very welcomming and super hard working.

>>1940487
I don't get the hate. He does seem like a really nice guy.

>>1940457
Because subject matter is irrelevant.

>>1940480
its not just craft perfection, mullins is doing stuff at such a high level hes probably doing stuff nobody ever thought to do, including lost or forgotten stuff from the masters and incorporating it into his own work. High level composition, high level craft, high level technique, great subject matter, also experimenting and trying new things. He's the top of the food chain.

>>1940487
>>1940490
I don't hate him at all I was curious about him I looked at one of his livestreams. I definitely editorialized. I have an unfair expectation of artists, and I think I'm mature enough to realize that their fans can be pesky. So whatever, ignore my personal thoughts about that. He is a good dude, I'd happily draw with him if we all had to hang out.

>>1940466
>Also Luvisi is kind of the coattail rider to Dave Rapoza

I believe Luvisi was a working professional long before Rapoza. If you mean the fan-art stuff that Rapoza is famous for which Luvisi does too, I'm pretty sure that that too Luvisi was doing long before Dave.

Doing fanart is so generic anyway that I don't think you could say one artist started it.

I showed a Sargent portrait to someone and they said it was just okay and kind of boring, even after I explained why it was such a brilliant piece. Where do artists like Repin and Sargent come in? Are they artist's artists?

>>1940526
because the average person only sees the surface. It's a good painting, a good picture, but that's just it. The average person isn't seeing that extra gorgeous color work and effort going in. They just see a beautifully painted horse or figure. There is no experience behind why it's beautiful, that extra degree of brushwork. To them it's more amazing to see a monet because it's a HUGE beautiful painting the size of an entire wall room.

Now Monet is actually a good artist but he went the extra mile to impress even rubes.

>>1940526
No, during their time they were not just artist's artists. Especially Repin, he was cherished by the entirety of Russia(but not the monarchy, obviously). Sargent's portraits were also pretty popular, I believe.

Anyways, you show older shit to today's people it's hard to get them interested in general. There's a disconnect in culture and context. There's enough evidence and writing about past artists to figure out if they were an artists' artist.

>>1940416
Cezanne is another example of an artist's artist. Or Van Gogh. Someone that many other artists have admired or followed, due not only to technical ability but also their distinctive voices and innovations in terms of style or technique. They are prolific artists who take their work seriously and always seek to perfect and further their art.

Leonid Afremov is the ultimate artist's artist.

>>1940711
Haha no. Cezanne and Van Gogh are the opposite of artist's artists. They are worshipped by art plebs because art history says they should be worshipped. Their work has no technical or compositional depth at all for actual artists to appreciate.

>>1940778
tell me more about plebs

>can't appreciate cezanne's painting techniques
>muh art historian conspiracy
>mfw my pleb senses are tingling

>>1940882
where are mechs and animu girls??

>>1940778
>implying technical skill equals artistic depth
>implying you understand depth
lrn2art.jpg

>>1940886
Why did Cezanne use such a dark outline (especially on the hand) in that piece?

>>1941265
why not? that was just part of his style. lots of "tucking" of the planes and clear delineation, gives it a graphic quality and plays with the depth of the picture plane.

>>1941527
don't bother spoon-feeding a toddler, they need to feed themselves now.

>>1941549
Fuck off, you twat. How's that $250,000 art history degree working out for you? I'll have a large black coffee, by the way.

>>1941549
>>1941629
hey can we not?

>>1941629
how's that big black dick going up your ass by the way? You spend $250,000 on cuck sessions with your mother faggot.

>>1940636
very much this.

Idiot plebs really don't why it's so great. They don't see the intention of every single brush stroke, they just see that, "oh, it looks really close to how people look." This is why that hyperrealism is so popular on the internet even though it's really not that amazing. Anyone can sit there and flesh out a highly rendered portrait once they learn how to copy photos, but why the fuck bother? Take .016 seconds and snap a photo if that's what you want. Painting and drawing excels that when the hand brings some expression or emphasis that the average eye doesn't see. The way Lucien Freud can make a stroke of cerulean blue push a figure into the cool shadows while a warm pink/orange can pull that warmth forward.

>>1943667

Sounds like you have an overinflated ego there, kid. Being able to examine a painting doesn't make you a God amongst men. Any jackass who paid attention in an art history class could do that.

>>1943675
then sargent is subpar because it's just a woman wearing a black dress

>>1943678

Sargent is amazing. You're not automatically amazing just because you can appreciate his shit. Get over yourself.

>>1943682
You're so not getting the point at all.

>>1943675
you're obviously a faggot. Go draw some armor, kid.

>>1943682
Describe why you like Sargent then.

>>1943691

What? That the ignorant mass of plebs cannot comprehend art unlike us true connoisseurs of art?

>>1940416
modern art ofc

>>1943698
You're taking this very personally anon.

>>1943706

You simply don't understand, kid. It;'s way above your level of comprehension. We're talking PhD level art history where you're still trying to figure out Loomis. Get your head out of your ass and go to the Louvre sometime (and for the love of god don't fucking go all apeshit over the mona lisa like those other fags). Oh right it's too mainstream for you you fucking poser. Go circle jerk over your animu or loomis or whatever us real artists are going to appreciate art at its finest.

>>1943712
You're not even addressing the topic. You're all over the place now.

>>1943714

I'm all over the place? You can't simply UNDERSTAND. Your mind is too fucked by your preconcieved notions of "art" and "muh old masters" to even begin to get it. Looks like the fucking CIA post-modern art infiltration affected this place as well. Fucking jews.

>>1943712
>>1943717

kek

>>1943717
Nothing is as dangerous as an intelligent poster frustrated with his inability to join in on the discussion. All you had to do was spend more time drawing like you were told. Well anon, at least your capitalization and punctuation is on point. That'll definitely help you participate.

Your fear of the "elitists" posters reminds me of basic frustration. Rubes/plebs a negative word to you? It's your own insecurity. It's a word used insultingly, if you spend too much time posting on negative places like /tv/. But the reality is that a rube is just someone who isn't even an amateur. If you're afraid of being called a pleb or a rube, have no fear, you aren't. You love art as we do, so relax. Your passion transforms into humor and sarcasm as self-defense. Why would anyone want to seriously talk to someone who's going batshit? You came to the wrong place for that. Nobody wins here.

>>1943724
>MFW this just turned into an MJ_popcorn.gif thread

>>1943730
>not burtonguster_popcorn.gif

>>1943729

I have to say that whenever I hear someone use rubes/plebs, especially on 4chan, it's a giant warning sign of elitist bullshit. Elitist bullshit is one of the more toxic things to infiltrate the board, just below "woe is me i cannot improve" circlejerking. The last thing /ic/ needs is more toxic bullshit, especially when places like ca.org has gone down the shitter quality wise.

In the eyes of the filthy non-artists of the world, is a poorly drawn, highly polished piece better than a beautifully drawn, rough piece?

>>1943832
you know the answer to that. why ask if you know the answer to that

>>1943864
No I don't, because some plebs really dig the rough, painterly look.

>>1943918

They like things that look cool. Yes it's vague and that's kind of the point. If there was a sure fire formula for success you bet your ass every greedy asshole out there would be using it.

>>1943772
>more toxic bullshit

this is an art community. Nonartists are watching john wick, football, reality tv, getting drunk and playing league of legends right now. They don't even give a fuck about what Genzoman is doing. They liked a Genzoman post on facebook AND MOVED ON. I happen to like artists that aren't Genzoman. I'm explaining why non-artists may not care for the art we love. I used the word rube because there are no gentle words to describe the type of person who isn't into your thing. Others used pleb. It's unfortunate 14 year olds think pleb is some major insult. Who the fuck cares?

>>1943927
Rube sounds insulting no matter how old you are. Like calling someone uncultured because they don't like Genzoman.

>>1944329
>>1944329
I dont like Genzoman I dont know why is he super famous but I do respect him, said that I dont care if people like him or not, like >>1943927 said, people who will consume art are not artist and they dont care much about palettes or concept, they like what they like and thats it.

>>1940466

I agree completly, if you choose to not do fanart/commercial stuff its your choice a very respectable one but dont complain if other "less skilled" artist are famous and you are not, its the path you chose. Commercial stuff is the "easy" way but a way in the end, everyone have their perks. And it comes from someone who prefers to improve than to draw something tha "people will like"

>>1940416
given that it referenced the limited palette and probably the dark subject matter, which is often seen as very 'fine art', i'm guessing they're referring to being a super hardcore embodiment of 'artist' stereotypes.