/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

not watching, but did he just photobash a bunch of stuff together. This looks so bad.

>>1940660
>>1940667
Isn't that guy a concept artist? It's pretty obvious that he will photobash everything, that's just how they roll.

>>1940660

laughing my ass off at wojtek defending photobashing to death, talking about how 'guilt' kept him from progressing

oh yeah let's just grab the fashion design photos of some photographers and steal

a) the photo
b) the design of the fashion in the foto

FUCK YEAH CONCEPTART! good on you wojtek you fucking plagiarist. why even bother trying to hide your lazy plagiarism with painting over the photo??? lol just turn in the photo itself and collect your well deserved salary. what a fucking joke.

>>1940660
watching now...this is disgusting

fuck concept art

>>1940676
Shaddy actually has done hundreds of plein air paintings and is better at art than you will ever be.

>>1941304
>muh photobashing

>>1940676

Even his 10 or so year old paintings are better than anything you can do.

>hurr durr Shaddy please go

Just to get that one out of the way, because amateur faggots like you are nothing but predictable once they get called out on their stupidity and ignorance.

>>1941304
>>1941305
>>1941309
>>1941310
Having done better artwork in the past does not justify photobashing in the present. If Sargent came back to life and started photobashing, he would still be called out on his bullshit here, rightly so. In fact, he would get even more flack because the better he his the more it hurts seeing him falling this low.

>>1940660
haha what the fuck is this shaddy

i never liked this cunt

>>1941327
See
>>1940397

>>1941332
Op's pic is not concept art though, and that's why the shitflinging started you retard.

>>1941344
It's a demo aimed to show the workflow for the kind of concept art he often does. Shaddy is also quite the tongue-in-cheek type of guy so I'm pretty sure everything about that demo, from the extremely kitchy subject matter to the blatantly lazy photobashing is done entirely for the purpose to get a rise out of amateurs like you with a stick up their butt about photobashing. Shaddy likes to shock and say controversial shit, it's his thing. At workshops or in his youtube vids he always claims what he does is cheating until it looks cool, but at the end of the day, the guy has more life drawing experience than all of you combined.

Ironically, just a year or so ago, Shaddy was basically the hero of /ic/ with his youtube videos where he shared his painting technique. There were so many wannabes who did landscape photocopies, using his brushes, trying to emulate his every brushstroke it was ridiculous. I guess the same people now call him a photobashing hack.

>>1941353
nah I always called him a smug cunt.

>>1941353
>"H-he is just pretending to be retarded!"
Sure.
>Ironically, just a year or so ago, Shaddy was basically the hero of /ic/
Then again, you are pretty delusional making shit like this up.

>>1941374
Not really, you either weren't here back then or you were one of those faggots who is now embarassed of it. The amount of shitty, overtextured landscape photocopies using Shaddy's brushes in the drawthread was staggering.

>>1941374
>"H-he is just pretending to be retarded!"

It is an image of a mermaid being carried away by a centaur with a volcano erupting behind them. What do you think you fucking moron. That he was completely serious about that image?

>>1941392
I'm here since One-vox would post his super-original angels here, so I'm not that new.
>The amount of shitty, overtextured landscape photocopies using Shaddy's brushes in the drawthread was staggering
How exactly makes this the hero of /ic/? The drawthreads have always been full of shitty illustrations, it's common knowledge that the good guys don't actually post their work here. Most of /ic/ is made out of lurkers anyways.
>>1941396
I don't really care what his motivations are, there is only one thing and that's the finished product. It's not fine art where you can get away with writing an explanation next to your image to justify how shitty it is.
If you act like a retard, you might as well be one.

>>1941304
>>1941309
>>1941310
"Let's see you do better!"

Also, this faggot has never tried to disguise his artwork as original, and has always made it obvious that they're photomanips.

At least he's more honest than half of the assholes who try to pretend they painted their photomanips themselves.

>>1941304
photostudies are not "plein air", jesus fuck.
i knew a girl who painted from google maps photos and called it plein air.
fucking concept artists are fucking con artists, same as graphic designers.

Threadly reminder that "look at how shit this artist is" threads are always the artists samefagging to get more exposure and interest in their work.

>>1941419
>photostudies are not "plein air", jesus fuck.

Uh, I know, which is why I said plein air and not photostudies. Are you retarded? Shaddy is the founder of "digital plein air society" where he used to organize trips to all kinds of places to paint in the field.

When was the last painting trip you did? How many plein air paintings have you done in your life?

>>1941421
Threadly reminder that people who genuinely believe this are /v/ crossposters who are too dumb to understand that getting "exposure" on /ic/ is worth the same as getting exposure in a monkey cage in a zoo. You are no clients, you are no art directors, you don't pay for art, you are not even a big audience, you are figuratively a handful of shitflinging monkeys.

>>1941427
Quite a few. Here's the latest one. Now post yours.

>>1941446
>gets utterly destroyed by actual facts being presented to him
>"well, shit, time to get out the funny merc_wip meme!"

>>1941466
The original Anon's buttdevastation from getting pulverized by merc_wip still permeates. The assblast was so great it has manifested itself as an eternal echo.

>>1941446
On a scale of 1 to 10, how mad are you that these digital photobashers put more effort into observing and understanding nature and improving at art than you ever will?

>>1941466
>gets utterly destroyed by actual facts being presented to him
I'm just pretending to be retarded anon.

>digital plein air
Jesus Christ my sides.

>>1941304
>>1941305
>>1941309
>>1941310
>>1941427
>>1941473
You can stop now Shaddy.

>>1941476
It's getting harder and harder to cling on to your unwarranted feeling of superiority, doesnt it?

Pic by Danny Gardner, yet another "photobashing hack" who loves to paint from life in his free time.

>>1941480
I doubt we would spend time in this shithole filled with amateurs that will never get hired.

>>1941485
>we

/ic/ confirmed for housing Artists from the Industry actively shilling.

>>1941476
>2015
>Not photobash plein air with your Wacom Companion Hybrid
Never gonna make it

>>1941480
No, no, I'm Algenpfleger. You found out about that not even a week ago, you already forgot? I'm also Simon whatshisface and Dave Rapoza.

some more digital hacks doing their "plein air" thing LMAO! muh sides!

shaddy is awesome. he just comes across as a little douchy because he looks like the guy that used to bully you in high school. doesn't he? yes he does. he looks exactly like him, grown up.

>>1941492
you know these paintings are pretty amateur looking right?

>>1941492
those shapes aren't even real! They're just "digital" what a bunch of heathen bullcrap!

>>1941489
Yep, it's all photobashing! Pic related. Nathan Fowkes doing a quick digital plein air study. Because we all know digital plein air is only for photobashing hacks and Nathan Fowkes is in no way masterful at using watercolors.

>>1941492

look at how shitty that is. total amateur. that guy will NEVER get to work professionally. at best he will have a shot at becoming a shitty intern or something. but will never, ever in this lifetime make it to a position of production-decisionmaking beyond what brand of coffee to brew for the 'real artists' at the studio he interns in. honestly. i can immediatly tell, i just know these things.

kek.

>>1941496
That looks like shit

>>1941494
yeah, I agree, they sure don't reach the excellence of your work, which I assume looks something like >>1941446

But hey, it's still a good effort don't you think. And after all, they aren't made to look pretty, but to learn something considering when painting outdoors from life, the light can change drastically very quickly and you sometimes have very little time to get things right. But someone with as much experience with plein air painting as you have obviously knows that.

>>1941487
Meant to write "he"

Stay golden, /ic/

>>1941499
True, Nathan Fowkes' digital plein air studies look much worse than his traditional ones. I guess watercolor is just easier to use or something.

Anything "digital" isnt actual art, stop wasting ur time on it.

>photoshop "artists"

>>1941503
Nice try appleflinger

>>1941508

oh boy. here comes the watercolors-dog-portrait elite. everyone watch out! a real artist is dishing out judgement here!

>>1941508
Bait harder

>>1941510
it was b8 or sarcasm dude.
>y-yeah? s-so was mine!
yeah alright.

>>1941500
Man I have got a lot of experience painting plein air. There are lots of advantages to painting digitally but it is soooo lame.

>>1941510
Whats ur point? I'm just giving you good advice, if you want to be an artist, painter, illustrator etc. you should stop wasting time all day ctrl-z-ing at your computer. You havent even started learning art yet.

>>1941518

None of the digital images ITT are half as lame as those shitty paintings of yours. Just because you use traditional media doesn't excuse you from producing dirty, muddy excuses of paintings and thinking they are somehow superior to actually readable images with accurate colors and edges.

>Man I have got a lot of experience painting plein air.

Considering those 2 you just showed are probably the best ones you could find, no you really don't.

>>1941522
>>>/pol/

>>1941521
Why would anyone take advice from a non-artist like you who is too stupid to even understand how art is made and believes everything comes from the medium itself, instead of knowledge of the fundamentals?

>>1941522
I agree. This whole ridiculous digital "trend" of late probably started with an artist jokingly saying that he painted something with his computer, and bunch of morons thought he was serious and started actually thinking they can suddenly be artists too because they like video games and computers.

>>1941497
nobody took my bait. goddamnit /ic/ ???

>>1941518
those are gorgeous. i think i know who you are.

>>1941521
i don't agree with you. obviously. but i will definitely do some guache painting outside like this >>1941518 next summer.

>>1941522
holy shit that fits /ic/ like a glove. wow. gaves you a lot to think about too.

>>1941529
people who like video games and computers don't get into digital art. people who like art do.

>>1941530
There is no such thing as "digital art". Art cant be digital.

This is just priceless.

THIS GUY >>1941518 calls:
>>1941492
>>1941484
>>1941473
"pretty amateur looking"

Dunning Kruger is a very overused term on /ic/ and gets thrown around a lot, but you literally have it. A very bad case of it.

>>1941532

>>1941532

>>1941492
>>1941484
>>1941473

Why are you comparing this digital garbage with something that was actually painted, like this?

>>1941518

You might as well take a painting by Bierstadt, put it next to a photo and go "oh, well, the photo looks better". Yeah, well, photo wasnt PAINTED, you idiot.

>>1941531
Good thing literally no one gives a shit what non-artists like you think.

>>1941534
>Why are you comparing this digital garbage with something that was actually painted, like this?

Because unlike you, what I look at is the colors, the composition, the value statement, the readability, the edge control etc. Which is all far superior in the digital images. Basically all the ART related things that are completely lost on a wannabe artist like you.

>>1941534
But the photo would look worse than a Bierstadt painting you fucking moron. The Bierstadt painting would also look better than any of those digital paintings ITT, but your shitty traditional paintings simply do not. From a purely artistic point of view, they are worse in every way. The digital artists made better and more sophisticated choices when depicting their subject, as simple as that. Your paintings look muddy and amateur as fuck.

Pic related are some beautiful traditional studies by a professional digital artist. They look better than the digital images posted ITT despite being traditional, or maybe because they are traditional. Yours look like crap and they would look just equally bad or probably even worse if you made them digitally. Bottom line is, the medium doesn't matter. Your skill as an artist does and you clearly don't have very much of that.

>>1941539
Well, youre just not an artist so I guess it might be all the same to you. Average people generally have terrible taste and cant even tell the difference between art and digital stuff.

>>1941541
>digital paintings
>digital artists
>professional digital artist

Oh god my sides

>>1941523
I'm sorry you don't like them. I like making them a lot, and I like looking at traditional paintings more than I do digital ones. I'm not claiming to be a great painter, I just don't like the digital plein air thing and have done a lot of real plein airs myself. I didn't choose those ones as my best, they were just my most recent. I like some of these a bit more.

>Tfw these digital plebs will never be gurney tier in terms of plein air painting pic related
>muh messy paint
>too difficult to mix it
>too impractical
>muh superior digital tech
>"i-its the 21st century guise time to move on from paint
Stay pleb

Some of my traditional plein air, it's pretty obvious that even an amateur like me is better than this digital quacks.

Digital art is comparable to if not worse than rape.
Digital art gave me ptsd
Kill digital artists
etc

>>1941548
It's nice that they are fun for you, but they look very amateur and show that you lack any sort of knowledge about painting, which is ironic considering you called a painting by Robh Ruppel, who is infinitely more skilled than you "amateur looking".

>>1941544
Not sure why you keep playing pretend on this board, acting like you are an artist when you are simply unable to judge paintings based on the skill they display and can only judge them based on the medium they are made in.
Good art > shit art.
Good digital art > shitty traditional art.
Good traditional art > shitty digital art.

You should maybe take a break from /ic/ and try to actually study art and learn the fundamentals, then you might be able to appreciate art based on what makes it good, not what medium it was made in. But I already know you won't and your very predictable reply will be:
>good digital art
>oh god my sides!
Which just proves my point that you are too dumb and unskilled to judge art based on the knowledge of the fundamentals and the technical skill it displays and can only judge it based on the most basic of criteria, the medium it was made in.

>>1941570

long time no see, paul! how's the kids??

>>1941582
>I'm a skill man

>>1941591
They are chilling, thanks for asking.

>>1941574
Enjoy making no money bruh

I don't care what the floop you guys are talking about, but this guy doesn't pass off any of his photo manips (photobash isn't even a real word for floops sake) as actual paintings, or use misleading categories or buzz words to make it seem like it is.

Really it's all those flooping phonies every where else passing off their manips as digital paintings that are the problem, and the ones everyone in this thread hates.

Be mad at them.

this goddamn thread is beautiful

>>1943100

>not telling us why

>>1943108
Well if you scroll up and actually read maybe it'll start making sense?

>>1943109

is there any place on the internet fucking internet, where contrarian hipster culture is celebrated more than here? you never, ever, know if somebody is in favour or against something when he makes a vague statement like yours.

>"hey it's been like a week since the last time I went to /ic/ and today I saw, read and watched some cool shit on other sites so I'm inspired"
>"let's see if those anonymous big guys are inspired as well and are making some progress!"
>new tab
>4chan.org/ic
>literally the first thread that appears is fucking this

Ahhh, stay classy /ic/.
But don't forget to draw and stuff.

>>1943118
don't forget to what

>>1943125

hahaha drawing. what a faggot, right? i bet he has no friends and sits in his room all day watching anime hahaha. he probably wants to become an artist or something HAHA.

I listened to the whole podcast, and I like Shaddy... but the central premise of his talk here was that bad artists can get to superpro levels and be 'working on AAA projects when they're 20 years old living with their mom' if they'll only stop worrying about working hard and learn to use 3d and photos to "cheat".

That was literally the central idea of the whole podcast. And I think he's misguided, because it's definitely not a new notion. Poser and Daz3d have been around for a long time, and there have always been tons of shitty artists pumping out shitty work with them.

Like that picture in the OP. That's not by Shaddy himself, btw; it's by Lake Hurwitz, who's actually a good draughtsman and painter. But that picture looks bad. I attached the final version here; it looks exactly like what it is: a bad mix of 3d modelling, patchy photo collage, and brush strokes / filters dropped on top to disguise how wonky it is.

This isn't revolutionary. It's not a triumph of technology. This faux-painting stuff has been around forever, and bad artists have always tried to use it as a shortcut in lieu of actually learning to draw. I'm really dubious at Shaddy's assertion that this is the future of concept art, and that all the concept artists who aren't doing it this way are falling behind the times and are going to die out like the samurai who wouldn't use firearms.

It seems like he's overlooking a crucial fact: you can't cheat your way to good taste. Learning to draw and paint and be a real artist is more than just about learning the crunchy fundamental stuff. Along the way, you develop an aesthetic sense, an eye for good design, and a voice. Those are what the best concept artists are hired for, and drawing and painting are just the media they use to communicate them. Using photos off Flickr and pre-built Daz3d models that you paid $39.95 for at the Daz3d online store aren't going to be able to replace them, because they're simply not as versatile.

>>1943116
That's a weird way of saying "I'm a bitch, and don't want to take my time to read on a thread site"

go back to tumblr junior

>>1943136
Quality post. You make some fair points and I agree that the image has some pretty shoddy things going on. The hands in particular are really poorly integrated and overpainted, and one of them doesn't even connect with the wrist.

>>1943136
how come we cant have more of these kind of posts on here?

some one speaking with respect and using multiple brain cells at once

thanks for the explanation anon i was scratching my head wondering why we are attacking shaddy all of a sudden.

>>1943136

I just realized my least favorite thing about that centaur/mermaid image. Instead of painting the likenesses of the two people, they just pasted in photos of their faces and painted over them.

The best thing about portraiture, imo, is the element of caricature involved in it. The artist doesn't just reproduce your face mechanically like a camera, but looks at you with an artist's design sense, emphasizes the elements of your face that make you look distinctly like YOU, discards all the useless data, and then recreates you on the canvas. This process is why a good caricature will tend to look more like the person its of than an actual photo of them.

Of course, it's really hard to do. Probably no one at OnePixelBrush is a good enough portraitist to be able to reliably pull it off under a deadline, so I understand why they'd just overpaint a photo. But the end result is a little cheap.

Automation is supposed to replace practically all jobs in the next few decades. I've always thought that concept design would be practically impossible to automate, but this sort of thing, 3d-scene+photo overpaint+paint textures, is probably actually very feasible to program a machine to do. Maybe Shaddy is wrong, and THAT's the future of concept art.

>>1943136
10/10 post

>>1943163
So you don't like it because you prefer caricature. Why is your taste so much better than others? Not everything has to have an exxagerated facial representation and most people won't take your work seriously. Caricature is childish and THAT's what you're suggesting? That the image isn't silly enough? How far is your head up your ass?

>>1943285
he didn't say that. he said 'an element of caricature.' which is just part of getting a likeness, it isn't a taste thing, it's just part of doing a portrait well.

probably you should lurk before posting.

>>1943136
Exactly my thoughts. Most of PB work is really stiff and feels... artficial? Plastic? Just look at that robot playing footbal (is it only me, or they managed to give a weird perspective read while using 3d assets to the mech?). All that stuff looks like a game screenshot from a 5 yo game at best. I bet they know their shit, they work fast and can adapt to clients feedback easily, etc. But I personally don't like the end result at all. BTW Shaddy looks like a really cool dude. Would have a beer with him.

>>1943136
How did he manage to get the mermaid eyes alignment wrong on a fucking paintover, jesus christ.
>Inb4 he got it wrong on purpose.

>>1943291
>PB work

what is PB?

>>1943344
haha wow... it's pretty bad even.

>>1941530
>people who like video games and computers don't get into digital art. people who like art do.

Tell that to my freshman class. Or all of DeviantArt.

you people are autistic, if you have a job, and a deadline there are no rules, and no such thing as cheating. you're doing what needs to be done for your employer, he doesnt give a shit how you do it. i agree OPs pic is all fucked up, but its because the guys sucks cock at this technique.

digital plein air is retarded

>>1943374
Nobody is denying that. But some of us actually came into this because we actually like to paint. I don't mind that the industry is changing. but I don't like to do 3d and photomontages. It does the work, but it turns what i like to do into a chores that is maybe faster...but far less enjoyable. If all you want out of your job is money, that's fine. But i rather have less money and be still able to paint for a living. For now there is still work for people who paint and i hope that it won't change at least in the illustration side of things.

>>1943403
lol how many mirrors did you set up for this

>>1943415

If you don't want to photobash don't go into concept art, simple as that.

>>1943374
summerfag detected

>>1943145
>I agree that the image has some pretty shoddy things going on. The hands in particular are really poorly integrated and overpainted, and one of them doesn't even connect with the wrist.

>the usual /ic/ nitpicking while 99% of you fuckers here are years away from creating anything of this quality

>>1943464
here fucking here. This board is all talk. That image is of a great standard for the genuine original work I've seen on this board.

>>1940660
If you've seen Shaddy's tutorials (and his gumroad), you'll know he emphasizes two things:

>That Concept Art is about getting the fucking job done.
>For the purpose of making a damn good picture - cheat if you need to make it look good. The masters cheat, who gives a fuck. Just make good art.
>Nobody fucking cares about the process in the industry, just what it comes down to


Also, it's pretty obvious that he's not taking shit seriously when the first few minutes of that were about "hot italian models". What's wrong with everyone here? It's as if Shaddy's every word is law and people disagree with it and flip out.

Shaddy literally says do whatever the fuck works best for you. If he's wrong, he admits he's fucking wrong and you found something awesome. Just make your art look good and don't give a fuck. The dude's a bro, and anyone who actually openly dislikes him is probably weird as fuck. He's humble and insults himself all the time, and only really says positive things about artists he looks up to. It's not like he openly rejects skill in favor of photobashing, he just knows how to separate the purpose.

Also his plein air work is awesome, and he's obviously skilled.

tl;dr: Shaddy says do whatever the fuck you want, just make it look good. /ic/ has a problem with this.

>>1943478
>tl;dr: Shaddy says do whatever the fuck you want, just make it look good. /ic/ has a problem with this.
No shit? This place has a strong ethic when it comes to photobashing, tracing, etc. It's not news.

>>1943481
>This place has a strong ethic when it comes to photobashing, tracing, etc

It's not "ethics". It's a case of "beginners shouldn't do this" gone full retard.

>>1943484
Not really, it's pretty obvious that people will have problems with artists stealing other art and claiming it as their own. It's not rocket science.

>>1943464
I don't see how the level of the viewer's art has anything to do with the mistakes or issues in the art being viewed. If there are problems do they suddenly not exist because the person seeing them isn't an artist? If I watch a bad movie and say it is bad, am I wrong just because I couldn't direct a better film myself?

The fact of the matter is the image has some things in it which stick out as being poorly executed and are a result of the lazy photobashing techniques used.

>>1943478
When it comes to concept art, sure, do what you can to get the job done. But this is an illustration, and it looks bad because of the lazy shortcuts that were taken. If it looked good we would have no issue with it. No one cares that Drew Struzan traced a lot of things to get his posters done because they look amazing. But there are some glaring problem in this painting as a result of sloppy photo integration in order to try to save time. It's not a piece of concept art to get an idea across, it is meant as a finished illustration and thus falls short.

>>1943478
nobody's word is law my friend. you guys are stupid enough to believe this. it doesn't fucking matter who says what, photo bashing will always be shit. it's a disgrace to art. it's bad enough digital artists use technology to paint but photo bashing takes it to another extreme. i actually conducted a little experiment amongst non-artists, because i hate photo bashing so much. i showed them 2 videos. the first was a digital painting. no photos used, all imagination. the second was Maciej's video. i then asked them which one felt like art and which one felt like a cheat? should i continue? even people that don't paint can see through the bullshit and shake their heads. there has to be some sort of dignity in art. if these fucking video game companies need art at such a fucking pace, then they can fucking wait. they need US, we don't need them. we're lowering our value. stop it. i don't care who the fuck says what, that shit is and will always be a disgrace to art.

>>1943423

that is what a faggot like you would conclude. a demigod such as myself instead becomes so good that clients beg and offer to suck my dick for painted concept art made by me. easy.

>>1943403
Asians man

>>1943554
I'm glad you have a lot of passion about it, and on a personal level I agree with what you're saying, but a lot of your argument falls short man.
>i then asked them which one felt like art and which one felt like a cheat?
Yeah. I will absolutely not agree that photobashing is bullshit and devalues the whole thing. But what matters at the end of the day isn't the artist - it's what the average person will see on that advertisement. And if you had shown the finished result of both Maciej's work and whatever painting, they would say they both are good. And that's really hard to debate, because Maciej might photobash but his work is pretty awesome. He's actually a damn good solid painter too.

At the end of the day, our feelings as artists don't matter. We are selling a product, how it gets built isn't important.

> if these fucking video game companies need art at such a fucking pace, then they can fucking wait. they need US, we don't need them.
Unfortunately, artists are expendable. Any decent studio has thousands of applications a year, and if you don't meet their deadlines or disagree because of personal ethical reasons, you're out the door. There's millions of dollars at stake here, no executive will give a damn if your work takes so freaking long because it was hand painted.

>>1943565
>no executive will give a damn if your work takes so freaking long because it was hand painted.
>artists are expendable

This is the reality you all have to face. Be grateful that these companies are not outsourcing (yet) on a mainstream level to some Chinaman photobasher from a Chinese sweatshop who would do it at a dirt cheap pay.

>>1943565
I screwed up. I meant to say photobashing is bullshit. Woops.

I have no idea what you guys are arguing about, all I do know is that these images are awe-inspiring

>>1943571
Motherfucking /thread.

That's it. It summed everything up perfectly.

>>1943565
This shitty reasoning of yours only fly in art because people are retarded.
Do you think a publisher will be happy to know that his best selling book had 95% of its paragraphs "textbashed" from a dozen other books?
Why do you never see moviemakers "moviebashing" films together?
These would be huge scandals. Nobody would let this shit fly. The guys who "made" these things would get forever insulted by critics and public alike once this shit gets revealed.
Only in art you can steal other people work and get away with it. Not just get away actually, but get praise. Only in art people are as retarded as you are.

>>1943571
>these images are awe-inspiring

To the eye of a Pleb, maybe.

>>1943565
my point is we've done this to ourselves and we're allowing it to happen now. i understand there's a lot of money here for these big companies… but who gives a shit? why should we lower ourselves in value and cheat? you're saying Maciej makes great stuff and that the finished product is the only thing that matters. that mentality is what photo bashers have been selling to you and you're falling for it. of course these hacks are gonna try to tell the community it's perfectly ok to do their bullshit. it's common sense. don't buy into that shit. i encourage people not to fold and to keep studying and learning how to make actual art. someday this photo bashing thing will be in the past. weather it's some major lawsuit over copyright stuff or the entertainment suit faggots will truly understand that they're paying people to photo collage for them. photo bashing will lose all of it's credibility someday. keep making art people. and keep up the fight.

>>1943574

Photobashing is a lot closer to remixing music than the examples you said. Plus it's generally done in concept art which is just meant as a way to communicate visual ideas to other departments.

To use your movie example, it's like using cutouts of fashion models to give the costume designer examples of what sort of clothing the actors should be wearing.

why do you think the photo bashers are so quick to get offended and get their feeling hurt when you tell them it's shit? because they want to keep their shit at a whisper. so no one can hear it. i don't agree with ic hating on certain artists because of their style or taste or persona but, bashing on photo bashing is perfectly fine in my book. we need people to stand up to the bullshit. this is the only time i can say good on you ic. good on you.

Someone should make a documentary about photobashing and point out the bullshit behind its process and provide examples of well known Artists who've done this.

>>1943574
Okay, I'm going to stop responding here because you seem to think you personally know a better way to get work out than the industry itself.
>Movies/Books
Different medium entirely, bud. And movies do things like that all the time for the sake of speed and time. >People sample music all the time (as the anon above said)
But go ahead just keep throwing insults when I'm trying to reason, rather than go for a decent argument.

>>1943577
>my point is we've done this to ourselves and we're allowing it to happen now.
I won't say that artists probably had a hand in the industry leaning towards speed, but "allowing it to happen" wasn't an option. It will happen. And if you disagree another person will fill your slot with a smile on his face. Because in the real world, people need money to survive so sometimes they will let their pride take a hit if it means they get to eat.

> entertainment suit faggots will truly understand that they're paying people to photo collage for them
They know perfectly well what they're doing and they don't care at all. They could care less about art and it's integrity and the skill that went into it.

You're there to do a job, you did it. It's a 0/1 issue. If you were a plumber and it took you forever to do the job because you wanted to redo the plumbing, you would be told to fuck right off. You provide the work to a reasonable standpoint, or you don't get to pay rent this month.

I for one choose rent.

>>1943590
since when does it take REAL artists (non-photobashers) forever to draw something??? what is it with this fucking illusion that the only way to get things done fast is by photo bashing. jesus fucking christ. lol

>>1943584
>remixing music
Which needs to get permission from the author or have its copyright bought in order to be legal.
>Plus it's generally done in concept art
It's only a matter of time before it becomes mainstream in illustration too, there are already plenty of examples. It's a slippery slope because many concept artists are also illustrators, and concept arts often gets published once the work is done, effectively becoming illustration.
>To use your movie example, it's like using cutouts of fashion models to give the costume designer examples of what sort of clothing the actors should be wearing.
Yet you don't see professional "cutout artists" getting exposure and praise for what they did. Because that would be pretty retarded. But in art it's not for some reason.

>>1943590
sure these hacks are faster but c'mon. things can still get done without all that bullshit.

>>1943592
Comparitively, it IS forever. The whole point of photobashing is that it's much faster. What is it with people thinking this whole system is messed up and broken. It's not perfect, but artists are in a pretty good spot right now. Services like Gumroad and Patreon, and even Kickstarter for some allow us some independence. Most freelance jobs are much less pleasant.

>>1943592
>>1943595
I remember brad rigney saying in defense of the photobashed shit he did for magic that that's the only way to pay for the rent and his family or some shit. It's pretty ridiculous considering the amount of work he gets, people are quick to lose perspective on things. "But if I can't eat dinner out 3 times a day how can I even live?" "How can I survive if it takes me one whole week to do a 2000$ illustration?".

>>1943599
Seek help. Seriously.

>>1943599
Wasn't that carb mullins who said that when they found out he copied that one painting?

>>1943592

>REAL artists don't photobash
>REAL musicians don't use electronic instruments
>REAL writers use a quill pen and parchment

>>1943611
oh shut up, there's a difference you fucking idiot. playing an electric guitar is the same shit as playing acoustic. comparing that to photo bashing is more like, recording a song on to your guitar then spitting it out of it with a little bit of bullshit coming out of your hands. it's not the same. drawing is drawing. even digitally. playing an instrument is playing an instrument. cheating is FUCKING CHEATING. two separate things you moron.

>>1943614
>shut up
>you fucking idiot
>you moron
K. I'm not even that guy but grow the fuck up, jesus.

>>1943619
Wow, you're against swearing? So mature, I'm impressed. Not that guy either.

>>1943611

You still have full or greater creative control with electric instruments for music and ink and quill for writing.

Using photos in artwork is not akin to swapping between oils and pencil, its not a medium in itself (barring collage, which no one could possibly use to pull off a job), and thats where the beef comes from.

Just saying, I'm not for or against it, it has its uses.

>>1943611

you fucking moron. photobashing is not like those other comparisons.

>>1943554
little hypocritical of yourself there. but i get what you're saying.

>>1943642

>implying using samples isn't cheating and real musicians don't spend years learning proper music theory instead of pressing random keys to spit out wubs

>>1941496
garbage

Its quite amusing to watch digital "painters" arguing with "photobashers" which one is real art and which isn't. It's like two retards arguing which is the brightest man on Earth.

There is no such thing as "digital art". Its either art or it's made using a computer.

>>1943733
Photobashing is not limited to computers you know, you may just cut and paste on canvas and stroke ontop of a photo to make it look like brush strokes. I am surprised nobody has tried this out yet.

>>1943285

>So you don't like it because you prefer caricature. Caricature is childish and THAT's what you're suggesting? That the image isn't silly enough?

Not what I meant.

If you Google "Gurney Journey Caricature and Likeness", that's closer to what I meant.

And even that is a somewhat extreme example. I'm saying an important part of art is that it be filtered through the artist's mind. Your taste, your voice, your understanding of art history, your design-sense - all of those come into play when you draw a portrait (or anything else). There's so much more to good art than just accurate reproduction, which is all you get when you paste a photo in. You can mitigate the sterility of the photo a little bit by painting over it, but not enough, imo.

This is why I don't think 3d+photobashing is ever going to replace drawing and painting, even in concept art. In hyper-realistic military sims, sure, photobash away. But what about a more stylized project like, say, Dishonored? A 20yo with a copy of Daz3d and Google image search isn't up to designing that stuff. There are a lot of projects like that.

Anyway. I don't think Shaddy was necessarily saying that drawing and painting aren't valuable any more, just that there are ways to get around not being great at them. And maybe he's right. But I don't think it's a smart bet for young artists today to make: the art industry has always been competitive, and now that the artists all over the world are competing for the same jobs over the Internet, it's only getting more saturated with talent. If Shaddy is right, and we're looking at a new age of unskilled 20yos working on AAA projects with the help of software that anyone can use, the saturation level is going to increase 100-fold. If that's the future, then it seems likely to me that good drawing/painting/design sense will only get MORE important, as they become more rare.

>>1943733

You don't sound like a sophisticated elitist, you know. I know that's what you're going for, but it's not working. You just sound like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

>>1943735
I'm sure they did, they normally use projectors though.

>>1943741
Can you go back to fighting each other.

>>1940676
And that's how you troll

Why do I get the feeling that over half of /ic/ are infact photobashers and they're just downplaying the photobashing gravy train against those who are oblivious towards this easy shortcut to make something look good?

This must be it, can't handle the competition? Afraid that it will become too mainstream?

>>1943741
why would you even refer to this monkey as sophisticated. he probably doesn't even know how to hold a fucking pencil.

>>1943767

but anon, it already IS mainstream. the photobashers you see on these podcasts and on the front page of Artstation are only the best of the best, and they're usually good painters too. But there are bajillions of terrible photobashers out there.

>>1943767

literally ALL of the best posters on this board do NOT photobash. and (as far as i know atleast) are very outspoken against it.

>>1943739
i want to agree with you, but you know what people are going to say? eyes/ears/nose/head/etc are too big/small, l2draw, etc. you can't give yourself much liberty with this mentality, hence photobash and no one will complain.

>>1943790
Not true. Acidenema and Long both use photos.

>>1943817

long showing up once a year to drop a wip and vanish doesn't make him a poster of this board. and how does AE use photos? u don't think he does... but you seem pretty sure of it.

>>1943790

anyone who is outspoken against photobashing is a dumbass. It's just a tool. Mullins, Jaime Jones; practically any artist you can name photobashes occasionally.

beginners should be careful with it because it can become a crutch, but that's the only thing "bad" about photobashing, apart from people's person preferences regarding art.

>>1943840

That's like saying a toy hammer is a tool. Photobashing is not art and it is not ethical to steal others work. Anyone who disagrees with me is retarded. End of story.

>>1941468
Am I the only one who has no idea what this is all about? Story please?

>>1943846

>two anons arguing ages ago about something stupid
>post ur work fgt
>k
>posts picture of space marine
>another anon swipes it
>renames it merc_wip
>posts it when asked to show his work in a seperate arguement
>anons now post merc_wip when asked to show their work

>>1943852
That is not even remotely close to an assblasting. I'm disappointed.

>>1943862

The second guy was being a gigantic faggot of epic proportions and was trying to use it to win an internet fight. I think everyone knew then he was lying out of his asshole. The oc of the space marine pic was actually pretty cool but got baited by a post ur work fgt.

It's sad because it can really help cut out a lot of stupid opinions on this board. Like you don't need to be a top pro to give out advice but you get some real bad cases of the blind leading the blind here, whether it be trolling or legitimately held opinions.

>>1943866
>but you get some real bad cases of the blind leading the blind here, whether it be trolling or legitimately held opinions.
I agree. I have no idea why people think being asked to post your work is some kind of trick. It's a really easy way to show just how much you actually about know what you're talking about. I wish it was embraced on this board instead of looked at like some vague trolling tactic.

>>1943842
> Photobashing is not art and it is not ethical to steal others work.

I think most people who photobash just regard it as an expedient shortcut. When you work at this stuff professionally, whether something is "art" or not doesn't even really cross your mind; all you or your client care about is giving the client what they want before the deadline's up. Hobbyists can afford to worry about whether they're doing "real" art or not; I've got bills to pay.

The question of "what is art" is notoriously sticky. Some people think that Duchamp's urinal is art. I don't, but I can't prove them wrong. It's a subjective matter; it's debatable.

As to the ethics of photobashing, that's also debatable. I know photographers like to imagine that they're artists and that the photos they take are "their work", but I tend to see them more as journalists. They're capturing what already exists. If a photographer takes a picture of a building, isn't he stealing the work of the architect? Who's the real artist in that case?

>Anyone who disagrees with me is retarded. End of story.

See, you're confusing objective and subjective arguments. That's the only thing that's retarded here. Matters of what is and isn't art, or what is and isn't ethical, are subjective by nature. You should take Philosophy 101 before you start making grand pronouncements like that.

Photobashing is for those who don't have the skill to work quick

Using a computer is for those who don't have the skill to actually draw and paint.

>>1943954

>muh art is subjecttivee feeeellllzzzzzz argument

Art (n):
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power:

Literally ripped from the oxford english dictionary. If it doesn't ahere to standards of beauty it isn't art. Fucking Duchamp isn't art, it's a racket that started off as tongue in cheek trolling that's now used as a way for plebs to prove how cultured they are to other plebs. It's is literally the furthest from art it could ever be.

>>1943962

>Photobashing is for those who don't have the skill to work quick

like Jaime Jones, right anon?

>>1943869
Because in your fit of rage asking someone who harshly critiqued your work, you will be positively inclined to see it in a negative light. Never underestimate the power of presentation. Everything we experience is relative to how we perceive it. A cup half empty or cup half full, so to speak.

>>1943966
>If it doesn't ahere to standards of beauty it isn't art.

But those standards aren't objectively measurable. Your argument is oxymoronic as well as regular moronic!

Smarter people than you have tried to quantify beauty and ethics and failed. Granted, they probably never tried to do it by copying and pasting from a dictionary.

>>1943967
Show me his traditional work, then we can see if he has some skill. Stuff made by a computer means nothing.

>>1943976

Why don't you show us YOUR traditional work, and we'll see if you have any skill? Anonymous talk on 4chan means nothing.

I enjoy arguments like these I think it brings us together in a way sort of like that special feeling you get every so often in a happening event on /pol/

>>1943967
how long did that take

>Draw for awhile
>Like painting
>Decide to watch some digital painting tutorials
>Getting hyped
>Suddenly a faggot is just pasting and stretching photos into his work
>That disappointment

Every time a thread like this pops up, there's inevitably a bunch of people who implicitly assume there is some set scientific standard of "goodness" in art and that it is objectively measurable using some method. I have yet to see this actually supported by anything more than assertions and backpeddling.

>>1944057
Bet you can't get the same results even if you had a goddamn library of stock images bro.

Some people here do not get that using photographs is just one of many methods for artists to produce concept art.
And just like any other method, it is in conjunction to skill and knowledge; Therefore if you suck, your execution and final result will suck.
So get your heads out of your asses and stop acting like using photos is low beyond your level. You aren't that hot either.

>>1944063
Correct application of fundamentals is the baseline for being good.

>>1943978
I don't think I've seen anyone post a decent traditional painting on /ic/ despite the fact that these elitists will always pop up every few threads. They're probably just beginners who think they took the high road by spending their allowance on oil paints.

>>1944163

They're probably people who love painting traditionally and don't like that digital is becoming the new standard medium for commercial work, because that's not what they want to be doing. So they convince themselves that it's not "real" art.

Same thing with the people who get really angry about photobashing. They got into art because they love to draw and paint, and they don't want to be forced to switch to photobashing to get a job, so they convince themselves that it's not "real" art.

They have all these rationalizations, like "if you paint digitally, it's really the computer that's the artist!!" or "photobashing is unethical and real artists would never do it!!", but really, they just don't want to see the thing they're passionate about become obsolete.

>>1943594
>Which needs to get permission from the author or have its copyright bought in order to be legal.
You are literally retarded

>>1944167
Last paragraph is wrong, i'm a digital artist and i'm against photobashing. Making an argument for pb is the same as makinb argument for cp or any other illegal activities- it's just making up argument for your benefit.

>>1944246

photobashing isn't illegal, though. comparing it to cp is about as dumb as you could get.

also, you seem to have completely misunderstood the paragraph that you said was wrong, which isn't surprising, because you don't seem very bright. pretty much everyone who is against photobashing is a digital artist.

>>1944259
No, man. Let's roll with it. Photobashing is illegal and should be punishable by death.

Look guys. At the end of day, photo bashing is a fucking cheat. If you are unable to produce the Frankenstein shit you photobash from imagination, then YOU ARE A CHEATING HACK. Plain and fucking simple. Look at Brad Rigney, he can actually paint out of imagination and render shit out. He can photobash. All these other concept art hacks wouldnt Know what to do with a paper and pencil. The simplest of tools. And for that reason alone, their label as an artist vanishes. They're hacks. Plain and fucking simple.

>>1944277
There are no cheats in art, your argument is invalid.

>>1944278
His argument isn't invalid. It's just his opinion and holds no weight.

>>1944278
The word "art," itself, should never be associated with the word "cheat." Have some fucking standards and dignity.

>>1944281
What weight does photobashing hold? It's a cheat. For hacks. Holds less weight than my opinion. So eat a dick.

>>1944277
>At the end of day, photo bashing is a fucking cheat.

You can't cheat at something unless there are rules. What are the rules to art? Who decided them?

Obviously, art has no rules, so it's impossible to cheat at it.

This is really simple logic. It should be comprehensible to anyone with the intellectual capacity of a third-grader or a clever chimp. But it's apparently too much for a large percentage of this retarded board, so, instead of an interesting discussion about the future of digital art, we just get a bunch of morons screaming, "MY OPINION GOOD! YOUR OPINION BAD!"

Ok, we get it. You don't like photobashing. No one gives a shit. People are still going to do it.

>>1944402
Some people have morals. For instance, it's not illegal to go in Africa and flaunt your money in front of starving children, maybe have a feast in front of them too. But people would consider it morally reprehensible to do so.
Same goes for concept art. You might get past copyright laws by saying that it's not a finished product, but people will still feel like you're doing something bad because it still is basically stealing other people's art and work.
You would think any non-psychopath would be able to achieve this level of reasoning, but I guess idiots like you exist too.

>>1944411
>stealing other people's art and work.

What is stock and royalty free image. What is self-photography.

I wonder, would it be less morally reprehensible in your opinion, if the above mentioned options were chosen instead?

I hope this isn't too unreasonable for you to comprehend.

>>1944422
Yes, that would be ok in my book. Unfortunately, that's now what happens in many cases.
Some pro mentioned it in one of their stream, but the problem with stock images is that people seriously overestimate their number and quality. It is very easy to see multiple artists that used the same stock photos and that, while perfectly fine ethically, is not really what either artists or art directors want, thus many hacks (and by hacks I mean even some pros out there) decide to just steal instead, thinking that no one will notice.

>>1944411

are you the same guy who was comparing photobashing to child porn a few posts back? now you're comparing it to torturing starving African children?

that legit made me laugh.

I think it should be illegal to call something made by a computer "painting". Its confusing and annoying. Painting is made by a human artist with his hands and paint, not some pixels on a screen that some guy told his computer to make for him.

>>1944453
go back to reddit

>>1944453
>pixels on a screen that some guy told his computer to make for him.

Damn, I sincerely hope you are bait. You can't be this dumb.

>>1941548
... those are pretty bad

>>1944458
He's right though. Pixels are not paint.

>>1944402
>>1944402
people are going to do it if we turn our heads. but guess what? we're not. and that's fucking great. there will always be guilt behind photo bashing as long as long as we keep telling these hacks they're hacks.

>>1944517

yeah cause /ic/'s opinions carry that much weight in the art community.

>>1944519
this is one of those rare and crazy moments… that you're actually not talking to someone from ic. hi. :)

>>1944522
>hi. :)

Get the fuck out.

>>1944522
Prob some tard from ca.org, that site is the litteral cancer when it comes to the amount of bullshit they put in the beginners' heads.

>>1944526
lol beginner. oh you. what are you a fucking full fledged professional??? fucking idiot. do you even draw? i'm guessing you're a fucking hack photo basher?

>>1944149

Thanks for the strawman.

No shit a skilled person can photobash better than an amateur. It's still disappointing.

>>1944517
I agree. I've said this before but the industry needs a place like /ic/, where we can badmouth artists, art and techniques no matter how crazy the accusations are at times. Gossip is a very important social aspect and it'll hurt the whole industry down the line if we just let people do whatever the fuck they want without someone berating them.

>>1944624
>/ic/
>bringer of righteousness and good moral values
>fighting the good fight against degenerate acts on art, money laundering, deception and fraud
>puts the emphasis on good honest draftsmanship and above all Loomis

>>1944624
>implying /ic/ has any influence on ca and illustration industry and that anyone gives a shit what the 10 people that post here think who dont even work profesionally as artists

Why do people on /ic/ shit on photobashing so much? I agree that the pic in the OP looked like shit, but there's nothing wrong with photobashing if it looks good. pic related

>>1944684
Also, to be fair, the story behind that painting in the OP is that Cliffy B wanted a cheesey-ass painting for his Christmas card. Still looks like shit, but I'd say that's at least some excuse.

>>1944684

if you think that looks good, you might wanna shoot yourself in the face. can only help.

>>1944713
I never said it was the best thing ever. It does look good though.

>>1944721

You need your eyes checked if you think it's anything better than a giant fucking turd.

>>1944724
Enlighten me then. What exactly is so horrible about it?

>>1944728

It lacks soul. Instead of a believable world they created a plastic looking piece of shit. It's a common symptom of photobashed work.

>>1944733
That's an incredibly subjective thing to criticize. I'd say its pretty atmospheric if a bit cheesey.

>>1944733
by soul you mean effort? because there's no such thing as soul.

Why are you all refeering to the pic in OP as "concept art"? It's an illustration for fucks sake, /ic/ still doesnt know what concept art is/looks like?

>>1943971
So who gives a shit? Good fundamentals are good fundamentals, and can be relatively easily recognized. If you're giving specific advice and can show a better understanding of it in your own work than in the work you're critiquing then you should. If you don't show your work, the person being critiqued would be safer to assume your shit if what you're saying isn't adding up to them.

Plus, I've asked people to post their work in a polite manner when they've critiqued something I didn't even do and they still dramatically refused and got extremely pissy. If something in a critique doesn't add up, whether it be a critique of my work or of others, it's pretty damn rational to want to see what level they're at.

>>1944779

It can easily been precieved as either a butthurt way of talking down someone's critiques or as a trolling tactic. Plus the whole 4chan anonymity thing means that everyone's word is supposed to have the same precidence, which kind of sucks when critiquing relies so much on the other guy having more knowledge than you. Like a complete beginner is probably going to take the first non trollish answer at face value and stick with it, leading to a cycle of bullshit and pain.

>>1944788
Yeah, this is why /ic/ isn't really the best for critiques unless you're somewhere around beginner level. It doesn't really work past that, unless the person critiquing either fully explains their criticism or shows what they mean with a drawing, or both, like what Teal does.

>>1944788
>It can easily been precieved as either a butthurt way of talking down someone's critiques or as a trolling tactic
This is the problem. A lot of the time it isn't, and I feel like people puss out and fall back on this excuse because they're beginners spewing shit. It can be pretty detrimental to people who are taking everything they hear here seriously. I've also noticed a lot of the better work posted here either gets ignored or completely bashed, which further reinforces this idea to me.

>>1944779

When I get crit that I don't understand or agree with I ask for a bit more detail or explanation, if I'm still not satisfied I just say thanks and move on.

People don't always have to trust in others who are better than them, nor do they have to disagree with a beginners advice.

Thats a reason why I like /ic/ . I can leave my shitty ego at the door and analyze others views before taking them in. Asking for someones work defeats the purpose of that.

I think the real joke is that you plebs think this is actually a painting.

>>1944806
Well congratulations of having upmost confidence in your judgment and abilities. Personally, when it comes to my own work it's a whole lot harder for me to see clear errors or weaknesses, so a lot of my progress hinges on good critique and instruction. Sure, I spend a lot of time studying and improving that way, but to make breakthroughs in areas I'm struggling with good critique that I can trust is invaluable. If someone is trying to instruct me in something I don't fully understand myself, how can I deem myself qualified to judge whether or not their critique is on the right track?

>Asking for someones work defeats the purpose of that.
Not at all. If anything, someone posting examples of their own work that show they have a better understanding of a specific point they're trying to critique can be used as an example of something better or correct if nothing else. Picking and choosing whatever critique suits you seems detrimental.

>>1944851
>>1944851
Ohoho I don't have the upmost confidence in myself, I'm just saying that if theres nothing further to be gained from anonymous crit, theres no point asking them to post their stuff.

I posted something a while ago and some anon told me

>your problem is that youre trying to draw a realistic face without reference

I asked him to explain further and all he said was

>look at a photo and youll understand

Vague yea? Obviously true to some extent because I'm far from perfect, but sorta useless because I knew something was wrong, but not specifically what was wrong. Intsead of inflaming the situation by asking him to post work I just said thanks and moved on.

I figure learning to analyze crit just serves as additional practice and further motivation to study. At the end of the day if you want to see what other people have its better to move to a sketchbook forum, the crit tends to get watered down though unless you specifically ask for it to be blunt.

>>1944868
>>your problem is that youre trying to draw a realistic face without reference
>I asked him to explain further and all he said was
>>look at a photo and youll understand

That's called a shitty critique. He might as well just said "It's shit" and left it at that. I get that /ic/ needs to be honest with their critiques and whatnot at the cost of coming off as harsh but I find a lot of people, especially beginners, thinks that means "be as rude as fucking possible" when the ultimate point of a critique is to be HELPFUL.

>>1944868
Oh yeah, see that's a situation where I wouldn't bother to ask for work either. An example of where I'd ask would be someone critiquing specific elements, and I either didn't understand what they meant or disagreed with their assessment. Basically, if they're presenting me with a new idea, or one that sounds a bit off but for reasons I can't pinpoint. Seeing their work would help me judge whether or not I should apply their critique and delve deeper into what they were suggesting.

>>1944883

Ah I see, I guess getting them to post an example of work (that doesnt have to be their own) that displays their point would be less likley to start a shitfest.

>>1944876

Eh, I found it pretty interesting at the time that he managed to tell I wasn't using a ref, but in hindsight it was pretty obvious.

>>1944894
Yes, that would be helpful, but not nearly as helpful as showing they truly understand what they're talking about.

Then again, this is /ic/, no ones being paid to do this shit and therefore are not required to post their stuff on a stranger's beck and call. But I wish people would stop constantly falling back on this "lol nope trooolllll!" response whenever they're asked to actually back up their point with their work.

>>1944868
>>your problem is that youre trying to draw a realistic face without reference
that was me

>>look at a photo and youll understand
that was some other guy

it's hard for me to remember what it was, maybe that i've seen a large number of amateur attempts at drawing face from imagination that i spotted a similarity. maybe it was lack of attention to detail or symbol drawing, but either way i'd suggest to do more studies and just observing more, but definitely keep trying to do more faces from imagination if that's what you want to do.
critique was vague because i'm lazy and it came out mean because i was probably in a bad mood.