/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>1958091
1. Noah Bradley
2. Feng Zhu
3. Shaddy Safadi
4. Wojtek Fus
5. Firez
6. Mikufag
7. Sycra
8. Will Terrell
9. Mark Crilley
10. Bill Connolly

>>1958091

1. Noah Bradley
2. Noah Bradley
3. Noah Bradley
4. Noah Bradley
5. Noah Bradley
6. Noah Bradley
7. Noah Bradley
8. Noah Bradley
9. Noah Bradley
10. Noah Bradley

Salvator is the #1 for me.
Salvator said that it's all about the OLD masters

>>1958122
>10. Bill Connolly
How are those muscle elves coming along?

>>1958128

>>1958122

In no particular order:

1. El Greco
2. Titian
3. Rubens
4. Rembrandt
5. Gianbattista Tiepolo
6. Bernini
7. Michaelangelo
8. Sargent
9. Velazquez
10. Caravaggio

These are all Old Masters of course. I'd have a different list for 19th century onward:

1. Lucian Freud
2. Degas
3. Saville
4. Max Beckmann
5. Odd Nerdrum
6. Dali
7. Vincent van Gogh
8. Max Ernst
9. Lovis Corinth
10. Cezanne

>>1958145
Is he related to Salvador?

1. Da Vinchi
2. Salvador
3. Rubens
4. Dali
That's it for me.
5.

>>1958168
>1. El Greco

no man. never. are you insane??? what for the love of god makes you put el greco above rembrandt, sargent and velasquez?

>>1958205
>>1958171
i liked Dali when i was 16.

>>1958206
did you even read my post?
>in no particular order
though to be fair, I do like El Greco more than Rembrandt, Sargent, or Velazquez. He was an Expressionist centuries before Expressionism even existed, way ahead of his time. His images have a dynamism and otherworldly quality that I admire, characteristics that I strive for in my own work. I'm not arguing that his technical abilities surpass Rembrandt, but I do think his style is much more interesting. This is a matter of personal tastes, so I'm not going to get into a debate over it. El Greco appeals to me.

>>1958208
I like pretending everything anyone else likes is a stage that I, a superior human being, grew out of when I was but a wee child.
I bet you're a hit at parties...

>>1958205
>Da Vinchi
His name is Leonardo, and the town is spelled Vinci.

1-10: Frederic Edwin Church

"Legit painters only" edition. In no particular order.

1. Sargent
2. Sorolla
3. Velasquez
4. Repin
5. Rembrandt
6. Bouguereau
7. Gerome
8. Monet
9. Zorn
10. Falero

>>1958122
>7. Sycra
>8. Will Terrell
>9. Mark Crilley

Is that for real?

>>1958122
Nice bait list you little shit

>>1958205
If Rubens is your number 3 than the list is already shit

>>1958245
this is too parroty to me. You only listed painters that are studied for lazy digital artists to learn from online. No Rubens? Come on dude.

>>1958122
>Not mentioning Genzomane
>being this pleb

General order, and some of them I don't actually like although I have to admit their excellence.

Raphael
Poussin
Parmigiano
Mantegna
Michelangelo
Sarto
Reni
Bouguereau
Titian
Rubens


Honorable mentions
Goltzius or Spranger
Batoni
Procaccini
Barocci

>>1958411
But Rubens is also studied by lazy digital artists.

>>1958128

I'd like to see anyone on /ic/ produce something half as fucking awesome as this.

>>1958411

nigga has taste. fuck off. they are studied for good reasons.

>>1958644
>desperately trying to replicate their work with >photoshit brushes
>good reasons

>digtial "artists"

>>1958091

cant think of 10

1. frank frezzetta
2. drew struzan
3. adam hughes
4. leonardo davinci
5. jim lee, or maybe akira toriyama... its a coin toss

>>1958122

never heard of any of these

just going by looking at there google images alone:

1. Noah Bradley
>photobashing cheater, sucks but end results are mildly decent

2. Feng Zhu
>photobashing, to much going on in all his shit, looks like garbage!

3. Shaddy Safadi
obvious photobashing, looks alright, but if you look to long it starts to look like obvious photobashing crap

4. Wojtek Fus
>pretty good portrait painter not bad

5. Firez
>obvious weeabo but really good drawings

you obviously have shit taste anon, im not even going to look at the rest of these:
6. Mikufag
7. Sycra
8. Will Terrell
9. Mark Crilley
10. Bill Connolly

now compare your shit tier list to my god tier list: >>1958713

>>1958624
There are a few artists on /ic/ that are better than Noah.

I'm partial to Catbib.

Tehmeh is okay
Peter Mohrbacher Is also really good

There are probably more but those are three off the top of my head.

>>1958719
>There are a few artiststhat used to come on /ic/ that are better than Noah.

ftfy

>>1958624
>psychedelic cloud nebulae and globe with derivative poser3D models plopped in front of generic mountain range #3,435
>fucking awesome
maybe if you're a fucking mouthbreathing stoner, duuuuuuude, like whooooooaaaa

1 ruanjia
2 ruanjia
3 ruanjia
4 ruanjia
5 and the last, probably causing some serious butthurt, ruanjia

>>1958644
No. I'm saying you lazy bitches don't go to museums. There's plenty of masters in there. Rubens paintings have to be seen in person for example.

i'd say

1. Zorn
2. Frazetta
3. Sargent
4. Rubens
5. Repin
6. Rembrandt
7. Bouguereau
8. Beksinski
9. Liljefors
10. Kramskoi
11. Elvgren

digital masters to me are: Mullins, Jace Wallace, Ruan Gia, Peleng, Oleg Vdovenko, Max Verehin, I like your sensitivity, David Levy, Theo Prins, Azevedo, Amundsen, Laurel Austin, ChrisCold, Cellar-fcp....

>>1958792
ugh forgot Moebius, Adamowicz, Jama Jurabaev and that Chase Stone dude

>>1958801
>Jama Jurabaev

you mean Pyjama Yoghurzivick

I will post my favorites here in no particular order

Jen Zee
George Kamitani
Ken Liu
Xavier Houssin
Mauricio Herrera
Niklas Janson
Clint Cearley
Richard Wright
Shuxing Li (picture related)

>>1958715
Shaddy at least aspires to do painterly style although it's a bit too structured and pedantic in it's execution (and look).

biggest master is kentaro miura, author of berserk

too bad he got old, lazy and rich

>>1958940
>animefags
>this delusional
Jesus christos. End your existence for my sake. Please!

>>1958946
Well his art is amazing and detailed, not to mention was made in the 90's~ where you couldn't cheat with photobash and drawing tablets.

Then again, I can just go back to drawing instead of arguing on /ic/.

>>1958950
His early stuff, as with all artists, isn't very impressive. Some of his new stuff looks nice but the detail looks like shit considering the format (manga). Just becomes cluttered marks and ruins the overall pic, I think.

I'll draw when I want faggot.

>>1958729
They all still post on /ic/.

1. van Gogh
2. Basquiat
3. Cezanne
4. Picasso
5. ???
6. Dylon
7. Dylon
8. Dylon
9. Dylon
10. and Dylon

1. Rubens
2. Da Vinci
3. Velázquez
4. Panini
5. Watteau
6. Greuze
7. Guardi
8. Millet
9. Zuccaro
10. Reynolds

>>1958743
>generic dark room with derivative posed old white dude making painterly facial expression #4,933
>masterful

maybe if you're a fucking mouthbreathing traditionfag who doesn't know it's 2015, loooooommmmiisss, dude, loooooommmmiiiiisssss

Why does everyone love Rubens so much? He's extremely skilled, but I've never found his subject matter that interesting.

>>1959298

his hands, his figures, their bodies, their expressiveness, the emotion in their faces.

if you fail to see why rubens is a master of masters you have miles to go in your artistic development or eyeball purchases to reconsider.

i have to add though... watching at jpgs on your monitor is not even close to the impression his work gives you irl. as with all great traditional art.

1.ME
2. ME
3. ME
4.ME
5. ME
6. ME
7.ME
8.ME
9.ME
10.ME

>>1959320
him

>>1959317
>i have to add though... watching at jpgs on your monitor is not even close to the impression his work gives you irl. as with all great traditional art.

Holy fuck this.

There is just no understanding the depth of things unless you see them in person. I kek everytime some boyscout tries to tell me he's "studying [x]" and tells me it's from photo/online reference.

I know in that moment the kid is not going to make it.

>>1959320
ME!ME!ME!

For American artists, this guy

>>1959361
Cause there is absolutely no point in studying a painting unless you're seeing it personally, right? God forbid any budding artist study a Rubens unless he's flying his happy ass out to Antwerp, because there's not one single goddamned thing he'll learn looking at an online image. At all.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're the one who sounds like you're not going to make it there, chief.

>>1959361
>>1959419
>boyscout
>chief
neither of you are going to make it

>>1959425
>neither of you are going to make it, pal.

>>1959298
His subject matter are actually quite erudite, although I suspect that's not why /ic/ loves him, neither can they understand. People love him for his immediacy and painting of flesh. The exact reason I don't like him that much. He's really popular right now and has always been because he has a lot of paintings around the world due to his having a large studio. He's also popular because simplified art history courses today talk about him as a prime example of the Baroque era. There are other forgotten painters that are as good or better than him that definitely aren't household names.

>>1959361
Studying from online is fine especially if it's drawing. If you're studying him for painting there are high resolution images where you can zoom in and really analyze the paint layers, not just for Rubens and other painters with similar handling of paint, but even ones that one might call smooth or blended. Although I'd still recommend going to a museum, and it's more useful if you're an oil painter anyway.

>>1959418

Does a German-American count?

>>1959298
Had the pleasure of seeing the work at the MET. Dude it's like a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge oil on wood painting. The quality of just the painting is a work of art in itself before you even get to the God tier brush strokes. If you just look at a digital photo online. It's just fat naked Angels. Like the Grand Canyon is a hole in the ground.

>>1959442
>>1959425
You champs just aren't going to make the cut guy.

>>1959513
I don't think you have the chops for this, buster.

>>1959490
>There are other forgotten painters that are as good or better than him that definitely aren't household names.
Name some. People like Van Dyck and Velazquez are discussed pretty often but quite frankly specialize in different aspects of art so aren't comparable. Others like Jordaens simply aren't on the same level.

>>1959550
If we are to judge who is better than Rubens by what Rubens is praised for, or among artists within his general style, he has no equal. But if we judge based on general skill level, learnedness, invention, capability and success in expression of ideas (in around the same time), and not counting on quantity and scale too much, it may be easier, seeing that we can say without much doubt that Rubens is a more capable painter than Guercino although they're very different. Among masters who are not discussed as much are: Parmigianino, Bronzino and Federico Barocci (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoO6Ko8xUoc); Hans von Aachen, Bloemaert, Goltzius (particularly in drawing and etchings and there is a pen work by him made to look like etching featuring a Venus Friget theme), and Spranger; Guido Reni (looks a lot better in person), Pietro da Cortona (though sometimes starts to shows symptoms of the doughy drapery common in his time and onward); Batoni, and even Boucher is excellent in his own right (greater than Fragonard for sure). If Greuze had more eminent patrons, he would have created paintings a lot greater than what he has. Some aren't accessible though, and there's likely some negative things I can say about each of them, the same with Rubens.

>>1958091
picasso, renoir, monet, praxiteles, giorgione, titian, raphael, da vinci obviously, botticelli and um, i think velasquez but i feel bad for not including anyone from northern europe, if it were top 20 i would, and a few more spanish too (and probably tons more italians lol)

1. Dennis Miller Bunker
2. Anders Zorn
3. Gustaf Tenggren

>>1959718
0. Repin

>>1959718
god you're such a pleb

i bet biopics are your favourite type of film

you put the pretend into pretentious

>>1959726
Good point. I will reconsider my preferences so i can be equally pleb as you my senpai.

>>1959732
good the first step is to stare at a naked women until you can only see her as a set of rhythms on a scaffold of geometry. then you're allowed to look at real paintings again.

>>1958411
I posted that list.Never done a digital painting in my life anon.

Nice projecting.

No particular order:
1. Picasso
2. Edward Hopper
3. Kasimir Sewerinowitsch Malewitsch
4. van gogh
5.Rembrandt
6. Caravggio
7. Gehard Richter
8. Hans Hoffmann
9. Lucian Freud
10. Velasquez

>>1963918
>7. Gehard Richter

hahaha what? haha get the fuck out.

>>1963942
why? he is amazing. Imo the best living artist

>>1958091
lil wayn

>>1963918
I'm not big on Hoffmann, but a respectable list.

Michelangelo
titian
reubens
rodin
Picasso
warhol
church
durer
van eyck
Caravaggio
leonardo

>>1958091

1. zorn
2. velasquez
3. sargent
4. rubens
5. rembrandt
6. fechen
7. leyendecker
8. repin
9. bougeroo
10. josé casado

doing a top 10 'in no particular order' totally defeats the purpose and you are just being a faggot who shies away from the task of actually rating your preferences/influences/idols.

also: if you disagree with my list you are wrong, an idiot, and should kill yourself.

>>1963918

>i don't know what the old masters are

>>1964208
>warhol
you were on a roll too...
>>1964215
I could name at least 30 artists that I like equally well, for different reasons. Reducing that to a randomly-ordered 10 is more than fair.

>>1964217
>I think this thread is about the Old Masters
lrn2read?

>>1964231

shit you got me good anon.

>>1958122

This is just mean

>>1958091
-yves klein
-van gogh
-el resto

- Duchamp
- Hanna Hoch
- Picasso
- Albert Oehlen
- Auguste Herbin
- El Greco
- Sigmar Polke
- Hokusai
- Vermeer
- Robert Williams

>>1958729
You haven't been here long enough have you newfag?

>>1966022
I like this list apart from polke, who I don't have much of an opinion on. the only vermeer mention, but he's easily my favorite dutch or flemish painter. rembrandt and rubens are great and all but they had workshops with loads of assistance

>>1966071
Polke's definitely an acquired taste, I hated him when I first started looking at his work. A lot of it is pretty bad individually, but taken as a whole his output is actually really nice and eventually won me over. I get not liking his work though, I wouldn't argue against hating him.