/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>/ic/ do my homework for me

he went beyond post-impressionism and was practically painting abstractly. just really ahead of his time.

he was autistic

he cut off an ear once

because he's not you and me and everyone on /ic/

Because drama

>>1963634
He took the use of color to new heights, as well as the distortion of form and perspective, which give his work a psychological quality that the German Expressionists admired. Van Gogh himself found inspiration in the art of Japan, and helped incorporate it into the vocabulary of European art. See his work in person and you will know why he's famous, his vibrant colors and thick impasto give the painting as an object a presence that few other painters have achieved.

>>1963645
the ear had to gogh

>>1963657
Looks pretty shit to me.

>>1963668
you don't matter anyway.

None of us do. :(

>>1963674

Until you cut your ears.

>>1963668
The Fauves, the German Expressionists, the Abstract Expresisionists, Gauguin, Lautrec, and Degas all disagree, have you considered the possibility that you might be a pleb? he loses a lot in reproduction, but even through your computer it should be obvious these are great paintings.

>>1963685
His paintings are really loud in person.

There is a french impressionism exhibit close to where I live and his paintings are the absolute worst in it and are only there because of his name.

Some of the pics he did are nice but he shoulda really have used none fade-colors if he wanted me to care about his art at this point in time.

Also
>the abstract expresisionists
People who worked after the death of good culture don't really matter. Beauty is dead.

>>1963688
>mfw there's no hope for some people

>>1963688
>used none fade-colors

are you on drugs? this is the most basic thing to consider if you want to sell your artwork traditionally unless you want your clients to haunt you.

>Beauty is dead
beauty is rarely that simple like a well rendered picture.

>>1963685
No, it's not obvious through the computer. The paintings that you're showing me are not that good.

>>1963697
>muh dragons

>>1963700
what dragon?

>the foot prints though.

>>1963690
Yeah, I guess not everyone likes Van Gogh for various reasons. A lot of people dislike him for the exact reasons he's loved for by the masses. I could likewise say there's no hope for some people who confuse affection for genuine judgment.

>>1963712
>I guess not everyone likes Van Gogh for various reasons
And most of those reasons revolve around people's inability to grasp context.

I never got it.
To me they look like a child's crappy paintings.
Nothing a beginner on drugs can't do.

>>1964340
gogh educate yourself

>>1964340
I'm guessing you're a beginner, go find some drugs and paint me a self portrait better than this:
>>1963690

>>1964348
I am more educated than you you give me credit for.
There are absolutely no ground to consider those painting good by any standards.
It's just hipsters being hipsters and modern art cancer.

>>1964340
This. Some people just like sucking on Van's dick and like to make it as his paintings are something revolutionary.

If someone in the draw thread or beginner thread came in here with something like those paintings they would be told its shit and to learn the fundamentals. Nothing more to say about his work really.

>>1964352
I'm sure you you you have a PhD in art history. Those are the types who dismiss "modern art" as if it were some cohesive movement and not an entire era of art.

As unknown as furries.

>>1964356
they were revolutionary, if you knew the first thing about the context in which his paintings were made within the timeline of art history, you would be able to admit as much, regardless of whether you like his work.

>>1964368
Except most people actually claim they are great in any context.
They are not.
They are crappy, even lazy.
That's a fucking bunch of flowers in a vase, and not even well drawn, not even abstract. What the fuck man.
What.the.fuck.

>>1964374
"revolutionary" ALWAYS depends upon context you dunce. greatness is another matter, and many of his paintings are indeed great. I honestly feel sorry for you if you can't into van Gogh

>>1964377
Well I think you're just a hipster that can't accept that he just sucked.
Revolutionary my ass.

>>1963697
So what, Van Gogh's paintings look better at the computer?

Hope your aren't implying that's a good painting.
>>1964352
If you really think >>1963690 looks like a child's painting then you're less educated than anyone is giving your credit for. Liking his paintings or not is one thing, but the man clearly had the skill to paint depth and form well, and used color intelligently.

>>1964381
>mfw you say mean things about me

>>1964382
>Liking his paintings or not is one thing, but the man clearly had the skill to paint depth and form well, and used color intelligently.
It was a hyperbole, you stupid moron.
And that level of skill is achievable by any average artist. So admiring that is beyond retarded.
People only like Van Gong because they were told he was great.
And you just unconsciously and desperately try to justify your believes by making up such great loads of BULLSHIT.
People like you just make me sad.

>>1964387
>only SHEEPLE like artists I don't like, my opinions about art are objective facts!
oh, /ic/

>>1964387
/ic/ is full of average artists, why don't I ever see paintings like this here?

>>1964387
I think its pretty. Is that not enough?

>>1964395
because this is a board for amateur illustrators, not artists

>>1964402
so how do we determine the "average" artist, and are you really daft enough to think they can paint better than this:
>>1964348
or draw better than pic related?

>>1963685

>tfw seeing a Van Gogh in person, and how bright the colors still are after all these years
>tfw the thick brush strokes and the paint that looks like it was applied yesterday

>>1964404

I was thinking about this earlier today

If every human is an artist then the average artist "can't even draw a stick figure"

If an artist is anyone who makes an attempt then the average artist is probably slightly better than pic related

Leaving out beginners or anyone who is "bad" is just personal bias to make the average better

>>1963634

Since a month ago I was convinced that Van Gogh did a few paintings since people always post the same ones. But actually there are around the worlds a couple of thousands of his drawings and paintings. Many of them are amazing even if not very well known to the general public.

>>1964423
They are repaints. They keep originals locked in a safe, because vandalism.

>>1964322
Or maybe they don't give too much credit to the idea that context is all that important. Though surely there is about an equal amount of uneducated people who dislike Gogh and those uneducated who like Gogh (otherwise he wouldn't be so popular). There are also educated people who dislike Gogh, although peer pressure might lead them to deny. Deep study into art theory and philosophy often lead contrariwise to appreciation.

>>1964674
thats not true though

>>1964912
>Gogh
van Gogh. His name is Vincent van Gogh, not Vincent Gogh. Just for future reference.

I agree with the first half of what you said, but peer pressure works both ways, and insight into art theory and history only deepen one's appreciation of art.

>>1965316
>van Gogh. His name is Vincent van Gogh, not Vincent Gogh. Just for future reference.
I know and don't care. Antonio da Correggio is most often just called Correggio.

>peer pressure works both ways
Surely. However it's usually skewed in the favor of one. It's pretty much expected that one appreciates his art.

>insight into art theory and history only deepen one's appreciation of art.
Only if you only read art theory from late 19th century onwards. Even then, they were also deriding most other artists aside from themselves and similar painters, and often forgetting ideas that aren't from their time. If it were the case that a person educated in theory would appreciate art without question, he would like all art however bad, since pretty much anything can be justified. A large part of art theory and philosophy in general is making distinction, the same way that study into human nature and virtue often lead against appreciation of people and distinction between what makes an action good. One can say that a particular art (or a person) is successful in expressing a set of ideas, but that doesn't mean one has to think that these ideas are good to begin with, even if they might have necessary in the context of their time.

This thread.

The dude got famous after death, let him fucking live on.

>>1966747
right? like its too mainstream to like a guy who was the opposite of mainstream. the past is the past. we screwed up. we didnt appreciate him when he was alive. we should appreciate him now.

>>1966756
learn from mistake anon, learn to appreciate me too before it's too late.

his letters to his brother are so full of fighting with surrounding life for the right just live in peace and paint. makes it more sad that he died in misery and never "made it". just like 19th century /ic/.

>>1963634
I'm just gonna guess, from the perspective of an 1800s pleb/regular person.
>You mean I can start painting at age 40??
>You mean i don't have to paint boring church shit??
>You mean I don't have to join a school to paint??
>You mean it can still look pretty without accurately drawing a fucking chair in perspective??
>You mean I can explore, enhance and invent what I want when I paint??
>You mean I don't have to paint fat aristocrat's and their fat wives and fat fucking kids?
>You mean I get to use all dem colors?!?
>Sign me up! I want to paint like Vincent Van Gogh!

I have no idea what people think in 2015. But his work looks great on my fucking wall.