/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2842238
I think you should start with a sketch. That shit looks horrible, the figures aren't in the same perspective. The guy in the back looks really fucked up, like he's half nazi, half nut-cracker or something. What's with your color choice? It seems really jarring. What's the subject matter, why's there an improperly drawn soccer ball on the floor with naked women?

This looks like the work of someone with severe mental disabilities.

Why would you stream this?

>>2842260
My friends on Facebook really enjoyed the stream I did yesterday of this painting. Today is more complete version that you saw.

You accuse people of having mental illness whenever you see someone that does not draw in line with academicism. Why would you do that?

That sort of argument won't work when most of contemporary artists draw and paint like I do, not your ideal version of a draftsman.

I stopped the stream because I was done with the painting. I will probably stream often through this channel.

>>2842265
cumbum, why are you still on /ic/ ? clearly you think everyone here is wrong and you are right about your shitty art. go to dA. go to some other shit site then. you are genuinely fucking annoying. everytime i see your half assed "my friends said its good" garbage here, i get fucking annoyed. you are bothering everyone. just fucking leave, visit a circlejerking forum like reddit where everyone tells you that you are great. just leave this board alone. i give up.

Chunbum threads need to be deleted
He brings only toxicity to this board whether from himself or others.

The Uncanny

1st final revision

>>2842270
Not everyone. Just the people who don't get my art and want to stomp me down with no end.

I've had instances when a critique or advice I got here did spur me to make changes to my painting for the better.

>>2842279
And by now honestly your annoying people and spamming your shit art on purpose won't make those people help you anymore. Why would anybody ever help you now? Especially since you are famous for not taking critique? Just go away to your hugbox already. Nobody here wants to look at your shit art or your stream. You are a beginner. Get that through your thick head, nobody wants to watch a fucking beginner draw.

>>2842280
See how you are trying to stomp me down? Because I do experimental art?

I am not a beginner.

I've had people who do painting for 25 years tell me my art is good. I've had instructors tell me the same thing.

It's not a hug box. It's reality. Now, get that through your thick head, anon.

I am still open to criticism and advice if it is legit. As I told you before, I did make changes to my art after some anon gave me criticism/advice. For example, in this painting, the right side (left of her) of the woman near the middle in green dress should go darker. That's a legit advice you could have given, and I would have followed it.

>>2842282


You're work is fantastic. Your equivalent to that of a modern day Picasso. There's this ethereal neo classicism/ down with the proletariat element aesthetic that you uniquely own.

Seriously get lost kid

>>2842282
Learn to be humble bro
You're no better than anyone else

>>2842279
>Just the people who don't get my art and want to
don't you think this is indicative of a problem? if others don't "get it", i think that's a flaw of the artwork.
what i think: personally i just don't feel anything from it. it seems disorganized and each element doesn't feel like it has a purpose. i don't quite feel a unifying idea behind it. the colors and values are a big part of it, they feel disorganized, like you painted each element in a vacuum without considering the surrounding image.
there are some intriguing elements, but overall the image just doesn't come to make a satisfying whole.
i don't want to just repeat what you've been told 100 times, but the study of the fundamentals, of representation rather than style, is what builds a foundation for truly good art. no matter what, if your art is good, it's because of the fundamentals. it's inseparable. you will perhaps have to study what you don't want, but the knowledge you gain from that is the ultimate tool for any art, including cubism or anything else.

>>2842296
It's okay man, he has a long way ahead of him

>>2842265
>you see someone that does not draw in line with academicism. Why would you do that?
No, I don't have any issue with alternative styles and experimentation, but only when the artist can demonstrate some level of skill or understanding. You're supposed to know what you're doing FIRST then you experiment.

Also, that's not "cubism." Cubism still follows all the basic rules of composition, value, form (though an altered vision of form), color theory, etc. Just look at the black and white version of two actual pieces of cubism artwork, and notice that they have a clear and sensible value range. The left two thumbnails read far better than your horror show, and the broken surfaces actually contain some level of detail, and an indication of lighting. What you're doing is leaving up big random shapes haphazardly where you don't know what you're doing (like those horrible faces) and then calling it cubism. That's not cubism.

You have no idea what you're doing, and when people point that out you refuse to try to improve or take criticism, that's why your painting looks like shit.
Learn some basic rules of composition, lighting, color theory, perspective, and VALUE before subjecting viewers to your trite filth.

>>2842238
your work is fucking amazing. don't listen to these haters

>>2842305
Thanks for exaggerating the values of the black and white pics.

What a heck of a liar and a troll

>>2842312
are you serious? or are you an impersonator? it looks like you lowered the contrast or purposely found a lower contrast version of that picasso piece. the dude's observation was right anyhow.
can you give an example of you ever taking criticism seriously?

>>2842317
I got this directly from Google search

https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/524/flashcards/1211524/jpg/3-2-2012_8-17-27_pm1330738394276.jpg

>>2842305
Just look at the hand in the left most painting!
Holy FUCK that's amazing. I seriously can't get over how well that's abstracted.

Christ chunbum could never think to abstract a hand as such. Why? Because he's never actually studied a hand. He's unaware of the forms of the hand, and the shapes they can make. Just look at his painting! Chunbums hands are either hidden, blocks with tentacles, or bricks.

I honestly can't believe people think they can get away with not learning how to draw first. You would never hire a surgeon with no medical background to operate on your brain. Same shit here just less life-threatening.

Still can't get over how good that hand is though.

>>2842319
well i got mine directly from google search too and it looks like the other guy's, and not yours.
http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/cubism/images/PabloPicasso-Girl-with-Mandolin-Fanny-Tellier-1910.jpg
also, his point wasn't just that your art lacks contrast, you know.
why not humor him and actually consider what he's said instead of ignoring it entirely because you could find a slightly different version of one of the images he used?

>>2842327
It doesn't lack contrast.

4chan's image processing filter keeps degrading my images for less saturation and contrast.

Go to behance to look at its original true colors.

https://www.behance.net/gallery/48255519/The-Uncanny

>>2842312
I don't know what you're smoking, I intentionally picked a version with a good value range because Picasso (I'm left to assume) actually knew what he was doing. I don't know why you picked what looks like a scan out of an old art book.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Pablo+Picasso,+1910,+Girl+with+a+Mandolin&tbm=isch

Everything I said was true, even if you're looking at the shitty photo you're using, the value range is still more sensible, it makes the forms read better, which makes the thumbnail clearly read better.

>>2842333
Forgot the picture (these were pulled directly from google).

>>2842331
like i said, contrast isn't the only thing he brought up.
what about the rest of his criticism?

>>2842319
>shit he actually pointed out that I'm full of shit!
>I know! I'll ignore everything he said!

You should try going to an art school where this type of behavior gets you kicked out. Seriously my HS even instructor wouldn't take your shit. Even some of the mentally challenged behave better than you.
You're childish, narcissistic, and delusional. If you are this way on 4CHAN (of all places), then I can't even believe what kind of a person you are irl.

>>2842338
They seem false or irrelevant. I already learned perspective, color theory, lighting composition etc. They seem like a long laundry list of criticisms he uses to stomp me down, rather than pointing out the specifics or giving examples.

>>2842342
It isn't up to you what is and isn't relevant
>I've already learned perspective
Wow 1pt floorboards. So impressive.
>Color theory
You paint like you use crayons. "Grass is this green crayon! And the sky is this blue one!" Where are the schemes? Where are the color keys? Why does your shit always look disorganized rather than unified under a palette?
>Lighting composition
The whole scene is lit and there's no obvious direction of light.
>etc
You're full of shit.

>>2842342
you don't show yourself as knowing perspective, color theory, lighting, composition, in your work.
he made those criticisms because he saw those aspects as done poorly in your art.
>seem
>seem
isn't this why you're asking for criticism? because one cannot remove oneself from one's own perspective, and so another perspective should be considered? because one cannot necessarily just trust that one is always right? why do you trust when his criticism "seems" wrong, instead of actually investigating it? you are not exploring your art.
could i ask you to abstractify your composition for me, tell me how it works artistically? how does it work on the same level of works by picasso in terms of the organization of its values and colors on the canvas?

>>2842349
There is obvious direction of light. In the room nearest to the viewer, it's coming from upper left (their upper right)

In the next hallway, it's coming from farther down to the upper left. In the next hallway, farther down the the upper left. In the next hallway, no lighting. Inside the door, it's coming from upper right (to the left of the people in the picture).

Some of this compartments in the building have no window, and only artificial lighting. Others have light from the setting sun.

>>2842342
>>2842331
I'm not just attacking you out of malice, I'm trying to give you a wake up call. Whoever is telling you that you don't suck is doing you a great disservice.

My criticisms are all true. I'll spell out one for you, your piece absolutely DOES lack contrast, notice that in Picasso's 'Girl with a Mandolin', the area behind her is darkened to make the form read better, and not simply darkened, but the light-source is positioned to accomplish this. The arms and neck and mandolin all have clear and consistent shadows indicating the same light source. Your piece doesn't have ANY indication of a lightsource whatsoever, except for what is possibly a shadow under the left foreground figure, but I can't even be sure that's a shadow because the trashcan on the right competes with the shadow because the trash can is actually a DARKER VALUE, even though the trash can does not appear to be in shadow itself. This means your value range isn't SENSIBLE. Even if the photo you uploaded doesn't accurately reflect the full range of values, you didn't PUT THE VALUES IN THE RIGHT PLACES.

Your composition doesn't lead the eye. All of the figures are looking at the viewer, which in itself is okay if you're going for the namesake of 'uncanny', but how you positioned their bodies and the objects in the room doesn't lead the eye to any focal points. There's no clear focal points at all.

Your color choices are random (girl in blue in front of a blue wall?)

You clearly have NOT studied perspective, because it's nonexistent in your piece, the floor just seems to float toward space, and implies the horizon line is really high up, which means you're looking down at everything, but NONE of the figures indicate this, they're all straight-on. There's no consistency.

The thing you demonstrate the most skill with is human anatomy, and that's at a beginner level at best.

>>2842357
The trashcan is under the shadow behind the girl.

And I know that the perspective lines are supposed to line up exactly at a single point. However, I didn't want to rework the painting and mess up the fresh marks I already put down. Plus, this is an abstract work. Exactly perspective might actually be a bad thing if it looks too rigid and predictable.

>>2842357
AND the perspective line should be lower. At least that's what I intended. Then it's correct that they are looking straight on. It is consistent.

At this point I just want to believe Cumbum is a very elaborate troll but considering the amount of shit he posts I know he's not. Dear god how can someone be like that. Cumbum, fuck off of /ic/ forever and preferably from life. Your shit fucking waste-of-paint is never going to get you anywhere because you refuse to learn.

>>2842365
Even if you did have a lower horizon line, the figures themselves are in different perspectives. You should look at it in a mirror and it will probably immediately be apparent.

>>2842363
I don't see a shadow on that trashcan, there's no shadow on the wall or the floor to indicate that it's in shadow, it just appears to be a darker object.

I took a decent amount of time out of my day to try to help you improve, and all you're doing is making excuses. Many people have pointed out flaws in your work, and you're trying to claim they're stylistic choices. That means you're choosing not to improve, which means you're not here for criticism (which means you're breaking the rules), and I (like most everyone else) am done trying to help you.

Your work isn't even mediocre, it's bad, and you're not going to improve unless you choose to.

>>2842363
do you think that just excuses this guy's critique? you're just taking a small part of what he said and denying it, then saying nothing more.
take your art seriously.

>>2842369
Okay you are right about the shadow on the trash can. I will fix it.

The perspective is also off, but to me it looks pleasant and soothing to the eye for having wrong perspective.

>>2842365
>the perspective line should be lower. At least that's what I intended.
You can't "fudge" with perspective sadly. If your horizon line was lower, the floorboards would be much different. So would the figures, and literally everything else in the picture.
It's obvious you're grasping at straws here.
Look, critiques are meant to destroy pieces. Artists seek critiques so they can take a moment from their piece to get a different perspective on the piece. If there's one thing that art school taught me was: "when someone is critiquing your piece, it is your job to stand there and nod. Do not say a word."

As soon as you start talking, it shows that you really don't care about other's perspectives. It shows that you have become so self indulged in your own piece that you reject and become defensive against any sort of criticism. It's become your baby and you've grown attached.

Learn to let go and let the art get ripped to shreds. It's up to you to come back, pick up the shredded pieces, and learn from the mistakes you made. That way, you can use those shreds to rejuvinate a newer, stronger piece.

Criticism is a cyclical procesa of creation and destruction to creation again. By actively avoiding the "destruction" step, you are literally avoiding the most crucial step in order to make your piece awesome.

It's just like how english teachers encourage students to have other people read their written papers.

>>2842375
i understand.

Is cumbum posting a bannable offence yet?

>>2842357
yo youre a pretty shit art critic m8. The wood planks don't line up? Who gives a shit? How is that a criticism that merited you opening paint to prove your point about the horizon line and skewed perspective on an intentionally unnerving picture?

there's a lot of weird choices going on in that paining, but the relative sizes of wood planks in a painting where everyone's eyes are scratched out isn't one of them.

>>2842423
Where have you been, you disappeared for a week

>>2842425
did I? just painting memes and writing and stuff.

>>2842279
Art is nothing to get. Picasso wrote about this, As an artist you show what you found and try to deliver this in the best way you can Imagine. So what did you found? An Interpretation of dead Artist work? You just copied what you think art is. Also I would recomend to stop this whole social media and streaming shit. If u want to do art, it is personal. Just you and your brain. And when you found your art you materialize it with existing referenzes or sketches. I wont critizise the anatomy or the weird location, you dont HAVE to do this better because in this condition it can work out. I just want to critizise that one can see how you just threw together interessant motives, you just made dekoration. I recomend the get a copy of Vermeers 'A Lady at the Virginal with a Gentleman'hang it over you bed and look at it until you understand the whole dezent composition, how he worked with the Perspektive and what 'he found'.

>>2842492
I beg to differ. You get art or you don't. Some people are moved and inspired. Some aren't and can't see the things and qualities that make the art good.

>>2842492
You don't get my art, then ask what have I found? Of course you ask because you don't get my art and don't know what I found.

>>2842430
honestly i think you are even more of a cancer than cumbum and brian (maybe not more than illastrat, its hard to beat him)
"haha XD lel kek le maymays! what? you consider art an actual skill that you need to learn??? you guys dont know ANYTHING!!
EMEMEMEMS!!!"
please just hang yourself man

>>2842893
please cumcum just leave. if we all tell you that you are awesome, will you leave us alone and stop making threads? please reply. i just hate these fucking faggot threads. you are awful, you wont listen, but we keep having these debates, spamming this board for no real reason. just leave, please.

>>2842423
I never said there was an issue with the planks lining up, I said the problem was there was no clear perspective whatsoever, and the only object in the painting that indicated a horizon line are the floorboards, which put the horizon line too high up. You fucking retard.

The Uncanny 3rd final revision

I am open to further critique and revising based on your advice.

>>2843320
>I am open to further critique
No you aren't. Fuck off.

>>2843320
the lady laying down. her nose. it's very penis-like.

>>2843320
>a giant translucent purple dick

What did he mean by this

Christ on a bike
What a pile of steaming shit.

Of many millions of dreadful components, the bit that annoys me most is the pink blob on the bottom right.