/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2872547
wheres the "great" work? op you lied to me. this shit is just plain bad.

>>2872547

This person is almost certainly working (heavily) from reference. Probably even a photograph. Most photorealists did even back in the 70s when it was the new hip thing.

You can do this too if you work hard enough, practice enough, and have enough patience. It's not unimpressive but it's not "great work", it's a worthless copy of a bag of m&ms. The work is only impressive for its skill. Skill can be acquired by many people, not to put it down, but drawing something like this is just exhibitionism

>>2872550
Lol. I dont think copying is great either, but it still takes a lot of skill. Im 100% certain that you couldnt recreate this.

>>2872661
wow calm down bro. you said it yourself its not great. its not bad either, but its not great. thats all im saying, nothing more nothing less. you dont need get all defensive and protect the guy, dumb nigger

and fyi yes i can.

What markers is he using?

>>2872547
Shadow is jarringly off. What the fuck was he thinking?

>tfw I will never create contour lines this controlled

>>2872547
I'll never reach this 'level' and I'm happy about it. Being a photocopy machine isn't for me. Then again, all of /ic/ would shit on my stuff, but I get a kick out of doing it. Until the crippling depression sets in, that is

>>2873200

Is it just me or is his left arm's anatomy just ever so slightly off?

>>2872678
I think you're the one getting just a smidge defensive here buck-o-roo

>>2872547
>drew a pack o M&Ms
>SUGOI
not saying that it doesn't require complete mastering, but ask this guy to draw something out of thin air and nothing

>>2872678
>this shit is just plain bad.
>you said it yourself its not great. its not bad either, but its not great. thats all im saying

sick backpedal bro

>>2872547
>people with this inhuman level of patience and precision wasting their time drawing household objects

>>2872552
What's wrong w/ using references?

>>2875168

there's nothing wrong with using references, but if you're just going to photocopy them, that teaches you nothing and has essentially no artistic value if it's going to be a copy of an M&M's packet.

>>2872547

I'm not a big fan of human photocopiers. Many of them achieve all of this technical prowess and never consider using their imagination. Examining all that anatomy, space, and lighting, and not doing anything with it.

There's a lot of potential for these kind of people. I bet they'd make some awesome stuff if they decided to do anything from scratch. They would be able to draw whatever they wanted. There wouldn't be any skill barriers in their way. It ends up being a missed opportunity if they never decide to use their imagination.

Unless they're one of those people that see everything as a flat image, engrave it in their mind, then transfer it to a piece of paper. Those people tend to have no knowledge of art fundamentals. Literal photocopiers. Almost no creative potential for them.

I understand that there are many people who value technical skill above all else, and that's fine. I'm just a fucker who prefers to see some creativity in artists' work. Just giving my two cents. I'm done venting and shit.

>>2872547
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF5aAbCbLLk&t=110s

>>2875168

Nothing, but if you're photocopying a bag of M&Ms you have to wonder what's the fucking point?
It serves no documentary purpose, a photograph does the exact same job in a fraction of the time.
It serves an incredibly limited artistic purpose - is it making a statement of some sort? What? How is it doing it in a way a photograph of a bag of M&Ms wouldn't? Is it creating something, besides a 1 for 1 copy? Does anybody need a 1 for 1 copy of a photograph? Why do they need someone do spend hours making it instead of using an actual photocopier?

I don't even have problems with realist artists who draw a subject as they see it from observation, but almost all of the quality realist work has character. It's not a 1 for 1 copy, it's an artist's interpretation of what they see. You could get 5 realists (not hyper-realists) in a room and you'd get 5 similar but different renditions, perhaps done with different materials/palettes/compositional emphasis etc. If you get 5 of the best hyper-realists in a room, you'll get 5 reproductions of the same damn thing a camera could do. It takes skill and patience without a doubt, but what's the point?

>>2875373
>There's a lot of potential for these kind of people. I bet they'd make some awesome stuff if they decided to do anything from scratch. They would be able to draw whatever they wanted. There wouldn't be any skill barriers in their way. It ends up being a missed opportunity if they never decide to use their imagination.

Basically patently false. All the expertise at observational drawing in the world won't give you experience with imagination drawing. Radically different skillsets, you can be excellent at one and shit at another.

That isn't to say being a good observational artist has zero merit for developing skills in imagination drawing, but it's a compliment rather than a substitute. It isn't sufficient on its own. I highly doubt most human photocopiers have a particularly developed mental library, 90% of their expertise is in tight rendering.

>'great work'
>just human xerox bullshit

>>2875506
Yeah, you're right. I guess the better way of saying it is that some of the people who have the ability to photocopy stuff may have a greater potential for creative drawing. Sorry for sounding so absolute and stuff.