/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3237472
Check out the art spirit by Robert Henri

>>3237472
burne hogarth one time put a trash infront of his students and asked them if it was art. The students said no, and hogarth yelled at them saying it is. Then hogarth put out the trash can to another set of students and asked them if its art. This time the students said yes, and hogarth yelled at them
>NO
>students: "but you said"
>I DIDNT INTEND IT TO BE ART THIS TIME

>>3237487
what a jackass

>>3237487
Hogarth is fucking based, time to pick up his anatomy book.

>>3237487
Please let this story be true

>>3237472
yeah, I do. a sketchbook.

drop all the fucking "how to" books and get out there and DRAW FOR YOURSELF.
don't be a lazy fucking cunt and practice drawing! If you need books, you've lost the game.

>>3237487
lol, wtf is wrong with this guy, i bet he doesnt smash pussies

>>3237534
op here
im talking about art theory such as, what is art? what is good art? Not how to draw.
Also i picked a bad image to post with the thread my bad

>>3237543
Literally every art book answers that question almost always as an opener.

>>3237543

Martin Heidegger – the origin of the artwork

Norbert Schneider – history of aethetic

https://www.reclam.de/detail/978-3-15-009457-0/Schneider__Norbert/Geschichte_der_Aesthetik_von_der_Aufklaerung_bis_zur_Postmoderne

Frizze (magazine)

Walter Benjamin –The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

>>3237518
>>3237523
>>3237532
>>3237536
http://liheliso.com/buzz/archive/00000482.htm

Ive been preaching my love for hogarth for years. but ic doesnt ever seem to bat an eye. Hes the best, and i keep pdfs of all his books on my phone.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=S66wc0Z2BXU

>>3237593
seriously, these are heavily stylized folds in the clothes. this is nothing universial, it's just a hint to his particular way of drawing.
why would you promote that as a general entry to art theory?

>>3237593
I don't understand how to use Hogarth. If someone could show me how to apply it to anime, would preach it like it's the word of god too.

>>3237593
>Ive been preaching my love for hogarth for years
So you're the faggot who keeps recommending those crappy drawing books, huh?
Fuck off.

>>3237534
I must interject and inform anyone who may read this thread that this advice right here is bad.
The sole purpose of book and the written word is to teach others information that would otherwise take too long to discover by an individual on their own

Ignoring books would be.. as the saying goes
re-inventing the wheel

Read books, get good

>>3237595
Who cares if its not realistic. The form and proportion are gouki desu!

>>3237487
>story about hogarth making up random bullshit on the spot
considering that his anatomy and theories about clothing are also just random shit he says with no bearing on reality, I believe it

>>3237610
>knows a handful of japanese words
>uses them all the time
typical /ic/ manga pleb

>>3237608
I am a aeroplain flight assistent and I must intersect this improper resentment.
The sole purpose of books on art theory is to bring you knowledge on art theory.

The sole purpose of books from Loomis and other "painting by numbers" sell-out cunts is to make oney off of naive students and pushing a dead-end education onto them that is hard to shake off.

go see a lot of exhibitions
read books on art, biograpies of artists, books on materials
but most importantly DRAW AND PAINT EVERYDAY on real fucking paper with real fucking materials

LIMIT YOUR TIME ON /ic/

>>3237610
>knows a handful of japanese words
>uses them all the time
typical /ic/ manga pleb

>>3237608
I am a aeroplain flight assistent and I must intersect this improper resentment.
The sole purpose of books on art theory is to bring you knowledge on art theory. A very good thing to do.

The sole purpose of books from Loomis and other "painting by numbers" sell-out cunts is to make money off of naive students and pushing a dead-end education onto them that is hard to get rid of.

go see a lot of exhibitions
read books on art, biograpies of artists, books on materials
but most importantly DRAW AND PAINT EVERYDAY on real fucking paper with real fucking materials

LIMIT YOUR TIME ON /ic/

>>3237603
>>3237607
I LOVE HOGARTH DESU X3

https://www.instagram.com/go2huprincess

check out muh blog. im beginner. But one day my doods.

>phoneposter is autistic

>>3237618
>go see a lot of exhibitions

I saw this the other day, what do you think about it bro

>read biographies

No thanks, I'm not some middle aged single woman living off of welfare who watches Entertainment Tonight for the latest celebrity gossip

And one more hogarth for the go

https://youtube.com/watch?v=26780aO8tsc

ill git gud one day for hogarth senpai....

>>3237632
Momatard is retarded. Of course his advices are retarded.

>>3237618
My fellow,

William Andrew Loomis is an accomplished American Illustrator and his books provide high quality instruction on how to draw the human figure, particular the head.
In my days I have never come across a more aesthetic nor approachable method to drawing the head.
If it were not for Loomis, I would be stuck drawing heads from a mirror and they would probably look like shit.

by the way.. I too am an aeroplain flight assistent.

>>3237632
>No thanks, I'm not some middle aged single woman living off of welfare who watches Entertainment Tonight for the latest celebrity gossip
ngmi

a little wacom child, talking big
>"uh i don need dat!"
ngm to the motherfucking i

>>3237644
Him not knowing our retarded memes isn't a big deal, his biggest problem is his pugnacious attitude he's had from the beginning. Fine artists often feel that their work is beyond negative criticism so they get atomically butthurt when people throw shade on their sacred cow, whereas we're used to having our work called shit because we don't have any pretentions about it being anything else. I actually don't mind talking to him at all to be honest, messing with him is fun

>>3237652
I have no problem with thorough criticism. It's just nothing you'd ever come across here on /ic/. I've painted shit paintings, my peers have painted shit paintings and we've talked a lot about it, always did. You can learn alot from mistakes and flaws. /ic/ fags like this screenshot making little dickhead >>3237644 are just nowhere near that experience. He is jealous, uninformed about art, roams in a low level forever and has to vent his hate. Why else would he screenshot and post my texts all the time? This dude is obsessed with my rants on here. It really hit him in the right spot. And I'll stick around, I can tell you that.

>>3237670
>are just nowhere near that experience.
Nice experience you have here. I'm so jelly.

>>3237674
You've looked at my drawing so much by now, I' flattered. Too bad you've never shown your work to anyone. Does it suck so bad?

>>3237472
That cover looks different, is there an updated version? where can I find it?

>>3237679
Okay shitter, I will play with you.

>>3237722
I thought that was by David Kassan for a sec lol

Gr8 painting anon

>>3237722
How do you keep your easel so clean, mine looks like a fucking paint bomb exploded on it.

>>3237722
oh and one of the best show your work burns I have seen in many many years

>>3237823
David Kassan sure likes his wrinkly old people

>>3237722
timestamp or gtfo, fag.

>3237722
>123364869808.jpg

>>3237722
you are skilled

>>3237487
>The students said no, and hogarth yelled at them saying it is.

Hogarth had right. EVERY ARTIST MUST KNOW!!!

ONES MANS SHIT IS OTHERS MANS GOLD!!

>>3237722
>shows a work that's clearly just about copying from a photo
>no proove that it's "his"
>the "Dunning Kruger!" yapping retard stays Dunning Kruger retard

Try a little harder. Show finished works, drawings or studies. This commission shit is bland.

>>3237621
why do you always draw eyes that look as if your characters want to know peace from their suffering?

>>3237999
This is >>3237674 your "photocopy".
>this commission shit is bland
damage control

>>3237621
Keep it up fgt

>>3237472
Books? Nope. All the ones I know everyone else can recommend. However, it's not just about anatomy.

I personally like Force: Dynamic Life Drawing for Animators as a starting point.

And there is this stuff for composition which I still can't get my head completely wrapped around. For those of you in art schools, I'm curious what your opinions on this are, and not just that he's just a pontificating old man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfMr9UREuBI

>>3237999
so sad...

>>3237722
I wish painting with actual paint wasn't so expensive.

>>3237722
Oh shit, who knew attal-san would join us foreigners. Why would you share the WIP when you've already finished the painting? Wow, it's been 3 years

https://twitter.com/attall139/status/538318010016993284
https://twitter.com/attall139/status/541224049771163650

>>3237472
Value (both the second and third question) and how work is produced doesn't enter into art theory. The best series of books on art theory is titled simply Art in Theory. There are three volumes ranging from the mid 17th century up to the 21st century.

>>3239256
Because that anon didn't make that work.

>>3239256
AAaaaaaah! We got him now, the "MOMAtard" yapping little faggot! Nice.
I'll be contemplating what I will do to your account. Expect something "nice" to happen ...

>>3237722
I knew you are just one of the thousand chinese shitartists, sprouting out of the ground like mushrooms. You copy and you can't do anything else, copy copy copy. Do some commission work that has no appeal other than "it's not a photograph, it's painting, because that's more nostalgic than a photo portrait!"

You have no signature style, you bring nothing to art other than craftsmanship. Just a butthurt, jealous little shithead who can't understand contemporary painting that has a level of individuality, a concept and a handwriting unique to the artists.

Look at your shit 南保あたる! It's a fucking copy of a photograph! Wow! So cool! You have no appeal as an artist. It makes sense now why you would cry about modern art – you are a hopeless case. A copymachine.

>>3239297
>Look, I can copy a photo! I'm such a good modern artist!

>>3237722
copymachine, much impressed!
giving nothing to the painting other than "I copied every inch! .. Whoops, I got the mouth area all wrong!"
--->
>>3239400

>>3239297
blah, looked much better 'unfinished'. had some character as opposed to a soulless copy

>>3237623
kek. i mean its true, but those hogarth drawings just so goddamn ugly aesthetically.

>>3239412
exactly. What's the point in copying a photograph like that - domestic scene, old lady - as a painting? There is no point. You could print the photo enlarged to that size, if it was really such a good photo. It's not even a good snapshot, she seems like she's annoyed and waiting for her tea and cookies.

Nambo is a fucking joke. But I'm pretty sure he believes that his oh-so-impressive copy is way better than Pollock and all the other modern art that he likes to talk shit about. This guy is in complete denial. That's what painting Lolis 24/7 does to you.

>>3239588
I don't know who this person is and find it hard to care. You should do the same, it's good for you, gives you time to go outside and paint some trees. Fresh air is good for you.

>>3239588
I know you're mad as fuck but stop. 4chan show posters count. Everyone can see your samefaging. And your posting style is obvious. Go back.

>>3239601
>Everyone can see your samefaging.
oh of course, I'm samefagging. Because the possibility that there are more than three people on here is very unlikely… sure my man. whatever you say.

>>3239601
more samefagging I guess, boohoo!

>>3237472

>>3237487
is Hogarth...dare I say it, /ourguy/?

>>3237623
looks like bridgman on the left not loomis
loomis coulda been "stiff mannequins"

>>3239699
>wants books on art theory
>is given a list of "how to manuals" instead
>

>>3243095
this is how you know /ic/s priorities. they want to know how to without knowing why.

purposeless artists create meaningless art, no matter how techniqally skilled at dick anatomy they become.

useless hacks with nothing to contribute.

>>3237472
Harold Speed's books delve into these things. There's a read through with commentaries and bulletpoints of one of those on James Gurney's blog.

>>3243876

>>3243095
>wants books on art theory
>is given a list of "how to manuals" instead

Well OP did ask:
>How is art produced?
So I feel that falls under the category.

I won't argue that /ic/ neglects art theory and art history, though.

>>3243880
pdf links?

>>3243884
art theory wasn't a thing until modernism came about, and much of art history today is ideologically one-sided taking a deconstructionist and whiggish approach to art history. there are probably still some good and neutral books on the matter

aesthetics (which is vastly different from art theory) should be read by every artist

>>3243914
Find them at libgen.io

>>3243931
any good books or pdfs on aesthetics?

>>3243931
Nigga, I've got writings by Da Vinci about the theory of art. The series Art in Theory's first volume has writings dating to 1648. Fuck you and your "not until Modernism" bullshit.

>>3244122
links, pdfs?

>>3237472
G.E Hicks a guide to figure drawing is a good one

>>3244130
fuck anon. that is a how to.
not why. fuck

>>3237472
listen to Dave Hickey

>>3237472
>>3243931
I have started to read the works of Kenyon Cox, a really good perspective on asthetics and the philosophy of art by someone who was actually really fucking good. I am not even through with the first book, so I can't say for certain how good it is. He even shits on the Impressionists.

Check him out on Archive.org, he wrote tons of stuff.

>>3244128
This is Leonardo's Codex Urbinas. I'm not even going to attempt to find the various writings in the Art in Theory books.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/46915/46915-h/46915-h.htm

>>3237472

construction is a meme. it leads to shitty spherical manga-tier heads like >>3244274
if you stop constructing like a fucking paper pusher, you're doing yourself and your developement a huge favor.

construction != approximation sketching

artists have always and still use approximating sketchlines to lay out the general form. when you start to draw e.g. a person, you will want to get a few hin, quick lines on the paper to see how bit you need to work as not to cut the feet or other parts at the end of the page and for general composition.
constructing to an unexperienced artist / beginner will mostly lead to confusion, because you start treating every head like a conjunction of spheres, equator to measure eyes and nose etc. etc. ; the human skull is not a fucking sphere, it is complex and has irregular parts, for instance around the fontanel. if you heavily rely on construction and instill it in your process to a point where you can't go without it, you've basically handicapped yourself. it will be very very difficult if not impossible to get rid of that.

>tl;dr: always use construction moderately. modify it and create your own approximating sketch technique. don't jump into construction as a beginner.

pic related: this is a Loomis student drawing

construction is a meme. it leads to shitty spherical manga-tier heads like >>3244274 →
if you stop constructing like a fucking paper pusher, you're doing yourself and your developement a huge favor.

construction != approximation sketching

artists have always and still use approximating sketchlines to lay out the general form. when you start to draw e.g. a person, you will want to get a few thin, quick lines on the paper to see how big you need to work as not to cut the feet or other parts at the end of the paper and for general composition.
constructing to an unexperienced artist / beginner will mostly lead to confusion, because you start treating every head and body like a conjunction of spheres, equators to measure location of eyes and nose, boxes etc. etc. ; the human skull is not a fucking sphere, it is complex and has irregular parts, for instance around the fontanel. you should mainly work from your perception of shape rather than creating a shape analysis that isn't visible. if you heavily rely on construction and instill it in your process to a point where you can't go without it, consciously or subconsciously, you've basically handicapped yourself. it will be very very difficult if not impossible to get rid of such a habit.

>tl;dr: always use construction moderately. modify it and create your own approximating sketch technique. don't jump into construction as a beginner.

pic related: this is a Loomis student drawing
it shows the typical flaws of relying exessively on deconstructing the head into shapes, measurements and trying to reconstruct it.

>>3244283
I prefer >>3244274 to your pic. At least it has some mass and form. Yours looks good enough as a thumb, but falls apart when you scale it up

>>3244327
the student masturbating over the Loomis head has simply wasted more time than the one with the "medicine ball" anime head. what exactly are you getting at? does it matter how good a "thumbnail" looks?

>>3244331
You have no authority and your argument is weak. You have nothing going but hot opinions and some repressed frustration.

>>3244331
Yeah, it does. It shows good composition. Masturbating over Loomis is just an art meme. He's okay as a starting point.

>>3244333
>You have no authority and your argument is weak. You have nothing going but hot opinions and some repressed frustration.
it's you who has no argument and it seems like you are getting very upset. the results are both absolutely unnatural in looks and unappealing.

>>3239400
People dont realize how big a fucktard you are on this site it's going to be archived

>>3239291
>"everyone calling me out is just one person!"

Nice try MOMAron.

>I'll be contemplating what I will do to your account. Expect something "nice" to happen ...

You are an even more petty, sad and pathetic chump than I even thought. Get a life you fucking autistic sperg retard loser lmao

>>3242675
the ultimate solution for drawing clothing

>>3244333
>You have no authority
my god, what a baby you are. what kind of schoolyard remark is that? are you genuinely autistic?

>>3244436
hey, is it you?

>>3245035
>this is the sickness that is anime

>>3245035
I don't know who this guy is, but he looks like a pretty good artist.

>>3245035
will you two ever fuck off with your nambo-moma drama?
just take yout faggotyr to discord or wathever other place already.

>>3237593
That is just an amazing story. I am in tears.

I wonder if there's a longer version of this video - and more that cover hands, clothes, etc?

>>3245082
Unlike the "MOMA" yapping little shitforbrains, I'm bringing actual points into discussions and invite anyone to argue against it. All the MOMA-shitposter ever talks about is how it's a "Jew conspiracy" or "money laundering", which are fabrications and exaggerations that say nothing about the actual themes discussed in contemporary art.

What's your motivation in being here? If it's not allowed or welcomed to discuss art reception, than what SHOULD we ever write about on here??

>>3245111
>https://boards.fireden.net/ic/search/text/Nambo/
Sorry, but according to deleted posts in archive, you're pure cancer. This >>3245035 and this >>3239297 already proves a lot. No one in sane mind should listen your screeching about art. Especially if your draw like this >>3237674

>>3245118
>draw like this
strange that no one ever complained so much about that drawing except for you with your petty little shitposting.
"post your work" meme trap is real

>>3245124
>you
What? I just made a conclusion based at this post >>3237679 You're sick in the head.

>>3243873
There is absolutely something to say about being able to create works that are photorealistic.