/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3360141
I'd like to know how many ever drew from imagination and a "visual library" or if it was all smoke and mirrors. Is there any examples of concept art of the old masters prior to Goya for instance

>mfw anon believes what he reads in a book written by a jealous old hack that can't draw himself, hence choosing to ascribe all genius to 'gizmos' rather than grinding fundies.

Get out.

>>3360174
>caravaggio paintings have lens errors and double perspective tricks
ok retard.

One of such examples is a hand that is twice the size of the other.

This tracing shit is getting stale, can't we all just agree to go back to parroting "needs more Loomis" and shitpost like gentlemen?

Tracers naturally want everyone else to believe they did it entirely with skill, and thus would want to convince everyone else that drawing over photos/models is bad since it leverages their own abilities.

The people trying to convince you not to use these techniques are crabs. They would love nothing more for you to draw endless figures and garbage no one cares about while they produce better looking work at a much more efficient pace, while getting paid.

>>3360141
when you realize david hockney i full of shit and you're just as bad as a flat earther

>>3360180
There are eyewitness accounts of Caravaggio painting with his models in front of him, no tricks required.
FFS, just because you'll NGMI.

is it just me or are the bait threads getting more and more obvious

>>3360157
>"visual library"
>>3360141

the real dilemma with /ic/ is that everyone seems to think getting better at doing art is simply like a series of quests in a MPORG. You do your xy fundies, "build your visual library", learn to draw box-faces, "grind" your shitty sticky checklist and that's it. Voila, an artist is you.
If you look at artist biographies, literally no one has immitated a generalized, given path and became famous by copying someone elses steps without giving their own twist to the story. yet, on /ic/ everyone is encouraging you to become a stencil-tier generic illustration faggot. this place is creative hell.

>>3360404
there's also tons of obvious errors in caravaggio's stuff.

anyway the reason that stuff looks so photographic isn't because they cheated by using lenses. it's because the science of optics which created the lenses allowed the artists to look at painting in a new way. just like linear perspective earlier on, just like photography and film and pc computers and everything else now.

>>3360269
Tim’s vermeer says you are wrong

>>3360437
>there's also tons of obvious errors in caravaggio's stuff.

Give evidence, obviously of things you noticed, & not just stuff you're parroting from books by jealous hacks.

>>3360437
>there's also tons of obvious errors in caravaggio's stuff.
oh look, it's probably another "budd deh anadomy is shet!" parrot!

drawing from imagination has always been for purpose of creativity, naturally gearing one towards stylization. Drawing from imagination is not a rule, it's an exercise.
Don't worry. I was like you too. I thought the endgame was drawing everything from imagination. Turns out that's bullshit, you are correct. The real question is why you need an end-game in the first place. Goals are good and dandy, but dealing with the fact that anything you do is meaningless is also good for you too.
Take those 'old masters' you refer to. So what they traced models. They got their work put up, adored, and recorded in history books. Now people trying to sell art supplies use them for marketing. Is it the marketing you are waking up to? Could be, probably is.
Drawing everyday won't help you escape from yourself, drawing everyday won't help you get to heaven before dying. Drawing everyday means you drew every day. That's it.

>>3360435
>You need your own twist with fundies and cuz /ic/ teaches only fundies /ic/ is bad

>>3360452
there's just lots of little things, to do mainly with perspective and proportion. it's the common critical opinion that his reliance on models meant sometimes his figures didn't fit well together, so it's not like i'm some maverick shooting down gods here, i think he's a genius just like everyone else.

here's an example. can you spot the weird proportion.

>>3360494
>can you spot the weird proportion.
if the painting was "correct", it would be half as interesting. painting plays with our perception. all /ic/ faggots can think about is seeing that as a flaw and trying to get 100% good at anatomy and perspective. El Greco would be entirely insignificant and useless, if any of the illusory, scholastic and childish meme-measures of /ic/ were true in any way.

>>3360445
What bothered me about that documentary is that they never showed a detailed side by side comparison of the paintings. Where the fuck can I find a JPG of the copy?

SPOILER ALERT:
Banksy is Hockney

>>3360513
so you do or don't think he traced a projection?you're sort of arguing both sides here, or have you forgotten the thread and you just want to vent about how kids these days don't get mannerism.

>>3360174
>Oh look something is off! Must be a lens error!

>Oh look, this drawing is way too accurate! Must have used a lens!

Hockney even accused Ingres of using some sort of device. If you think that the diffculty of those drawings are in getting the proportions right, then I don't really know what to say to you.

>>3360526
>you're sort of arguing both sides here, or have you forgotten the thread and you just want to vent about how kids these days don't get mannerism.
i am arguing both sides, yes. the documentary makes sense and Hockney pretty much shows the effects optics had on the paintings, like the color aberations in Vermeer that can only originate from optical aids.
Hockney also says that it's not a crutch or "cheating" at all to use these methods, because the artists were already confident in their artistic eye and skill. Vermeer has selected some of the most iconic motifs and compositions to turn into a painting:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jan+vermeer+lacemaker&atb=v109-6&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.easyart.com%2Fi%2Fprints%2Flg%2F2%2F5%2F25897.jpg

And yes, kids these days easily reject mannerism for seeming "incorrect" or showing what they deem as flaws by their checklist-based learning curve of drawing. illustration faggots on /ic/ are completely oblivious about
a sense of abstraction. it is one of the most impressive skills to make something that is constructed odd and in parts feeling incorrect like >>3360494 while still giving the general idea of it being realistic. this grey area is one of the highest goals that you can achieve as an artist. but instead, kids are doing "porn art" with caricature-esque blown up proportions and think it's an improvement.

>>3360539
that's all bunkum. with the study of optics artists observed optical effects (from there own vision even, no need for a lens) and included them in there paintings for effect. modern day tromp de l'oeil painters do it all the time, without reference to a photo, plein air people often do it too. some of the stuff he says is also straight up bullshit, mischaracterizing the times and the progression of drawing in art. there was no 'and they magically got good at drawing here' moment unless you mean when oil painting was invented. also he points out things which are 'out of focus' which any painter can tell you are just unimportant details being painted more loosely to again lead the viewer and let his eye rest where it should.

do you really think velasquez needed a lens for la meninas

>>3360644
>do you really think velasquez needed a lens for la meninas
kids won't hold still. same with animals. you notice that a lot of children paintings and animal drawings, even by DaVinci, are odd and twisted.

if you've seen the documentary and understood what was pointed out, you wouldn't confuse "out of focus" with copied lense inaccuracies and color aberations that typically form around the edges.

>>3360648
Not the guy you are answering to, but it's annoying how Hockney tries to have it both ways. He fair counterargument to his theory is that some stuff just won't hold still, which he tries to turn into an argument for his theory. In any case, stuff that won't hold still is just hard to draw from observation. Stuff that looks wonky is lens distortion and stuff that looks accurate is accurate because a lens was used. His experiments didn't really hold up. All they proved is that accurate measuring is only a very small part of being good.

>>3360648
well we'll see i'm rewatching it now. so far it's been, point out things which are out of focus was hackney says 'eyes don't go out of focus' over an over as if that were true and observable and absurdly false.

>>3360659
why did i typo that so hard

>well we'll see, i'm rewatching it now. so far they've just
been pointing out things which are out of focus while hackney says 'eyes don't go out of focus' over an over as if that isn't obviously wrong.

there we go

>>3360659
>well we'll see, i'm rewatching it now. so far they've just been pointing out things which are out of focus. and hackney keeps saying 'eyes don't go out of focus,' which is absurd.

fixed i hope

>>3360659
>eyes don't go out of focus
for a healthy person, they actually don't. the center spot where you are looking at is pretty much always focused. it would be absurd to think that the depth of field with certain areas of a distance being out of focus, typical for lenses, has anything to do with normal, human vision.

>>3360672
eyes have a pretty shallow depth of field though and you can see and paint things at the edge of your vision/focus. and people often do. it's even analogous to atmospheric perspective so it slides right into an artist's toolkit.

>>3360494
This altarpiece is meant to be viewed from below, so from that perspective the effect of the conversion is most dramatic and heightened.

>>3360721
it looks even weird from below.

The only thing that tracing allows you to do is to trace the lines, which in a drawing or painting it's one of the easiest things to do. The actual painting, shading, rendering, layering, etc.. is the hard stuff, which tracing doesn't help you at all.
These are David's drawings using and optical device to trace.

>>3360794
lel, here's rockwells "tracing" for comparison

>>3360404
>no surviving drawing example of caravaggio drawing from imagination found today
>he thinks photorealistic quality portraits can be done with imagination
ok retard /beg/ tier deluded faggot.

>>3360451
read OP book, it literally gives you dozen of examples of obvious traced shit, like broken as fuck perspective, limbs longer than usual, faces being small as fuck, limbs not properly bending, things in the ceiling rendered as front shit.

historians literally just go on damage control to avoid telling you the old masters were a bunch of photobashing faggots using camera osbcura and concave mirrors and lenses.

>>3360141
hockney is a hack, he's never seen the matrix himself so he can't comprehend how easy it is to paint a figure accurately. We have living proof that any manchild can create photo realistic renderings in 2 years of practice. Old masters we're cutting up cadavers and had models on call 24/7 before they hit puberty.

>>3360840
who was so bored that they analyzed someone using a reference

>>3360528
>he doesn't know loomis in his books uses photographic reference
>le draw from imagination meme

https://www.pinterest.com.mx/pin/258816309808154633/

>>3360657
>>3360659
literally damage defense force.

when you have literal DOF on the middle of the tablecloth patterns, is obvious they used a concave mirror.

>but I'll defend the honor of medieval photobashers

Not even the best marvel illustrators can do realistic comics without heavy photoreference.

>>3360870
you need some kind of grid system for acuratelly doing realism.

>>3360863
>...the unanimous independent expert reviews in the scholarly literature of the Hockney tracing theory for the early Renaissance (1420–1550)—from 11 scientists/technologists (and counting), 9 historians of art and optics, two curators and two award-winning professional realist artists—have rejected the claims (or at best found the claims unproven)

>...a four-day international symposium devoted to testing the theory rejected the theory unanimously and in no uncertain terms

>...every rigorously reviewed journal or conference paper addressing the theory rejects its claims for the works addressed (Hockney and Falco have yet to publish rigorous peer-reviewed scholarship supporting their theory)

>>3360900
>(((peer review)))
>(((academia)))
wow, literally damage control.

>>3360528
>>3360157
im sure it must be frustrating if you cant see it. vermeer and ingres definitely use a camera

>>3360879
It's well known that Rockwell traced in his later years to save time.

>>3360917
oops meant
>>3360174
>>3360528

>>3360141
Are you implying that the majority of artists throughout history cared primarily for the finished piece, unlike /ic/ which is stuck in an eternal cycle of studies and sketches? Imagine my shock

>>3360794
They look like the faces he normally draws. What a load of bunkum.

>>3360904
lol, do people really get triggered by peer-review?
i know you're trolling but did you get it from somewhere? like the flat earth people maybe?

>>3360859
>>3360863
wow, please same fag me more, while crying because Caravaggio & Ingres shit all over you & your m8 Hackney.

>>3360939
why is it then that whenever they try to do something more imaginative, the realism utterly fails?

>>3360945
compare that with this one, laughable difference

>>3360945
that's from the 19th century dude, completely unrelated.

>>3360945
It's one thing to competently replicate the sitter in front of you, another thing altogether to make a history painting, or Biblical scene from a collection of bodies and objects.
Are you people seriously suggesting that Ingres resorted to using a tiny room with a peep hole to project an image, and none of his society sitters noticed?

>>3360952
im dont care about that stuff, all i care about is what i see in the paintings. look at the little waterstream in the bath. because the water would be moving or maybe because he didnt have running water in the studio he was unable to make it look right. same thing with this one, buildings look good, water looks shit

>>3360945
Because drawing from imagination is harder, especially if you want to make it look realistic. You conspiracy fags are absolutely delusional.

>>3360965
its not so much conspiracy, i just see that it looks like a camera was used.

>>3360968
Well sure you can make a case that it looks like that, I was just pointing out that the argument was absolute nonsense. I am not dismissive about the possibility, especially because there aren't many drawings/studies by Vermeer, but most of the arguments are just wrong.

>>3360840
Using a reference or copying is not the same as tracing. David is talking about literally tracing, projecting an image and tracing the lines.

>check old masters drawings from imagination
>clearly cartoon shit
>check their finished pieces
>clearly photorealistic, like a photo
wow, move more the goal post retards.

your old masters were nothing more than photobashers.

>>3360157
>Is there any examples of concept art of the old masters prior to Goya for instance

Michelangleo's dragon...

>>3360157
>>3361120

>Is there any examples of concept art of the old masters prior to Goya for instance

Da Vinci's Dragon knight...

>>3360157
>>3361120
>>3361123

This is why learning art history is important. Some random fag in the internet talks about how old masters couldn't draw from imagination and everyone starts thinking it's true. I mean c'mon dumbasses, this is straight up bait.

>>3361120
yeah, this clearly looks like caravaggio shit.
clearly photorealistic.

>post cartoon shit drawn by the masters
>It clearly looks like portraits from the baroco
wow, trully convinced.

>David Hockney...

This is the faggot that you believe should be the authority when saying old masters didn't draw from imagination??

>>3361128

Hey retard, why are you bringing up caravaggio? Are you fucking moving the goal post or something?

>>3361130
post one single drawing done by an old master from imagination that clearly looks like the baroco masterpieces done by photobashing from camera oscura and concave mirrors.

>le everyone centuries back were left handed

>>3361137
show me evidence caravaggio didn't just traced all his paintings using camera oscura.

also your dragon looks like anything a mangaka can draw today.

please fuck off and kill yourselves

>>3360794
Don't be ridiculous, you can trace pretty much everything with the correct setup of lenses and mirrors. Watch Tim's Vermeer as an example.

>>3361139
Lol, why would you care about that? His paintings were original and have had massive impact on the art world for being a master of light and one of the first painters to use chiaroscuro. You act like he's less than a painter because you think he traced but he's better than you will ever be. Stay jealous of his accomplishments.

>>3361162
So you finally acknowledge that tracing is ok and is just a tool, right?

I don't have a problem with tracing or photobashing, but I hate the retards who scream, le loomis, le fundamentals, le old masters from imagination when old masters were photobashing since the renaissance.

Is not like photography is also an art.

>>3360141
When did you realize that how the old masters did their art doesn't matter, and that art changes with technology?

>thinking that the difficulty of painting is in getting the proportions right
>this what normies actually believe

>>3361139
>show me evidence caravaggio didn't just traced all his paintings using camera oscura.

Like I thought faggot, you're moving the goal post. I'm not just referring to Caravaggio, whether or not he used camera obscura is IRRELEVANT.

What I'm referring to is EVERY old master before Goya.

This is who I was replying to, dumbass.
> Is there any examples of concept art of the old masters prior to Goya for instance

>also your dragon looks like anything a mangaka can draw today.

Try doing that a time when there was no internet connection faggot.

It's easy to talk shit about old masters and how you can be better than them, when you have every fucking art resource at the tip of your fingertips using a computer.

Fucking hell, I bet you can't even draw a simple human figure without reference.

>>3361153
great little movie. i dont really care if they used a camera or not. i think the paintings speak for them selves what they have to offer each spectator

>>3361188
>ask for evidence of le old master drawing from imagination
>It looks like your average realistic manga from a random seinen magazine
wow, trully the peak of art, I'm trully convinced now.

keep posting those cartoons faggot.

>>3360950
if he traced it then how come the foot looks all fucked up?

>>3361182
This. No rules just tools.

>>3361193
lol, didnt see that. honestly, dunno could be a weird trick of the light, or an edit. it jumps out now that youve mentioned it

>>3361193
I don't know if he traced or not. And I really don't give a shit.

But.
It is fairly common when people trace that they lose grasp of the bigger picture so that the trace looks weird as fuck.
To trace properly (so that you can't tell it's traced) is a genuine skill.

Actual drawing by Hockney based on his theory. Judge for yourself. Doesn't work for painting though, that was tried in the Tim's Vermeer documentary with some other device. You want to see the the painting from the Tim's Vermeer documentary? Too bad, no close-up image of it exists (to my knowledge) and it's locked up in that guys's private bedroom. Why not present a side by side? Why not even film a timelapse of the painting, considering they went through so much effort in the documentary?

>>3361486
There are some decently high res images of Tim's Vermeer.

>>3360959
>water looks shit

It looks fantastic dude, you're being an idiot.

I can't believe there are still one or two anons here still shilling this old masters had to cheat crap.
Give it up, only other tards are giving you the benefit.

>>3361706
ok, maybe not shit, but definitely not the same realism as the buildings. same with the clouds

>>3360950
disgusting, reminds me of my ex. why would anyone wanna paint this mess of a human.

>>3361675
worst part is that the illustration goes to the edges of the shirt. Only geeks and and africans in second hand clothing wears those.

If you retards really think that the diffiult part is getting the measuring right, then just go take a sight-size method workshop at an atelier. You will learn it in a month and the process is less tedious then the Tim's Vermeer crap and will yield better results. Sight-size skips fundies, no understanding of form needed and you don't have to use your brain much.

>>3361486
Vermeer traced and took artistic liberty with colors. There's nothing wrong with it, I don't know why artists get so upset about the dumbest shit. Vermeer's painting is obviously a better painting than Tim's. The artist supersedes the process.

Bemp

>>3362469

I second this.

When I go to do a painting, I want to get to the painting, not spend hours re drawing the render I just made for it. There's no point in slowing your process down just to prove you can artistically wank it.

I can't believe people actually believe imaginitive realism isn't possible.

>is 2018
>Riccardo Federici exists
>literally started his career doing medical illustrations
> mastered perspective
>mastered lighting
>can draw super realistic faces and figures from insane perspectives without any reference or tracing

>>3365167
>shadows completely off and retarded
>imagined realism
Something smells super-fishy here

>crabcucks so mindbroken they start to pretent that the world universe just doesn't know how to draw
Pfahahahahahahahah whatever makes you sleep at night.

>>3365172
Incorrect criticism but alrighty .

Also I don't see what your gripe is with the term "imaginitive realism". it's literally just realistic images drawn from imagination.

>>3365181
>Pfahahahahahahahah
The world universe makes me sleep at night.

"Everybody is an artist!" - Joseph Beuys
"Everybody dance now!" - dat song in your head nao.

>>3365167
>I can't believe people actually believe imaginitive realism isn't possible.
because no one said that.

>>3365167
>without any reference
It's almost impossible to create realism, imaginative or not, without any reference whatsoever.

>>3365203
see the pic at >>3365185

no ref, buddy o' pal

>>3365203
Vilppu and Gurney can.

>>3365203
Bullshit. Read both Scott Robertson books, you can perfectly calculate both the forms and perspective of an object and its shadows. Now fuck off human shitstain.

>>3365210
Gurney uses loads of references.

>>3365203
Get blown out.

>>3365167
Look at these lazy fucking shadows. The shadow of the shoe is even placed behind the fucking ass cheek. The one he made this is a copyfag and too stupid to even add just a hint of his own ideas.

>>3365217
nice try, crab; but you're wrong.

>>3365236
Nice try, imaginative realizer, but you're wrong. Not gonna tell u why though, like you did, just gonna say you're wrong

>>3365212
Bit harsh. And yes I know you can. Let me rephrase what I said. Every realist artist I know uses references of some sort, to some degree.

>>3365253
crabs don't deserve proper answers

>>3365258
You're wrong
(you)

>>3365236
(you)

>>3365259
you don't, shit on good art, get talked to like someone with down syndrome. I'll kick dirt in your face all day you stupid crab.

>>3365266
>get talked to like someone with down syndrome.
That's where you are WRONG, kiddo.
Nice denglish btw, really hurts.

>>3365253
you literally pointed out a single shadow in a quick sketch where the cast shadow on the ground wasn't even the focus like it was the ultimate smoking gun for your misguided belief that no human being is capable of conjuring such images without references. Shouldn't even have to argue why that's fucking stupid.

like I said; the guy started out as a medical illustrator. He creates many images in insane amounts of time from angles or in physical states you can't find in a reference. you seem to be under the presumption that realism requires one to memorize an impossibly infinite level of detail- but that's retareded, obviously. pic related.

>>3365280
That's where you are WRONG, kiddo. I never said it was impossible. But don't try to fool yourself that that catlady pose isn't two clicks away in thw search engine of your choice. You fell for a scam.

>>3365288
drawing a pose that exists in various images doesn't implicitly mean the artist referenced or traced said imagery; especially when you consider all the how intimately the artist already knows the anatomy.

>all the imagination works made by realist fags from imagination looks like typical marvel or seinen shit
>huh duh muh realism
>can't even post photorealistic shit drawn from imagination
ok cucks.

>>3360141
>Hockney

The man cannot draw or paint to save his life and the Hockney-Falco thesis is inherently flawed in that the working width of a camera obscura projection is at most two feet across, whereas all the artists they accuse of relying on such technology painted on far larger canvasses.

The ramblings of this salty old hack are inherently falsifiable by there being literally hundreds if not thousands of painters worldwide capable of painting to the same technical levels as, for example, Vermeer, but demonstrably without reliance on optics.

>>3361486
Even with an image to trace this is still /beg/-tier. Get fucked, Hockney.

>>3361004
>cocks are located at navel height

i was naively hoping at least on /ic/ it was posted an anatomicallly correct version of this.

>>3366811
it's based on a pic of zyzz where he has a girl kissing his abs

>>3360141
That's why I love El Greco and Michelangelo because they obviously weren't trace fags yet could churn out dynamic figures.

>>3360174
>david hockney is a jealous old hack
lmfao hot take

imagine being OP and getting more attention for your obvious bait shitposting than your art ever did

>>3366861
His ipad art is laughable.

>>3360141
>camera obscura

I alwyas knwew Michelangelo was up to something in the sistine chapel 21m from the ground, darn cheater...

>>3366896
so this.....is the power.....of the OLD MASTERS...........wow........

>>3365203
you can, but it applies to certain things*. Proper lighting gives something a believable form, no matter the subject- even if exaggerated. A fantasy creature is not found in the real world, but transfer it to a painting properly, and the viewer will ask themselves "Does this actually exist.."

*I think what you were referring to, is realistic anatomy in a realistic painting. No matter the experience of the master, he always used reference to enrich and correct his painting.

>>3365185
>>3365207
don't be a silly shill, he's staring down at reference the whole time, even for shading https://www.artstation.com/artwork/aaZ9z

>>3367719
man you're about as dumb as people who like ron julia's stuff
just completely delusional, you probably believe in david hackney's bullshit

>>3367719
you cite that like it is confirmation of your claim but it isn't