/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

epic wall of theorycrafting from NGMI

>>3573900
sorry to hear that you are illiterate. here's a gif for your goldfish tier short-term memory.

the best artist to ever live hasn't been born yet, painting is at its core as old as charcoal and cave walls, if we lived in a world of thinking machines capable of mass producing sargents projected onto our shiny chrome arcologys someone will still be spreading pigment around by hand or with a tool its integral with the human condition even if it isn't part of everyones life or the most discussed aspect of society

>>3573961
>mass producing sargents
how come someone or a handful of anons here keep spamming Sargent as a sort of god of painting? compared to Manet or Velazquez, he is a pleb "réalisme bourgeois" painter.

but yes, it will probably always be a part of the human condition, simply as a media and vessel for expression. but it will decline in relevance. Duchamp already frowned upon "retinal art" and everything that is basically "artistically rendering" what you see. maybe this human touch of slight inaccuracy, stylization, dynamic, gesture and all can some day be emulated entirely by AI to a point where you could basically program a Van Gogh app.

art is the sur-plus of society. it is completely obsolete, unnecessary for living. it is just a nice extra. so i can imagine it one day falling through the grid entirely, a time without art and without the slightest thought of wasting your time with that, throughout all social layers.

>>3573905
But he’s right. Just by asking if painting is dead, you’re proving that you aren’t a painter who’s selling work. Actual painters are aware that their trade is alive. It’s also weird that you seem to think hobbyist painting is a recent thing.

>>3574072
yeah nah, youre being retarded. "unnecessary for living" is a meme argument,

>>3574096
the fact that you either sell paintings or you don't - as well as exhibiting regularly - doesn't have any connection with a general decline in interest and relevance of painting. i'm pointing out a few pros and cons arguing both sides. painting as an artform has proven to be crisis-resistant and paintings still sell for incredible amounts of money. most of the top artists worldwide are painters by profession. people will much rather buy a painting than a video or a performance art piece. yet, i think that painting as an art form can't compete with the stimulations that we encounter everyday through the media.

>>3574102
yeah nah, you're just negating without bringing any counter-argument. yeah nah, meh, pfff.

>>3574072

Velazquez, maybe,

Manet? gtfo...

>>3574874
Manet was way clearer in his painting style and far less decorative compared to Sargent, while he had the same level of space and liveliness. I also prefer his themes much more than those of Sargent, which seem to mostly revolve around peoples looks. Manets topics are more bold and definitely not as "pleasing" as those of Sargent.

Like wine and other goods that stood the test of Time, painting / traditional drawing will most probably never die until our extinction...

>>3573893
You forgot, traditional painting is very expensive compared to digital.

>>3573893
>It is niche, elitist and frowned upon to paint.

Until third world countries get internet connection and computers, no, painting is not dead. It's not as expensive to paint as much as other hobbies like anime collection or miniatures (as an example). Top notch musical instruments are also worthy to get into, provided you actually incorporate your hobby into your daily routines.

It's only online that you hear painting or old traditions are dead, mainly because paintings are expensive and customers are after cheaper medium (reality is often different from online forums).

I will agree that it is niche because it requires effort, but even the poorest of people can paint without being called elitist.

I don't really enjoy abstract paintings tho.

>>3573893
painting isn't dead it just smells funny.

>>3573893
you're factually wrong when you think media means traditional is unpopular. people take photos of paintings and put them on media all the time.

your ignorance about art culture is childish. no wonder you have such an extremist, dead-end opinion of where things are headed. all you're seeing is a reflection of your own shit. here's a novel thought: stop worrying about things you have no control over and rightly do not understand.

art is in no danger whatsoever. it's never been more affluent. it just isn't the way *you* want it to be.

>>3574072
>stylization, dynamic, gesture and all can some day be emulated entirely by AI
unless an AI is self aware it's going to produce horrendous results beyond superficial limits. and if it's self aware who the fuck cares if it's an AI? i fucking loathe kids who think they have AI all sorted out when they don't even know how machine learning works.

>>3573893

if you look at jazz, jazz is dead. but even so new things are happening in jazz all the time, they just don't matter very much, they're just the actual new stuff mixed back into a jazz tradition. jazz is dead because it has been made academic.

you can tell a things dead when it has been academicised.

painting is hard to kill though, they tried it in the late 1800s and it popped back up, they tried it post war and it popped back up thanks to the americans, it started dying again after that but the 80s propped it up again via a hungry market and it's been slowly sinking back down into academia ever since then. but there is a growing appreciation for the fine arts in asia, so there's a whole bunch of new mix and matching to do with asian traditions and the western canon, so there's still new stuff happening in painting. so it lives on.

the funny thing about /ic/ is that it only likes the dead parts (generally of course) still-born preferred. the more bourgeois the better.

so really we have to wonder if death might be good for an art form.

>>3575629
>music is dead because it is has been 'academicised'.
>animation is dead because animation schools exist.
>painting is dead even though there's more of it in circulation than any point in history.

>>3573893
painting will continue to persist for the same reasons that it's existed in spite of photography and film. The consumption of art has always been connected to social behavior. It's often made to be exhibited publicly. And it serves as physical evidence of history. Unlike all the digimon shit where there isn't REALLY such a thing as an "original" piece for people's braindicks to get wet about. You can do a rad giclee print or whatever but there's just something about painting on canvas that likely can't be captured through non-"traditional' digimon means.

Like that one Van Gogh painting where you can see where he got frustrated or whatever and started stabbing at the canvas with the palette knife. Can't capture that with a tablet. There's a lot of frustration and learning and growing that you're never forced to deal with when you're making digital art and everything can easily be undone.

If anything we're entering a period in history where actual paintings will probably be retroactively valued a lot higher. May not be in our lifetimes but what even is time really.

In many ways we're entering a dark age of physical media. The internet was probably a mistake.

>>3575641
music isn't equivalent to painting it's equivalent to art, i said jazz was dead, specifically though, to illustrate that a dead medium can still be doing new things, and that it's not new stuff being made which decides whether an art form is dead or not, but whether or not the art form is developing.

a thing being academicised and a thing being taught aren't the same thing

i said painting isn't dead.

>>3575648
a tablet can only recreate analog instructions into discrete representations. it can never do something outside its programming. so at the most fundamental level digital is very anti-artistic. it seems more of a rejection of life, forcing images into dead simplifications by extremely overpowered tools.

>>3575654
you can only tell retroactively whether new things being created are innovative or not. you will never have a full view of what is going on at any one time or what it means outside your own perspective. just a change in perspective often turns a lot of art categories on their head. do you even postmodern?

>>3575655
i think though you can do so many things with iteration and what not that computers actually can add lots of accident to your work, even without bit bending and all that.

for example i made this attractive looking edit by applying many many filters, the computer didn't think that i'd get a weird pseudo-vangogh look by changing dots into blobs into lines into dots into blobs

>>3575658
that's not true, to tell if something is innovative it just has to not be like the old thing. it might be hard to tell if it's a dead end or not though.

>>3575675
here's another cool version i got from that, it doesn't have anything to do with anything but i like it. sort of like an arty colour transfer.

>>3575675
nothing about that looks van gogh?
why do you think superficial accident is relevant to analog vs digital information. maybe i'm assuming people don't know much about the physics side of this.

>>3575683
if you're going to be a dick i'm not going to talk with you about it, so there

>>3575679
how do you know whether two things are the same or not? even the creator of a painting doing a copy of their work will not make the same thing twice. even computers can't do it if you look closely enough. the only thing deciding similarity and difference is your personal perspective.

>>3575655
>>3575675
>>3575682
it's still always going to be seen FIRST as the creation of a computer I feel like. Especially compared to a "traditional" and personalized kind of painting. Like people don't like Van Gogh for his ability to algorythmically make a bunch of swipey textures on an image. His style was a reflective of his erratic humanity. When you look at his paintings, particularly when they're right in front of you IRL, you see the textures and the stab marks and it connects you to the artist through a single thing.

The painting is a portal to the artist's history and personality. Unlike an algorythm, people get lazy and leave parts undone or only focus on the parts they like or leave mistakes caused by mindless grinding and everything else. You never are going to have a digital painting where the painter got frustrated with a shadow and out of spite gave the woman an afternoon shadow. It's the wabi sabi personality of the endeavor that makes it more appealing generally.

And I'm not even saying fuck digital. It's just that actual paintings aren't going anywhere. As long as rich people have money that needs laundering there will be a market.

>>3575720
>As long as rich people have money that needs laundering there will be a market.
additionally, even without a market paintings will still be around. we just won't have all these kids thinking they can setup a business around it.

>>3575720
yeah most likely. i think it's a bit unfair. only human souls are worth looking into?
there are those walking machines, don't they sort of ask the audience to consider the automatic processes of a machine as a kind of life?

>>3574874
>>3574072
lol @ Manet.

And I can only imagine the constant Sargent bashing is led out of jealousy.

>>3575902
every faggot realism painter alive today has an obnoxious manchild crush for sargent with little acknowledgement for other artists across the entire span of history. the level of self unawareness is unreal.

>>3574961
that yaoi hand at the far right

>>3575911
Yes, you are quite correct. I am quite unaware of any other painter, and base my assumptions entirely on the pleasing melody of the alliteration of his initials.

>>3573893
Why do you seem to think "painting" is entirely a traditional medium? Because if you saw digital painting as just another form of painting, you would see that by the proliferation of social media, art is in fact more consumed than it ever was. The idea that an artist would spend months painting something for it to end inside the house of a rich nobody is sad to me. And that was the outcome if you "made it", otherwise your work would just rot in your room.
Todays world is far more rewarding an interesting for a painter, imo.

>>3576454
this is a good point. Even if you're a real sack of shit painter, social media and internetted global connectivity means you can pretty easily get you more exposure to an audience than a master painter may have gotten in their entire life a few centuries ago.

And as we enter a period of increased automation and less industrial necessity for labor, there will likely be a whole new resurgence of all types of art. There's more people with nothing better to do than any other time in history.

As long as painting has soul, it will always live. Like saying drawing is a dying art