/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3840288
Yo Dante, Virgil, whats up

>>3840288
>>3840298
Why does it look like the figures are in front of a green screen?

>>3840349
Because there is no depth in the background.

>>3840288
>>3840298

They look like cutscenes from an early 90s CD rom video game, repainted.

>>3840288
>>3840298
They're not bad, but they look kind of 'off' to me. Like they might have been photobashed.

>>3840288
they can't.

>>3840298
its nobody going to comment on the right hand on the left arm?

>>3840298
>>3840288
>>3840612
>pay models to wear robes
>pose them
>take pics
>paint directly from photo and make a vague background so nobody notices that you can't paint environments
this is the trap of going to an atelier style art school and not doing any kind of imaginative work at all. once artists like them leave the school they cannot do anything but copy photos of models because they never trained their minds to imagine and think in 3d. they never leave their comfort zone of copying master paintings and doing still lifes so while they are technically good, none of their paintings have any sort of depth.

>>3840677
based

>>3840298
Are his hands inverted?

>>3840288
>greasy figures
He sucks? I’ll spend 160hours on an oil painting and do something just as kitsch

>>3840677
I have a friend who did the florence academy circuit, she is an excellent oil painter and artist.

But she suffers exactly from what you mentioned. inability construct interesting scenes or subjects from imagination.She even posted a video where she was working on her next big project and there was a literal nude old lady model sitting on her couch.

Regardless, that stuff still fetches big bucks.

>>3840693
This makes me feel good in my soul. Been chatting with too many doomed boomers lately. Loomis.

>>3840288
>>3840298
photobash

>>3840677
>>3840693
that's all true but those artists are at least creating something instead of chasing a dream very few can reach. the guy in op should just stick to what he knows. Art doesn't have to be imaginative to be good. But if you want to go that path you have to realize the amount of work and talent it takes to create anything decent from imagination (not talking about people who do simple bust portraits or simple landscapes). you not only have to constantly be drawing but also observing everything around you and understanding how it works in a basic sense. Those who have been drawing since they were kids and have made it their habit instead of just practice to get good, are the once who have a chance at getting that good. Meanwhile, other artists just learn to paint what they see then they create art of things they interest them by setting up scenes with girls or do landscapes and plain-air. most people who try to create from their imagination give up after a lot of practice but you only hear about the successful ones.

>>3840349
The direction and temperature of the light sources on the figure and environment don’t match. The figures look like they are indoors being lit by cool artificial light.

>>3840983
>that's all true but those artists are at least creating something instead of chasing a dream very few can reach
I think all artists are chasing that dream, whether they do purely imaginative work or copy from life.
> But if you want to go that path you have to realize the amount of work and talent it takes to create anything decent from imagination
You stated it very clearly, any smuck can learn how to paint a perfect painting from life, but it takes talent to draw from the imagination.

>>3841056
> I think all artists are chasing that dream, whether they do purely imaginative work or copy from life
That's a weird assumption. Not every one holds your values
> any smuck can learn how to paint a perfect painting from life, but it takes talent to draw from the imagination.
Yep, now we will see if you have the talent that warrants your smug attitude towards all the great art created from life.

>>3841413
Not him, but there's something to be said about someone who can create a good quality piece purely from imagination vs. someone who needs 'help' from life/references. The first shows a clear mental aptitude the other doesn't have.

>>3841421
Le talent meme

>>3841426
Sorry, but drawing something good from purely your own mind, rather than using a crutch/stepping stone, will always be more impressive from a technical standpoint.

>>3841421
If you noticed my first post >>3840983
I implied it actually requires more talent to create something from imagination. That doesn't mean art created from reference is worth less.

>>3841433
Anything done with reference will always look better than being done from imagination. Drawing from imagination happens from repeatedly drawing the same subject from reference or life...

>>3841473
>Anything done with reference will always look better than being done from imagination.
That's a pretty big generalization. But still, drawing from imagination is objectively more technically impressive.

>>3841426
>everyone is the same, we can all learn the same things and achieve the same results, everyone gets a trophy

>>3841480
It's not a generalization, it's a fact, reference provide invaluable information which your mind will most likely not remember. Even Painting from life provides info which a photo cant. Drawing from imagination isnt more impressive, its the outcome which matters.

>>3841413
While I personally think that imaginative work is leagues above glorified photocopying, art is completely subjective and worth is ultimately set by the societies response to it.

>Yep, now we will see if you have the talent that warrants your smug attitude towards all the great art created from life.

Calm down bucko we are in agreement on this topic. There's tons of work that goes into still life/referenced art that, doesn't make it lesser or worse than imaginative, it's just a different approach that uses different muscles.

Muscles that you can't buy in an atelier or art school.

>>3841494
Wasn't disagreeing with you on the outcome. That was exactly my point. A well-drawn imaginative piece is objectively better technicality-wise than a reference piece of the same quality (same outcome).

I'm not saying "reference-based art sucks", it has it's own merits. I'm saying that not everyone has (or can even attain) good imaginative drawing skills, while you *can* teach someone to photocopy references/still life in an art school.

So reference pieces may all look 'good' visually, but how they were attained is far less technically impressive than someone who can create the same thing using only his/her mind.