/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3987645
can you do it yourself anon ?

>>3987646
It’s not a hard skill to develop. Most use grids or projectors for their line work and you can tell. I got pretty decent at photorealism but lost interest after reading Alla Prima II.

>>3987645
Normies think good art is photorealistic or cartoons, i am in a fb thrift store group about bad art finds and a bunch of normies were making fun of this piece.

>>3987650
>its not hard to develop
If its not hard then develop it

>>3987645
>Aren't CG films just the greatest?

>>3987698
Fucking retarded normalfags are the worse

>>3987699
Did you just stop reading after that word?

>>3987710
Yes i did now post your work

>>3987711
It’s in other threads :^)

>>3987645
Normies usually associate photorealistic copies with top skills, the best of the best, unfortunately they don't know any better

Newfags making and contributing to these pointless circlejerk threads are the real "normies"

Since its relevant to the topic, and I'd like this thread to be more constructive than the usual circle jerk, I'd like to purpose something

In a recent podcast with proko, he brought up an interesting tidbit on photo-realism. It was that photo-realism is a fantastic exercise.

he noted that taking the time to dissect and understand all of the parts of why a photo looks the way it does has many benefits.From understanding the colors, to the lens used in the photo and aperture (and how it effects the product) recreating a photo study can be a genuinely positive experience. When you dive that deep into studying a specific environment, lighting scene, pose or object, you gain an understanding that lets you replicate it in your own work. Photo study of a model in crazy neon colored lighting? you now know how to replicate it in your own work, and how the light acts based on skin color. And, inherently, the longer and more detailed you work on this, the more accurate your portrayal will be. Many other artists seem to echo that sentiment and the merits of doing really detailed and accurate studies

So I think the issue isn't with photo-realism itself. I think the issue is sooner with the artists that do it solely. Because when they do a piece like OPs, they aren't seeing a body in 3d space, or imagining it in their mind, dissecting and replicating the shapes and the forms of the human body, they are filling out square 32 A with its 3rd layer of red pencil crayon. They don't see the thing they are creating, or dissect why it looks like that, they are just mindlessly rendering

I guess what I'm getting at is; is there another thing we can call this type of work? its giving photo-realistic studies a bad name. Photo-rendering?

>>3987645
>photorealistic
>that
oh god, its retarded, no wonder they tried to call themselves an artist in order to get laid.

>caring what normies think
>drawing for normie approval
yikes, ok lets assume you somehow manage to change the world and normies now "respect" you.
All that will happen is:
>"Wow anon you're so good can you draw my tattoo idea? :^)"

>>3987747
this post, that's what you get for uploading shit to normiebook dumb SEAmonkey

>>3987724
Ngmi

>>3987645
lol typical /beg/ jealous and cope

>b-but its not creative
>b-but its copying
>b-but its not actually hard to do
>b-but why do people like it instead of my childlike anime OCs

>>3987645 (OP)
lol typical /beg/ jealousy and cope

>b-but its not creative
>b-but its copying
>b-but its not actually hard to do
>b-but why do people like it instead of my doodles and childlike anime characters

>>3987645
this thread is kinda meaningless without showing us what you instead consider impressive.

People tend to binge on easy culture. Normies see a photo realistic drawing and think "Wow I can't do that, this is a good drawing." They don't have to think about it very hard, or think about how it makes them feel. Or think about where it sits in the collective cultural sphere. Or think about the expression, the form, the intention of the artist to convey mood or movement or narrative.

They just think

>This drawing is good.

>>3987645
i hate normies and non-artists so much. infuriating idiots.

>>3987743
gridbashing? :^)

>>3988271
>normalfags
>think
Are you sure they go as far as that? They just see something shiny on their facebook/twitter/insta feed and click on it, woah its spiderman, it almost look like real spiderman, drawing good!!! Then promptly click on the next thing not to stop the constant feeding of pointless informations.

>>3987819
>>b-but its not creative
> >b-but its copying
those are universal truths though

>>3987819
Have sex

>>3988289
>b-but its not actually hard to do
this one too. that anon is literally retarded

>>3987698
>>3987705

if you like this piece you've got absolutely shit taste and no eye for proper head construction

>>3987743
I don't know just how "realistic" Proko had in mind, but lots of artists are known for their creative takes on photorealism. In the thumbnail of this drawing, it looks photorealistic, but upon enlargement, you see the artist (Seung Eun Kim) took liberties in designing (key word, designing) the shapes. He does this with all his photostudies. It's his style. Very angular and hatching-oriented. And it looks really cool, and even though it's not a 1:1 depiction of reality, I'm sure he learns plenty from his studies--both fundamentally and creatively.

There's a term for the modern artistic movement of copying down to the minutest details of photographs: hyperrealism. I wouldn't call OP and similar copy-styles hyperrealistic, but they're rooted in the same principle of 1:1 xerox copy. Creative decisions about the design are not made. I'd say the process is quite literally void of creativity if I weren't feeling charitable--but in fairness, I imagine there's SOME creativity in selecting what tools you use to achieve the hyperrealistic look. Ultimately the final image is very bland because it's actually a human-processed photograph. Values will never be compressed or modified for a moody effect, shapes will never be changed for a unique look, color is what you see in the photo.

Again, this is a modern phenomenon that follows the rise of high resolution photography, this wasn't something done throughout art history. Artists have always practiced realism, but not in this creatively bankrupt way. Sargent is another example.

Having said all that, whatever. Nonartists having shit taste is an eternal law. If it wasn't this, it'd be some Kinkade Disney kitsch (decidedly not realistic). If you care about being good and original, you'll do so regardless of mass popularity.

>>3987819
there's a reason why most ppl are ngmi and that coping attitude is one of them

>>3987645
>copying a photo

is there something even more uncreative

>>3988344
crabing on 4chan

>>3988344
>is there something even more uncreative

copying cartoony potato heads drawn by Loomis

>>3988296
This kind of artwork is all about the rendering. You can't tell me that photo-realistic and accurate rendering of light, shadow, color and texture is not hard to do.

Portraits don't need to be "creative'.

>>3987645
As someone who broke into the industry at 30 after 8 years of working my ass off in my afternoons after my day job, I can say with confidence that this is impressive, but only because the rendering is sound. I can see this being used as a portfolio piece, but I'd be far more concerned with how long it took him to complete it.

Illustrations in the company I work for, and especially illustrations for promo art, are usually commissioned from outside to keep our internal artists working on actual assets that will be used in-game. We run tight schedules, and he would need to make (full body) illustrations of that level of polish (with a background of similar polish) and include variations if necessary within a week.

When people polish stuff this much, it IS impressive that you spent so much time on something to achieve that level of photorealism, since most people would quit after the first few hours. Speed and flexibility, however, is necessary to get paid in this industry.

After seeing countless artists and their portfolios, I refuse to judge someone based on a single piece, but I will say that if a director saw a message like that, they'd likely not hire you, simply because the industry is competitive as hell with no real limit on starving talent, and no one wants to work with a remote prima Donna who can't hack it when the director comes back and says " this shit is wrong, correct it, you have a day to do so or we're terminating your contract"

>>3988371
Forgot to mention, this is moot if he doesn't want to work in the industry. He can be jackass as a hobbyist. I don't think anyone important will care.

>tfw want to be a photorealism fag because it looks therapeutic to mindlessly copy something

>>3987842
Is it really? We’re talking about photorealism specifically, its merits and if it has any meaning.
>>3988318
>proper head construction
sometimes i think this board has no sense whatsoever.
Construction, fundamentals, pose, gesture, strokes and everything else are only tools. No artist should slavishly adhere to conventions above all else. Departing from that is what makes pictures different from photographs and illustrations.

>>3988364
I guess I'll be the first to say it. I wish I could do photo-realistic anything. It wouldn't be all I did, but it would be a good skill set to have. Everyone says its easy but no one here can do it. I'd love to be proved wrong.

>>3988371
Very true. Thanks for your professional opinion.

My biggest problem with these photorealistic/hyperrealistic portraits is that the artists who make them often tout how long it to them to finish them. 40, 80 100+ hours to finish one piece and they make sure to mention it like a badge of honor. Obviously these aren't people looking to make renders/promo art for entertainment companies if they use graphite/colored pencil but still.

Someone like Alex Ross could probably paint a photorealistic scene of multiple superheros with a background for a cover in the same amount of time as these people spend making a hyperrealistic portrait just because they spend so much time making sure every detail is correct. He's notoriously fast and hard working and that's part of why he's so successful.

>>3988387
It's not hard because the process is so well-defined. Most creatives like making things that are new. It doesn't require any additional analytical knowledge, and the only tools you really need are a drawn grid and, if you're extra meticulous, a tape measure or ruler. The only fundamentals you really need are a firm grasp of value, since colors can be fudged most of the time.

Feel free to give it a try. It is meditative, but I'd rather spend my time drawing below average things from my head rather than spend 3 days looking at a photo and recreating it.

Also, I never see this mentioned, but it's also a blatant waste of materials if you're not enjoying it.

>>3988371
>>3988371
Very true. Thanks for your professional opinion.

My biggest problem with these photorealistic/hyperrealistic portraits is that the artists who make them often tout how long it to them to finish them. 40, 80 100+ hours to finish one piece and they make sure to mention it like a badge of honor. Obviously these aren't people looking to make renders/promo art for entertainment companies if they use graphite/colored pencil but still.

Someone like Alex Ross could probably paint a photorealistic scene of multiple superheros with a background for a cover in the same amount of time as these people spend making one hyperrealistic portrait of Thanos just because they spend so much time making sure every detail is correctly matching the photo reference instead of interpreting it and letting his knowledge of painting do the rest the way Ross does. He's notoriously fast, hard working and has a portfolio of countless finished covers that's part of why he's so successful.

>>3988394
must be fun pretending to know your shit, how about posting your work before pretending you're an actual artist anon ?

>>3988397
promotional pieces take 1 to 2 weeks to finish usually so 40-80 hours is pretty good time

>>3988399
>merc.jpg
In all seriousness, I fail to see how what I said makes it sound like I'm pretending. If you want to spend 15 hours painstakingly chiseling Spiderman's abs with prismacolors, be my guest.

>>3988383
>Construction, fundamentals, pose, gesture, strokes and everything else are only tools

look retard if you like that shitty portrait, go ahead, you do you. but wonky facial anatomy is never going to look good when it's done un-intentionally, which is clearly the case in that pic. to do it right you have to know the rules before breaking them.

stay shit anon

>>3987645
>thinks that rendering means photorealistic
classic ic

>>3988399
this is an obvious fallacy. I wish people on this board would stop arguing like this, it makes you sound like a sullen teenager.
The argument stands on it’s own, there’s no need for proof unless you’re making a point with examples.

>>3988433
>it’s clearly done unintentionally!
Hard to say honestly, would you explain how you came to that conclusion.
Also explain how you managed to figure out my work ethic from that post.
‘stay shit’ lmao.
that’s pretty pathetic

Funny thing is is that absolutely no one posting here can do this.

>>3988281
OOoooo I like this. Good name anon

>>3988324
You have made a fantastic point here. I love seung's work since I remember finding his pieces for riot. A fantastic artist with a very recognizable stamp. I'd say the reason that this study reads so well, almost like a monochromatic photo lies more on his intentional use of soft edges to mimic aperture and his spot-on high contrast lighting. Inherently, this should be the goal of doing studies. Have the observer inherently recognize you're stamp and the source of the reference, while artist and nonartists alike would not be able to tell the difference between the works of even the most liked and followed gridbashers

You bring up an interesting point as well with the deciding of media. it makes me wonder, if it were done in digital, would Nonartist even know the difference between it and a vector of a photo? perhaps the reason why gridbashers use pastels and colored pencils is not only for their layering and coloring abilities but also so their work can exists in a way that doesn't immediately devalue itself ( A photo-realistic digital gridbash would look too much like a vector. The fact it is done in a physical media grants itself credence for not just being a lasso tool cut out)

and for your final statement, I could not agree more. Cheers to creating for creations sake alone. It is not about the likes, its about the process and devoting your life and time to something greater

>>3988371
First off, congrats sempai! un-ironically proud of you and glad you're making money off of your passion

Secondly, it should be noted that an artist that your company would reach out to would be in a better mindset then op's artist. Shitty comment aside, comparing an artist of even average talent to a gridbasher is like having a flying competition between a bird and a pilot. The only thing is that the pilot doesn't have an airplane. Without his very rigid and set tools and ways of working, he could never fly

>>3988435
>he actually believes OP's pic is rendered and not copied through a grid
how /beg/?

>>3988442

the construction is very off. the form of the face, from the nose, to the eyes, to the ears (especially those fucking ears). it can't decide wether it wants to be in or out of a perspective. the hat that the dude is wearing is handled horribly, completely flattening out towards the top regardless of whatever random hints of varying perspectives are shown. the eyes, nose and mouth all shoot off to different vanishing points. just imagine what this guys face would look like if he turned his head towards the 'camera'.


and yes, i came to somewhat of a conclusion of your work ethic because anyone with an experienced eye should be able to tell amateur work from professional. it's a big give-away ;)

>>3988449
>Doesn't even know what rendering means
>Completely outed self as an idiot /beg/

>>3988447
It's telling that the best argument defenders of photocopying can muster is "lol well u couldn't do it" or "it's haaard." No I probably can't do it. You get better at any skill you practice a lot, and straight photocopying is a skill. You do it day and day out and take it seriously, you'll get damn good at it. But I'm not losing any sleep over it. On the other hand, I saw pic related earlier and I'm gonna lose at least little sleep thinking why I haven't made anything this good, and what it would take for me to do so.

You draw in whatever style suits your work the best. I don't care if people think I'm worse than the guy drawing portraits of celebrities in colored pencils, maybe that guy is a 100x better draftsman than me but he chose to do this.
People will always be impressed by the guy shredding the guitar at 300bpm and will say he's the best. People will be impressed by the guy drawing a portrait of a talent show judge upside down in 5 minutes, if you make a better portrait in 2 hours they won't stay until you finish.
Does it even matter if you can do that unless you specifically make art for mass appeal?
You want to play blues because that's what moves your soul and then you complain that people don't give a shit about your songs because they're looking at the guy shredding at 300bpm or shakira shaking her ass. Just play some fucking blues.

>>3988467
Very good, you know basic shit.
Notice that I was asking how you KNOW it was not done intentionally.
And don’t be such a sensitive cunt about this.

>oh my god I can’t BELIEVE this guy didn’t work on his construction more. It’s disgusting, shit, ngmi

>>3988447
You're kinda right, and this is definently bait. But let's break this down:

The image that OP posted took an estimated 100+ hours done in a very specific way, from an artist that has done, maybe, 20 other pieces adding up to around 2000+ hours doing this specific style. It's done by creating a large grid that segments the work into digestible chunks that can be placed in an order, like putting together a puzzle. Then, they layer colors down, over and over to get the specific color that the source material represents.

In all 2000 hours of drawing like this, the artist knows nothing more about: Anatomy, Compisiton, Value structure, Color, maybe a little more about lighting, but nothing about how the enviroment effects the lighting of the object. Given a refrece of a single vectored image, he would be able to re-create it, but take away the vector and have it in an enviroment, and he would surely fuck the values up. Furthermore, remove the grid, and the artwork itself would crumble since there has been no effort into learning anything

So I can't really draw like them. Nor would I want to. I don't want to be bound by his limmitations and have such limited knowedge, that feels like hell. I would sooner have my 2000+ hours of work in studying a variety of sources with a variety of media then be limited like that

>>3987743
>In a recent podcast with proko, he brought up an interesting tidbit on photo-realism. It was that photo-realism is a fantastic exercise.
Maybe he should practice some perspective, construction and anatomy before saying that

>>3988514
What...

That picture took 100 hours? that’s fucking crazy. lol can’t see how the OP images in the picture could possibly take that long...

>>3988514
Thats the most ngmi thing i’ve seen today good job anon

>>3988318
bait

>>3988525
Nonartist see that time amount as a badge of discipline and honour. Wow! he worked so hard on it for so long! Artist see it closer to what it really is. A massive waste of time. The amount of work that can be done in 100 hours for someone who has put that much time into learning will dwarf any gridbash piece

>>3988520
Gottem

really though, The podcast is kinda Kino. He talked about kangaroo fetus in a recent one and included /ic/ memes people made. Its worth the listen if only for that. The only issue is it's awkwardly short

>>3987646
Answer the question : can you do it yourself anon? YES or NO?

>>3987646
i actually can
>inb4 post it
I dont want to dox myself on 4chan.
In high school I fell hard for the photorealism meme probably because all the teachers encouraged that. It just takes a huge amount of time the skill required is minimal especially when you use grids and work basically like a printer would. the only thing i can admire in them is the patience but even then it makes me cringe at how much time they wasted when it couldve been spent on something original.

>>3987819
Why do you think so many people can do this?

>>3988563
Maybe you can maybe you can't. I honestly just want to see anyone on this board do this so called easy task. I can't argue a photo realistic works value, I just believe it takes quite a bit of skill.

>>3988580
>I honestly just want to see anyone on this board do this so called easy task.
there are many people here who post bargues which is more or less the same thing

>>3988548
What good would it bring to your normie ass to draw trash like OP?
Spouting "ngmi" without anything IS the most "ngmi" think a cuck like you would say.

>>3988573
Because they actually put in the time to practice the methods and skills necessary to create something that looks finished and realistic.... instead of coping and complaining about why people like art that they don't like.

Why do you think so many people can learn how to draw anime well too? Any retard like yourself can learn to create artwork if they stop coping and pick up a pencil. Who gives a fuck if you don't like what someone does with their drawing, if getting to that level is easy then learn it yourself and make better art than they do.

>>3988573
Because they actually put in the time to practice the methods and skills necessary to create something that looks finished and realistic.... instead of coping and complaining about why people like art that they don't like.

Why do you think so many people can draw anime well too? Its not that their all geniuses. Any retard like yourself can learn to create artwork if they stop coping and pick up a pencil. Who gives a fuck if you don't like what someone does with their drawing, if getting to that level is trivial then learn it yourself and make better art than they do.

>>3988814
honestly people only give a shit about these artists because they always draw celebrities / trending shit just like regular trendhopping pornfags

>>3988814
based. /thread

>>3988838
Thats partly true its because its a character/person they like + the novelty of it being a drawing that looks so realistic. Most people have tried to draw at some point so they know its not easy at all to get something that looks real.

>>3988814
Read the thread. It's literally just copying a still, 2D picture there is 0 skill involved into this, only autistic patience. Don't pretend that drawing well done "anime" artsyle is the same as this. Any cuck would be able to do the same, but most of us won't, because it's a massive waste of time, as it was already said in this very thread.

this is what happens
>be a normie as kid
>watch cartoons
>try to copy the cartoon
>it looks like a crappy drawing
>but it kinda looks like the cartoon
>normie is happy
> sees person draw photorealism
>tries to draw that too
>fails
>cartoon was easier, photorealism was hard, so photorealism must require more skill
>praise anyone that does photorealism

now for the photorealist artist
> sees person draw photorealism
>tries to draw that too
>fails
>keeps trying and improves at it
>normie from before praises the drawings
>gains confidence because of that and keeps going that way
>more normies do the same
>photorealist artist makes it
>/ic/ mad
>nothing we can do about it

>>3988886
I doubt any of these "artists" actually make it in the industry, as they literally have nothing to offer. I doubt they would much money from patreon either. Youtube is the only real way to make money with those shitty drawings but even then it's an extremely saturated market because many people can easily do the same.

>>3988878
It even takes a lot of skill to copy things accurately. That's why Bargue plates are a thing. Now trying to do that in color requires a whole other level of observation and rendering skill. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't take an impressive amount of mechanical skill. I dont necessarily like it myself but thats just common sense bruh

>>3988890
Then you meet one of those guys with insane eyes and hand skill that draw The World As It Is in 1 hour tops
Its both cool and depressing

>>3988878
So you have less than 0 skill. Prove me wrong. Take as much time as required prove me wrong. You wont so by definition you have absolutely no skill. Not even the zero required to draw photo-realistic. Stop being a crab towards things you don't like.

>>3988895
Copying flat pictures accurately isn't a hard skill. Doing it with colors is more difficult to pull off but is is still something easy to do as you're literally only copying something FLAT that will stay still for however long you need to finish the piece. Someone making an accurate portrait of a real person standing in front of them now THAT'S impressive.

>>3988899
I will dead fucking serious recreate the trash that is OP's picture if you post your work first. I'm nlt a crab, but something tells me a retard that unironically uses the word "cope" might be one.

>>3988483
woah thats a cool ass hat

>>3988903
Why should someone need to post their work in order for you to prove you can do something? Someone cook this crab please?

>>3988924
Post your work.

>>3988903
>>3988929
Wowzers

>>3988931
Work your post.

>>3988924
>>3988931
It shouldn't be that hard to.post your work anon.

>>3988933
>>3988934
Pyw

>>3988903
I never said cope. I can't even come close to anything photo-realistic. You said it take zero skill to do but can't prove you can produce. I can't do it. So I say to you, produce something that takes zero skill or admit that photo-realistic art takes a skill that you nor I have.

>>3988324
Seung Eun Kim is god.

I'VE HAD ENOUGH! I'M GOING TO DO IT! I'm gonna post my work doing the exact same style! I'll prove it to everyone here doubting me! I'm gonna drop 100+ hours of my time (time that I could be using to learn anatomy, improve my fundamentals, doing countless master studies or doing literally anything that would be more productive) and I will copy a vector of iron man from the iron man 2 box art and I WILL PROVE YOU ALL WRONG

now, I'll see you all back here in this thread in a couple of months

>>3989058
ill give you my kidney if you do it anon

Everyone that thinks this method of rendering is difficult has probably never tried it or gave up at first attempt. Half my high school art class was churning out this shit after a grid assignment. It is time consuming, yes, but doing literal interpretations of photos makes it really difficult to fuck it up.

>>3987743
>implying photorealistic "artist" can create pieces on their own
>implying they aren't just copying something on video to impress normieshits
>is there another thing we can call this type of work?
Bland and a waste of time.
>inb4 pyw
have my work
i do not give a shit

>>3988400
90% of that time is office work with the AD and other suits, the actual painting time is close to 12 hours for something of movie poster quality.

>>3988371
Unrelated question but how long had you been really trying before you broke in/got your current job? And did you have any experience beforehand?

>>3989288
damn it's you again

>>3987698
Tell them to fuck off.