/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>7113769
>using my RDR2 reference
yay :D

i think Loomis, Bridgman, Vilpu and whatever their names are act like Placebos. buy the courses, buy the books, download the .zips, copy the drawabox ...
learning to draw and understanding form is a difficult mental exercise. the hard truth is that nothing can instill talent and understanding where no such tendencies are present (yet). it's infuriating to most /ic/ veterans to question if it is a wise decision to waste your money on merch when you really only need paper and pencils, markers, whatever you prefer.

>"wtf you're saying it's possible to git gewd without buying Prokos private video courses? heresy!"

>>7113769
PYW, and your studie folder faggot.

>>7113799
your turn

>>7113802
LMAO as expected. You definitely should read those books.

>>7113802
this is the best Loomis shill yet

>>7113802
lmao that's my oc
rofl hard at the anon who got so upset at my criticism of Loomis and Bridgman being NOT for total beginners that he now larps as me
made my day lol

imagine someone is so obsessed with you that they waste their precious time of day to larp with your oc.

>>7113807
>>7113810
They’re obviously fine. Not pro but not bad either.
I’ve seen enough Loomis shills post shit work, or refuse to post work at all, to know that they’re not much better.

>>7113802
That's not your art though. What a faggot.

>>7113802
>>7113817
The laugh lines age her like 10 years

>>7113769
>>7113802
imagine getting so mad at a guy criticizing jumping immediately on the Loomis and drawabox train before making baby steps on your own that you have to LARP as the guy and create strawman threads :D

>picrel
now, this comes from a cartoonist incel drawing picrel. lmao, i won.
thanks for letting me live rentfree in your troubled mind, OP

>>7113821
it's an interpretation not a photocopy. i know this is sacrilegious to you copy-lords

>>7113817
it's high beg at best

>>7113769
Hi OP, enjoying easter? I could literally hear your teeth grinding, typing this shit a while ago >>7100325
do you have more of those lukewamr MS Paint doodles and demostrations on how expertly you can draw some girl on a bed using Loomis Shmoomis? I am in awe of your skills, such graceful application of drawabox!

>>7113769
oh yeah OP, you must be right. Loomis and drawabox is t. ONLY way to progress. I kneel before your expertly executed cartoon doodles. can you do any better? care to pyw, or are you content with reposting my OC in my name?

>>7113769
OP you are superior, everyone bow before the Loomis salesman. your art is so graceful and witty. hitler and some furry looking at dickpics. i wish i had your imagination.

>absolutely malding at a resource every good artist recommends
kekl

>>7113823
>>7113827
I haven't really replied to any of your posts since the very thread you're pulling those images out of. Unless you were the one fellating that one guy who painted amateurish-looking still lifes, in which I stated that you were a "midwitted hipster", refused to elaborate, and left forthwith.
Fact of the matter is that you're always braying your head-ass opinion in every other thread and you keep making threads of your own to do so too, apparently. I wouldn't have to have you living rent free and I would neither need to create a thread specifically to attract your presence because you're omnipresent on this board, loudly proclaiming your arrogant, braggadocious bullshit into the ears of everyone around. Everyone who pays even a modicum of attention and has two braincells to rub together could pick up that there's a new and very obnoxious schizo whomstd've just rolled in from stupid town. So it definitely is not me, yet judging by how very sensitive you are to criticism, both in the thread I first replied to you
>>7100325 (Me)
>>7100343 (You)
>>7100378 (Me)
>>7100411 (You)
and this one >>7111255 >>7111504 (in which I have posted nothing, although I did see it a few days ago), I would bet good money that the one who's living in whom's head rent free is not I in yours, but rather thine in mine.

>>7113904
And you know what? As much of an obnoxious loudmouth asshole that I thought you were back then, I saw that you had mentioned that you posted in /trad/ so I went and looked for your art, and in my heart of hearts I simply could not find it in me to be cruel to you. Being able to go out and sketch people from life in brush pen is respectable. I thought it was a beautiful thing.
However, given a week or so of experiencing every foul effluence coming from your fingers upon your keyboard, I have to say now that your ego is at a planetary scale and you cannot take criticism at all, rushing to defend yourself with paltry appeals to your financial and social success as an artist (yet when shown people whose art is based on the principles you decry who are far more successful than you, "success" is no longer a measure of artistic merit. Funny, that). If I am surmising correctly who is posting this >>7110805 and I very much do believe I'm correct considering the pattern and language of your posts, then the sheer smug disrespect that you have for someone who was in posession of more skill than you will probably ever have, someone who could draw from life in circles around you like you weren't even there with way the hell more SOVL than your art will possibly ever contain using the exact same fucking tool you use, and not only that but unlike you could also memorize and draw anything he saw from any angle he wanted, makes me want to fucking spit. You're an arrogant, petty, mean-spirited, cruelhearted, insecure and ugly-souled shitstain of a man.

>>7113905
It's all about MUH SOVL, MUH ORIGINALERTY, CARVE YOUR OWN WHEEL, FUCK DA SNAKE OIL SALESMEN, FUCK CAPITALIMSUM, but when you're threatened the very first thing you reach for is how you're so much more fucking successful because oh look at me, I'm in a gallery and when I draw people in bars they fuckin' fall on their knees and worship me.
Oooh I'm such a fucking great and transcendental artist, I can see the emperor's clothes in the paintings of some autist who painted still lifes of the same fucking jars in the same fucking shades of beige all his life, because hooooly shit you painted with real fucking pigments once? WHAAAAT? And now you've unlocked the ability to see the ephemeral and ineffable qualities of ART that cannot be expressed in mere paltry words with your REAL ARTIST EYES? Gimme a fuckin' break, man. If I were Giorgio Morandi I wouldn't want someone like you as a fan. Nothing at all about you is sincere, your "love" for the man and his art isn't sincere. It's all about feeding the monstrous black hole that is your ego and making yourself feel like you're so much better than all the losers around you, these paltry lowbrow cartoonists who should all come and worship at your altar because your /int/-tier art got accepted into a local 4H fair or something. You want to spit and sneer at everyone else for being so much lower than you but I really wonder what that makes you if you have to do so to make yourself feel superior to them.

>>7113907
So. I was nice to you back then, but I'm absolutely not going to be nice to you now. I WILL stand by the assertion that I drew both of those better than you did, knowing full well that any claims I make of skill open me up to being shat upon mercilessly, and well I may deserve it.
Although they are about the same as yours accuracy wise, I actually did favor expressiveness and capturing the soul of the reference over trying to copy them exactly, and in that I absolutely did do better than you. Especially the portrait. You want to know why people are making fun of you? Look at the portrait of that woman which is a fairly accurate copy of the photo but absolutely fails in the SOVL department. Look at the reference, the way she has that slightly suppressed smile. Now look at yours, with the awkward, constipated expression and the dead eyed fluoride stare THAT ISN'T EVEN LOOKING AT THE VIEWER, BY THE WAY, DID YOU NOT PICK UP ON THE FACT THAT SHE'S LOOKING AT THE VIEWER BY LOOKING AT THE REFERENCE WITH YOUR OWN F U C K I N G E Y E S???
And I did that all freehand with no measuring marks or constructoid autism because, guess what, you dunning-kruger-syndrome-affected fucktard, construction isn't some paint by numbers herp de derp snake oil, it's something that becomes a natural part of the way that you think and draw and interact with your canvas.
I don't even think I'm that good, yet this fucking retarded loser doodlefaggot cartoonist who's barely at /int/ level and probably will never make anything of his art or his life was able to match you at your own game.

>>7113910
You might ought to think real damn hard about where you stand and how really qualified you are to be making the grandiose statements you do, spitting on Loomis and Bridgman and well apparently anyone who has ever written a book before, I guess, giving your shit-ass "advice" to reinvent the wheel and take the ingenuepill or whatever the fuck you're on about, considering the sheer vast amount of much better and qualified artists there are that do endorse learning from said artists that you sneer and turn your nose up at. Even if you were twice or thrice as good people would still hate you for your rotten fucking attitude and your constant need to shit on and tear other people down to make yourself feel like you've got a big throbbing horse cock to swing around. You're not a fucking teacher, you're the farthest thing from it in both heart and mind so stop acting like it. Go fuck yourself.

>>7113916
I will add this- some of the things you advocate for aren't bad at all or really even things that haven't been said before on this board. People do need to spend time drawing what they see and not be obsessed with formula, but they still have their place. You whipped that literal-schizo faggot Jimmy's ass for tracing and he absolutely deserved it. But everything else about you is abhorrent and blown way the fuck out of proportion.

>>7113769
does it matter, you already dont agree with them so move on you sheltered little white kid

>>7113825
>>7113823
>you too can be the next kim jung un if read loomis
>buy my course, buy my book, sub to my patreon

>>7113904
>>7113905
>>7113907
>>7113910
>>7113916
>>7113920
oy vey :D you mad bro. you mad af
let me get a cup'a and enjoy this seething hot mess you just punched into your keyboard. i mean, yeah, i guess i left my mark in your raging mind. glad to have done a little damage to a drawabox whore. ok, let me soak in those onions tears of yours.

>>7113904
embarrassing picrel btw
i should've known early on that i'm dealing with a cartoon incel.
you dug up my exercises and LARPed as me here in this thread. fact of the matter is, i never created a thread about my stance, i just commented in others where i saw it fit. so don't make up scenarios that didn't happen.
mmm the Schadenfreude is delicious i have to say

internet arguments

>>7113927
my favorite pastime

>>7113769
It's easier to just say
>LOOOOMISSSSSS
>BRIDGE MAAAAANNNN
than to give actual advice

>>7113916
you are making hyperbolic statements and strawmen out of my criticism. i say that drawabox and construction are for AFTER you made your own steps and i said it many times. >>7113811
>>7113760

it's kinda telling how personal you get and niggah you can't deny this whole conversation dragged out over several days has been rattling your cage pretty damn much. i mean you're talking about recognizing my writing, if that isn't an autistic obsession, what is. i permanently moved in in your mind as it seems.

and actually, i'm someone who can take criticism when it's not absolutely wildly off the chart or unproductive banter. i actually do change my mind, if i see fit and i did say one or two of your cartoon doodles are looking good. but you constantly and even now disregard that i'm talking about two different things: persuing comic art and doing "free" art. ideally, even if you want to be some Marvel artist or drawing fucking Asterix and Obelix or Disney, you will still profit from developing your "free" art skills. Walt Disney fucking went out with his animators to draw from nature. it's not a wild concept. it's like you are going out of your way in denying that it is important to draw from nature, draw people, have a sketchbook at hand at any time and build your OWN understanding rather than relying on construction.

cont.

>>7113934
yup, and that's what I'm >>7113936 saying as well

>>7113823
Your stance doesn't even make any sense. Anyone who doesn't draw from life or from copy is a "cartoonist" but when your life/copy drawing is called out for being stilted and ugly looking, well now you're just being an overly literal xeroxfag. Kim Jung Gi is a hecking cartoonist for inventing well, but I on the other hand am a wheel autist for making a badly copied portrait of an impishly smiling woman look like she's about to break into a nervous sweat while considering just how much she needs to take a fat shit at that very moment.
>>7113936
Don't give me that shit. You've said a hell of a lot more than, and I've enumerated as such. You don't get to go and try to pull a motte-and-bailey switch by retreating to the mild middle of the road "erm, respecfully, all I said was that you should just draw from life and feel things out more tehe :)" stance while attempting to wave away every other incredibly retarded thing that's come out of your blathering maw. You're like one of those racist faggots that go "FUCK WYPEEPO I FUCKGN HATE WYPEEPO KILL ALL WYPEEPO" and then when they're called out for being such a piece of shit they'll go "Well erm um I was just loving myself and my race mkay sweaty *flutters eyelashes*". Own up to and answer for all of it, faggot.

And yet again, I haven't been replying to your posts or even posting much at all on /ic/. I spend most of my time lurking. Other people are picking up on your BS. Some of them have taken to calling you the "anti-construction schizo", and I did not originate that term.

>>7113946
seems silly to spend so much energy arguing with someone who draws like this >>7113802
beg opinions should be disregarded, even if they're correct in some ways (i.e. drawing from life, just like the title of bridgman's book)

>>7113946
What's worse is that you actually don't even understand the very things you're criticizing. You think that every experience artist who learned from Loomis, Bridgman and the rest does a hyper-autistic mannequin figure that they carefully measure how many heads it is and what have you? Fuck no. And the point of drawabox, or rather the school of thought where Peter Han's dynamic sketching belongs to, is all about making construction intuitive and naturalistic, something you feel rather than measure out with a bunch of autistic perspective lines like Scott Robertson. However you have to start with stuff like drawing boxes or learning how many heads a figure is because you have to have some way of making objective measurement when constructing to keep things proportional in perspective.

Pawell, for the record, doesn't even construct, all he does is copy shit that he sees, so you can't blame any of his failures on the constructoid school to begin with. Just in case you're the one grinding on that particular axe.

>>7113950
I really haven't. Like I said, I've just been lurking for a while, and I even refrained from saying anything in this thread here >>7111504 when he went full schizo mode and accused the other anon of being me, who was just SO HAUNTED by the IMPRESSION of the GIANT HORSE COCK he left on my face or whatever that I was now obsessed and stalking him. Even though like I said you'd be hard pressed to get away from his loud fucking mouth on this board.
However when this thread popped up and he started harping on that bullshit again I decided enough was enough and that I would set the record straight. I said my piece and I'm going to go back to lurktown where I belong.

>i.e. drawing from life, just like the title of bridgman's book
Oh, yeah, there is that too, I guess that fucktard forgot that Bridgman was a LIFE DRAWING INSTRUCTOR and his books were meant to teach students of a way to conceive the figure's anatomy that would make its structures more easily memorable. For the purpose of DRAWING FROM FUCKING LIFE. And Loomis even says to use reference and draw from life too for that matter. But of course this fucking imbecile has probably never read any of them because that would taint his pure artistic vision and alter the shape of that wheel he's so lovingly working at rechiseling all over again. Aaaaah fuck it I'm just going to start ranting again, I'm going to stop. I'm out.

>>7113769
>I'm not obsessed
and yet here you are, creating a whole strawman thread and LARPing as me, as pathetic as that is.
are you ok bro? better get back to those constructed cartoons of yours, which are so superior.

>>7113946
>break into a nervous sweat while considering just how much she needs to take a fat shit at that very moment.
lol i like your humor though.
i look at these two exercises now that you post them again and again and i'll readily say they aren't that good, if you aim for likeness and representation of the original face. i rarely do commissions, but a nice anecdote is that a girl i know wanted me to draw her moms deceased cat and i made a charcoal drawing and well the mom shed some tears. so yep, i can get the likeness of animals alright as it seems. mind you, i didn't construct on those drawings, just started doodling with a brush pen. and i will say this again, as you seem to always measure with your ic ruler: i'm not a xerox machine and never want to be. i interpret reality in my drawings and it's easy for a face to change character with just a few lines being a hairnline off. i appreciate that you think she's constipated though, she might very well be.

and my dude (or dudette, telling by how offended and feminine your rant seems to be), you are drawing cartoons, you aren't even painting or drawing on larger scales. why do you feel like this applies to you? if you want to draw your Team Fortress 2 porn and make the characters recognizable, hell yeah, construct away as much as you want. Nobody wants to see "your style" in that, they want to recognize fucking Fortnite and that's it. it's a very different life for a studio artist or for a comic artist who actually aspires to come up with HIS OWN THING. none of you seem to want that, most of /ic/ is fanart, porn, furry bullshit.
it's not like i'm repeating myself constantly, i always pretext my statement with like "if you want to create your own style ..." and similar wording.

>pull a motte-and-bailey switch by retreating to the mild middle of the road
who on this board makes "mild statements". don't be ridivculous, of course i exaggerate for the luls. you do too.

>>7113946
>Some of them have taken to calling you the "anti-construction schizo"
yeah of course they hate the idea that it can be done going down another path. literally all of the veterans here have used construction and will defend it like a fucking pacemaker that keeps them alive. and the newbies that come here want quick and easy solutions so they are like "oh, cool! so if i download these 50GB of torrents and PDFs and get my hands on all the Vilpu and Loomis books i can find, i will automatically improve!"
art education and improvement is a war of dogmas. you dont get to own "THE ultimate stance" on successful art developement, i don't either. I'm giving my two cents and sharing what has helped and guess what, sometimes I do so without spicing it up with internet-speak.

>there's better artists out there than you are
well fuck me, don't i already know that! are you teh best of teh best? lol. your arguments are waaay out there at this point.

>You're not a fucking teacher
and yet i have held courses and made some very very pleasent progress with students. have you?

>>7113920
>I will add this- (...)
welp, thx for that i guess. and it's just part of the game how the way i put it is disagreable to some (or many).
look, some people may need construction and maybe it's even the perfect thing for them. for some it will be confusing and detrimental to the independent developement of their own line. if you can't agree on this, than that may be so. i'm saying, there is another way and it might be harder, but it opens you up to a different and i dare say deeper, more direct discovery of your capabilities rather than making life easy ''''too early''''' on your journey by using drawabox.
btw responding to your own posts makes this hella cofusing. use cont. or sth

>>7113973
>However when this thread popped up and he started harping on that bullshit again I decided enough was enough
you decided to LARP as me and strawman around, like, how pathetic is that.

>>7113973
>For the purpose of DRAWING FROM FUCKING LIFE
... and then quite a few Pawells out there end up adopting a early AI worthy monstrosity of a Frankenstein-Vilpu-Loomis-Bridgman mix of a style abomination, blocking their own developement. yeah what a desirable prospect.

>>7113997
Xeroxfaggotry and constructoidism are polar opposites. And for that matter, so too is "cartooning" diametrically opposed to xeroxing. Cartooning is based on a constructive approach and the constructive approach is based upon the interpretation and internalization of reference into three dimensional structure rather than mere copying. That's what I mean by you being completely self-contradictory, you're criticizing construction while being totally ignorant of what is.
Let me repeat, for emphasis- you don't even know what construction IS.
Here you are proclaiming the virtues of doing more than just copying when that is the exact fucking point of the constructive approach, and that cartoonists and animators especially pour more fucking time into qualities of gesture and acting and extracting and distilling the soul of what they're looking at more than any other type of artist. On the surface of it, you should all be in agreement, but you're not because you're a special fucking snowflake and your art is more specialer and more seriouser than anyone else's because, uh, reasons that are ineffable because it's fweakin' ART dood, yeah man *hits blunt*

>>7113910
>match you at your own game.
yeah give yourself a badge my dude. and then you call others "full of themselves". lol
i don't see how you should be proud of your work, i'm not impressed by the dickpic furry deer with her raging hitler.

>>7114015
Additionally, the way that you dismiss everyone else's art as "cartooning", as if that in itself is not something requiring a high level of skill. Now that shit right there is infuriating. TF2's character designs are, by the way, incredibly well made and so timeless that they're in large part what has kept the game alive despite Valve treating it like shit. I mean, you have the gall to say that shit about KJG even. I'll also repeat that for emphasis- KJG was a constructoid and he could life-draw your sorry ass straight into the fucking soil. And his sense of construction and perspective was something that he 90% picked up intuitively when he was a little kid and then went back to learn the more formal/scientific bits later in his life, so. Crutch my sweet butter and marmalade glazed ass. Maybe you ought to try drawing a kangaroo from imagination and then we'll see you talk about how much you do or don't need crutches.

>>7114015
>your art is more specialer and more seriouser
i mean is that so hard? you guys are drawing hitler swearing at furry deer shit and draw dicks and comically large tits all day.

>>7114020
>KJG
apples and oranges. i hate where's waldo pictures and would never even want to be near what KJG does, even if he is an expert at that. and vice versa, KJG will not in a million years want to go into the diametrically other direction.

>drawing a kangaroo from imagination
are we doing street magic tier tricks now? that is absolutely uninteresting to me. lols

>>7113845
>every good artist
Hahahahaha

Wtf is this thread? someone sum up the debate

>>7114027
I'll repeat it, more slowly this time-
Kim Jung Gi. Constructoid. Could draw from life better than you, and most likely better than you ever will draw from life in your lifetime. And so can many other constructoids. Because construction is in no way in competition with life drawing to begin with, they are complementary and they need each other.

Let's spell that out for you- all those constructoids that can draw from life absolutely mog you. They have what you have, and what's more, their understanding of construction makes them *better* than you at what *you're* best at, more than that, the only singular thing that makes you feel like you're special and that your entire artistic world revolves around. Not only does it make it easier to for them to draw things more realistically, it also gives them the capability to draw them as if they are more *alive* than you can do. Really, it's absolutely amazing that you can act like being able to memorize a complex structure and draw it at will is a "parlor trick" and then- ffffuckin', you cite drawing a photo of someone's dead cat like some hobbyist pet portrait artist as the superlative skill?
Mothafucka, if you can draw a kangaroo from imagination then you can not only draw the damn kangaroo from life, you had to have drawn the damn kangaroo from life or reference beforehand, possibly multiple times. That's- that's life drawing SQUARED if not CUBED. The fact that you can say all this shit, wow are you a really silly motherfucker. Mind-bogglingly ignorant.

>>7113769
just follow the steps

>>7114028
ask your favourite artist their opinion on Loomis

https://youtu.be/-5QIiubr10g?si=gVi4JUArsHlnPMl8
You know, actually, it's pretty wild that actual real artists can say things like "well KJG was just a parlor trick, harrumph, the normies were only impressed with him because he could draw without a sketch, all he was was just a dumb cartoonist harrumph >:( ".
If you're an artist, what you know of drawing should make his capabilities even MORE mesmerizing and magical to you than the normalfags that go ":O wow he draw that so easy? wow that so cool", that should shake the very foundations of what you think was possible and make you wonder just how far that human capability can be pushed, how far YOURS could be. After all, unlike the normalfag, you can see behind the veil. But no, you revert to crab and you snibedi snab, and boy ain't that sad.

>>7114085
>Meh not so special, I could do that if I drew for 120,000 hours too.

>>7113769
All art methods work for some people.
Some people can work with all art methods.
The trick is not finding the best art course, but determining which group of people you belong.

>>7114085
>>7114089
His skills were legendary but if you saw one of his sketchbooks you've basically seen everything he ever made. Sure he did comics in his early days but after that he just kept making the same shit over and over. KJG let his mentor pimp him out like a circus freak and it ultimately cost his life.

>>7114103
I dunno about that omphalos is a whole different beast(iality) to his other sketchbooks

>>7114085
It comes off looking like a parlor trick because he draws how non-artists fantasize about drawing. Anyone who actually makes finished work has to do plans, sketches, research, drafts, and revisions and this kind of stuff turns off normalfags because it seems like regular work instead of magical art skills.

>>7114106
Lol
But it's still in the same vein of his other stuff. It's not like he stepped out of his comfort zone completely and made a group of sculptures or something. KJG obviously had talent and if he had applied it to other mediums I have no doubts he would've been good at them too. Instead he let artists less skilled than him hold him down. Now those artists will profit of his name for years to come. His life is a cautionary tale.

>>7114109
>Anyone who actually makes finished
His entire process of making a finished comic is on YouTube btw. There's a whole playlist somewhere https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wSKjwHi-N_M

>>7114115
If he made a sculpture it would have been a swarm of tigers chasing a chick wearing scuba gear. And I'm all for it.

>>7114124
Same. Had he gone solo and branched out from just lewd ink drawings, he might've become a household name and perhaps still be alive.

>>7114141
>perhaps still be alive.
I don't think it was drawing that killed him. It was his unhealthy drinking habits while he had type 2 diabetes. He drank so much coke. That's poison if you have that.

>>7114149
'twas not the drawing, but cola that killed the Gi

>>7113825
For that kind of art and medium maybe not pro, sure, but better than high beg. I'd also wager that that kind of art isn't his main goal, because most of this board want to draw animu and do those kinds of drawings as studies. But that's just a guess.

so is Loomis good or not? it's hard to tell with you guys

>>7114015
>and that cartoonists and animators especially pour more fucking time into qualities of gesture and acting and extracting and distilling the soul of what they're looking at ''''''more than any other type of artist'''''''
absolute ''''''bullshit''''''' statement.

>>7114020
>TF2 incredibly well made and so timeless
yeah to you it might be. and there you go shitting on Morandi and i could readily shit on the measly TF2 meme material garbage that it is. different tastes, eh? who could've known

>>7113821

>>7114378

Loomis was abandonware in the 00s so you could feeely scan and share online without consequence.

>>7114647
yeah. once they caught wind of how popular they'd gotten online they reprinted them and copyright struck the main guy hosting them.

All this sperging by a loomis cultist trying to convince others to waste their time by typing up a thread novel in anger

thank god i didnt fall for the loomeme bridgeshitter cult

>>7114799
I don't understand, how can you get good at drawing without drawing blooks for 100 hours?

>>7114380

>>7113802
>>7113769
okay so what do you recommend?

>>7114915
looks sweet in my opinion
but let's see if some particular anon on here is going to shit on it with his "drawabox accuracy" superiority, or attesting her some constipation face expression or whatnot

>>7114921
the two posts you are replying to are from this guy who actually made these picrels >>7113823 >>7113831 >>7113837

this picrel >>7113802 is not his

>>7113772
Is this how you cope with being too stupid to follow directions.

>this is the kind of person who shits on respected teachers

>>7115060
how much money have you spent on teaching materials?

>what is the difference between illustration and fine art?
"Illustration is often commission-driven, created to visually represent or clarify concepts, stories, or ideas for clients. It can encompass various mediums and styles, such as graphic novel artwork or commercial illustrations for advertising purposes.
On the other hand, fine art is typically created for art's sake, focusing on original thought, creativity, and self-expression. Fine art pieces are often displayed in galleries, collections, and museums, emphasizing artistic ideals and individualism rather than commercial purposes.
In summary, while illustration serves specific purposes like storytelling or commercial applications, fine art is more about self-expression, creativity, and the pursuit of artistic ideals.

"Andrew Loomis was a versatile artist known as an American illustrator."

>difference
"Commercial illustration differs from fine art in its primary purpose. Fine art focuses on individual creativity and cultural exploration, while commercial illustration is created for marketing and advertising, aiming to influence consumer behavior and communicate messages effectively."

>>7115088
respected only by companies who want someone to draw ads for their shitty products --> >>7115135

illustration / less artistic, no individual expression desired, for commercial use, draw fetish crap for cash and hate your life ... artistic prostitution as it is
fine art / artistic freedom, harder to establish a name, more expression and individuality, riskier, volatile financial situation, but: overall better complacency

so whos gonna tell him that the mona lisa is a commission

>>7115942
is the mona lisa an illustration for an ad?

>>7115135
>tfw you realize the old masters were commercial artists because they were bankrolled by the catholic church to advertise catholicism
alexa could you play "Somebody That I Used To Know Blaccmass Remix Slowed and Reverbed 1 Hour" please

>>7115945
It kinda is. It's an ad for the patron's wealth and buisness acumen.
Getting a portrait wasn't a casual event until it became virtually free

>>7115945
In some way... the Sistine chapel ceiling is an ad for the church

>"fine artist" draws realistic portrait of a person
>"So hecking SOVL! So FVLL of the UNSPEVKVBVLE MVSTVRVS OV VRT! OOOUUUIGHH I, I'M GOING TO CVVM"
>illustrator draws realistic portrait of a person
"SOVLLESS. A mere cartoonist. Just a copy of a copy of a copy. No one will ever remember them, unlike REAL artists. SAD!"

>"fine artist" draws realistic portrait of a person
>"So hecking SOVL! So FVLL of the UNSPEVKVBVLE MVSTVRVS OV VRT! OOOUUUIGHH I, I'M GOING TO CVVM"
>illustrator draws realistic portrait of a person
>"SOVLLESS. A mere cartoonist. Just a copy of a copy of a copy. No one will ever remember them, unlike REAL artists. SAD!"

>>7116218

oy vey :) who could've guessed that digifags doodling porn on their wacoms get upset if you call Loomis a bland sovlless advertisement doodler with no memorable pieces except for "teh American dream family portait of husband who surely beats his kids' ass and thinks that once in a while the wifu needs a good slappin'" billboard art.

now you dipshits are just flexing hard.
>"every piece of art has been a commission of sorts! they were all animu porn doodlers like us in a way!"
the church fucking got artists killed for blasphemy and yes, was sometimes the only employer for an artist. but you faggots are living in t. 21st century. you can shave your feminine legs and create an OF account. the western world does not surpress artists anymore. omg can you flex any harder?
>"mona lisa is also illustration! hurr durr"
some of ya'll need a fat, spiked dragon dildo unloobed up your sorry asses

>>7116227
pathetic lol

>>7116220
>>7116227
show me some impressive Andrew Loomis that has depth then.

>>7116235
why?

>>7116237
idk what you want to see for "depth".

>>7116232
>special snowflake REAL FARTIST mortally wounded by the fact that he was never really any different than an illustrator actually
And to think, you even cited that you drew a portrait of someone's cat and drew pinups and portraits of chicks as proof of your artistic superiority

O my rubber nen please resurrect me after I'm dead, because I am DYIN' over here

>>7116258
>>7116245
his bland, blocky drawing style is between bonedry and cartoonish.

>>7116247
yip that one has some messy spacial depth. ask any studio artist, gallerist, cultural management alumni what they think of this and who the audience for this kind of childrens motif is.

>"ah mais juis, and here my dear audience we reach se pinaccle of ILLUSTRATIONs, se Mona Lisa! Leonardo DaVinci is now regarded as an ILLUSTRATOR, because it so happened that a bunch of furry drawing faggots on a board called /ic/ have named him so. bien sure, vraisment!"

>>7116267
illustrators are artists. what's your problem dude?
Why is a picture of a face with blobs of color smeared on it so much more worthy to you?

>>7116267
Heh, sorry chud! Hate to tell you but stinky representationalists like yourself are just mere illustrators and cartoonists. If you want to be a real artist you need to be on at least five more layers of irony, enough layers that you can see the meaning of life in a canvas painted a solid color, BARE MINIMUM. Sorry, nothing personal, it's just the rules. The museum people said so.

>>7116279
The cultural managers))) are here! quick, hide!

>>7116279
beats cartoonist Loomis in my opinion. and i don't even like Newman or Rothko or whatnot :)

>>7116285
>>7116271
yup, illustrators are by definition "commercial" art"workers". are you offended? if your client says it sucks and you need to increase the tiddy and dicksize on the tranny furry dragon, you obey.

>>7116279
Paint?! paint is child's play.

Loomis shills still going on overtime, does anyone really read their schizo rambling paragraphs and actually think
>wow i need to study him too!

Actually deranged senile boomer worshippers

>>7116288
"artists" like you work to impress gallery owners and cultural management alumni. You are trying to fit a mold they made for you and balk at things outside it.
>my latest work... hope it's subversive enough... hope they will give me another grant to glue 1000 fish heads to a door painted with menstrual blood

>>7116290
schizo ramblings? you mean like the faggot who keeps bringing up trannies, furries and dildos?

>>7116271
>Why is a picture of a face with blobs of color smeared on it so much more worthy to you?
why didn't he give an answer to this? I want to know too.

>>7116288
>>7116267
anon, I have to ask for you to post your work, I will ignore whatever you say if not.
no you-first's, defend your honor anon

>>7116220
His daughter was pretty hot

bridge man? what is this bridge man you speak of?

>>7116515
Just some boomer grifter that cultivates dozens of people that in person study under him and are still prebeg after an entire decade, pay no heed to him

>>7116308
--> >>7114378

>>7116299
>>7116297
>>7116293
so, you bunch of whiny faggots are still mad that i shit on Loomie Shmoomie and his "American dream" saga hindu cow grin illustrations?
have you got anything else to say or is it just going to be "contemporary art bad! Loomis goood!" over and over again?
you have no arguments defending his absolutely moronic, daft, soulless illustrations. he is a technician when it comes to drawing and painting. high techical skill, zero originality. a teacher. he couldn't do it himself, that's why he tought others.
fuck your bland disgusting Loomis. look at this gay fucking yellow light on the ground. "oh i'm gonna add some dramatic sunlight falling in the room. it's not going to be kitsch at all!"

>no answers
Shall I accept your concession?
I like contemporary art btw. I'll ask you again, for you, Why is the drawing of his daughter less worthy of admiration than the same thing with colorful paint smeared?

>>7117073
The more important question is actually why Loomis's drawing of his daughter or any of his other life drawings are any different from that anon's own life drawings, since the goal of both is to accurately replicate the subject that they're drawing.

The real answer is that Loomis is no less of an artist than the anon in question, and there is no difference between "illustrator" and "artist", especially visual 2D artists who work in a realistic style. Artists have traded their expertise to portray both things real and fictional to the unskilled who want to see those things created for money since time immemorial. But he won't admit to that of course, because REAL artists are a classification of super special and magical people, unicorns, ethereal spirits who are pure and untouched by this world and filthy lucre but leave their indelible mark upon it instead, like the fibger of God himself.
Little does he know that he is merely a silly little creature of flesh scratching marks into the dust just like everyone else. Maybe if he realized just how small and insignificant and unspecial that he is, maybe then he would become more than he is now. Art can be anything and made by anyone. Nothing it is and everything can be it. Art is dead, long live Art. Just go out there and create your heart's desire and follow your path, learn and love and live your craft, and don't listen to such foolish and insecure people who feel like they have to be more special than other people to matter.

>>7117073
because this >>7116227 is not making any point other than you being retarded. shimmery color spots multiplied on his weak, unappealing portrait? wowzers, what an argument! I bow to your comparison, you nailed it! Loomis must be on par with "illustrator DaVinci". I mean, you guys deserve being swatted for the brainfarts you are posting here.

Loomis sucks. And I'll say it again, he sucks ass. Look how mad you are >>7117038 >>7117897 onne Loomis ass-kissing-thread after another. I left a little ringing i your ears, faggots. achievement unlocked. back to your disgusting Loomis cartoon heads I guess.

>>7117073
>Shall I accept your concession?
yep, nail that pokemon-badge to your chest. tell me what I haven't answered to yet. I made my point loud and clear. Loomis is a teacher, his work on the other hands sucks ass and is dusty pieces of shit that noone who understands the first thing about art will look at for longer than 3 seconds. Loomis sucks balls. His paintings are absolute dogshit. Loomis. sucks. Look at this >>7116247 gay fucking messy mermaid bullshit. you honesty bring this up as an example? lmao

go ahead and make more salty, ironic "but Loomis is good" and strawman threads. made my day.

>>7117235
>But he won't admit to that of course, because REAL artists are a classification of super special and magical people
real artists sweep the floor with Loomis concerning ideas, concepts and themes. cry about it. or better yet, write more paragraphs in the third person with your flowery, upset reddit tone. it's hilarious. I appreciate the effort you put into it. all these highschool writing contests to make no argument in his favor concerning the absolute trash that his topics are: "mermaids, American dream family, American Sunday prayer" cough cough, shit this is fucking dusty as fuck! who the hell honestly wants to defend this. you are getting out of your way to praise these toilet posters for no reason. go draw some boxes or something lol

>is not making any point other than you being retarded
the point is here >>7116245 pic rel is worthy of praise from you(and me, again, I like this stuff) but not >>7116220, only I praise that one. why are you different?

>>7118136
>illustrator Da Vinci
Yes.

>>7118803
il·lus·tra·tion (ĭl′ə-strā′shən)
n.
1. The act of illustrating or the state of being illustrated: concepts that would benefit from illustration; an idea that lends itself to illustration.
2. A picture or image that is used to decorate or clarify a text.
3. An example that is used to clarify or explain something.
4. (Obsolete) Illumination.

>“The merit of painting lies in the exactness of reproduction. Painting is a science and all sciences are based on mathematics.”
> Leonardo Da "OG" Vinci

I find it to be an endless font of hilarity that this guy would think that Leonardo Da Vinci wouldn't have absolutely devoured Loomis, Hogarth, Bridgman, Peter Han, Krenz, and as many books and courses on perspective that he could find. The man was as much a scientist, engineer, and mathematician as he was an artist, and in fact he considered himself to be that first and foremost.

>>7118819
>Leonardo Da Vinci was a Real Artist! He would never bother with something so SOVLless as perspective gri- ACK!

>>7118820

>>7118825
B-bakana! Is- is that...? a figure circumscribed within both a circle and a square!? NOOOOO *yugioh life points counting down noise*

>>7113769
>bridgeman
>grifter

bait used to be believable. Sorry that this is the only way anyone will talk to you anon

>>7118819
>The merit of painting lies in the exactness of reproduction

who cares how he considered himself, this quote proves that he would be a modern day computer nerd who would sing praises on AI

>>7118871
>ignored loomshit
heh

>>7118871
OP is baiting anti-construction schizo by mocking his own words. Anti-construction schizo dude unironically believes that though.

>>7118873
He'd possibly be one of the people perceptive enough to understand how it worked and how much of a scam that AI image generators are.
All they do is reconfigure themselves to reproduce each image that they're trained on and are crosstrained to associate keywords to the images and patterns within them. The end result is that all that an image generating ML algorithm can output are rearrangements of the original images and interpolations between the original images. Automated photobashing, in effect. It's not a tool for intellectuals and artists, it's a machine for grifters and scamming pajeets to be even more insufferable and fill the internet with even more trash in an attempt to make money with the least possible effort and value given as humanly possible.
See this post by this faggot here https://www.artstation.com/artwork/14zy3K and you'll find picrelated, a midjourney generated image of Keanu Reeves sitting on a bench with some armor slapped on. Or you can go look up Bloodborne image gens, and see a large number of images that have John Bloodborne from the game's cover lifted wholesale. Or this video here of Stable Diffusion that was trained on a very small set of images. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mryOZ1qBaCU

>>7118905
AI is a tool like anything else. No artist wants to be serious and discuss how it could improve the workflow or be used effectively because its so much easier to plaster NO AI #ARTMADEBYHUMANS on your profile and rake in free clicks. If you're dead against AI being useful in anyway then you're straight up just a stupid person. Same if you think that it's a replacement for artists.

>>7118918
It's useful as a toy, an inspiration generator for a mood board maybe. For actual production of actual work? "Workflow"???
Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha

>>7118820
Mathematical study of perspective doesn't prevent one to appreciate a more cavalier, pragmatic approach to perspective for artists.

>>7118873
No, because he spoke at a time were people struggled heavily to get even a likeness. Didn't he started his writings with
> Let no one who isn't a mathematician read me
That's because people who aren't mathematician (like you!) aren't used to articulate a proper argument, nor to listen to properly articulated arguments, because they don't even understand the value of properly articulated arguments.

Non-mathematicians think that yelling "I'm right" very loud for long enough is enough to be right. Literally.

>>7118905
>He'd possibly be one of the people perceptive enough to understand how it worked and how much of a scam that AI image generators are.
Or, he wouldn't care much about AI, because
> the smell of oil paint dude. the smell of oil paint.