What do you think

[illastrat No.1459240]

wanted to create something sort of gritty. Didnt really put much CONSCIOUS thought into it. Feel free to love of hate. I don't care.

[Chunbum Park No.1459270]

This is one of your very best works. I want to sincerely congratulate you on creating this masterpiece. It's a timeless divine creation. I am downloading it and saving it in my computer. I really want to put it as my background, but I can't because I still want the picture of Mamehana who is my favorite geisha, there.
It reminds me of the woman with hat by matisse.
You are fulfilling your destiny by depicting beautiful African American women and celebrating the beauty of your kind.
I hope I can become friends with you. Great work!

[Chunbum Park No.1459274]

I am hypnotized by your work. It's truly amazing.

[Chunbum Park No.1459275]

Simply exquisite, a marvelous sight to behold!

[Anonymous No.1459278]

>>1459240
Work on the fucking eyes. How is you you, and CrumbBum, and that other guy, all manage to fuck up eyes like this?

The weird way you've got of doing the eyes makes her look unfocused, and the heavy shadows in the cheekbones make her look gaunt, and this all makes her look like a drug addict(the trippy colors don't help).
>>1459270
>masterpiece
>timeless
>divine creation
You should be able to tell on your own, but this guy is trolling you.

[Chunbum Park No.1459279]

>>1459275
this is an imposter. aint me. i can sense the sarcasm

[Chunbum Park No.1459282]

>>1459278
i am not trolling. it's simple honest truth. you probably don't know anything about colors. color is this work's strongest point. it's impeccable. it's complete. the composition is flawless.

[Anonymous No.1459284]

>>1459282
>mfw

[Anonymous No.1459285]

>>1459282

[Chunbum Park No.1459287]

>>1459285
>>1459284
you guys can laugh all you want. i don't care.
I know you guys are incapable of doing anything significant or worthwhile. That's why you never upload and share your works. It's meaningless to play the role of self-appointed art historians and critique experts you guys claim to be. It's meaningless. Pretty bad.

[Anonymous No.1459288]

>>1459287
I can out-paint you, but I'm not going to go around /ic/ wagging my dick just to feel superior, you'd just say you have a different vision and our works aren't comparable anyway.

[Anonymous No.1459289]

>>1459287
>I know you guys are incapable of doing anything significant or worthwhile.
No you don't. You don't even know who we are or anything about us. That's what it means to be anonymous.
>That's why you never upload and share your works.
But I do. Do try and guess which threads I've posted in.
>It's meaningless to play the role of self-appointed art historians and critique experts you guys claim to be. It's meaningless. Pretty bad.
It's more amusing to watch your hilarious ineptitude, and how you vehemently ignore any critique and then try to act like you know anything at all, which only serves to show off how utterly ignorant you are of all things art.
>you guys can laugh all you want. i don't care.
If you didn't care you wouldn't have responded. So, I laugh at you again - this time because you're stupid.

[Chunbum Park No.1459293]

>>1459288
"I can out-paint you"
outpaint my a**. That's a pretty pathetic thing to say. What a bad excuse for not sharing your works.
You don't have to post your works juts to feel superior to me. Just do it for your self. DO IT. Promote your works. That's in your interest. Quote my professor at RISD. "After all, like the tree that falls in the woods, does the artwork exist if no one sees it?"

DO IT. I dare you. Please. You said you are superior. Prove it. Wow I was blown away by illastrat's awesomeness. Now I am blown away by your stupidity.
>>1459289
"If you didn't care you wouldn't have responded. So, I laugh at you again..."
Oh my god this is like arguing with my little brother when we were 9 years olds. Pathetic.
You make it sound as if it's a significant thing that I "ignore any critique" when your "critiques" as illstrat put it was never intended to help me in the first place. You package it as if it's a medicine that's gonna help you, but you just want to stomp down promising artists like me and illastrat because that makes you feel better about your lack of skills.

[Anonymous No.1459300]

>>1459293
When I did critique you, it was to help you. I have nothing to gain from sabotaging artists, quite the contrary - helping other artists gets me pretty pictures to look at.

This sort of logic, "He's out to get me!" is the thought process of a child. I bear you no ill will, and your failure does me no profit. Any hated or ill intent is only in your own head.

Currently, you and Illastrat are on the same level as literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of other artists. We've told you how to improve, and given you the tools to do so. The only thing holding you back is yourselves.

So, you know. Good luck just making shit up as you go along, but when you're ready to actually put some effort into it, feel free to come back and we'll help you then too.

[Anonymous No.1459297]

>>1459240
Total shit, sorry. This is worse than Jimi abd on the same level as Chunbum's "Tropical Dream." Looks like something out of an elementary school art classroom.

Of course you're just going to get all defensive and "hurr durr muh style."

[Chunbum Park No.1459298]

>>1459289
But I don't find anything worthwhile on any of the threads. I look at every thread on ic everyday.

Either you are lying about posting your works, or your work is pretty shitty that I don't even take note of it.
Again, KEEP BEING self appointed art historians and art critique experts. What a meaningless role to play. Keep bashing good works by others. Keep on sharing your expert knowledge about how pathetic those works are. At the end of the day, you don't create any artwork for yourself. IT's pretty meaningless.

[Anonymous No.1459301]

>>1459298
>But I don't find anything worthwhile on any of the threads.
Then you aren't looking very hard, there's at least seven good works in the draw thread alone, and all seven of those are by artists who are far better than you.

[Anonymous No.1459303]

>>1459301
Oh, and while we're on the subject again, this continues to be a complete irrelevant line of reasoning meant only to deflect from your own inadequacy. See; Ad Hominem. That's you right now.

[Chunbum Park No.1459305]

>>1459300
Keep talking. You are a bad doctor. You say you are out to help us. You tell us to take your medicine. Of course our failure does you no profit. But that's the thing you breed on. You are extremely creative in the ways you criticize and bash our works as complete trash. IT's meaningless, but you do it anyways.

I take helpful constructive critiques any day. I just did it today. I communicated with the critic and made fixes to the work.

I know what good critiques are. I am in art school. It's totally different. Stop pretending. Stop trying to persuade us to listen to your criticisms and mockery. Stop pretending it's gonna help us.
Us listening to you doesn't help you either. Why do you so badly want it?

[Anonymous No.1459307]

>>1459293
I promote my work at other sites, on my own web page, in my studio, and occasionally on /ic/. I'm not going to flaunt my paintings here just so you'll take a critique seriously.

[Anonymous No.1459308]

>>1459305

[Chunbum Park No.1459311]

>>1459307
I am not gonna take your malicious critiques seriosuly even if you share your works.
I knew it. You are NEVER gonna share your works because there is nothing to share.
You think it's so worthwhile and meaningful being the self-appointed critique expert you pretend to be. Congrats.

[Anonymous No.1459312]

>>1459311
Then you must be confusing me with another anon, because you thanked me for a critique just today. I was responding to the "you guys" in your post, which implies you think illustrat and yourself are the best artists on /ic/. It's that massive ego that gets such a negative response here, the asshole attitude of /ic/ is only half the problem.

[Anonymous No.1459315]

>>1459305
We don't "hate" your work. It's an anonymous board, of course people are going to be merciless in their critiques. d/ic/ks would tear up every minute flaw in a Van Eyck if he posted here. What we hate, and when people start getting rude, is when you reject honest helpful advice and try to tell us you know better than us. Why do you even post for critique then?

[Anonymous No.1459316]

>>1459305
>more ad hominem
You haven't said once why a critique is bad. This is because you aren't able to.
>I take helpful constructive critiques any day. I just did it today.
[Citation Needed]. This is meaningless here, as your track record shows only a willingness to listen to people who stroke your e-cock. You are judged by your actions here, so bringing this up is truly pointless.
>I know what good critiques are.
But you don't. You've been given plenty to work with and just attacked the people trying to help you.
>I am in art school.
Meaningless.
>It's totally different.
That's because people will not say to your face what they really think - friends,family, professors, they are all full of shit.

But hey, if you don't believe us, why don't you head over to conceptart.org where they will school you in exactly the same way? That site actually has working pros on it, so you won't be able to make excuses when you get told.
>Stop pretending. Stop trying to persuade us to listen to your criticisms and mockery. Stop pretending it's gonna help us.
Why don't you stop pretending you know what you're doing when you clearly don't? The most detrimental thing for anyone attempting to beocme good at any skill is the gross overestimation of their own abilities, as it leads to complacency and failure, not to mention you have to be aware of your weaknesses to work on them. See; Tom Preston. Also this; http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Incompetent-People-Really-Have-No-Clue-Studies-2783375.php
>Us listening to you doesn't help you either. Why do you so badly want it?
Like I said, I only profit here by helping. Your failure gets me nothing, but your success gets me nice things to look at.

[Chunbum Park No.1459317]

>>1459312
It's not ego. It's just something we suspect. If works on ic were as significant and substantial as the best works featured on deviant art or the best works featured at art schools like Rhode Island School of Design I would have thought otherwise. But the quality of works on ic are pretty pathetic... to be honest.
We really don't have massive ego at all. I would never claim I was the undisputable number one at RISD. See?

[Anonymous No.1459321]

Illastrat, I really hope you're paying attention to this. CrumbBum is showing a wonderful way of how not to act, and how to cling to willful ignorance and cause one's own stagnation.

Please do not take after him. It would be sad for more people to act like him.

[Chunbum Park No.1459322]

>>1459316
A critique is meaningless to the person receiving the critique if it just rejects everything that artwork is and doesn't even recognize the reasons why the artist chose to paint in the way he did and the reasons why. There's no place to start because the way of thinking is totally different.
For example, on derivative of android, you guys said it's just all mud. You never took notice of the structures formed by the raw strokes and the careful balance and distribution of colors.

[Anonymous No.1459323]

>>1459317
>I don't have a massive ego at all
>brags about being in RISD every thread
>you can't outpaint me

[Anonymous No.1459324]

>>1459322
>muh style

[Cumbum Pox No.1459325]

>>1459321
>implying we are not the same person
We think you have not been paying much attention to us.

[Chunbum Park No.1459326]

>>1459323
If you guys remember correctly, I never mentioned I was student at RISD when I first started posting on ic. It's only because you mock and completely denigrate me as total noob that I resorted to defending myself in that way.
"outpaint you" is something someone else said, not me.
>>1459324
Again, you guys made up the quote "muh style". I never said that myself.

[Anonymous No.1459327]

>>1459322
Because it wasn't careful, and the painting technique actually was muddy, but you'll never admit that or give an ear to anyone to holds that opinion. If someone said 'I love how raw the strokes are' you would've said 'thanks for the invaluable critique'

Most of us understood the goal. We're familiar with expressionism and Neo-expressionism. Just because you're trying for an expressionistic or abstract approach doesn't mean you're incapable of failing.

[Chunbum Park No.1459332]

>>1459327
Look at that painting again. Everything is raw, mostly unmixed colors, except for orange, green, and purple, because I only have yellow and red for orange, yellow and blue for green, and pink and blue for purple. It's not muddy. I have no idea where you are getting that idea.

If you think colors of umber and sienna are "muddy" I don't have time listening to you.

[Anonymous No.1459335]

>>1459322
>A critique is meaningless to the person receiving the critique if it just rejects everything that artwork is and doesn't even recognize the reasons why the artist chose to paint in the way he did and the reasons why.
Meaningless. See; Death of the Author. Your reasons for doing things are meaningless if it does not come across in the image itself. They say a photo is worth a thousands words, so think of it like this; if your image does not speak effectively, and the reasons for why you've done something cannot be discerned from that image, you have used your thousand words poorly. No one can ask Van Gogh why he did why he did, but his paintings read well all the same.
>There's no place to start because the way of thinking is totally different.
This is an excuse to deflect criticism. Just because you did it a specific way one purpose doesn't make it good.
>You never took notice of the structures formed by the raw strokes and the careful balance and distribution of colors.
Probably because it didn't read well. As for careful distribution, it's a mostly green palette with little color balance, with no values to speak of, so I would call this poorly done on that front. Instead of being contributing elements, the "structures" only serve to distract and hurt the composition. It also shows poor understanding of form and anatomy, recurring problems in your paintings which you have never addressed.
>>1459326
>It's only because you mock and completely denigrate me as total noob that I resorted to defending myself in that way.
That's a poor way of going about it. PROTIP; No one cares. If you want to defend yourself, start by doing better work.

[Chunbum Park No.1459338]

>>1459335
Why do you put all the burden of accurately delivering all the intentions of the artwork solely on the artist? The same thing is true for the audience. If the audience cannot understand the work, the artist isn't necessarily to blame.

Why does every artwork gotta have values and correct anatomy?
Structures is what composition is.
Correct anatomy is meaningless. All that's needed is I make something that pleases the eye. A careful composition of structures coming together regardless of what the actual anatomy is.
I react to what's on canvas, not what I observe, because what's on canvas and what I observe is totally different.

Your saying "wrong anatomy" or whatever doesn't help me at all.

[Anonymous No.1459337]

>>1459332
>>1459332
your mother is raw. your painting is mud

raw, raw, raw. meaningless buzzword. define 'raw', what does it mean in terms of painting technique?

[Chunbum Park No.1459346]

>>1459337
If I refine my brushwork and hides the hand of the artist, I can't actively compose and react to what's on the canvas.
If it's raw, it's like lego blocks. I can play with it. I can add and subtract. I can arrange.

[Anonymous No.1459349]

>>1459338
>Why do you put all the burden of accurately delivering all the intentions of the artwork solely on the artist? The same thing is true for the audience. If the audience cannot understand the work, the artist isn't necessarily to blame.
Because the artist is the one who made it. If someone words a sentence poorly and misunderstandings arise from it, it is not the listeners fault. If the audience cannot understand the work, then the artist has failed to communicate effectively.
>Why does every artwork gotta have values and correct anatomy?
They do not but to effectively stylize human portraits an understanding of anatomy is necessary. As for values, they are an important compositional tool that allows and artist to direct the eye of the viewer. That you don't understand this only shows how far behind everyone else you are.
>Structures is what composition is.
No. Composition is arranging things to direct the viewer's gaze. Random structures do not equal composition.
>Correct anatomy is meaningless. All that's needed is I make something that pleases the eye.
But you've failed even at that. There's a reason you don't often see art like this beyond places like DeviantArt.
>A careful composition of structures coming together regardless of what the actual anatomy is.
You compositions do not direct the eye, and so fail at being effective compositions. Anatomy in human portraits is important because incorrect anatomy introduces unintentional distracting elements which can disrupt a compostion.
>I react to what's on canvas, not what I observe, because what's on canvas and what I observe is totally different.
...
>Your saying "wrong anatomy" or whatever doesn't help me at all.
As long as you believe this your portraits will continue to have flaws that undermine your work. This is like saying you don't need to know perspective for landscape painting.

[Chunbum Park No.1459353]

>>1459349
When I want correct anatomy, I can do it with both my eyes closed. It's the most basic thing you guys attribute with such great importance and level of difficulty.
The painting I uploaded today on ic has correct anatomy (for most part).
When I don't want correct anatomy, I don't.

The same is true of the audience. If I spelled something correctly, and the listener doesn't get it, the fault lies with the listener.

By emphasizing anatomy, you limit all the creative possibilities. It's like saying the colors got to be accurate on an impressionist or expressionist work. Just because you don't do colors realistically doesn't make it illegit. Same for anatomy.
Is composition solely for directing the eye and creating movement? NO. It also has to do with balance, distribution, and occupancy of space.

[Anonymous No.1459356]

>>1459353
>When I want correct anatomy, I can do it with both my eyes closed
Well, we've yet to see it, so you understand why we're skeptical. I can sculpt like Michelangelo if I want to, I just don't WANT to.

see how easy that is? and the painting you uploaded today had fucked-up anatomy, you can't even get it right with your eyes open!

Why am I replying to this?!

[Anonymous No.1459366]

>>1459353
Your incorrect anatomy isn't a case of you deliberately breaking the rules for artistic effect, though. They're mistakes that make you appear unlearned and detract from the piece.

Let's take Ripe Fruit for example. Why don't you explain to us the deviations in normal anatomy, and what each of them adds or why it is central to the piece's message?

[Chunbum Park No.1459369]

>>1459356
If you say 'wrong anatomy' to that, I am not gonna listen anymore.
Here's comments by student at RISD

"Looks good. Maybe the girl on the left, her is head looks a bit big to me. If she is in the background a bit she'd be a bit smaller Also the man behind the violinist. If she is the subject then he shouldn't be as big as her
But these are minute details I don't think you need to change it"

"I think, the hand on the right side, play the violin is excelent!, though if you are still workign in on it I'd give more shade and shadow tones to the faces. - but you are useing somewhat of an tequnique of abstraction. so all my comments are up to you whether they are valid or not.
the anatomy is correct, but again, id focus more on the depth of tones in her face. Her eye is very dark. almost graphic compared to the tones in her face. I'd also think about using more stoke like marks that describe the facial contour rather than only small point like marks. Let the way you paint a hand blend into the way you paint a face. I see you are doing this some. But really the eyes are the most difficult parts to integrate in this painting technique. Perhaps in this color focused work, do not use any black at all. you can achieve depth through a mixture of other colors."

[Chunbum Park No.1459371]

>>1459366
Ripe Fruit?
It has correct anatomy period.
Professor Paul at Bergen Community College (before I was student at RISD) looked over and said nothing about the distortion of anatomy in the leg parts. Said nothing about the head being separated from the body.
Only thing he wanted me to correct was to make the right leg longer. I corrected that.

[Anonymous No.1459379]

>>1459371
Now you're going back on yourself. In the original thread on that painting, you conceded the anatomy was atypical and claimed the figure was an alien that human anatomy doesn't apply to.

[Anonymous No.1459388]

>>1459379
This. Either you achieved correct anatomy, or, as you said earlier, you unintentionally created anatomy that looks like a highly abstracted cartoon character. Make up your mind. Who cares that another student didn't tell you the anatomy was clearly fucked?

[Chunbum Park No.1459395]

>>1459379
That was just a clever way out of your criticism. If I say it's an alien, I can be forgiven for "wrong" anatomy. I never meant it.
>>1459388
Hmmm I think the Anon talking about "going back on" myself and you are talking about different paintings. He's talking about Ripe Fruit. You are talking about The Violinists.

[Cumbum Pox No.1459397]

>RISD itself said so, therefore you're all wrong and I am objectively correct.

>RISD
>RISD
>RISD

[Anonymous No.1459418]

>>1459409
Based mod

[Anonymous No.1459419]

The angle of the nose doesn't match the angle of the gave. The nose is seen from below while the face is more direct. The blue of the nose is distracting and separates it from the rest f the face, at least have it fade into the surrounding colors so its clear the nose isn't a separate structure. You're overusing white highlights, you should save them for a few key spots to make those areas pop. The eyes are slitly better than your usual, but they are looking in different directions and could use a pupil,the gaze is an I portent part of a portrait. The deep red defining the cheekbones is too much, overusing bright high lots and dark shadows are both pitfalls that make for a flat image. Do value studies from life under different lighting conditions to get a better idea about the distribution of values. Having a strong or at least identifiable light source also helps in defining forms. The expressionistic and wild style is betrayed by the symmetry of the color patches on the face. I think the face would be more interesting if you snuck in several more colors and played with the palette a bit. Sharpening a few key areas on the hair or at least varying the brushwork would add more visual interest.

I would also practice abstracting color from reality, rather than making purely arbitrary decisions. Some arbitrary color can be fine, but there are already plentyfinteresting color present in the face. Deep blues beneath the eyes, rosy cheeks, just look closely. Drop some acid and spend a few minutes studying your face in the mirror if you don't believe me!

[Anonymous No.1459472]

I actually like it, but the nose reminds me of Michael Jackson. She also appears to have some very subtle manjaw going on, partially due to unfinished strokes/empty spaces

[illastrat No.1459526]

>>1459297

hurr durr muh style

[Anonymous No.1459656]

>>1459526
Tell'em, illastrat. Yuh Style!