/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.1680928]

So /ic/ you always say bla bla bla loomis bla bla anatomy, bla bla studies.

But then there's this guy, who is famous.

[Anonymous No.1680929]

[Anonymous No.1680931]

[Anonymous No.1680932]

Look at them /ic/, look at them an know something.

[Anonymous No.1680934]

[Anonymous No.1680935]

[Anonymous No.1680936]

[Anonymous No.1681008]

>>1680928

People in Colombia are fat and don't respect any laws, not even Loomis/anatomy/perspective rules.

[Anonymous No.1681201]

>>1681008
>Loomis/anatomy/perspective
>rules

[Anonymous No.1681316]

Im going to puke
I hate that art style
I dont know how people can buy shit like this.

[Anonymous No.1681323]

>>1680928
it's got structure it's got form and it's unique

:^)

[Anonymous No.1681326]

>>1680928
still better than everything ic made

[Anonymous No.1681328]

>>1680928

[Anonymous No.1681329]

>Here is a statement by Botero that provides a possible insight: “An artist is attracted to certain kinds of form without knowing why. You adopt a position intuitively; only later do you attempt to rationalize or even justify it.”

>Here is a statement by Botero that provides a possible insight: "muh style"

[Anonymous No.1681332]

>>1680928

I think he is a great artist because his paintings don't go unnoticed. Though his style is always the same. He could try something new once in a while.

About OP: loomis bla bla anatomy bla bla studies

if you read his biography you can see that he traveled and made studies for his entire life.

[Anonymous No.1681336]

this is awful.

[Anonymous No.1681370]

I love this. This is what style is. Watch and learn plebs, watch and learn.

[Anonymous No.1681639]

>>1681329
He absolutely right though. And that's not a muh style excuse.

[Anonymous No.1681640]

>>1680934
>>1680931
what the fuck...is he into gay fetish?

[Anonymous No.1681642]

. ic recommends honing your craft so you can choose what art you want to make. it offers you a set of tools. that doesn't mean you have to use every tool in that set every time you go to make something.

[Anonymous No.1681771]

>>1681640
He did a series on Abu Ghraib

[Anonymous No.1681774]

>>1681771
but they look so overly sexualized.
its like watching gengoroh tagame work.

[Anonymous No.1681776]

>>1681774
Are you aware of what actually went on at Abu Ghraib? Shit got weird bro.

[Anonymous No.1681783]

>>1681776
i know. but they were just regular sad and beaten up people. ...not some massive muscled sweaty men that make me moist.
Its not the art that shows despair and death. It's some weird torture-porn kind of stuff.

[Anonymous No.1681790]

>>1681783
Torture-porn is an accurate summary of the events at Abu Ghraib. The figures are massive because that's Botero's style.

[Anonymous No.1681799]

>>1681783

ur a chick? and tied up muscular sweaty hairy dudes make you wet?

never ever heard a chick admitting to something so obvious. you arent so different after all eh.

[Anonymous No.1681800]

>>1681799
Did you believe women were asexual creatures from another planet? How is being 12 treating you?

[Anonymous No.1681803]

>>1681800

lol no. and as a fit tall hairy dude with the "traditionally attractive" physique every women i've ever been with assured me that women dont care about looks and dont get turned on by muscles.

then again maybe they just didnt want to boost my ego, right? i always thought depictions of muscular men only attracted gay dudes.

[Anonymous No.1681805]

>>1681803
different poster here
>women dont care about looks and dont get turned on by muscles

Haha. All who say that weren't jackhammered by a big burly man yet.
Truth is that look doesn't play into the equation the same way as it does for men.
See all this fawning over Sherlock and Loki.

[Anonymous No.1681809]

>>1681803
because women are conditioned by society to avoid openly admitting to feelings of lust. they don't give a shit about your ego, they just don't want to appear shallow.

op, the art style is hilarious as hell, but it is consistent. it's def. done on purpose and not as the result of lack of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.1681836]

>>1681805
>>1681803
Everyone has their own tastes on what's attractive. Some girls like thin, effeminate guys. Some girls like muscular, /fit/ guys. Some girls like older guys. Some girls like chubby guys. Some girls like mustaches.
Why is this so hard to accept?

[Anonymous No.1681846]

>>1681836

its not. but there is a traditional image of the stereotypically attractive male (applicable across most western cultures)

dark, tall, handsome face, pronounced jaw, stubble, not smiling, nice teeth, moderately kept hair but not metro, muscular, low bodyfat.

and now take that guy and muscle him up to playgirl levels. now most women would deny finding him more attractive, out of fear of being considered shallow and superficial. which is fucked up since its perfectly fine for a guy to "lust" over highly sexualized female physiques.

[Anonymous No.1681848]

>>1681846
I'm sure there's a better board for this discussion.

[Anonymous No.1681856]

>>1681846
Who let you out of /r9k/?

[Anonymous No.1683060]

>>1680932
Maybe this is just how people appeared to him

[Anonymous No.1683062]

>>1683060
What a horrible thought. I'd try one of those photoshops, but to be completely honest it just seems like it wouldn't be an enjoyable experience.

[Anonymous No.1683105]

>>1683062
and it wouldn't work, given that the photoshop meme relies on wonky anatomy (one eye too high, forehead too big, etc), and not on a consistently applied style.

[Anonymous No.1683386]

Colombian here.
Botero is interested only in showing the volume of stuffs.

I knew he was famous but never saw actually his paintings.
wow, he needs loomis.

I have friends in IRL that draw much better than him.

[Anonymous No.1683396]

>>1683383
>>1683318
>>1683367
i would absolutely take that life in a second over debt student loans, trying to fight with a nigger over a parking space, buying grainy sugary products at a grocery store. Having to go to work everyday. Studying for drawing shit that truly doesn't even matter.

[Anonymous No.1683783]

>>1681008
>rules

[Anonymous No.1683785]

>>1681846
>>>>/r9k/

[Anonymous No.1683821]

>>1683386
>Colombian here.
> but never saw actually his paintings.

[Anonymous No.1685067]

>>1683060
Yes, because people draw what they see, just like Picasso did, that crazzy bastard

[Anonymous No.1685071]

shitty aesthetics, he's only doing art for art's sake.

[Anonymous No.1685108]

>>1685071
>he's only doing art for art's sake
you say that like it's a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.1685109]

>>1680928
Loomis is good if you want a basic understanding of drawing. In order to break the rules, you should first know the rules. This artist doesn't paint this way due to lack of technical skill, he's doing it to achieve a goal

[Anonymous No.1685111]

>>1685108
then you're saying pollock is a good thing?

[Anonymous No.1685116]

>>1685111
I do appreciate Pollock. However, "art for art's sake" refers to a much broader range of work: Cezanne, Van Gogh, Monet, etc. The people were painting for the sake of painting, not because they felt a need to educate a particular audience. And as a phrase, "art for art's sake" was around way before abstract expressionism.

[Anonymous No.1685117]

it's funny, on /ic/ i get one side of art where skill is above everything else and the most boring picture is praised for it's accuracy whereas in the wider world praise comes from like capturing something essential about the subject. people have loved quick ink drawings of mine that have that quality and passed over more technically advanced paintings as if they were complete shit.

it's an interesting dynamic and i think you need both sides to really round yourself out as artist.

[Anonymous No.1685119]

>>1685116
art for "artsy" sake then like this guy >>1685117.

[Anonymous No.1685120]

>>1685117
I think I agree. The former quality relates to the physical form of the object and the artist's ability to faithfully replicate that form, and the latter is the emotional quality of the object, and the artist's ability to faithfully recreate that emotional response, which is often through more abstract means.

A balance is definitely necessary. Like Freud here: He is interested in the human figure, the play of light, but he also distorts the figure to evoke a psychological state.

[Anonymous No.1685121]

>>1685119
I have no idea what that mangled half-sentence is supposed to mean. Please rephrase your question.

[Anonymous No.1685124]

>>1685121
arting for attention

[Anonymous No.1685128]

>>1685124
That's not what art-for-art's-sake means. That's a different topic entirely, so I'll let you wonder about it independently.

[Anonymous No.1685157]

>>1680929
that cat's got a "hey baby mama lemme whisper in yo ear" kinda look

[Anonymous No.1685162]

It's shit.