/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.1695128]

Probably just being being a cynical cunt but does anybody else find these really loose and painterly styles kind of try-hard?
I understand the fascination with it and all and I'm not talking shit about Sean. I love his stuff. But I don't know... Something about it rubs me the wrong way.

[Anonymous No.1695131]

Nope

[Anonymous No.1695129]

its all about the topic and the time frame you do it within. If you have a year to render it out 8 hours per day then you can do that.
Or you can have a 2 day deadline for 4 pictures, get amazing strokes by practicing and make a good living.

Stop worrying about this shit and go paint / draw.

[Anonymous No.1695132]

>>1695128
Art =/= reproduction of reality

[Anonymous No.1695135]

Hey OP, wouldn't doing paintings that are smoothed to the point of looking like a photograph be "try-Hard" instead of a loose style?

[Anonymous No.1695139]

>>1695128
no actually i find the opposite to be true. it takes way more skill to pull off vs rendering everything out.

im way more impressed of some one given me just enough detail to give me the illussion vs some one who donesn't know how to do that so renders renderers renders.

[FiRez !!tndrCZJHE+I No.1695140]

>>1695128
For me part of the appeal of a piece is its subjectivity, that lingering impression derived from the nuances of the strokes, composition, etc...

I find that the painterly finish usually facilitates this experience, when properly used it feels like a beautiful prose which gives you something new every time you read it. On the other hand when a painting is overly rendered it evokes in me the sense of a cold hard fact, like a dictionary entry that you don't need to review after a short while.

[Anonymous No.1695164]

>>1695135
By try-hard I mean that they're going out of their way to do this painterly style that everyone will automatically love so they come off as better than they actually are. Of course that goes into the realm of subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.1695173]

>>1695128
Sorry buddy, I feel the opposite.

Decisive meaningful strokes show a high amount of skill and knowledge of lighting + forms.

Not to say that a high amount of rendering doesn't, but given infinity time, anyone can make a very good copy.

If I wanted a perfect rendering, why wouldn't I just take a picture? Art as a reproduction died with the camera imo.The beauty of art (imo) is in it's abilities to tell stories or capture moods. A perfect render may or may not do that, but you have so much more room with painterly strokes.

For example, when I see one of those drawings that looks identical to a picture, I check it out, go 'eh' and move on. Whereas if I see something with great colors, mood, strokes, I look around the painting, and create a mini narrative. It's much more entertaining.

[Anonymous No.1695260]

I get what you're saying OP. Painting like this, with very specific and deliberate but loose looking work is one of the hardest things to do, and what I'd love to be able to do some day. But there are some people out there who seem to be doing it purely for the feedback, trying to piggyback off of JJ or Mullins. Thoughts on that aside, they also tend to just wing it with what they're doing. Guys like JJ and John J Park and Yun Ling and such really know what they're doing; that's why they can do stuff that looks loose. Sean's great, and has some really nice work, but with things like this too much of it seems winged for it to feel right.

[Anonymous No.1695271]

>>1695164

its much harder to pull off than overrendering. every inaccuracy becomes much more obvious. look at jaime jones, and try to replicate his style. yeah, you won't even get it to look 1% as amazing. fundamentals hold it together, and removing the "artifical" handling of surface that overrendered images provide, leaves you with bare naked fundamentals. if ur good, it'll show very fucking clearly. if ur shit, it'll show very fucking clearly. and everything inbetween.

[Anonymous No.1695272]

>>1695128
it's pretty hacky, like that afremov guy really.

[Anonymous No.1695285]

>>1695272

afremov is completely unrelated lol

[Anonymous No.1695286]

You rub me the wrong way.

[Anonymous No.1695291]

>>1695285
it's the same sort of thing, just for a different audience, using visible brush technique to cover-up the fact that the picture is basically a sketch.

[Anonymous No.1695302]

>>1695291
>cover-up the fact that the picture is basically a sketch.


That's not what these people are doing.

[Anonymous No.1695310]

>>1695302
yes they are.

[Anonymous No.1695346]

>>1695260
OP here, this is exactly what I was trying to say. I guess deep down I don't want that style to be overused to the point of people not liking it because EVERYONE is doing it. I'd like if it the true toppest tier of artists did it and nobody else. Makes it that much more special.

[Anonymous No.1695354]

>>1695346
That's retarded. How can you expect someone to become top tier without doing it and failing at it a bit beforehand? You guys praise Yun Ling, but look at his old work and it is very derivative of Mullins and very amateur. Now he is doing good things so it's acceptable? Stop contradicting yourself and just appreciate good art, and if something is bad, then don't make a fuss on it, at least they are trying something and probably they will do better the next time.

Seriously, what's with everyone here being completely obsessed with what other people are doing? Let them do what they do, and focus on your own skills.

[Anonymous No.1695357]

It rubs me the wrong way when people who've done everything by the book, and are still utter shite, get frustrated and start lashing out at others who've found something that's effective and works well for them.

Not implying that's you, but that's certainly a lot of people around here.

[Anonymous No.1695365]

Rub me

[Anonymous No.1695380]

I personally find it much more artful in an actual painting than I do in digital work. In a digital painting you can redo your strokes as much as you like to get that one that has just the right feel. You have all these tools and tricks to fake it. The end result is something where it's an effect. In a painting like >>1695139 every stroke is considered and perfect, there's no excess gumph, every mark is where it's supposed to be, and it takes enormous skill to do that.

[Anonymous No.1695440]

It's too derivative

[Anonymous No.1695550]

I think it's great.

There are more people digitally drawing and painting today than ever before, and I think it's because it's just so easy accessible. I also think it's because it's easy to want to be like those amazing digital artists that get reposted everywhere on the internet. Because of this, new artists are quickly pulled into the fascination of being able to pull off realism while drawings things like dragons, orcs, far away landscapes, etc.

Though I think at one point when progressing your skills you start to look at the situation around the internet. So many digital artists look the fucking same, and that's bad for everyone. At this point, a smart person would start to evaluate their work and decide what makes it 'theirs'. I think this is the best and natural way to create your style.

This is where people discover 'real' digital painting. So many new artists obsess over the fundamentals of drawing and design that they can only achieve plastic and perfect computerized drawings. Good digital painters will take their studies further, and study what makes a good painting. This is where people start to realize advanced concepts like properly done under paintings, informative directional strokes, etc.

Is it try-hard? Sort of. It's definitely very purposeful. But I think the bests digital painters are aware that painting like this adds a whole new level of depth to their work, and they pull it off very well. I wouldn't worry about it becoming a trend, because beginners simply don't realize that this is even a technique.

[Anonymous No.1695554]

>>1695310
No, they're really not. It's completely illogical to think this way. At what point do you consider a drawing to be done? When every square inch of a painting is absolutely perfect, or when it looks 'real'? Is it when you get to the point that you can't see any strokes that the artists has left behind when building their compositions and colors?

They aren't hiding their incompetence. I think you're more concerned about people who use it as an excuse for a piss poor painting. That makes me mad too, and rightfully so. But saying that an artist who really knows what they're doing is too lazy to finish up their drawings & paintings is incredibly naive.

[Anonymous No.1695590]

>>1695554
i know this will be hard for you to understand because you are too green, so you still have a bit of 'artist as genius' bias like most non-artists. the paintings these digital painters paint are quick and easy, if it weren't for the massive amounts of visual noise they produce with their 'painterly' marks they would look simple and sketchy, because they are. (some exceptions of course).

a talented musician playing a simple tune is still very enjoyable, but that doesn't mean every tune they play is Beethoven.

if you want to see real painting take a close look at something by velasquez or rembrandt.

[Anonymous No.1695689]

>>1695128
Its accualy my favourite style. It leaves whole lot for you to imagine and I love that. I hate over rendered bullshit.

[Anonymous No.1695729]

They're interesting to look at because they remind me that all there is are just random shapes that my brain for some reason interprets and gives them meaning, that's cool.

[Anonymous No.1695867]

I like to see the artist give me the image with little structure. This is probably the best example I have of it. It's more abstract than painterly, but it shows how less can be so much more.

[Anonymous No.1695873]

>>1695867
Another good example of what I'm getting at.

[Anonymous No.1695886]

>>1695867
Cecily Brown, I have just discovered her and am really falling in love with her work. Such beautiful dissolving figures and forms, and I love the color palette as well. To me these paintings possess a kind of essentialism. . . don't know if that's even a word, but it's just this dripping visceral quality that takes the painted medium to this orgiastic, wholly necessary crescendo.
Love it.

[Anonymous No.1695900]

>>1695380
>fake it

No rules, just tools.

[Anonymous No.1695927]

>>1695590
>lol look at a weel painting rembrandt velazquez
>beethoven precipice of musical composition

you really have got this cognitive dissonance thing down, havent you? Every artist uses visual noise to communicate value and color because thats how the eye sees it, it just so happens that you can vary the amount of it, to change the perception of the work. portrait painters like rembrandt and velazquez made things very clear because it was meant to show the grandeur of the sitter, the patron. Artists that add more strokes and noise, like cezanne and monet communicate everday life.

[Anonymous No.1695931]

>>1695927
they didn't make things very clear. i said look closely, go over to the google art project and look closely at say...the portrait of pope innocent 10. like right up close so you can see the marks. that's the real tao of painting right there.

[Anonymous No.1695937]

>>1695380
What about stuff like this though? When I look at it I get the impression that no less thought was put into it than if it were done traditionally.

[Anonymous No.1695942]

>>1695937
2soft4me

[Anonymous No.1695951]

>>1695380
Well I guess it's cheating if go into a store and buy paints, I should be in the fucking woods mashing berries and leaves together to get my pigments. I should hunt and kill wild hogs for their hair so I can have a brush, right? I should be picking cotton to weave into a stretched canvas. I mean, you already have all the hard work done with premade paint and premade brushes, you have all those tools and tricks to fake it.

>Retarded logic from someone who doesn't know a thing about art.

[Anonymous No.1696234]

>>1695951
You're so fucking stupid

Digital "painting" just isn't art at the same level as traditional. Who gives a shit about human expression if it's done through modern electronics

[Anonymous No.1696476]

>>1695128

i like painterly artwork a lot and seeing how sean's work has come along i think this will probably be a phase before he moves on, like how other people did.

there's a lot of different ways to pull it off, though, which is what i love. seans work is painterly but so is sprias' artwork (attached), and >>1695937 min yum, and they all look so different but its all for the sake of simplicity.

i think what's happening is people really like the feel of it, and they think it's easy, so they simplify poorly and the response is very negative. like when people copy jaime jones' work and it looks off because they don't understand how to simplify, and they don't want to, they just like how it looks. so it's a risk - you either do it well and receive a whole lot of love, or you do it poorly and everyone calls you out on your bullshit.

[Anonymous No.1696549]

>>1696234
>Digital "painting" just isn't art at the same level as traditional. Who gives a shit about human expression if it's done through modern electronics

Ahahah ah what am i reading for real.

Re-read what you said

[Anonymous No.1696997]

>>1695886
I'm so glad that you knew who that was, I've been wanting to find more paintings from that artist.
Thank you, Based Anon.

[Anonymous No.1697955]

>>1695900
>>1695937
>>1695951

It's not that digital is cheating or fake, it's that using a set of photoshop brushes and techniques to imitate a specific style of applying oil paint somehow misses the point of the painterly style. It's not true to the medium.

[Anonymous No.1698058]

>>1697955
you seem to be the one who is missing the point though. These digital artists don't try to imitate how oil paint looks, they try to apply traditional knowledge about edges and brush economy to their digital work. The result happens to look somewhat similar to oil paint, but that is not the goal, that is the byproduct of making their paintings simply look better as a whole.

[Anonymous No.1698063]

>>1697955
So by your argument using 2dimensional lines to represent a 3dimensional form is not true to the medium and should be only allowed if you are sculpting.

Sound logic there.

[Anonymous No.1698083]

>>1696997
>dat perspective on the lamp.

[Anonymous No.1698203]

>>1698058

Some do, some don't. The style created by the application of oils (not that there's one) is different from watercolours, gouache, pencil, or charcoal. Digital painting is a very versatile medium, but in some ways that's its downfall, to me the art too often feels like an imitation of another medium rather than one in its own right. I also feel that the flatness and digital nature of the images presents a challenge for people using painterly techniques which are so reliant on texture and being able to view the artwork from a variety of angles and distances. I often find photomanipulation more artistically successful and honest, in spite of the fact that its somehow an inherently dishonest approach. Digital painting is a very new method, I might feel that some of these questions have been answered after its been around and matured for a bit longer, but at the moment most digital painting is stuck in a kind of illustration rut.

>>1698063

No, your logic is pretty unsound.