Show me some different artwork

[Anonymous No.1727264]

I'm sick and tired of looking at the same art all day. After maybe like 6 years of looking at tons of new art everyday I am getting fed up. Every artist on my fb feed, every artist we fap over all day, every artist that used to be on cghub's frontpage, every artist doing the same shit. The majority of stuff I see I can't even tell who did it, it could be one of dozens of people all doing the same thing.

Everyone copies everyone else. Everyone is desperately trying to be Jaime or is simply throwing a ton of photos together (hurdur photobashing).

Show me some fucking artists who are doing their own thang. The world needs more Peleng's and Zedig's and stuff. Show me something FRESH.

Posting up a few Iv Solyaev's to start off. Other people better follow through.

[Anonymous No.1727266]

>>1727264
He does a lot of these grey and black things

[Anonymous No.1727267]

>>1727266

[Anonymous No.1727268]

>>1727267
His old work

[Anonymous No.1727272]

> artists
> illustrators
Open your eyes ffs

[Anonymous No.1727274]

>>1727272
The two are not mutually exclusive. But whatever, show me some different illustrators then if you are so caught up in semantics.

[Anonymous No.1727287]

>>1727264
http://tobiee.deviantart.com/gallery/

You're welcome

[Anonymous No.1727292]

>>1727264
Sorry to say this OP, but your examples don't seem to jive with your goal. While this art looks cool, I don't see how it's different from the majority of stuff I see. It looks like concept art and drawings/paintings for fun.

Don't see how it's different. Hell your first example looks like a rip-off of randomconceptartistnamehere to me.

[Anonymous No.1727378]

Let me see if I understand: OP dosn't want to see more 'illustrative realism'. So? what does OP want to see?
Pic related? Cartoons? Some obscure art period?

[Anonymous No.1727380]

>>1727378
why

[Anonymous No.1727382]

>>1727378
Weird art thread? Weird art thread!

[Anonymous No.1727392]

>>1727378
>>1727382

dat instahide material

[Anonymous No.1727765]

>>1727380
Because its cute

[Anonymous No.1727815]

>>1727378
No Im fine with "illustrative realism" as you call it. But I want some degree of "freshness" and originality to it. Very few people are painting their own way and their own subject matter. How many generic designs and concepts are being produced daily? The same guy on horse in generic landscape with simple value structure so that it gets lighter the farther away it is and then throw in some jaime-esque brushstrokes and colour.

It's like, when Frazetta came on the scene he punched his way into the industry with the energy and freshness of his art. Then you got a million fucking shitty ass clones trying to be Frazetta. That's how it is now too, only worse because the internet pushes the incestuous nature of the industry.

[Anonymous No.1727905]

http://mariamenshikova.com/

[Anonymous No.1727924]

>>1727815
>simple value structure so that it gets lighter the farther away it is

you do know that this is a basic premise on how light works given our human perception right? stuff farther away from the viewpoint has a washed out effect?

or do you think this is somehow an unoriginal stylistic choice?

[Anonymous No.1727927]

>>1727924
it is very often massively overly emphasized, and often done fairly poorly.

[Anonymous No.1727957]

>>1727927
This. Plus it's a very boring lighting/value structure. There are numerous ways you can set up the value masses in your painting, but people almost always go to the super dark foreground getting progressively lighter the farther away you go. It's easy and it "works" but it isn't the best choice in many cases, and many people exaggerate the fuck out of it in a poor manner. How often do you see a foreground so dark that it is like the artist has never observed real life? It could be a bright outdoor scene and they will literally use pure blacks or very close to it for large masses of the foreground simply because CLOSER = DARKER, RIGHT?!

[Anonymous No.1727994]

Since you seem to be mentioning a more 'specific' direction: Ross Tran.

[Anonymous No.1727996]

>>1727994
Miles Johnston, but I'm sure you've seen his stuff before.
And, just to rub it in, both of them are 21 years old.

[Anonymous No.1727997]

>>1727996
Tobias Kwan

[Anonymous No.1728002]

>>1727997
Android Jones, also pretty well-known.

[Anonymous No.1728010]

>>1727815
Hmm... Check out lines and colors dot com, its awesome.
I will rec you to study the work of Alex Toth, he was a master of doing more with less.

[Anonymous No.1728011]

Kyoung Hwan Kim

[Anonymous No.1728015]

>>1727274
Illustrators aren't artists.

[Anonymous No.1728017]

>>1728015
Because?

[Anonymous No.1728024]

>>1728017
Artists are creative, illustrators are not, they are at best an artist's worker.

[Anonymous No.1728025]

>>1728024
That's bullshit.

[Anonymous No.1728027]

>>1728011
Also, I'm pretty sure this is exactly what the OP was talking about: same old same old. Hot girl in armor WOW, neva ben dun before.

[Anonymous No.1728029]

>>1728017
Because they do it as a living and treat it as a job and theyre only in it for the money and they arent truly creative and expressive and controversial and they all do the same stuff and theyre bound to the chains of society and follow the herd like sheep with no real effort to create amazing works that challenge the status quo. Or something along those lines. (aka bullshit)

[Anonymous No.1728031]

>Trolling sites that specialize in digital garbage
>Durr where's the 'art'¿
Not too bright are ya op

[Anonymous No.1728035]

>>1728029
Angry teenybopper aspiring to make vidya detected.

[Anonymous No.1728063]

>>1728031
Whatever, I'm sure others feel the same way. I do the same digital garbage for a living. I do love Jaime and Ruanjia (although I'm tired of their clones). I just want a breath of fresh air at the moment.

[Anonymous No.1728298]

>>1728002
>>1727997
>>1727996
>>1727994
>face surrounded by the abstract shapes
That's about as generic as it gets.

[Anonymous No.1728365]

>>1728298
2/4
you tried.

[Anonymous No.1728369]

>>1728365
Sorry should have said "female surrounded by the abstract shapes", it's essentially the same thing and is usually done by the same kind of artists.

[Anonymous No.1728379]

>>1728369
What you really should have said was "female+anything".

[Anonymous No.1728784]

The reality is that this is true for every art community; CGhub, Deviantart, Pixiv and others all attract their own userbase where most people influence/copy each other to some degree. Meanwhile the people who stand out either aren't popular at all, in which case you'll have to look really hard, or they are, which inevitably results in other people 'copying' them. Rinse and repeat. And it's not much different elsewhere, be it fine art, books, movies or pre-made pastasauce. Suck up your bitterness and look around, preferably in the favourites of artists you like.
>>1728298
Try actually looking them up and you'll find they have more than just abstract ladies in smudgy textures. The artwork in the first posts isn't exactly mindbaffingly original either.

[Anonymous No.1728819]

>>1727378

[Anonymous No.1728823]

Marlene Dumas

[Anonymous No.1728824]

>>1727264
How about you go outside to a museum or a gallery