New Phil Hale Website

[Anonymous No.1760363]

So the legend finally got himself a real website after years of not having one. There's some cool new images posted up there. Figured a couple here would appreciate it:
http://philhalestudio.com/

[Anonymous No.1760404]

>>1760363
I do
thank you

[Anonymous No.1760448]

>>1760363

is this guy supposed to be good?

[Anonymous No.1760473]

>>1760448
If you can't see that he exceeds good
then "ouch!" for you
he is even original
and this is not sarcasm

[Anonymous No.1760476]

>>1760473
>he is even original

[Anonymous No.1760478]

>he is even original
>this is not sarcasm

[Anonymous No.1760480]

>original

[Anonymous No.1760482]

>>1760473

[Anonymous No.1760483]

>>1760476
>>1760478
so? there's good Original and bad original and of course he has influence, everyone has learned from someone
If your pleb eyes can't see well... not my problem

[Anonymous No.1760484]

Each of this is a different artist btw. The point is this style is actually a bit cliche in contemporary art.

[Anonymous No.1760487]

>>1760483
So what part of the style is original? I'm not questioning that he's good.

[Anonymous No.1760488]

[Anonymous No.1760491]

[Anonymous No.1760492]

>>1760484
>>1760487
of course there are a bunch of people that have works like that, with how interlaced the world of this time is, is not a surprise that you find similar people
but not in the same level of composition/camera view and themes he shares, at the end It could be just me.. but all those artists aside, I find this guy's art really entrhilling

[Anonymous No.1760495]

>>1760487
>>1760488
>>1760491
not even close

[Anonymous No.1760498]

>>1760495
you're right, while they are figures whose body parts are dissipating into the background, they contain a lot more skill and a lot less photobashing

[Anonymous No.1760500]

>>1760484
One more from this guy. If you like any of the artists, their names are in the filename or can be found by googling the images.

[Anonymous No.1760502]

>>1760498
>>1760500

I like those artists too anon, but the thing about art is that it leaves space for opinion and not terminal facts

[Anonymous No.1760504]

>>1760502
Some opinions are just better supported than others. There are some really unique contemporary artists out there, but he isn't one of them. It's great that he's doing what he's doing because there's nothing wrong when schools or movements develop, but he isn't a beacon of originality, like El Greco, Picasso, Cezanne, or contemporary artists like Bacon or Freud.

[Anonymous No.1760508]

>>1760504
I know anon! I never said he was like cezanne or freud
but I thank god he isn't making pimps of girls with fucking dragons
he is original, just like a lot of other artists out there who make similar things

you don't have to be extremely unique to be original
I don't get you, doesn that mean all these similar artist you posted don't get to be original because they are similar?

[Anonymous No.1760517]

None of these pictures have any implied momentum at all, which is sort of Phil Hale's schtick, even his old stuff like his Dark Tower series Illustrations

God, fucking dark times indeed if people are trying to talk shit about Phil Hale on /ic/

[Anonymous No.1760533]

>>1760517
completely different body of work...

[Anonymous No.1760547]

>>1760533
what?

[Anonymous No.1760550]

>>1760547
what was unclear? it's a different body of work. The series posted by OP is stylistically distinct from the earlier work you've just posted.

[Anonymous No.1760554]

>>1760550
It's still the same fucking artist

[Anonymous No.1760558]

>>1760554

Don't bother, he's just fucking around.

[Anonymous No.1761486]

If anybody needed a quick course on why /ic/ is useless, this thread would be it.

[Anonymous No.1761488]

>>1761486
If anybody needed a quick course on why some anons are utterly useless and should die, this anon would be it.

[Anonymous No.1761495]

>>1760554
But we're not discussing his early work, we're discussing his current work. If I post Picasso's cubist work, and you defend him with an example of his academic work, or blue period, then we aren't discussing the same thing. the image OP posted, and that series as a whole, lacks the qualities you're finding in his early work.

[Anonymous No.1761497]

>>1761486
Because I've pointed out a particular trend in contemporary art, posted examples of that trend, and potentially introduced people to new painters?

you are cancer, please leave.

[Anonymous No.1761498]

>>1761495
>WAAA WAAAA WHY YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I LIKE WAAAA WAAA I´M ALWAYS RIGH BECAUSE MOM SAID SO WAAAA

[Anonymous No.1761501]

>>1761498
It's not about having different tastes, I'm fine with you liking his early work or his later work, I think both are great myself. Don't act like such a baby.

[Anonymous No.1761502]

>>1761497
you are an idiot
let people have their opinions, why the fuck would you care about someone liking phil hale's work?
a weeb could say he is the most horrible artist in the world because he thinks so.. so what?
who the fuck are you to tell him otherwise? If you fucking knew better you wouldn't be so damant with your statements

[Anonymous No.1761505]

>>1761501
sorry anon, but art is all about different tastes, If people want to put a cheese with a hair on top on a museum and they consider it "art" then so be it
if you want to tell them otherwise, then so be it too

[Anonymous No.1761509]

>>1761502
I am letting people have their opinions, at no point did I say there was anything wrong with liking this guy's art. Stop projecting anon.
>>1761505
I'm talking about the disagreement you seem to have with me, not art generally. You claim I'm being some sort of authoritarian hale-hater, but nowhere in the thread have I given you reason to believe this. I have never made any sort of argument that his painting were not art, please read the thread more thoroughly.

you're welcome to post art by phil hale in this thread, or any other similar contemporary artist. stop playing the victim though.

[Anonymous No.1761542]

>>1760363
These are interesting.
I find his subjects really weird. Can someone explain who this guy is to me? Where's he from? His background? etc
Why is he painting pictures of people dogging... and.. A car crash? Was one of them a dude stabbing someone?

Weird subjects. I like them. The style is confusing but anyone knocking this is not appreciating the level of his understanding. Not only is he painting in the dark he is taking incredible complex subjects, reducing them down while not avoiding the main complexities.

>you do better

[Anonymous No.1761547]

>>1761509
>4chan
>same anons

yeah, you better get a trip fag

[Anonymous No.1761549]

>>1761547
>trip fag
Do you even know what the words you use mean?

[Anonymous No.1761552]

>>1761542
No one is knocking the style, just showing OP that there are other people working in a similar style. Nothing wrong with sharing related artists.

[Anonymous No.1761929]

>>1760363
Liked his painting too bad there aren't many.
His heads though, too spooky.

[Anonymous No.1763816]

>>1760491
Part 8 fan art?