/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.1780628]

>yfw the absolute best uncontested godking, is still getting better

[Anonymous No.1780631]

>>1780628

Dan we know it's you you smelly faggot.

[Anonymous No.1780633]

>>1780631

lol what. the giggles spilling over from the dave rapoza thread? not dan brah.

[Anonymous No.1780636]

>Implying
The composition and perspective are totally fucked. Has he even heard of the "rule of thirds"?

Did you draw this, OP? That's the only explanation I can fathom for your praise.

[Anonymous No.1780638]

[Anonymous No.1780639]

>>1780628

This is absolute shit. The colors are weak. There is no composition and there are no values. Also, water almost never looks like a frothy jizzy mess. Who ever painted this doesn't have the slightest idea what he is doing.

[Anonymous No.1780645]

>>1780636
rule of thirds is not even a thing that should be considered
especially in the field of conceptual art

[Anonymous No.1780647]

>>1780636
>>1780639
I can't tell anymore who is being sarcastic and who is genuinely retarded.

[Anonymous No.1780649]

>>1780628

absolute garbage. orcish ships never have 3 paddles per side. this guy has NO fucking idea what he is doing.

[Anonymous No.1780658]

>>1780628
Yeah, was admiring this image earlier today. Definitely getting some Frederick Waugh vibes here, fucking nice stuff indeed.

[Anonymous No.1780666]

Who is the artist? Reverse image search doesn't come up with anything. My first guess would have been one of those chinese guys, the texturing especially looks a lot like Gino's work. It's certainly not by Jaime, Mullins or Ruanjia, so the "absolute best uncontested godking" remark is throwing me off a bit.

[Daev Rapooze No.1780667]

>>1780666
Dave Rapoza

[Anonymous No.1780671]

>>1780666
>It's certainly not by Jaime, Mullins or Ruanjia, so the "absolute best uncontested godking" remark is throwing me off a bit.
Check again nigga

[Anonymous No.1780672]

>>1780666

me anon.

>>1780667

stop lying i sue you

[Daev Rapooze No.1780675]

>>1780672
Relax, Dan. We're all just screaming cars or whatever

[Anonymous No.1780694]

>>1780666
Ah shit I didn't realize Craig has uploaded even more new work since I checked his new site 2 days ago.

[Anonymous No.1780696]

anyone else feel like quitting after seeing this? i mean... it's just excessively good.

[Anonymous No.1780697]

>>1780696
Yeah. More from looking at a bunch of his work today though. Like fuck man, he's on a whole other level than everybody else. I get that he's got a good 20 years more experience than everyone else, but man I feel I need a lot more time than that to reach that level.

[Anonymous No.1780699]

>>1780696
you don't get that good by quitting

[Anonymous No.1780703]

>>1780697
He finally found the smudge tool and already pushed the boundary of what is possible with it. I mean, Bumskee, Tom Scholes, Jaime etc have made really good use of it before, but this is just mindblowing.

[Anonymous No.1780704]

>>1780699
Mullins quit drawing for like 6 years in his late teens to early 20's actually. Though he still regrets that and feels he is 6 years behind where he could be.

[Anonymous No.1780706]

>>1780696
One of the best things that I've taught myself as a learning artist is to be okay with not being the top 1%.

I like plenty of artworks and artists that aren't of OP's example in terms of greatness, and that's fine. I'd rather be great than mediocre, even if it doesn't mean that I won't be God-tier (until a decade or so later), y'know?

[Anonymous No.1780709]

>>1780703
>smudge tool
Mind pointing out where that's used in this piece? I can see some of those dynamic/wet media brushes in the blue shadows in the top left for example, and fairly standard texture brushes throughout, but I don't really see where and how he's using the smudge tool.

[Anonymous No.1780710]

>>1780703
Pretty sure that isn't the smudge tool man, just a weirdass brush.

[Anonymous No.1780712]

>>1780706
The problem is I want to be Mullins-level and even better. I kinda want to read Art and Fear since I think it will help some of my mental issues with art, but I don't agree with the premise that we aren't all able to be Mozart and that those geniuses come only very rarely.

[Anonymous No.1780716]

>>1780709
Everywhere on those rocks. It could of course also be the mixer brush or something else, but it looks exactly like what smudge with a hard, 100% opacity brush looks like.

[Anonymous No.1780717]

>>1780712
I do agree with you on that premise. With art, it's really just grinding and gaining knowledge. A shit load of practice, mind you.

Nothing wrong with wanting to become a Mullin, just don't get so discouraged that you aren't currently at that level, nor would be at that level until several years/decade later y'know?

[Anonymous No.1780722]

>>1780712
>but I don't agree with the premise that we aren't all able to be Mozart and that those geniuses come only very rarely.
If it were possible for everyone to be Mozart, then there'd be a lot more 'Mozart-tier' artists in every artistic field. We do however have plenty of artists who work hard and their work shows it. This lower tier - which is still impressive mind you - is reachable by a lot if they put in the work.

Another analogy is that we have a lot of Olympic-class sprinters, but only one Usain Bolt. The point where talent/genius/genetic predisposition/perfect environmental factors/etc makes a difference is only perceivable at the utmost highest levels. And with that reasoning, it's useless to worry about whether you have 'the gift' because you still have to put in a ton of work before it's even evident.

[Anonymous No.1780737]

>>1780722
>it's useless to worry about whether you have 'the gift' because you still have to put in a ton of work before it's even evident.

+ if you half ass it, arrogantly but correctly assuming that you DO have 'the gift', you will die a sad sad man. upon realizing that you became really good without much effort, you'll hate yourself for not having put in the work in order to become an absolute monstrosity (such as mullins) and die an icon of your industry.

so i think the bottom line is that we all better give it all we got. :|

[Anonymous No.1780748]

>>1780628

The fact that these orcs are in the Bay of Storms in Azshara is bugging me. I stopped playing WoW years ago, why do I recognize the place.

[Anonymous No.1780754]

>>1780703
This is soooo nice, reminds me of those painting sargent did in that quarry

[Anonymous No.1780765]

>>1780722
It's a flawed analogy with physical things since there are objective physical advantages from genetics. Plus not all Olympic athletes train with the same intensity, coaching, technology, program or nutrition, so it's hard to say whether or not other people can or can't reach that Usain level.

Plus saying there would be a lot more Mozarts is wrong since almost no one bothers to put in that amount of effort and training.

[Anonymous No.1780772]

do you know what this means guys? it means prometheus 2 was in pre-production some time ago.

fucking awesome

[Anonymous No.1780781]

>>1780765
>It's a flawed analogy with physical things since there are objective physical advantages from genetics.
The brain is also physical. It's already known that there are variations between men's and women's brains both in function and actual anatomical structure. I don't find it hard to believe that a genetic predisposition and the right environment wouldn't give someone an advantage over the average individual. Plus, if the consensus was that everyone's brain is the same I don't see why we would have gone out of our way to preserve Einstein's brain.

>Plus not all Olympic athletes train with the same intensity, coaching, technology, program or nutrition
But there are plenty who've had the same coaches as Usain, but there's only one Usain. Again, there's a lot of genetic predisposition that affects the percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers, length of the Achilles tendon, and leg proportions with regard to the rest of the body. A lot of the best sprinters conform to a certain body type. Just like a lot of the best swimmers conform to a different body type. Part of that is training specific muscles, but a lot of it is skeletal.

>Plus saying there would be a lot more Mozarts is wrong since almost no one bothers to put in that amount of effort and training.
I think that a lot of working artists that people tend to admire fit this category. Rather than them all being unattainable geniuses, wouldn't it make more sense that they are the people who put in the hard work it took to get there? Plus, how many of them are actually compared to Mozart? How many of them, though impressive, will actually go down in the history books? Chances are, very few if any.

[Anonymous No.1780787]

>>1780628

[Anonymous No.1780788]

>>1780781
The brain is very plastic though, and there are many different paths in art. I don't see a reason why someone can't reach god-level in art with enough grinding. I still feel there are too many differences between the brain and physical sports for there to be a perfect analogy.

>How many of them, though impressive, will actually go down in the history books? Chances are, very few if any.
Well that's just the nature of history though, you can't include everyone. It tends to cherry pick many of the innovators over the greats anyhow (look at many of the greatest painters of all time in late 19thC being ignored in lieu of new art movements).

[Anonymous No.1780791]

>>1780788
>(look at many of the greatest painters of all time in late 19thC being ignored in lieu of new art movements
You mean those academic hacks? They're rightfully forgotten.

[Anonymous No.1780794]

>>1780787
Oops fucksy

[Anonymous No.1780796]

>>1780787
Piece of shit hack!!! Mullins is a fucking hack! Goddamnit!!! WE TRUSTED HIM!! Fuck this guy. FUCKING DROPPED

[Anonymous No.1780798]

>>1780787

Thread over. Go home everyone.

[Anonymous No.1780803]

Someone make a gif version too.

[Anonymous No.1780808]

>>1780788
>The brain is very plastic though
Yes, and I think that many people can get to the same level of a lot of respected artists alive today. 'Genius' is something else entirely, as people like Mozart showed an unparalleled amount of promise from a very young age, and continued to improve as well.

I think what it boils down to is that we differ on who we classify as god-tier/genius. I try to reserve usage of that term, and don't believe that it is attainable by even a handful of people. I do believe that it's possible for most to get to the tier just below that, but it would have taken the genetic and environmental lottery to ever be beyond that.

[Troll No.1780812]

Is it still photobashing since he used another painting?
Should it be called paintingbashing?
Is this even a real thing?
Will knowing it make my own art better?
Bonus question, am I trolling?

[Anonymous No.1780813]

>>1780803

i dont see the issue. obvious inspiration yes. so what?

[Anonymous No.1780814]

>>1780803
it's production art buddy, calm down

[Anonymous No.1780816]

>>1780803
No rules, only tools

[Anonymous No.1780832]

>>1780803

[Anonymous No.1780834]

>>1780812
>photobashing

Please for the love of god, stop using this word without understanding what it means. Using photo textures or even flat out copy-pasting photo elements into a painting is NOT photobashing.

Pic related is what is called "photobashing" in this industry. There is nothing wrong with it either, it's a perfectly normal process that tons of professional concept artists use. Mullins has done photobashings in other paintings as well, but the OP image is clearly not one of them, despite having copy-pasted photo elements in it.

[Anonymous No.1780839]

Wait, what? This is by Mullins? And it has parts from other paintings in it?

I thought it was some chinese hack since they dont give a fuck about copyrights, or rights of any kind, in the savage lands of Asia.

[Anonymous No.1780840]

>>1780737
That greentext, did you get that idea from what was said in Alla Prima? Great book it is.

I really like Mullins because he's always pushing his own art and looking for new ways to do things. I feel a lot of people stagnate once they get into the industry, but he doesn't.

[Anonymous No.1780842]

>>1780816
>applies "No rules, only tools" quote without understanding the actual meaning
>gets sued for copyright violation

[Anonymous No.1780845]

>>1780839

it doesn't. it's just inspiration/ref

[Glenn Vilppu No.1780846]

>>1780842

it's okay i'll let this one slip

[Anonymous No.1780848]

>>1780845
Troll detected

[Anonymous No.1780850]

>>1780842
production-level concept work cannot violate copyrights since there's no reproduction or distribution of it.
Copyright only lasts until 70 years after the creator's dead anyway.
Waugh, Frederick Judd 1861-1940. That painter's already been dead for 70 years.

[Anonymous No.1780852]

>>1780832
kek

[Anonymous No.1780853]

>>1780840
>That greentext, did you get that idea from what was said in Alla Prima?
The post you quoted wasn't me, but the greentext is. It probably came from both Alla Prima and Art & Fear, as I've read both within the past month.

[Anonymous No.1780854]

>>1780842
Fortunately the artist who Mullins took those 2 waves from has been dead for quite some time. It's basically like copy-pasting a stock photo to save some time. Though in this case he used those tiny areas as overall reference to paint all the rest of the water.

[Anonymous No.1780868]

>>1780850

that is only for the economic rights, but the moral rights never expire and you have to credit the authors if you use their work

[Anonymous No.1780872]

>>1780813
>>1780814
>>1780816
If it were someone like Noah Bradley or any facebook "famous" artists like Wojtek, all of you would be jumping on their backs, ripping their heads off for doing something like this. But because it's "based Mullins, god king of all things digital art" you'll let it pass. Fucking faggots. Mullins is a hack. He's no better than Feng Zhu now. I hope his career comes crumbling down like Feng's .

[Anonymous No.1780880]

>>1780832
>>1780803
>>1780787
Shit man I'm ducking disappointed. Maybe it's legit for production, but still... That makes me wonder how often he overpaints parts of paintings for his work.

[Glenn Vilppu No.1780890]

>>1780880

its just 5% of the canvas area. jesus what the fuck...

>>1780872

yeah because they are shit and mullins is good. simple as that.

[Anonymous No.1780891]

>>1780890
>5%
It's the entire bottom third

[Anonymous No.1780897]

>>1780891

holy shit it really is alot more than i first saw. HOLY SHIT.

now i can see why this would be a big deal. OMG

[Anonymous No.1780903]

So who has the balls to post this revelation on facebook so everyone can shut the fuck up about him?

[Anonymous No.1780913]

>>1780903
why dont you go do it and embarrass yourself you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.1780919]

>>1780913
Too afraid to add big name artists as friends. Besides, the one worth a damn have reached the friend limit.

[Anonymous No.1780954]

>>1780903
Perfect post to post a reply.

I won't be the one though.

[Anonymous No.1780960]

lol we are like elementary school kids arguing over who rings on the neighbours door to ask for our ball back.

well someone's gotta do it guys. it sure as hell won't be me but someones gonna have to.

[Anonymous No.1780961]

>>1780954
I think the Shaddy one would be a bit better. He's more well known among the pros so they'd probably look at his more than Darek's.

[Anonymous No.1780969]

i love how you babies think this is in any way controversial

[Anonymous No.1780972]

>>1780969
I know right, but Thomas Mahon spilled the beans already so you know let's just sit back and see if anything even happens

[Anonymous No.1780975]

>>1780972

how can i find his post

[Anonymous No.1780980]

>>1780832
Damn. When I made the comment >>1780658 I didn't expect he actually painted ontop of it, I just thought he used it as inspiration.

I guess it is more acceptable though that this was done for commercial work, probably on a deadline. It bothers me more when people do this shit in their personal work like pic related.

[Anonymous No.1780984]

>>1780980
what are you trying to imply with that? i dont see anything being painted on top of

[Anonymous No.1780985]

>>1780872
i couldn't agree more.

>>1780890
so much denial.

[Anonymous No.1780986]

>>1780972
I knew that faggot visited /ic/.

[Anonymous No.1780989]

>>1780986
i do suck dicks, you got me

[Anonymous No.1780996]

>>1780975
Darek Zabrocki's facebook.

[Anonymous No.1780997]

A quote from the master:

"But, I DO think that using a photographers work, to take what that artist has done and re-present it as something new is as bad as copying another’s painting and presenting it as your own."

http://www.forums.sijun.com/viewtopic.php?t=11891&sid=dd1afa067a629ebdd47942fb1933e4dd

[Anonymous No.1781000]

This makes me wonder how much of the stuff is overpainted/pasted fro other paintings that image search doesnt find.

[Anonymous No.1781001]

>>1780980

who painted that? eytan zana?

>>1780997
>>1781000

damn. it really does make you wonder doesn't it. this is going to start a witchhunt.

[Anonymous No.1781003]

>>1780997
Considering how much of Mullins stuff is photobashed or has photo elements just pasted in it I find this quote quite hilarious.

I guess JJ remains only true savior.

[Anonymous No.1781004]

>>1780984
It's not a paintover, but it shows a lack of originality. He took the lighting and colour and arch from the first painting copied a lot of things directly 1 for 1 from the second, and took aspects from the third. It's done manually yes, but still lacks integrity in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.1781007]

>>1780984
You dont see the shield pasted in there? The whole body of the dude pasted in from one of the paintings and added elements from another one? Do you have eyes sir?

[Anonymous No.1781011]

>>1781007
i like how the robe has the exact same folds.

[Anonymous No.1781012]

>>1781001
Sean Sevestre

[Anonymous No.1781014]

>>1780980

Yeah Sean is pretty literal with his influences in some (most? I don't know) work.

Kid's still pretty damn good.

[Anonymous No.1781015]

>>1781004
I don't really agree, are you going to argue that the Millais' Ophelia is shit because he worked from references too?

[Anonymous No.1781016]

>>1781012

so do we officially add him to the polski lynching blacklist?

[Anonymous No.1781018]

i'm loving /ic/ so much right now. i love how your idol is teaching you to put photos (or other artist's work) into your paintings and paint over them. this is just too good. of course you're going to accept it, despite any moral or legal issues, because it's Mullins we're talking 'bout here.

[Anonymous No.1781020]

>>1781015
Millais got a model to sit for him in his tub and he sat on a riverbank for months painting the foliage.

Sean copied parts from other artists' work. He copied the lighting, colours, drapery, pose, face, shield, rug. Even the composition is based off the Jaime image with the light shapes. It's like all the artistic decisions were just stolen...that's completely the opposite of painting from life.

[Anonymous No.1781022]

Mullins has been adding photo elements to his paintings since forever, like that sleeve in the related is just a photo pasted in there.

This is first time though being caught using someone else's painting directly I think.

[Anonymous No.1781025]

>>1781022
>sleeve in the related is just a photo pasted in there
Is it? At that resolution it looks like it could very well be painted to me.

[Anonymous No.1781026]

>>1781016
So whos on that list so far? Fus, Zabrocki, Zameski (or whatever), Wiltman and who else? How many scrubs like that can one country produce?

[Anonymous No.1781027]

>>1781025
It is. Mullins even admitted to it in one of his Sjun posts + at his resolution its obvious its not painted.

[Anonymous No.1781028]

>>1781022

interesting. while he could no doubt paint that he probably saved alot of time by just pasting it in and making the paste job discreet. i mean at his level he probably wants to be as efficient as possible so he can buy that yacht or whatever.

[Anonymous No.1781029]

>>1781027
>at high resolution

[Anonymous No.1781031]

>>1781026

jonas de ro imo belongs there too. nigga doesn't paint he literally just creates 4 layers, pastes photo cutouts, adds fog inbetween the layers, and adjusts the values and color temperature.

[Anonymous No.1781033]

>>1781014
He's good but getting more and more derivative. I could easily make images like this for the majority of his new paintings, and I don't doubt that the other ones could be found with a bit of work.

[Anonymous No.1781035]

>>1781031
He isnt polish though is he? You have to be polish to be added to that list.

Also this reminded me to check whats up with my favorite scrub and look what gems I find there

http://www.artstation.com/artwork/battle-commander-strategy-room-ii

>this time less than 1h

[Anonymous No.1781044]

>>1781035

mother of god... i was wondering 'who is this wittman guy' ... and he is german too. bringing shame to the glorious vaterland.

[Anonymous No.1781045]

>>1781027
he said he used a photo reference for it, that doesn't necessarily mean it was pasted there

[Anonymous No.1781047]

>>1781027
http://static.squarespace.com/static/53b47904e4b078d8d9d974f6/53b47930e4b0c9a85cf90418/53c1c307e4b042c138d79149/1405207315094/piratesword_full.jpg?format=3000w

It's painted dude

[Anonymous No.1781048]

i've seen Olly use photos in his work. i guess no one cares about him anymore? or yall just accepted it as normal since good artists do it? guys, you better start using photos in your work. i'm not seeing it in drawthread (only when you do studies, but step your game up)

[Anonymous No.1781050]

All this paintover stuff and photo use and lack of copyright acknowledgement is everywhere now. Maciej's new video is entirely google images pasted together and people are happily paying to see it (and will start doing it too). Mullins is painting over paintings.

And to think that not so long ago Linda Bergkvist was crucified for doing less than this.

[Anonymous No.1781054]

>>1781047
>>1781048
>>1781050

it bothers me. it really really fucking bothers me so much. i want to be legit. i just wonder if i'll be able to keep up and remain competitive if i stay true to my principles of not using photos...

[Anonymous No.1781056]

>>1781054
Maciej just said in the Q&A with John Park that it is becoming impossible to not use photos in the industry. The only way is if you are a freak of nature and can paint and design super super fast (he gave David Levy as an example).

[Anonymous No.1781065]

>>1781054
You can do it. Just gotta be god tier like Jaime Jones.

[Anonymous No.1781067]

>>1781065
Even Jaime uses photos sometimes. Pic related, all dat fire, possibly some cloud.

[Anonymous No.1781068]

This shit is hilarious, all of you concept art fags are so obsessed with process and skill that when you're confronted with the possibility that the industry you want to work in is asking you to work at a pace where you need to amend how you think about skill and process you go into a full blown sissy fit.
It's illustration, any romantic ideals you've got about how much of an amazing artist you are for rendering pictures with orcs and zombies should start to fade pretty fast now. The butthurt in this thread is so delicious.
>muh training
>muh skill
>muh integrity

[Anonymous No.1781069]

>>1781067
This one is more of a matte painting, so I'm not sure if it counts really, but still jaime pasting photos

[Anonymous No.1781071]

>>1781047
>brushmarks over a photo to keep consistent painted-like look.

Oh wait, we usually call it painting over photos and rage about it.

[Anonymous No.1781074]

>>1781071
I don't see any photo in there. Looks all painted to me.

[Anonymous No.1781078]

>>1781074
Can you post the full res then? I dont have it anymore and cant point out what gives it away without it.

[Anonymous No.1781079]

>>1781067
>>1781069
Yeah, he does use photos as well. But it seems like a great deal of his stuff is mostly hand painted. It's more obvious which ones are. They're alot more stylistic and have an energy to them. Perhaps those jobs required he used photos for the realisticness?

[Anonymous No.1781080]

>>1780639
You suck at knowing anything.

[Anonymous No.1781082]

why don't you fucking idiots get off this board and paint more instead? you wont be better than the photobashers by moaning about them

[Anonymous No.1781087]

>>1780772

Crashed Engineer attack ship? Fuck knows.

[Anonymous No.1781160]

>>1781048
>Olly
>>1781048
any one got a link to this artists work please

[Anonymous No.1781164]

>>1781160
Olly is tehmeh.

[Anonymous No.1781165]

>>1781164
thanks

[Anonymous No.1781186]

>>1781165
>>1781164
>>1781160
damm he hasn't done much new work, just a few portraits of late
maybe he's under nda or just a hobbyist


>regarding this thread + discussion
this sort of stuff makes me appreciate old masters so much more
and saddens me that the entertainment industry has twisted "Art"
regardless some of these photo bashed works do look great.

although this discussion should rather focus on technology
pic related, note how we progresses from stone bashing, to electronic
sculpting.

[Anonymous No.1781192]

>>1781186
Dude gets ton of work, but it's all under NDA. He posts here every now and then.

[Anonymous No.1781263]

>>1780880
Well, he is just a man. And you fucks idolize him like he's a god of digital painting.

[Anonymous No.1781271]

>>1781263

blasphemer TO THE PITCHFORKS

[Anonymous No.1781274]

>>1781186
technology has changed the way art is made

welcome to the 21st century folks

thread over.

[Anonymous No.1781363]

>>1781160
>>1781164
>>1781186
http://www.ollylawson.co.uk/mpcportfolio/

judge for yourself

[Anonymous No.1781366]

>>1781363
I think it'd be better to delete that post dude, if he shared it to you that means he trusts you in not sharing it to others.

[Anonymous No.1781373]

>>1781366
What? It's his fucking online portfolio, not some super secret site of his, you idiot.

[Anonymous No.1781375]

>>1781363
im posting this on facebook and conceptart.org

[Anonymous No.1781399]

>>1780675
>>1780631
Who the fuck is Dan ?

[Anonymous No.1781403]

>>1781363
proof that this place is toxic as fuck

[Anonymous No.1781424]

>>1781082
that's right, we'll get better by photobashing!

[Anonymous No.1781429]

>>1781373
But it is secret. It's a hidden part of his website he can send a link to clients. It is not intended for general viewing.

[Anonymous No.1781433]

>>1781363
> Many of the images below fall under NDA
Than you shouldn't disclose any of it, retard.

[Anonymous No.1781436]

>>1781192
yeah, there's a ton more that he can't show yet.
or chooses not to.
and Olly is cool. i didn't say he uses it for every piece, in fact i've only seen him do it once, but he works so much i can see why he would.

[Anonymous No.1781446]

There are a few shit faces here who are so oblivious to the industry they want to break into. It fucking angers me.

Why don't you faggots search if he used a patch of grass or mountains for his previous paintings as well

>muh pure art

[Anonymous No.1781569]

>>1781436

rly trying hard this time olly. take it easy bro, ur making it super obvious lately.

[Anonymous No.1781576]

>>1781446
Just because pros do it one way doesn't mean it is right or acceptable. We should still have morals, be aware of breaking copyright, etc.

In this case with the Waugh painting it is likely not breaking any laws, but that's not necessarily true. Old paintings can still have their copyrights held by the museum or some other body. Regardless of the legal aspect, it is a result of laziness outweighing integrity.

[Anonymous No.1781578]

>>1781446
I'd be angry if he didn't put it in his "concept" section of his site, but all of the stuff in that section has some obvious photobashing.

[Anonymous No.1781589]

>>1781576
when you are selling a product
only the result is important
concept artists have a job, It doesn't matter how you convey the piece as long as it's not extremely obvious that you used a photograph and as long as the product satisfies the buyer

[Anonymous No.1781643]

wow pretty gutted, i can see using ref and better your own one but straight out copying another artist painting into yours..

[Anonymous No.1781651]

>people talking shit about craig mullins
And that's how you know what the community is like on /ic/ these days.

[Anonymous No.1781655]

>>1781589
The thing is we expect much more from Mullins. We expect him to never do something like this. It's not even an issue of morality or legality.

[Anonymous No.1781663]

>>1781655
Why the fuck would you expect that? He has been using photographs for like a decade now and he openly says so whenever he has an online workshop or something. He says that he can't understand people (like you most likely), who never experiment around and always stick to one approach. He's the kind of guy who seeks out new ways to create artwork he wants everyday.

[Anonymous No.1781667]

>>1781655
What? Who the hell expects him to sit there and waste plenty of time to get a picture done when he can save himself all that time and move onto another? At the end of the day, he's not struggling to get better like everyone else. He doesn't still need to constantly do studies to understand how shit works. Twenty+ years of art has drilled that into his brain.

As for as the "moral" aspect of it goes? That's fucking retarded. Yeah, if an artist needs to use a picture because they can't draw - and it reads terribly and doesn't fit - then it reflects poorly on the artist's skill and integrity. This is called using it as a crutch.

But if an artist is just doing it to get the job done to save time, and it still looks great and they put some effort into it, they did what they needed to do and harmed nobody.

>tl;dr
If you disagree with something Craig Mullins does or says, you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.1781671]

>>1781663
It's one thing to use an actual photo of real life but to use another person's painting? That's a step too far, imo. Nobody does it and it's for a reason. There's a point where experimenting has to stop and some dignity and respect has to come into play.

>>1781667
I'm sorry but this time the ends does NOT justify the means. It's fucked up.

[Anonymous No.1781674]

>>1780636
The perspective is loose, there's nothing wrong with it.
"rule of thirds" isn't a rule it's a guideline for photagraphers, if you look at the compositions in classical art you'll see this rule was never used by artists.
6/10 for making me reply.

[Anonymous No.1781678]

>>1780666
>Who is the artist?
Dan Warren.

[Anonymous No.1781681]

Guys it clearly was not a time saving method. It's also very clearly intentional (gridding even). I'd say it was an homage.

[Anonymous No.1781683]

>>1781671
You're pulling shit out of your ass and it stinks

[Anonymous No.1781701]

>>1781681
Where did you find that??

[Anonymous No.1781716]

Fucking told.

Based Yohann.

[Anonymous No.1781717]

>>1781681
Nice damage control painting Craig.

[Anonymous No.1781726]

>>1781701
Friend of mine messaged it to me. Not sure where he got it.

[Anonymous No.1781735]

>>1781363
Did he take it down? It's 404'd now.

[Anonymous No.1781749]

>>1781681
I dont get it. Whats this, a wip?

[Anonymous No.1781750]

Reading facebook comments on this gives cancer. So many apologists and braindead drones.

[Anonymous No.1781757]

Lol so many people upset, but 90% of people complaining couldn't have integrated the picture of that painting into a new composition like Mullins did.

[Anonymous No.1781768]

>>1781757
>irrelevant, you dont have to be a master thief to be upset about theft

[Anonymous No.1781789]

craigs' website leads to a google plus page which has a link to a youtube channel called snillumgrebo with a picture of him. Seems pretty legit. pic related is his comments, does craig mullins really shitpost on funny cat videos?

[Anonymous No.1781790]

>>1781757

stay pleb.

[Anonymous No.1781791]

>>1781789

[Anonymous No.1781794]

>>1781791

[Anonymous No.1781796]

>>1781794

Pretty funny if those are his actual comments, he probably browses reddit too.

[Anonymous No.1781821]

!!big files on mullins site!! (?format=3000w)did you know?Chinese guys so smart

[Anonymous No.1781822]

>>1781796
its scary man

[Anonymous No.1781845]

>>1781822
I kind of like it. Its the sort of opposite of what you see coming from a lot of artists on social media these days. That sort of forced eagerness for everything and false humility...
Mullins really is so out of that in comparison.

[Anonymous No.1781851]

>>1781716
>oyo and dave and mullins could be browsing 4chan right now
it is a terrifying time to be alive

[Anonymous No.1781869]

>>1781845
How old are his daughters?
Who's Marlon?

[Anonymous No.1781876]

>>1781789
Holy shit this actually connects through, you are serious

[Anonymous No.1781881]

>>1781789
His wife most likely

[Anonymous No.1781882]

>>1781881
Or his young daughter

[Anonymous No.1781901]

>>1781851
Ha. You think they would? I think they would go to reddit if anywhere. Gotta get those sweet upvotes no?
Though Mullins strikes me as more of a 4chan user, not sure why.

[Anonymous No.1781908]

>>1781881
>>1781882
i dunno, he does like cats dude. I remember reading in that pdf that he would start a painting with a pic of his cat sometimes.

[Anonymous No.1781910]

>>1781908
But his name is clearly not Marlon.

[Anonymous No.1781917]

>>1781910
if you look on that video it has 80 000 comments saying 'my name is not Marlon' i don't understand your point.

[Anonymous No.1781929]

>>1781901
>humble guy with sagely advice
>does not care for upvotes or likes, and prefer to give advice anonymously

Though he might be a raging faggot online. Who knows.

[Anonymous No.1781935]

>>1781917
Oh my bad, shoulda watched it

[Anonymous No.1781971]

>>1781929
Maybe he has browsed /ic/ all along...

[Anonymous No.1781973]

>>1781971

Maybe i'm him

[Anonymous No.1781978]

1) who is the original artist of this?

2) was mullins deliberately told to paint over this?

3) and if not, did he do it intentionally as a homage?

these are the questions that really matter. who cares about the parts of ocean he stole from waugh

[Anonymous No.1781979]

Who gives a fuck whether its right or wrong. Respect is in the toilet.

[Anonymous No.1782005]

>>1781978
http://gyazo.com/2176847a881981790b9e3f748fd0e525

[Anonymous No.1782010]

>>1781681
Thanks Craig!

[Anonymous No.1782011]

>>1781978
1) Craig mullins
2) no
3) painting an illustration in traditional before painting it digitally is a common method

[Anonymous No.1782017]

>>1782005
Interesting, care to post the rest of it? (it's cut off)

And it looks like it was a an oil painting then that he later finished digitally for his own reasons (it was published as an oil piece).

[Anonymous No.1782019]

>>1782005
>>1782010
>>1782011

ah thanks! but then... i don't see the big deal. not in his overpainting of HIS OWN oils/water piece, nor in his copy pasting of some parts from an artist whose approach on waves/water he respected and wanted to emulate.

bet ya he even learned a ton from waugh doing this. i have not lost ANY respect for CM whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.1782026]

>>1781971
>that guy with all the pro insight who never posts his work when asked is craig mullins

[Anonymous No.1782030]

>>1782026
no, that's me

[Anonymous No.1782066]

http://www.mediafire.com/download/n1i5qpb9c5x2g9a/sky-canyon-mullins.psd

[Anonymous No.1782074]

>>1782066
Waugh+smudge

[Anonymous No.1782098]

>>1782011

[Anonymous No.1782100]

im glad ic anons are disowning mullins because of his comments on youtube over cat videos and masterfully integrating photos and painting into his work, have fun fuming over that guys i'll be adding him on g+. hell, we might even get get to hangout

[Anonymous No.1782102]

the times on sijun when everyone was copying him badly not understanding his methods of using gouache to find the edges of the forms dawned in spitpainting it was really embarrassing so i'm glad he'll be more infamous now for this generation so they don't copy him

[Anonymous No.1782138]

>>1781080
i came buckets of mashed potatoes

[Anonymous No.1782251]

>all these Mullins shills defending their precious god
kek so pathetic.
But hey, it's nice to see that integrity and respect goes down the shitter as soon as you work in the industry. Makes my job so much easier. With this logic that Mullins and his mindless shills use, I literally don't even have to paint. I can photobash using other people's paintings and just have to make it look neat and presentable. Sounds good. Sweet standards, everyone.

If this goes any further, concept artists won't even have to train as artists for years. Just get some random joe-blow off the street, teach them some photoshop basics and give them all the ref (paintings from artists that the art directors want you to use) and have them mash it all together and label it "concept art".

[Anonymous No.1782267]

>>1782251
It's funny that Anne Pogoda is so defensive about this. A couple of years ago, she was exposed for painting on top of other people work. This girl has no trace of talent what so ever.

[artiswarfag !!YBrbYkCHpw9 No.1782279]

>>1782267

haha. googled her and lolled hard. i wonder why so many girls do fantasy portraits only? oh rights it's because they can only overpaint photos of their favourite celebrities.

huehue yeah no wonder she is so defensive about this indeed.

[Anonymous No.1782317]

>>1782279
same with suzanne helmigh, shes being really unpreofessional i dont get it

[Anonymous No.1782319]

>>1782317
How do you guys even know all those people and why do you bother checking their facebook? Like why would you remember the name of some girl whos portfolio consists of scrub level illustrations and trying so hard to be Dave Rapoza?

[Anonymous No.1782320]

>>1780636

>ACH TUNG ZE RULE OF DREI MUST ALVAYS BE FOLLOVED OR EU VILL BE THRONE INTO ZE FURNACE

The rule is a guideline not a basis for every picture ever that must must always follow, you tool.

[Anonymous No.1782321]

>>1782319
because they're like fans. like dudes who know everything about star wars and write fan fiction. only it's concept art.

[Anonymous No.1782322]

It's over, Crab Mullins is finished.

[Anonymous No.1782323]

>>1782321
I do have my heroes too who I follow and drool over their works but they are actually really good, how much of a total scrub youve got to be to be impressed by those two chicks above and follow them?

[Anonymous No.1782324]

>>1782319
all the famous artists are friends with each other, follow one and you'll basically see news from all the community on your news feed

[Anonymous No.1782326]

>>1782323
>>1782319
implying im impressed.
implying i follow them.
implying i "remember her name" wtf are you saying man

anyway my point is some people are being unprofessional in defending their waifu, not how i use social media

[Anonymous No.1782328]

>>1782326
>bothered to screenshot facebook journal from some artist and post it here
>implies its important and relevant
>turns out that artist is a scrub and who gives a fuck what he or she writes on his facebook

See the problem now

[Anonymous No.1782329]

>>1782251

Yea, and if you became a concept artist and spent 20 hours on a concept piece you'd be out of a job in 3days :^)

[Anonymous No.1782331]

>>1782328
the only problem i see is you thinking your better than everyone by saying that artist is shit this guy is a scrub etc

[Anonymous No.1782332]

>>1782319

Shes the girlfriend of Titus Lunter whose pretty well known for his environments. Alot of female artists on facebook are popular because they associate themselves with famous people

[Anonymous No.1782341]

>>1782332
I like how Noah's new gf acts like she's an authority on anything now. Like bitch, shut the fuck up. You stuff isn't even as good as Noah's and you're talking about working in the industry (refer to her posts on Izzy Medrano's latest FB statuses)? I kind of feel bad for Noah too. She's probably using his "fame" to get places.

[Anonymous No.1782349]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT THE FUCK
IS THIS REAL HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah Feng! You keep talking about "walking the walk" and "talking the talk". LOL
Oh god this is too good.

[artiswarfag !!YBrbYkCHpw9 No.1782352]

>>1782322

where have you been all my life anon

[Anonymous No.1782367]

>>1782349
Where is this posted?

[Anonymous No.1782373]

>>1782349
Feng Zhu can't even defend someone else properly, he just brings them down to his own smug level

[Anonymous No.1782387]

>>1782251
>Anne Pogoda
I know her and met her once in Berlin ... she's a real bitch and quite full of herself
When I met her she even admitted to partwise doing it to make her bf jelly
I didn't live in Berlin but thought about moving there to study
>inb4 I wanted to rail her

[Anonymous No.1782389]

>>1780696

I went through his site, and while all of the stuff there looked very good, there's nothing in there we couldn't achieve. It takes time and time and hard work and time and the constant conscious effort for improvement.

[artiswarfag !!YBrbYkCHpw9 No.1782390]

>>1782387

lol at that chicks work. wouldn't touch her with a 20 foot pole after seeing her atrocious folio.

[Anonymous No.1782400]

>>1782387
sup Olly
hatefucks are best, go for it

[Anonymous No.1782408]

if you have a problem with production art using anything off google images, you haven't any experience of industry practice and are an amateur. often more than 2 or 3 fully rendered images a day every day for weeks is asked for, it's amazing to see him managing to even paint on these. the 'professional' art you may see on facebook is not professional art, it is non-nda personal work that people paint. the guys you should be angry at are the ones who only use photos in their personal work; noah, wojtek, etc.

there's barely anyone talking about this on fb, only in threads noah put up to stir the pot and get viral views of his page. the only people criticising there are two complete beginners that would get choked out of dA, let alone /ic/. one of them hasn't even heard of mullins and calls him 'craig mullets'.

that there are so many in the latter camp here is so revealing

[Anonymous No.1782413]

The thing is im under impression that this piece was made for internal use and not even promotional and if thats the case i don't see a problem of using photos or anything else because this piece was never ment to be in wide circulation and probably was used by the devs only.

[Anonymous No.1782415]

>>1780647

Oh thank god. I thought I was the only one.

[Anonymous No.1782419]

>>1780872

This guy is right. Even if the original painter was blarghded for a million years and the dude managing the project was OK with it, I still wouldn't put something which references or overpaints someone else's work that heavily in my portfolio. Especially an online portfolio which every e-sleuth can look at it.

Mullins is great and still continues to be great but in this case he fucked up. Lesser artists can lose their entire career over shit like this. He stepped over the line as far as I am concerned.

[Anonymous No.1782420]

>>1782352
In a hospital on Guerrero Street.

[Anonymous No.1782421]

>>1780890
>yeah because they are shit and mullins is good. simple as that.

Even so. It's giving a bad example and a red flag despite how shit everyone else is.

[Anonymous No.1782426]

>>1781821

I love you forever. Thank you for sharing that.

[Anonymous No.1782427]

>>1782267
Wow her gallery is super fucking terrible. Like, even in her Big Boss painting you can see bits of photo

[Anonymous No.1782428]

Lol I think Craig is just fucking with us. I just noticed he put that image from the concept art section into his finished portfolio section. Maybe this was all a marketing move to get people to talk about him again.

[Anonymous No.1782432]

A response: The reason I have not updated Goodbrush in so long is I felt my work was not good enough to bother people with. To hear people praise it is kind of painful sometimes. As a person I feel pretty secure, but as an artist not so much.
People are always asking about my "Method" and as I have said before, I don't have a set method, on purpose. I have experimented with SO many different ways of working. In the Gnomon Master class I did I spoke at some length about it. I have used photos, 3d models (mine and others) paintings (mine and others) in every combination you can think of. If I had to ask what method I use mostly, it would be a simple block model (that I make) and painting with that in a reference layer. But 90% of the work I have done is pretty much straight painting.
I have also talked at length about the difference between Art and commercial art. I am an illustrator and paid to make an image that satisfies a client. I would say every technique is totally OK- AS LONG AS WHAT WAS DONE IS CLEAR. Roy Lichtenstein was pretty clear about his process. This was not the case here.
Hopefully looking at the bulk of my work you can see that I am competent enough to have done this painting in a different way than I did. Was it laziness? Dishonesty? Curiosity? Impatience? You might ask "if he can do "that" why did he resort to "that"?" I ask myself the same question. Experimental working methods can not explain it entirely.
There is a line here that I crossed. I did that piece during a rather dark period in my life and I still cringe to look at it. I just wanted to get it done so badly. The image posted is not the final product, it was a working comp for a physical oil painting. That is got posted and presented as concept work was a result of throwing a folder full of images on the new site in a batch.

[Anonymous No.1782434]

response pt 2: There ARE images that I have done that are total photobashing, both out of exploring that way of working and sometimes an ad agency (typically) send me photos and say USE THIS. I don't bother making public work like this that I do. I know a lot of really excellent artists who resist this kind of thing, sometimes at the expense of their careers. I totally understand where they are coming from, and work as they do quite a bit. Most of the time I like to work totally out of my head to test my understanding of things. Sometimes I might use whatever tools are at my disposal to learn what I do not know.
It does make me a little sad that the rest of my work is now suspect. To all those defending me, I really appreciate it, but it is not necessary. To all those calling for my head, I understand your points completely and agree with them.

[Anonymous No.1782438]

>>1782432
Mullins is so cute, I'd like to hold his hand and walk around on the beach with him

[Anonymous No.1782442]

>>1782432
where is this?

[Anonymous No.1782443]

>>1782442
Cambodia

[Anonymous No.1782444]

check on fb, abe taraky

[Anonymous No.1782453]

>>1781363
wow, how stupid can you be?

[Anonymous No.1782457]

>>1780703
gpd damn this motherfucker

[Anonymous No.1782464]

>>1780703
Dude where do you see smudge tool in there at all?

[Anonymous No.1782467]

>>1782432

What is this blasphemy. The Godking explaining himself to the likes of /ic/-tier complainers. Over a concept comp for a physical oil painting!

Talk about humility. He could have just said, "Hey, it's a comp to show a client what the final product will look like. I don't gotta explain shit. Also, you know I'm the best; talk to me about cheating when you're 1/10th my level." And he would have been right.

But no. No egoism at all from Mullins. Something to be learned from that. Maybe it's part of why he's the best.

[Anonymous No.1782468]

>>1782349

Feng once again taking some time between putting out high-quality, hour long free tutorials to speak some truth.

Seriously, /ic/. Why is the art community so full of bitter, angry shittalkers?

[Anonymous No.1782469]

>>1782468
Feng pls go

[Anonymous No.1782471]

>>1782349
This fucking guy.

[Anonymous No.1782474]

>/ic/
>actually being taken seriously

[artiswarfag !!YBrbYkCHpw9 No.1782475]

>>1782467
>he could have just

god works in mysterious ways anon

[Anonymous No.1782480]

How many times have /ic/ getting attention from the high profile hacks in the community i wonder.

Hilarious.

[Anonymous No.1782483]

>>1782349
i'm really starting to believe /ic/ that this guy might be a complete fucking douchebag in real life.

[Anonymous No.1782488]

>>1782483

there is no doubt that he is, honestly

[Anonymous No.1782489]

>>1782319
How's that a bad illustration? It's not a masterpiece, but not horrible too, 99.9 % of /ic/ are not even close to that level.

[Anonymous No.1782490]

Excuse me, what's all the fuss about? About Craig Mullins is actually a bad artist?

[artiswarfag !!YBrbYkCHpw9 No.1782496]

>>1782490

LOL

>>1782489

>99.9 % of /ic/ are not even close to that level

wrong, go to the draw thread right now and see for yourself.

[Anonymous No.1782501]

>>1782496
>wrong, go to the draw thread right now and see for yourself.

Yeah, exactly 0,01 %

That's all subjective though.

[artiswarfag !!YBrbYkCHpw9 No.1782508]

>>1782501
>>1780367
>>1780368
>>1780372
>>1780401
>>1780464
>>1780529
>>1780678
>>1780905
>>1781043
>>1781212
>>1781406
>>1781427
>>1781666
>>1781733
>>1781746
>>1781802
>>1782144
>>1782253
>>1782356

[Anonymous No.1782510]

>>1782508
ass hole why you no link my draw thread picture

[artiswarfag !!YBrbYkCHpw9 No.1782512]

>>1782510

which one is it? we can argue about it and i'll tell you honestly. srs.

[Anonymous No.1782513]

>>1782510
He was linking all the shit drawings. You're the 0.01%. :)

[Anonymous No.1782515]

>>1782513
Yay!

[Anonymous No.1782519]

Its weird how some paintings look alright in the thumbnail, then you go full size and vomit

>if it works in thumbnail it will work in full size = not true

[Anonymous No.1782521]

>>1782510

Mine either. :(

[Anonymous No.1782522]

>>1782508
3 of these are pretty, the rest is nah

But again, it's all subjective

[artiswarfag !!YBrbYkCHpw9 No.1782525]

>>1782522

post which. and i don't think it's really as subject as you think

[Anonymous No.1782527]

>>1782522

wasn't about being pretty. was about being even close to suzanne helmigh or not.

[Anonymous No.1782529]

>>1782525
>>1781406
>>1781427
>>1781802

A lot of people would prefer garish cellshaded tumblr-tier styled drawings over this tho.

[Anonymous No.1782531]

>>1782529
A lot of people are stupid as fuck too.

[Anonymous No.1782534]

>>1782529

shit as fuck taste

[Anonymous No.1782542]

>>1782529
Not really. It's the subject matter that counts the most. They would prefer a cell-shaded drawing of their favorite character/fetish over a well rendered bronze bust for sure.
The rendering is pretty incidental to casuals.

[Anonymous No.1782599]

>>1782426

[Anonymous No.1782612]

>>1782432
>As a person I feel pretty secure, but as an artist not so much.
>Hopefully looking at the bulk of my work you can see that I am competent enough to have done this painting in a different way than I did
He's trying so hard to save face, but of course ends up contradicting himself.

[Anonymous No.1782617]

>>1782519
you have to ask yourself: "what is full size?"
for example, if you shrink the picture, it becomes full size. if you scale it up, it becomes full size.
if you can do all that in digital, then "full size" is truly relative.
for example, if you scale up a high quality photograph, it's still going to look like ass to you at "full size".

[Anonymous No.1782619]

>>1782529
>>1781406 is well done.
>>1781427 studies don't count, you fucking noob.
>>1781802 trash.

[Anonymous No.1782628]

>>1782612
Feeling secure and being competent enough are two different things, genius

[Anonymous No.1782635]

To everyone saying they could photobash as good as Mullins and other pros: go ahead. Do it. I fucking dare you. Your images will still show zero sense for design, composition, color, perspective and whatever else you rarely practice. Please prove me wrong. Create a piece on Mullin's level and I'll suck your dick. I will drive/fly to wherever you live and I will suck your fucking dick.
Without strong fundamentals you won't be able to photobash well.

[Anonymous No.1782644]

>>1782628
security comes from being competent, genius.

[Anonymous No.1782649]

>>1780787
I don't understand why you people are getting so worked up over this. I don't really see any problems with partial paintovers, as long as the piece being worked on is commercial art, and the artist in question would be able to create something on the same level without painting over someone elses work if he took the time.

[Anonymous No.1782658]

>>1782644
Not necessarily. You just have to feel competent to be secure. Doesn't matter whether you actually are.

[Anonymous No.1782659]

>>1782644
No. You can be competent for certain tasks without feeling secure about your work in general.

[Anonymous No.1782660]

>>1782432
god damn it mullins, i can't even describe what an amazing person you are. i really felt embarrassed because i once talked to a friend about some of your qualities and outlooks that make it possible for you to do what you do. embarrassed since i'm really not the sort of guy who gushes out the things they feel kinda deeply. the freedom of your experimentation and ability to set aside your ego in favor of things beyond your personal advancement, art for art's sake, learning for learning's sake, and not for petty personal reasons, really make me think of you as one of the most amazing people i've ever heard from. because while it's easy for a person to say they're in favor of these things, your very success by way of the process of your workflow (an unafraid experimentation,) seems to stem almost directly from the day-to-day free-spirited contributing-to-something-beyond-yourself practice of these things.
as a fearful and selfish guy who’s ego is inseparable from what they produce, i am exactly the opposite, and am having so much trouble with my work because of this. every trait that i've always come to terms i'm badly lacking you have to an incredible, open-handed degree. god damn it mullins you're such a good guy.
i was just thinking about your kid yesterday. that would be so amazing, to grow up with your dad being as you are. gosh darn i could have learned so much, maybe about life-views, too. none of my family, s'far back as they go, have been in the art field.
damn, bet you’re the world’s coolest dad.
good thing you can’t read this, that’d be pretty embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.1782665]

>>1782660

[Anonymous No.1782668]

>>1782660
That was a pretty good but gay read, anon

[Anonymous No.1782670]

>>1782635
everybody defending craig by saying your not as good as him... thats not the point we are arguing about here

[Anonymous No.1782672]

>>1782665
>>1782668
yeah, it's a stupid post. you got me.

[Anonymous No.1782674]

>>1782649
imagine this, if you can: you take enormous amount of time to paint waves. then, some big shot digital hack comes along and paints over your art.

[Anonymous No.1782680]

hey guys, heres a thing ive been working on recently. crits ?

[Anonymous No.1782682]

>>1782680

ok, Mullins.

kotaku.com/5823731/the-sumptuous-video-game-art-of-craig-mullins/

[Anonymous No.1782693]

>>1782674
Imagine this: you've been dead for around 100 years and don't have any shits to give.

[Anonymous No.1782715]

>>1782693
imagine this: you shoot photographs for a living.

[Anonymous No.1782724]

>>1782715
imagine this: 22 butt rapists

[Anonymous No.1782734]

>>1782724
flamenco dancing

[part1 No.1782902]

So can we all agree that the "you're not working in the industry, y-y-you don't understand" and "it's not f-fine art it's worthless commercial art" is a bunch of copout bullshit.

What happened to standards and respect? It sure as hell seems this industry and concept artists don't have anymore of it. Meaningless justifications so they can keep being disrespectful to artists who spent their life's work on a painting. But hey, if someone got a huge chunk of a Mullins or any other big name artist with a very vocal following's painting and put it in their own work, everyone would bite their heads off and say they're an asshole for not being moral/ethical or legal for that matter. They'd then be shunned from the community to never work again. But because it's Mullins, everyone's going to jump in front of him and defend him adamantly just because he has a title and a reputation. I feel what's going to happen is now people will see and learn from this experience. See that all the big pros

[part2 No.1782906]

>>1782902
are accepting and condoning the using of another artist's painting for their own professional work, and then will end up doing it themselves. People just stealing stuff from other artists and labeling it as their own.

The industry is so full of shit now. I'm so glad I quit this goal of mine. It has to be the only industry where plagiarism is fully accepted and if you don't partake in this "norm" then you'll never make it.

[Anonymous No.1782911]

>>1782906
If you are sick of it then just do it in a way that follows your own morals, and be vocal about it. You can still be successful in the industry without using photos and without doing morally suspect things. Maybe you will be slightly slower and maybe you will not make quite as much money, but you can still be fine without all the bullshit. Whining anonymously and quitting the industry does nothing to change it.

[part2 No.1782923]

>>1782911
My opinions and morals don't matter to everyone. I don't have a voice to them. Much like your voice doesn't matter to Obama. I'm just one little shit who's throwing a thrumbo. It's going to take someone with an actual voice that matters to other pros to change their mind. That's only assuming they're not too far-gone in their own twisted sense of standards. It's not even worth the time, honestly. If people can't figure this out on their own, thinking for themselves for once, then there's no hope. I hope the industry comes crumbling down because of incessant bullshit like this.

[Anonymous No.1782940]

>>1782906
>some people do a thing i don't like, better give up my dreams

please leave this board, we already have enough bitter failures making it shitty.

[Anonymous No.1783139]

>>1782906
>The industry is so full of shit now. I'm so glad I quit this goal of mine.
It is easy to quit. Next time you have a goal, make it more intrinsic. I suggest you leave this board now.

[Anonymous No.1783166]

>>1780628
>Mention on an artist's FB post that appropriating fine art, especially at Mullins' level of skill and considering he already had a great oil painting as a base, isn't really the same as photobashing some textures onto a piece
>CAIDF already tearing into me

Glorious. I don't give a fuck any more, Mullins himself has apologised for what he did in this painting. Why are people defending this? If some no-mark scrub like me appropriated some Rembrandt into my portfolio pieces, I'd probably be called a complete hack and told to learn how to paint.

[artiswarfag !!YBrbYkCHpw9 No.1783193]

>>1783166
>CAIDF

who dat?

[Anonymous No.1783260]

>>1783193

Crédit Agricole d'Ile de France

[Anonymous No.1783266]

>>1783166
>mullins apologized
>CADF tearing into me

Please elaborate; sounds interesting.

[Anonymous No.1783277]

>>1783193
Concept Art Internet Defence Force.

>>1783266
Just people replying to my post. Saying that appropriation is fine and widely accepted in fine art, I shouldn't say anything because I've probably photo bashed or used photo textures in my own work, etc. The usual.

I'm pretty sure if the people who are defending Mullins on this piece had bits of their work cut and pasted into another artist's painting, they'd be calling for that artist's head on a spike.

Mullins' apology is posted further up the thread. Not sure where exactly it came from, though.

I notice based Trevor Claxton is one of the few artists not to even mention this anywhere or comment on it, and he actually has had his work stolen wholesale by other people for profit in the past. Plus he once called Noah Bradley a scumbag and con-artist on Livestream. Wish more artists were like him.

[Anonymous No.1783336]

>>1782649
Sometimes in a painting, all you need to convey a feeling is one area that is super detailed. This detailed area is straight up copied and none of the other waves look like that. The waves are what :make: this image and it was straight up copied.

[Anonymous No.1783337]

>>1782906
>full of shit now
This has been going on since the 1800s or farther. Its good to copy for practice but with straight up image editing, yes Im sure its gotten worse. PC art is bad in this regard

[Anonymous No.1783423]

>all this damage control for tracing photos and even already existing pieces on /ic/ lately

[Anonymous No.1783431]

>>1783423
That's it. I'm out. I can't take this anymore.

If this is the reality of industry, that directly plagiarising somebody else's work, be it art or photographs, to meet a deadline is considered completely normal and acceptable because it's a 'production piece', or 'not meant to be seen outside of in-house' or whatever other blandishment they can come up with, I don't want to work in that industry.

Can these people really not see that there's something horribly wrong with this? Craig Mullins in on another level to all of us, the very best here are not even fit to stand in the man's shadow and yet he's reduced to having to copy a dead man's art into his painting.

The problem here isn't Craig Mullins, it's the people running the industry who somehow think it's acceptable to demand that artists do this.

[Anonymous No.1783432]

>>1783431
Forgot image.

[Anonymous No.1783435]

>>1783431

nigga did u even read the thread? craig mullins is notorious and has said himself that he has no fixed workflow. he does everything and tries everything. he himself feels like he crossed a line with this though. nobody asked him to do this. it's not like he saw the waugh painting and started from there. he painted everything in oils first, then probably started the ref gathering and assembling process, realized those waves look juicy as hell, copy pasted some of them in, and painted from there.

he essentially just established the very first lights/hues by overpainting the pieces of waughs foamy sea. it was an experiment.

[Anonymous No.1783440]

>>1783431
Well, good riddance, hopefully without retards like you the market will become slightly less saturated.

[Anonymous No.1783449]

>>1783440
Glad to be gone, if it means never visiting this shithole ever again.

The only good thing to ever come out of this board was Tehmeh.

[Anonymous No.1783496]

>>1780832

[Anonymous No.1783528]

>>1783449
and that cowardly idiot autist took down his shit because he knows hes just a guilty

[Anonymous No.1783626]

>>1783528
>just a guilty
>just a guilty
>just a guilty
>just a guilty

[Voiceoftruth No.1783626,1]

Lol at you guys. While you bitch, Craig Mullins is doing the most awesome gigs, Anne Pogoda is running a successful freelance buz, Suzanne Helmigh is rocking a concept artist position at Sony Guerrilla and Leesha hannigan is being gorgeous making similar gorgeous art.