/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.2056757]

>mfw this fucker literally blew the fuck out of every painter in terms of body of work for the rest of eternity

[foxdit No.2056761]

man, look at that face. those feels. those art feels.

[Anonymous No.2056763]

>>2056757
he made a lot for the short time he was working, but there are plenty of artists with larger oeuvres because they were working artists for decades longer than van gogh was. if you mean style rather than quantity I'm inclined to agree, though he's admittedly hit-and-miss, like any artist who is working constantly.

[Anonymous No.2056847]

>>2056757
Jesus, if you guys haven't seen his shit, do yourselves a favor. Photos do not do justice. You can actually feel the fucking intensity coming off the canvases, like a psychic blast or some shit. It's fucking nuts.

[Anonymous No.2056888]

>>2056757
He sucked, like Picasso. See him struggle with perspective. He only had tricks like thick paint to disguise his flaws. He needed more Loomis. He was a degenerate who cut off his own ears.

[Anonymous No.2056889]

>>2056888
3/5 add more memes

[Anonymous No.2056891]

Van Gogh was a loser who couldn't hold a real job, couldn't sell a painting, couldn't get a girl, and who lived with his parents (or was it his uncle?) until he was in his 30s.

That cutting off his ear thing to show his crush how pathetic he was has to have been the most beta move of all time.

He's the quintessential loser artist who only got famous after death. You'd never even have heard his name if your clueless highschool art teacher hadn't foisted him on you. There have been a million better artists, and anyone who pretends to like his work is a tryhard faggot.

[Anonymous No.2056893]

>>2056847
>You can actually feel the fucking intensity coming off the canvases, like a psychic blast or some shit. It's fucking nuts.

This is the last resort line of the jackasses who have been cornered by the fact that Van Gogh's work is shit on every measurable criterion. "OH BUT YOU HAVE TO SEE IT IN PERSON!! JPEGS DON'T CONVEY THE PSYCHIC BLAST!!"

No. I've seen his work in person; there's no psychic anything. Lol. You're projecting.

[Anonymous No.2056897]

>>2056891
Please calm down.

[Anonymous No.2056899]

>>2056888
>degenerate
hitler youth buzzword
>cut off his own ears
he cut off a piece of one ear
>he sucked
>he struggled
this is why /ic/ isn't a serious place to go to discuss art.

[Anonymous No.2056900]

>>2056891
ad hominem attacks? sad.

[Anonymous No.2056902]

>>2056893
>OH BUT YOU HAVE TO SEE IT IN PERSON!!
confirmed for having never visited a museum or gallery.

[Anonymous No.2056909]

>>2056900

>ad hominem attacks?

Do you even know what that means? An ad hominem fallacy is when you're having a debate, but instead of attacking your opponent's argument, you attack his character.

Me shitting on Van Gogh for being the huge loser that he was isn't an ad hominem fallacy, because I'm not having a debate with him. I didn't even bother to mention how shitty his work is (it speaks for itself).

[Anonymous No.2056912]

>>2056902

Pfft, I've probably been to more museums than you. So that "b-but you have to see it in person!!" hogwash isn't going to work on me.

Protip: if your paintings look like amateur shit to everyone who sees reproductions of them, and the only defense your fans have is that your paintings exude magical mind-rays when viewed in person and can't be judged except when standing in front of them... your work is bad.

[Anonymous No.2056913]

>>2056897

Pls suck my dick

[Anonymous No.2056914]

>>2056912
the degree to which van gogh relies on impasto in his paintings necessitates you see it in person to get anything close to the full effect. that's just a fact, no way around it. it's like claiming you don't need to see Rodin in person, a written description is enough.

[Anonymous No.2056915]

>>2056912
>everyone thinks van gogh is shit in reproduction.
just you
>the only defense is magic
just OP

nice logic though.

[Anonymous No.2056937]

>>2056757
I mean... He's alright. I never liked much of his art as a whole. I love his angles on faces, his swirly backgrounds, and shadowing, but other than that... Eh i just dont find him interesting.

[Anonymous No.2056991]

I don't personally like him but I think it's a matter of taste.

[Anonymous No.2057015]

>>2056912
Traditional pieces almost always looks miles better irl

[Anonymous No.2057017]

Who cares,another dead fag that got rich after he died.Now get back to work

[Anonymous No.2057018]

>>2056902
I've seen the paintings he has up at the DIA. They're interesting to see in person, especially if you revered artists like him for most of your life, but once you see one of his lesser works, it loses the magic. There's one of 2 figures in front of boats, and it looks like a high schooler did an above average painting in Van Gogh's style, without really understanding his technique.

That being said, I still Fucking love Van Gogh. And Gauguin, he's pretty awesome, too.

[Anonymous No.2057019]

>>2057018
the impasto on the boat painting is insane though. not one of my favorites by van gogh but still one of the better paintings in the room.

[Anonymous No.2057021]

>>2057019
more of his work in Detroit:

[Anonymous No.2057022]

>>2057021

[Anonymous No.2057024]

>>2057022

[Anonymous No.2057299]

>>2056893
Ok, faggot. I have no idea what you're on about, but you really seem to be the epitome a of failed/wannabe artist. Some artworks do indeed have a physical presence. I've often wondered if it takes a creative person to recognize the presence of art (not the artwork, but art), and you're either a troll, or somebody who's just a little sad solipsistic island in a sea of turds. Anyhoo, what do I know? I'm only a famous professional artist that sells in fancy galleries who thinks the guy painted some pretty cool shit. Enjoy your life. Hope you learn to draw gud, make it over level 9000 or whatever. Good luck! Oh, and maybe go to an art show, gallery or museum sometime. The internet is making you a jerk.

[Anonymous No.2057340]

[Anonymous No.2057351]

>>2057299

> I'm only a famous professional artist that sells in fancy galleries

Hahaha. Did you also graduate top of your class and have over 300 confirmed paintings? Post some of your famous work, faggot. Inb4 you find some excuse to disappear before backing up your pathetic boasting.

Jesus, the egos you meet on this board.

[Anonymous No.2057353]

>>2057299
My art btw, it's a wip

[Anonymous No.2057356]

>>2057351
I'm self taught, dude. And there is no way in hell I'd ever associate my professional persona with this site. I just come here sometimes to help kids out because I struggled for years. Sometimes I get the feeling there aren't many pros here because of the level of pessimism and bile spewed forth. But in all sincerity, I wish you luck.

[Anonymous No.2057359]

>>2057353
Even if that were yours, why do you keep posting the exact same image over and over again? Have you not finished it yet? Have you not started anything new? Is this the new mercwip?

[Anonymous No.2057369]

>>2057356

What disingenuous tripe. If you wanted to back up your boasting, you could find some sketch to post. I'm sure if you're "a famous artist who sells work in fancy galleries", your skill would shine through even a 5 minute doodle.

But you won't post shit, because you know it would get torn to pieces here, and deservedly so.

And you wish me luck? Lol, after you were just calling me the epitome of a failed wannabe because I pricked your precious Van Gogh? Fuck off, you empty shit-talker.

[Anonymous No.2057379]

>>2056757

he's no goya, but he's pretty good

[Anonymous No.2057382]

[Anonymous No.2057397]

>>2057369
Not that person, but there is absolutely no point in showing your work here for the sole purpose of winning an argument on /ic/.

This board as a whole is a waste of time. People taking the discussion here seriously are fucking fools.

[Anonymous No.2057403]

>>2057397
>there is absolutely no point in showing your work here for the sole purpose of winning an argument on /ic/.
tru fax

[Anonymous No.2057522]

>>2057019
Nah, I'd say Gauguins self portrait is more interesting. It's weird that a self portrait of Gauguin and Van Gogh exist in the same museum, yet they're in separate galleries.

[Anonymous No.2058144]

>>2057359
besically, yeah

le fresh new /ic/ meme

>>2056888
Picasso has some academic years behind him, great figures especially. but abstract/impressionism is what pays the most and what the rich invest into.

[Anonymous No.2058714]

>>2056891
He didn't cut his ear off for a girl, that's just a rumor.

[Anonymous No.2062372]

>>2056891
>all of this anger

[Anonymous No.2062374]

>>2058714
That's right it was actually for a guy.
He was an earless faggot

[Anonymous No.2062375]

>>2056847
I'm actually saving up to do just this, Anon.

[admin here No.2062378]

>>2058144
>Picasso has some academic years behind him, great figures especially

BULL FUCKING SHIT.

Read up on Picasso the fraud.

http://ninja-art.freeforums.net/thread/13/picasso-fraud

[Anonymous No.2062381]

Bet you guys also hate Caravaggio now.

[admin here No.2062383]

>>2062381
what the fuck is wrong with caravaggio? He was a legend painter and a bro. The knights of Malta thought he was awesome, till he got drunk one too many times ...

punching someone when you're drunk and killing them is not the same as cutting off your own ears (van gough) or being a lying dyslexic (picasso)

[Anonymous No.2062384]

>>2062381
Caravaggio is the biggest faggot

[Anonymous No.2062385]

>>2062383
well he used a lens to do his paintings, so he essentially did paint-overs.

[Anonymous No.2062387]

>>2062378
this is bullshit and it's very silly. you should feel bad for going to such extremes just because you don't get something (which is extremely easy to get btw).

[Anonymous No.2062388]

>>2062383
He was a constant drunk who always had to find a new home from the law. I would say it's a bad point, but it's probably what added to his work. I still remember the first painting I saw of his, David and Goliath. Will never forget the chills it gave me.

[Anonymous No.2062390]

>>2062388
you know he painted that so he'd be forgiven for a murder, goliath is a self portrait, thus showing his contrition i guess. one of them anyway, i think there are a few versions.

[admin here No.2062391]

>>2062387
>this is bullshit and it's very silly. you should feel bad for going to such extremes just because you don't get something (which is extremely easy to get btw).


Absolute pleb opinion. Do you play casual games as well?

Note how he didn't address any of the points related to Picasso fraudulently changing his fathers signature and stealing his work to pass off as his own. Just "herp derp ur dumb"

[Anonymous No.2062393]

>>2062390
Yup, and apparently he never got to deliver it himself.

[Anonymous No.2062395]

>>2062391
because it's that dumb. refute it yourself, open a catalogue of picasso's works in one tab and the wikipedia article in the other tab and match the dates of the works up with picasso's life.

it's like with the moon-landings, you can conjure up all kinds of inconsistencies in the photos but if you have even the barest understanding of the event then they don't matter.

this is you with your picasso fraud bullshit>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

[admin here No.2062406]

>>2062395
>refute it yourself
How casual is this guy? Asking his opponent to refute his own argument? What is this arguing on the internet in sandbox modes?

Wikipedia just summarises shit in books, which in turn takes picasso's word that the paintings he presented as his own are in fact his own and not someone else's with the signature and date changed.

Why can't ic paint as well as picasso when he was 13? Could it be instead they can't paint as well as Picasso's father when he was middle aged?

This has nothing to do with the moon landings since it can be scientifically proven via xray machining the paintings as to whether the signatures and dates have been altered.

[Anonymous No.2062526]

When I look at these paintings by him I don't feel impressed or entertained at all.

I can't tell if this is because its really bad and I have no taste

Or if its because it really is bad and its only being seen in a 2deepforu hipster light that makes it seem impressive

[Anonymous No.2062527]

>>2062526
If its really good and I have no taste*

Sorry. That post was maximum autopilot

[Anonymous No.2062529]

>>2062526
>entertained

it's you, bro.

[Anonymous No.2062594]

>>2062378
>ninjua-art.freeforums.net
seems like a legit source full of scholarly articles on picasso. definitely not a dumping ground for conspiracy theories.

[Anonymous No.2062595]

>>2062406
you've started this argument a thousand times on this board, and you've never provided any actual evidence. so what's to refute? you're making the claim, back it up with proof.

[Anonymous No.2062746]

>turner
>renoir
>monet
>velazquez
>constable
>van rijn
>seurat
>friedrich
>pissaro
>della francesca
>gorky
>goya
>vuillard
>cezanne
>da urbino
>bruegel the elder
>picasso
>ryder
>de chirico
All firmly not blown the fuck out by vangay

[Anonymous No.2063752]

him and Gauguin were a bunch of filthy thieves

it was this other dear boy (that they all totally ripped off)

[Anonymous No.2063764]

>>2062746
>opinions
I agree with some of those, others I put Picasso above. Renoir is tremendously overrated imo, his early work is good, but his later work is so fucking saccharine...

[Anonymous No.2063768]

>>2063752
stay in your containment thread

[Anonymous No.2063773]

>>2063768
no. I have read up on the subject