/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.2181292]

what do you guys think of people who havent practiced realistic drawing styles but jump right into abstraction and nonobjective art? do you think that learning to draw first is necessary to make good art?

[Anonymous No.2181294]

delusion and fetishes are still delusion and fetishes

[Anonymous No.2181295]

>>2181292
simply put, yes.

[Anonymous No.2181299]

>>2181292
To make good art yes you should learn from good artists (Loomis, Watts, Proko, Vilppu). To do "abstraction and nonobjective" SHIT, nah, you don´t need to learn shit. As a matter of fact, the more retarded you are, the better to "jump right into it". And finally, no it´s not art, it´s only SHIT, so don´t even bother.

[Anonymous No.2181304]

>>2181299
>To do "abstraction and nonobjective" SHIT, nah, you don´t need to learn shit
you need to learn color, composition, line, shape, form... the foundations are the foundations no matter what

[Anonymous No.2181305]

>>2181299
>it's not art
what is art?

[Anonymous No.2181308]

>>2181304
These are things that are intrinsic to me. I'm really not interested in realistic drawing. It is boring. I admire the practice people put into learning it, but honestly why do we need hyper realistic drawing when we have cameras?

[Anonymous No.2181310]

>>2181299
why are a lot of people here abrasive assholes? I'm new to this board, but the quality of most replies are not constructive. if that's part of making "real art" i dont even want to be a part of it

[Anonymous No.2181311]

>>2181308
You can't take a photo of a dragon or a space marine.

[Anonymous No.2181312]

>>2181292
You can direct your learning so you go straight to drawing stylized or cartoony or whatever, as long as you still work on at least some of the basics. You'll still want to practice draftsmanship, and learn your medium, and things that are informed by real life reference will always look better. So you can still study anatomy and color and all that from real life even if you practice stylizing them more than trying to capture them as they are. A good balance of both will probably have better results, but it's becoming more commonly believed that if you intend to stylize, it's better to start practicing that early.

[Anonymous No.2181313]

>>2181305
this

>>2181311
good point

[Anonymous No.2181315]

>>2181310
That's not part of making art, that's part of being on 4chan. Most of the people here don't even draw, they just come here to vent their frustrations on others.

[Anonymous No.2181317]

>>2181308
are you sure you responded to the right post?

[Anonymous No.2181318]

>>2181317
oops, nah sorry i meant that for this anon here>>2181299

[Anonymous No.2181324]

>>2181315
truth

[Anonymous No.2181325]

>>2181315
i mean i thought that shit was meant for /b/

[Anonymous No.2181332]

>>2181308
Realism exists in things most people won't even give it credit. It's not about making something as real as possible, it's understanding what you're seeing and human perception as a whole. People study realism in order to create things that might not exist in our world for cameras to capture all while being convincing to the eye.
Saying you're not interested in realistic drawing is like saying you enjoy music, but not the years people put behind practicing their skill.

[Anonymous No.2181339]

>>2181325
/b/ is like swiss cheese, there's a ton of shit that's leaked from there that mods and jans seem to give no shits about.

[Anonymous No.2181350]

>>2181315
wait... some people here dont draw?

[Anonymous No.2181364]

>>2181350
If you don't agree with me, then you're a shitter who doesn't draw.

[Anonymous No.2181391]

>>2181350
Yes, some people have even straight up said it here themselves. 4chan is full of assholes.

[Anonymous No.2181522]

>>2181292
yes learning about artists and what art "means" is probably best but knowing how to draw isnt so important

[Anonymous No.2181535]

>there are people who invest thousands of hours slaving away on learning how to draw to be stuck in a style
>there are people who don't find joy in researching, investigating and being able to do whatever they want without restraints

Most artists who pushed abstract paintings were amazing at realism but wanted to see if they could push things forward even more. Picasso would be a great example

[Anonymous No.2181537]

>>2181535
truth

[Anonymous No.2181538]

>>2181535
Also learning how to draw realistic would mean that you can actually see what's going on in the world and have enough technique to put it on paper.

If you aren't even able to copy what your eyes see, how can you draw what is in your mind?

Going into abstract painting disregarding realism is not bad, but it's like trying to learn how to compose without knowing how to play any instrument nor listening to any music. I mean you can do something good, but it's not likely.

[Anonymous No.2181583]

Even though I don't 'get it' I acknowledge that there's some abstract art that actually has elements that require skill, like color, composition, whatever, despite it not appealing to me.

That said, for every good piece of abstract art there's a hundred pieces of some vapid dipshit thowing paint at a canvas thinking he's an artistic genius.

[Anonymous No.2181591]

>>2181325

Most boards are similarly shit.

I like /ic/ because you can get some genuine and brutal honesty that you won't get elsewhere. Unfortunately, there are also lots of people who take that to a stupid extreme and just fling shit at everything with worthless insult ridden posts, thinking they're some excellent art critic who tells it like it is.

[Anonymous No.2181602]

>>2181591

>>2181299 is absolutely right though... Since when modernism became "art"?
Here in /ic it is already a known truth that "modern art", "abstraction and nonobjective subjects", it´s not art, but a shameless business created by hacks like talentless fags like Warhol. Everyone here knows that.
That´s why you won´t find any picasso, nor pollock, neither warhol on the STICKY. But you will find real artists like Loomis, honest and hard working people who knows about anatomy, perspective and fundamentals.

[Anonymous No.2181605]

>>2181537
except his dad did all of his paintings until he was 89. you can really see the dip in quality. plebs like you wouldn't notice.

try to pull a fast one on me, art world? not old stinky johnson! he's too smart for that! YOU HEAR ME YOU PIGS!?

[Anonymous No.2181609]

Learning the basics and getting a strong understanding of representational drawing can only help you become a better artist in the end even if all you want to do is abstract work.

[Anonymous No.2181614]

>>2181535
You´re kiddin right? picasso was shit from the start to the end of his shitty "career".
What the fuck do you try to prove with that bunch of crappy art there? I only see a MEDIOCRE artist.
Do you wanna talk about a good artist doing god´tier art? Then check pic related. GTFO with that piece of shit picasso, please.
Read the Sticky, and learn something about art.

[Anonymous No.2181616]

Pic Related is what happens when you use a basic learned method to recreate photos. 90% of people will be amazed by your ability to draw so realistic! Most people consider this to be the work of a talented artist.

Obviously it is complete shit. The people who draw like this are the flip side of people of dive straight into abstract art with no fundamentals or ability to draw even basic objects accurately. In the artist of pic related's case they lack any creativity or ability to produce that which cannot be photographed.

When people say "I have no interest in draw realistically" I imagine they are thinking of drawing like this. This is not what you should learn.

Look up the fundamentals. Study basic shapes and how to render them. Study real life (people/animals/structures/vehicles). Then you are equipped with the skills to express your imagination.

Don't skip to abstract art blindly and don't tunnel vision your way to reproducing photographs.

[Anonymous No.2181617]

>>2181616

Of course I forget the pic after referencing it multiple times.

[Anonymous No.2181618]

>>2181614
>implying Dali isn't better than both those casuals
am I being baited now

[Anonymous No.2181622]

>>2181618
Dali is a real artist, not a hack like picasso, warhol or pollock.
Dali, Bouguereau, DaVinci, Rembrandt, vanDick, Velazquez, Michelangelo, are all in the same boat.
People who shit on canvas, and vomits squares are bullshiters hacks, not artists. Learn the difference.

[Anonymous No.2181623]

>>2181617
The teeth in that bug the shit out of me, you have 2 front teeth not 1.

[Anonymous No.2181628]

>>2181614
>art is only about the faithful representation of reality!
plebcore. tell me more about kitsch paintings of little girls in fields.

[Anonymous No.2181629]

>>2181622
Dali and Picasso had a lot of respect for each other. Much of Dali's early work is just him copying Picasso's style. Interesting that an artist you look up to disagrees with you taste here.

We got over "wow it looks so real" being the only goal of art a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.2181630]

>>2181628
Nah, I wrote already that masters like Salvador Dali are god'tier art creators.There´s not such a thing like "mindless abstraction", a "square" should have a context, should have a texture, should have a meaning. Like that awesome christ floating on front. That´s art.
Shit is shit and Art is art. Even a little child can see the difference.

[Anonymous No.2181631]

>>2181629
and yet i post this and everyone in the draw thread gives me a hard time cause the features aren't perfectly aligned

/ic/ you got some double ass standards

[Anonymous No.2181633]

>>2181628
and yet i post this and everyone in the draw thread gives me a hard time cause the features aren't perfectly aligned

/ic/ you got some double ass standards

[Anonymous No.2181634]

>>2181629
Fuck you. Dali detested Picasso and make fun of his shitty art all the time. What are you trying to rewrite history now?
Whatever bullshit you can try to throw up now, nothing will change the fact that both artist are absolutely different in quality, picasso is SHIT TIER and DALI is GOD TIER. There´s nothing to explain about it, the naked eye can see the truth. picasso shit work can burn and the world won´t lose nothing of artistic value. Dali on the contrary created vivid dreams depictions that are real artistic treasures of humanity, and he knew it, that´s why he mocked picasso all the time.

[Anonymous No.2181635]

>>2181633
That´s a great sketch and I´m the one throwing shit at picasso and pollock. As long as some retarded don´t come up with a pile of retarded lines vomited on randomly, I personally will support real artistic effort and talent.

[Anonymous No.2181638]

>>2181634
so now abstract painting isn't shit depending on who does it, because that person first has to draw the kind of stuff you like, stuff people drew 500 years ago

that's a bit stretched

[Anonymous No.2181641]

>>2181634
>What are you trying to rewrite history now?
no rewrite necessary. just look at dali's work in the 1920s

Dali:

[Anonymous No.2181642]

>>2181641
Picasso:

[Anonymous No.2181644]

Dali:

[Anonymous No.2181648]

>>2181638
>so now abstract painting isn't shit depending on who does it
That´s exactly right my good sir. It seems that reason has arrived finally. Shit artists do SHIT, good artists do ART. A fucked up square or face are just that FUCKED UP squares and faces. Done by people who didn´t bother to learn shit.
Squares and face done with knowledge on texture, lighting, perspective, anatomy can become beautiful art at the hands of skillful artists. But again, nonsensical lines and squares are just that, a real artist like Dali KNEW that squares and flat lines were not enough, he turn "abstraction" into something meaningful. OP's related picture is not art, it is just a bunch of random crap, there´s no meaning on random retarded lines and circles. Dali knew that, and so he created ART, not shit like pollock or picasso.

[Anonymous No.2181649]

Splatter scribble bullshit can look cool, but it is not now and never will be 'good art'.

[Anonymous No.2181650]

>>2181644
Picasso:

[Anonymous No.2181651]

>>2181649
so define "good art"

[Anonymous No.2181655]

>>2181648

i agree with your opinion with the exception of the picasso hatin.
history considers him good, why can't you at least tolerate him?

[Anonymous No.2181656]

Dali

[Anonymous No.2181657]

>>2181656
Picasso

[Anonymous No.2181661]

>>2181641
>>2181642
>>2181644
What the fuck do you try to prove? That picasso was always a shit artist who became even shittier?.. and that Dali was an artist who went form shit tier to god tier as any normal person does as evolves through? Do you even know that Dali was 15 years younger than picasso? picasso was an old as fuck bastard and still couldn´t even draw shit, he was shitty when young and even shittier as old. Dali became a master of all times. So what´s your point anon?

[Anonymous No.2181662]

>>2181661
That Dali admired Picasso and strove to emulate him early in his career, before finding his own voice.
Thought it was pretty obvious.
inb4 conspiracy theory involving Picasso's father.

Dali:

[Anonymous No.2181663]

>>2181662
Picasso:

[Anonymous No.2181708]

>>2181661

I'm proud to say I never like Dali. I liked Picasso but never liked Dali. Same reason I don't like the hippie movement; pointlessly psychedelic. Insincere. Not authentic. Immature. Probably the best word to describe it is contrived. He was such a fake try hard personality. His mask calcified over his face and he genuinely became that lie. At least I had some semblance of taste as a kid.

[Anonymous No.2181713]

>>2181708
I agree that the work often doesn't seem "genuine," but I admire Dali for his technical skill and imagination. still overrated by people who think his work is "trippy" though.

[Anonymous No.2181722]

>>2181662
>Dali admired Picasso and strove to emulate him early in his career
>early in his career
not the other anon, but let me tell you this, people can change their opinion about things, and Dalí stopped imitating picasso bc he realized that picasso was shit.
When I was starting to draw I wanted to be like some artists, I tried to imitate their ways to do things, their themes etc. Today I look the work of these people and I can't believe how shitty it is. At first I worked in themes of fantasy, but slowly I changed my tastes, themes and what wanted to say in my artwork. The same for Dalí.

>tl; dr Dalí realized that picasso was shit.

[Anonymous No.2181728]

>>2181722
Brian is that you?

[Anonymous No.2181730]

>>2181722

[focker No.2181737]

yes i am

[Anonymous No.2181739]

>>2181737
I had a feeling. There's only one guy on this board autistic enough to make posts like that

[Anonymous No.2181744]

>>2181739
>implying that saying that picasso was a great artist is not autistic

[Anonymous No.2181761]

>>2181722
Dalí and his wife Gala owned a 1913 collage by Picasso, which they gave to the Museu Picasso de Barcelona when it opened in 1963. He also sent about 100 postcards to Picasso from the 30s through the 60s.

Now tell the class what you learned today.

[Anonymous No.2181936]

>>2181602
> "modern art", "abstraction and nonobjective subjects", it´s not art, but a shameless business created by hacks
>Picasso, Pollock and Warhol are not real artist because they don't use perspective
>real artists like Loomis, honest and hard working people who knows about anatomy...

This level of autism can only be found in 4chan

[Anonymous No.2181947]

>>2181635
What about both motherfucker?

[Anonymous No.2181984]

>>2181635

seriously why can't you appreciate both? This guys >>2181947 got a point. It's not like their exclusive. I love rembrandt, I've pored over pretty much everything he ever did. You should see my books on him, every page is full of side notes and highlighted. But I also really appreciate what the impressionists, cubists, fauvists and modernists were doing. They were great artists also who were making art about a different place.

[Anonymous No.2182414]

>>2181936
No, I see this at the art school I go to. Foundational technique > everything else.

[Anonymous No.2182799]

learn the rules, so you can break them