/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.2194108]

So this is the work of my to-be art teacher next semester. Should I be worried that I'll be beaten down for focusing too much on technical aspects of painting rather than the subject matter? Has anyone had experience with art classes dealing with subjective stuff?

[Anonymous No.2194112]

Sorry for the resolution holy shit.

[Anonymous No.2194122]

>>2194108
Well they can't paint, so your only hope is that they will be a good teacher and will help you grow in the direction you want rather than enforcing their own viewpoints on you.

Worst case scenario they teach what they paint, and you will have to sit through it. You can try to take some lessons from them still even if you don't like their work.

[Anonymous No.2194143]

>>2194108
Man Gogh couldn't paint for shit.

[Anonymous No.2194146]

You should ask yourself why you're going to art college. If it's because you want to 'express yourself' like a well-trained monkey and go into tens of thousands of dollars in debt for no reason whatsoever then having a teacher that isn't technically proficient is fine. If you're going to school so you can develop a strong technical foundation and perhaps make a living from them then I'd expect better.

[Anonymous No.2194188]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8mbEwGuoTk

[Anonymous No.2194198]

>>2194143
r u 4 real

[Anonymous No.2194212]

>Be OP
>Have that art teacher next semester
>First day of class
>Wait for everyone to take a seat so I know who he is
>Walk up to him
>Pull out a copy of "Figure Drawing for All its Worth" from my backpack
>Bash his head in with it
>"READ THE STICKY FAGGOT"
>Walk out of the class forever

[Anonymous No.2194220]

What are they teaching?

[Anonymous No.2194230]

>>2194143
wut

[Anonymous No.2194231]

>>2194108
Fuck all y'all, I like the paintings.

[Anonymous No.2194244]

>>2194198
Open your fucking eyes.

[Anonymous No.2194246]

>>2194231
Good for you, they still don't demonstrate a high level of technical proficiency. So again, if op wants to have fun fingerpainting and playing with his hands for tens of thousands of dollars so he can go back to pushing carts at his local grocery store knee deep in debt then he's in good company.

[Anonymous No.2194248]

>>2194244
Right is more interesting to look at

They're both good in their own way.

Sorry boi

[Anonymous No.2194251]

>>2194244
Van Dyck was one of the all time greats, it's kind of an insult to him and a strike against your point with that image when you use such a poor reproduction of his work...I mean really, it's washed out value and colour wise, and covered in a strong grain. It looks like a scan of a book printed in the 70's. There are plenty of great reproductions of Van Dyck online, the Prada museum has uploaded some very high res ones for example.

[Anonymous No.2194267]

>>2194244
>look at these apples aren't they better than these oranges

[Anonymous No.2194270]

>>2194246
technical proficiency is just one part of it, this teacher could still teach him a lot about art. and the best artists don't always make the best teachers anyway.

[Anonymous No.2194273]

>>2194244
Both look pretty good

[Anonymous No.2194281]

What an awful mess those are.

Art class is the same as every other kind of class. If you want a good grade, put down what you know to be true at the door and do what your teacher says. If you want to get a good grade AND git gud at art, do the right thing when you are not in class.

[Anonymous No.2194292]

If the teacher's work isn't masterful then he shouldn't be teaching. Stop participating in this bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2194313]

>>2194270
>this teacher could still teach him a lot about art

Like what, and should anon leave that up to chance when there's tens of thousands of dollars on the line and the teacher's own work looks ridiculous? Probably not

[Anonymous No.2194342]

>>2194108
you shouldn't worry, OP. College level art instructors are almost never interesting in making you a clone, and will almost always take into account the individual student's interests.

Also, people's work usually don't put their entire range of knowledge on display. your teacher made these pics to sell in a gallery (and maybe for personal reasons), not to show off their knowledge of perspective etc.
The worst genre novelist has probably read tolstoy. This guy could easily have useful things to say about, idk, sargent's brush handling.

tl;dr don't worry

[Anonymous No.2194350]

>>2194292
that example is silly, though. Every art college I've heard of has life drawing (except slade, i guess), and most major cities have regular drip-in life drawing sessions available.

[Anonymous No.2194376]

>>2194342
this guy gets it

[Anonymous No.2194383]

>>2194248
>>2194267
>Right is more interesting to look at
Because it's shittier I guess?

>inb4 some bullshit about "ugh, anon, it's about the RHYTHMS in the paint strokes, brah!"

[Anonymous No.2194386]

>>2194383
>I'm being a pleb and no one can stop me! XD

[Anonymous No.2194389]

>>2194383
Yeah, anon I totally agree. Celebrity photo realistic portraits is real art.

[Anonymous No.2194414]

>>2194376
No he fucking doesn't. He's speaking impersonally, from the perspective of someone who isn't risking his financial future to be instructed by a less than mediocre abstract artist. It is perfectly reasonable to expect someone you're essentially paying tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket to be able to perform at a very high level at what it is you want to learn. For fuck's sake.

[Anonymous No.2194418]

>>2194414
>muh ten gorjillion dollars
who says it's out of pocket? get a fucking scholarship. get a grant. I got a BFA without a penny in debt. Even the teachers I felt I was better than had something to teach me.

y u so mad tho?

[Anonymous No.2194568]

>>2194386
You really think that looks good, anon?

A Dore etching shits all over that.

>>2194389
Van Dyck is "photorealism" now? /ic/ is too much.

I wonder how many people on here legitimately think Van Gogh is better Sargent.

[Anonymous No.2194588]

>>2194418
Who says it isn't out of pocket? You're making dangerous assumptions on op's behalf. If everyone could get a scholarship everyone would, obviously, you got a full-ride scholarship, good for you, you're not op.

>w-well the teacher's work blows fucking ass but maybe he'll be able to recite just the right piece of jargon at me pulled from a $20 art book to make my otherwise complete waste of a year spent with him worth it

smh, just smh

Not only is there potential for vast sums of money to be absolutely wasted, but so too is there the potential for hours, days, months and years worth of precious time potentially squandered at a school filled with abstractfag sycophants

[Anonymous No.2194597]

>>2194588
>pulled from a $20 art book
or, you know, pulled from decades of experience as a working artist and art instructor.

>b-b-but m-muh stuttering strawman argument!

[Anonymous No.2194604]

>>2194568
>If it isn't as technically proficient as Van Dyke or Gustave Dore then it's shit
You're a special kind of dumb.

>but it doesn't even look like real life!

[Anonymous No.2194633]

>>2194597

Being an art teacher and instructor in an environment where the paintings posted in the op are considered sufficient enough to teach doesn't mean dick. Instructors like op's are the reason that so many artists are technically garbage, unemployable and hopeless financial wrecks. You can stop shilling for a broken, inadequate system that ruins thousands of lives on an annual basis at any time, you know. If the teacher isn't himself capable of performing in a manner that the student is interested in performing than the student should seek instruction elsewhere. He doesn't have to quit school, but he should definitely not sit idly by while he gets inundated with rhetoric by someone who can't paint worth a damn himself. Unless op sees a piece by this instructor that colludes with his own vision for what he'd like to be capable of he should try to get a different instructor pronto.

[Anonymous No.2194637]

>>2194568

>I wonder how many people on here legitimately think Van Gogh is better Sargent.

I do. One artist makes me go "oh, that's a slick solution. nice" and one makes my head spin and makes me feel feverish almost, obviously I'm going to go with the one who makes me feel something rather than the one who impresses me with technical virtuosity.

[Anonymous No.2194644]

>>2194633
>If the teacher isn't himself capable of performing in a manner that the student is interested in performing than the student should seek instruction elsewhere
agreed. he's free to find a school that caters to his style, one should always look at the work of current students and instructors before choosing an art school, and choose a school that is the right fit for them.

[Anonymous No.2194645]

>>2194568
>I wonder how many people on here legitimately think Van Gogh is better Sargent.
I appreciate both artists for different reasons. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.2194681]

Van Gogh is a more important artist without doubt, despite this Sargent is also a pinnacle of artistic accomplishment. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.2194965]

>>2194108
Fuck this is actually painful to look at

[Anonymous No.2194984]

>>2194633
you know what art actually sells? the stuff that's in commercial galleries.

you know what's in galleries? Stuff like in OP.

You're talking like technical proficiency = cash. It doesn't. OP could learn to paint like bougereau, and still be
>unemployable and hopeless financial wreck

nobody should be surprised art school is geared towards people who want to show and sell in galleries. Most successful contemporary artists (hirst, saville, enim, etc) went to art school.

you can whine about a broken system like a bitter cunt all you want, but it sounds like you just don't know what art schools are for.

[Anonymous No.2195024]

>>2194681
>Van Gogh is a more important artist without doubt,
Because of Starry Night?

>>2194645
Van Gogh's paintings are clearly worse. Even if you want to compliment him strictly on a compositional basis his art is tightly framed and not planned out at all.

>>2194637
> and one makes my head spin and makes me feel feverish almost
With some fucking broken lines going in a row.
Does illastrat's beautiful artwork have the same effect on you, anon?

>>2194604
It's not even good compared to the Ukiyo-E prints that influenced him.

>but it doesn't even look like real life!
neither does a Dore illustration yet it's still way better and even uses the "RHYTHMS" that art hipsters like to masturbate over.

What am I supposed to be impressed with here? His awful design sense? Complete lack of form or good edge work?

[Anonymous No.2195033]

>>2194681
How do you define importance?

Van Gogh is a household name, but does that mean he is more important? It could be just fame. A lot of what he is known for is his life story. What about influence in the art world? Van Gogh is a bigger name in art history textbooks, so that would imply he is more important. But Sargent has probably had a greater impact on artists and their styles than Van Gogh, and is a prime example of a "painter's painter". But then Van Gogh has had a larger impact on the general public, and at this point his art has reached a level of pop culture where it loses meaning and you get poor reproductions of it on umbrellas and jigsaw puzzles.

Btw, I don't really have an opinion on which is more important, I'm just trying to give some food for thought. I'm not so sure it is as black and white as you say.

[Anonymous No.2195044]

>>2194984
How many of these graduates get featured in art galleries and also how many actually sell enough to make even close to a livable wage? Maybe we should start having classes for people to study how to be professional athletes and how to buy lottery tickets too, lmao

>gallery artists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9skl9nijPM

>You're talking like technical proficiency = cash. It doesn't. OP could learn to paint like bougereau, and...

The failure rate (both literal and holistically speaking) even for artists whose work is comprehensible (outside of the turbo-niche of people whom are actually still impressed with Pollock and Duchamp derivative works in the year 2015) isn't great, but I'm not personally advocating going to school for them either unless they have a substantial scholarship to one of the top institutions so that point is moot. So many artists are made and broken on their own terms. Why take the financial risk of getting set up with some mouth breathing abstract pedant who's only capable of reciting vague "art" terminology while not being able to apply it himself in any meaningful way?

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/fgek45hg/no-3-fine-arts/

[Anonymous No.2195062]

>>2194244
Van Gogh's is way more interesting to look at

[Anonymous No.2195069]

>>2194568
I hated you until you vouched for Dore. I really hope you win this fucboi /ic/ pissing contest. I believe in you anon.

[Anonymous No.2195113]

>>2195024

>broken lines going in a row

Curves are difficult to handle. A line, if you can envision it, goes in the right place every time. That's the magic of Van Gogh, every part of it is felt and realized, no pretensions.

>not even good compared to the Ukiyo-E prints that influenced him.

The difference is that Van Gogh's rendition are in his typical "heavy" style with morose colors, there's none of the fleeting and airy qualities that usually characterizes Ukiyo-e.

We get it, you like Dore and Sargent, you're fucking boring and have no taste. You're a right french fireman aren't you, you little pleb

[Anonymous No.2195348]

>>2195024
>so mad he wrote an essay
get over it
>what am I supposed to be impressed with here?
believe it or not no one is interested in impressing you.

[Anonymous No.2196021]

>>2194292
really like all these works, thanks for the post

[Anonymous No.2196099]

Don't worry OP, your teacher is going to give you the same vague advice and mundane assignments as everyone else in the class.