Constructive Criticism Thread

[Anonymous No.2215778]

Post your most recent painting/drawing and critique others!

Am I good enough to sell? What should I keep working on?

[Anonymous No.2215787]

Anon protip: people pretend to like Picasso, he was actually shit.

[Anonymous No.2215793]

>>2215787
I like Picasso man

[Anonymous No.2215797]

>>2215793
Why.

It's sub middle school doodle level, it doesn't even have good color balance of composition usually, it's just 100% unadulterated trash people pretend is good so they can feel like they understand art.

[Anonymous No.2215801]

>>2215778
Where to begin tbh... Loomis, art history, study of the masters, fundamentals of color, light, anatomy, perspective and composition.
Taking seriously art and your work is a start.

[Anonymous No.2215852]

>>2215787

picasso was telling the truth about peoples faces when he painted them. he used a lot of metaphors too. Anyone can do it but he was the first to do it the way he did.

[Anonymous No.2215855]

>>2215852
he wasn't the first, he was only the first to be popularized and overrated.

[Anonymous No.2215857]

Thats a pretty nice painting. Its fun to look at.

[Anonymous No.2216005]

>>2215778
your shit seems like the shit of picasso, now you only need to die and make your shit raise its price

[Anonymous No.2216082]

>>2215778
looks alright for what it is supposed to be. but you should work on the paint texture. is that paper or canvas? oils or acrylics? looks pretty amateurish

[Anonymous No.2216196]

>>2215787
>>2215855
I used to think he was overrated, but he tells a story with his paintings, and he can paint very serious art, but likes painting like a child instead. I don't think anyone has the same creativity he does, when it comes to cubism.

>>2215857
Thanks, there's even a story in my painting, told my hidden shapes and details.

>>2215801
>>2216082
It's acrylic on regular paper, as I have run out of canvases. What tips can I learn to give my paintings that "finished" look?

[Anonymous No.2216203]

>>2215793
I just don't understand the point of picasso. Like, what is his goal? What is he trying to convey? If he wanted to tell a story or show an emotion, there are better ways than what he did. So I don't understand the purpose of his later, bidimensional stuff.

[Anonymous No.2216204]

>>2215778
Although it's rather derivative, it looks pretty good OP. There is an audience for this kind of work so it's certainly sellable.

[Anonymous No.2216206]

>>2216196
Take this painting for instance. I think we can all agree that it looks pretty bad. Now that would be excusable if it was necessary to communicate something. For one, wtf is the point of drawing everything crooked? I can sort of understand the eyes (tho they're ugly as hell) but why are the hands all fucked up? Why is the nose sideways with the nostrils on top? Why are the mouth and chin so ugly? Is this really the best he can do to communicate that particular emotion? Is such an ugly envelope really necessary? Why would I pay to look at something so needlessly ugly?

[Anonymous No.2216231]

>>2216206
>I think we can all agree that it looks pretty bad
nope.

[Anonymous No.2216232]

>>2216206
>why
Open up some books on art history and you'll get some answers. Most of modern painting was an exploration of different ways to represent things in connection to the science of perception, and as a removal from academic conventions.

I remember hating all of modern art when I was in my teens, but as I grew older, became more educated and experienced with creating art, I started being less of a narrow-minded little shit. Most of the modern period is quite admirable, actually, when you take the time to learn its history and put yourself in their shoes for a moment, within the context of their time period.

Meh. It's an acquired taste, I guess. My own work is highly representational, but I can enjoy and appreciate art like this too.

[Anonymous No.2216236]

>>2216005
>now you only need to die and make your shit raise its price
picasso was rich as fuck in his lifetime. did you glean everything you know about art history from a paragraph you read about van gogh?

[Anonymous No.2216237]

>>2216206
Its interesting to note that while its incredibly stylised, you can still tell which part is the nose, which is the hands/fingers. So you obviously recognise the shapes and can assign meaning to them

[Anonymous No.2216238]

>>2216232
>My own work is highly representational, but I can enjoy and appreciate art like this too.
same here

[Anonymous No.2216256]

>>2216237
That's interesting but not unique to picasso. In fact I just made an ever more stylized drawing of the same subject which is clearer and simpler and it took me like 30 seconds. You can identify the nose, the mouth the tissue, all the same stuff you can see in the painting. You can even tell she's crying because I drew her a sad mouth and a tear! This called symbol drawing and every child can do it. In fact writing is a form of symbol drawing too, so picasso isn't really doing anything more special than a hieroglyph. It's all interesting but I don't see the point of paying millions when you can have the same thing for free.
>>2216232
That really depends on the book. I like cubism but for the later, flatter stuff of picasso I still haven't found a reasonable explanation (other than he was getting old and started winging it). Art books will go on a mumbo jumbo about how new it was (which it really wasn't) or how flamboyant and eccentric picasso was; when trying to explain the painting, they'll just spout their made up theories and disagree with each other. I'm asking you, personally, why do you like that painting? What makes it special for you?

[Anonymous No.2216270]

>>2216256
And I'd like to add, the real pressing question is "why does it have to be all fucked up?" and I still haven't gotten a straight answer to this. I'd really appreciate if someone could tell me why they think the fucked-upness isn't pointless.

[Anonymous No.2216272]

>>2216206
The room corner is a nice touch. The figure is 1) facing parallel to a wall and 2) close to a corner. It's not something that can be done with a regular 3D view and shows how much information Picasso could fit into a simple design.

Also the handkerchief is see-through so we can see the mouth even though it's covered.
The face is in profile so that we can that she has a jew nose but with the exception of the eyes so that we can see she's crying as well.

[Anonymous No.2216279]

>>2216256
I don't think you know what symbol drawing is. It's when you default to the symbol of an object that you hold in your mind. This is not what picasso is doing. Note the eyes sitting in canoe-like lids, or the polygonal shapes of the nostrils. these are not the symbols for eyes or nostrils that the inexperienced hold in their mind, they are evidence that picasso is abstracting and flattening forms. if he were just symbol drawing, all his paintings would be cartoon-same faces, but each is a unique face warped in space, with conscious attention paid to the distortion of form.
>Art books will go on a mumbo jumbo about how new it was (which it really wasn't)
it was though, he was essentially working in a neo-expressionist style before neo-expressionism was even a thing.

not the anon you're responding to, but I'll tell you why I like the painting. I like the graphic use of line, I like the bold colors, I like the maze-like puzzle of facial features that create a topsy-turvy landscape of abstract forms that all add up to create a face. And despite the bright colors and abstraction, it still communicates sadness and despair, heightened by the fact that her tumultuous face mirror what I assume to be her internal emotions.

[Anonymous No.2216282]

>>2216270
>why does it have to be all fucked up?
why not? looks like it was fun to create, and it's fun to look at.

[Anonymous No.2216304]

>>2216282
this

[Anonymous No.2216345]

>>2216236
I didn't say for Picasso, it's a general rule. When you die automatically you become a good student, good person, good father, never smoked, gave your money to poor people in Somalia and your shit increases it's price.

[Anonymous No.2216380]

>>2216345
>When you die automatically you become a good student, good person, good father, never smoked, gave your money to poor people in Somalia

You either have never experienced the death of someone dislikeable, or you watch way too many edgy movies.

[Anonymous No.2216385]

>>2216380
this. at my grandfather's funeral everyone was pretty much like "eh, he was an ass. but he provided for his family and never killed anyone!"

[Anonymous No.2216395]

>all the mental gymnastics itt trying to justify the worlds shittiest popular painter as good

why

[Anonymous No.2216399]

>>2216395
>can't into modernism or picasso

why

[Anonymous No.2216406]

>>2216399
Because it's objectively terrible art

[Anonymous No.2216408]

>>2216406
Nope.

[Anonymous No.2216409]

>>2216406
>objectively bad
bad is a value judgement. learn what objectivity actually means.

also
>calls all of modernism objectively terrible
just kill yourself, you clearly know nothing about the topic you're attempting to dismiss.

[Anonymous No.2216413]

>>2216406
>objectively bad
bad is a value judgement. learn what objectivity actually means.

also
>calls all of modernism objectively terrible
just kill yourself, you clearly know nothing about the topic you're attempting to dismiss.

[Anonymous No.2216416]

>>2216408
Compare pic related to
>>2215797
Then kill yourself you fucking pleb

[Anonymous No.2216417]

>>2216416

[Anonymous No.2216424]

>>2216279
OK I understand now. I guess it's the sort of stuff that seems trivial at first but when you look deeper into it, actually requires deep thought and ingenuity (like cartoons). Still not my thing but now I see why some people might appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.2216431]

>>2216417
better version.


idk why you would post such a shitty picture of such a great painting. especially when you're trying to prove a point.

[Anonymous No.2216434]

>>2216416
>>2216417
>comparing different styles and artistic intentions
>"I don't like the Beatles which means they're objectively shit compared to Beethoven"
>not believing that taste is a culmination of a person's own experiences, environment, education, interactions, and thinking that one's set of preferences is superior to another's
>being this fucking limited in mental capacity

[Anonymous No.2216435]

Enablers: The Thread

[Anonymous No.2216439]

>>2216434
get the water someone got a 3rd degree burn

[Anonymous No.2216441]

>>2216434
>literally muh style

[Anonymous No.2216460]

>>2216399
>not encouraging people to fuck around >not taking design elements from other artists and applying it to your own art
>not realizing Picasso is a creative goldmine and invented modernism

Holy shit just stop you pleb.

[Anonymous No.2216462]

>>2216460
Meant to reply to>>2216395

[Anonymous No.2216467]

>>2215778
Yeah really good man. Some of your overall craftsmanship could definitely be better, your edges and whatnot. Most great paintings are really beautiful objects, yours is alright lookin. I'd probably buy it if I weren't an unemployed Virgin living with my parents.

[Anonymous No.2216468]

>>2216460
>not encouraging to explore alternate political viewpoints
>not taking political ideas from various figures and applying them to your own
>not realizing Hitler was a nationalist goldmine invented nazism

see it doesn't work when you're source material is shit

[Anonymous No.2216469]

>>2216467
>unemployed Virgin living with my parents

[Anonymous No.2216470]

Jesus christ every thread is the fucking same on /ic/

>HURR THIS ART IS SHIT
>HURR YOUR ART IS SHIT

shouldnt you fucking tards be drawing?

[Anonymous No.2216475]

>>2216468
>not using national socialist propaganda to push an anarcho-feminist agenda
>not taking powerful imagery from soviet style films to make a cool iPhone wallpaper
>not realizing that the more people that are out there experimenting with stupid things the bigger your idea pool is

Keep handicapping yourself faggot

[Anonymous No.2216485]

>>2216270
Art in general is "pointless" ask why not instead.

[Anonymous No.2216486]

OP's work is pretty good

Period

[Anonymous No.2216496]

>>2216485
But if you read my previous post you would know why not and the why not is that it doesn't look good. See, this is the sort of stupid and *thoughtless* answer that I wasn't looking for.

[Anonymous No.2216500]

>>2216496
To which ill link this post
>>2216434

[Anonymous No.2216502]

>>2216467
Thanks man, barely started painting in April.


As to the whole "What's Picasso trying to do?"

– Abstract art is only painting. And what’s so dramatic about that? There is no abstract art. One must always begin with something. Afterwards one can remove all semblance of reality; there is no longer any danger as the idea of the object has left an indelible imprint. It is the object which aroused the artist, stimulated his ideas and set of his emotions. These ideas and emotions will be imprisoned in his work for good… …Whether he wants it or not, man is the instrument of nature; she imposes on him character and appearance. In my paintings of Dinard, as in my paintings of Purville, I have given expression to more or less the same vision… …You cannot go against nature. She is stronger than the strongest of men. We can permit ourselves some liberties, but in details only (Boisgeloup, winter 1934).
* Picasso on painting, art and Cubism with Braque

– The academic teaching on beauty is false. We have been misled, but so completely misled that we can no longer find so much as a shadow of a truth again. The beauties of the Parthenon, the Venuses, the Nymphs, the Narcisusses, are so may lies. Art is not the application of a canon of beauty, but what the instinct and the brain can conceive independently of that canon… …To tell the truth the Parthenon is only a truss on which a roof has been placed… (Boisgeloup, winter 1934).

– It is not what the artist does that counts. But what he is. Cézanne would never have interested me if he had lived and thought like Jaques-Emile Blanche, even if the apple he had painted had been ten times more beautiful. What interests us is the anxiety of Cézanne, the teaching of Cézanne, the anguish of Van Gogh, in short the inner drama of the man. The rest is false. (Boisgeloup, winter 1934).

You guys forget how "masterful" he can be painting (pic related, painted it at 15 yrs old)

Post your paintings, guys!

[Anonymous No.2216505]

>>2216496
A-are you autistic?

[Anonymous No.2216506]

>>2216502
>bablo picassos's dad is paitner
>paints painting
>says kid did it for novelty of kid being good painter
>makes money off novelty
>picasso junior rides scam-fame to success, only paints like shit because he can only paint like shit.

[Anonymous No.2216509]

>>2216505
Probably what happens if you put glue into your nose instead on the canvas.

[Anonymous No.2216526]

You're fucking naive if you think Picasso is shit.

[Anonymous No.2216531]

>>2215778
Looks alright. Could easily sell if it were made of nice materials, but I can't tell from the image. It almost looks like ink on paper, which will not sell for much.

Nothing wrong with cubism (although, really, this is just mock cubism, or some kind of retro throwback) but hopefully you find a way to move on from that/ expand on it in the future. Id say if ou have something going for you right now it's composition, values, and colours, but there so many other aspects to explore.

[Anonymous No.2216569]

>>2216526
>my opinion on art is objectively correct

[Anonymous No.2216576]

>>2216502
Two bales m'fucker.

Look at this asshole, making me get up and work some cubist still life. Thanks for motivating me, dicknuts.

[Anonymous No.2216595]

>>2216416
compare a piece by a professional artist to a piece by a novice, which isn't even modern art? uh, no.
>>2216424
fair, understanding is all I ask. I'm not a huge picasso fan either, but I like some of his work and recognize that he was skilled and played a pivotal role in art history. there are many other modernists I prefer to picasso.
>>2216506
keep squawking parrot, maybe quote the one tinfoil-hat wearing "expert" that you love so much.

[Anonymous No.2216641]

Is there a worse popular painting than this piece of shit?

[Anonymous No.2216718]

>>2216641
>Is there a worse popular painting than this piece of shit?
everything you've ever painted

[Anonymous No.2216719]

>>2216718
oh nevermind, didn't notice you specified "popular"

[Anonymous No.2216765]

>all that samefagging in this thread

[Anonymous No.2216795]

>>2216526
maybe not for you, but to most artists of the time and of today, he does suck. it's not because he can't paint or something like that, it's another story. the whole cubism movement is shit to my eyes.

[Anonymous No.2216872]

>>2216641
Never mind its social/political content, I don't get how you can call this shit when analyzing it for its aesthetic characteristics. It's using the primary elements of DESIGN in a very effective and appealing manner. You can't dig it because it's using abstracted subject matter, drawn in a way that sort of resembles how a child would express the world, and not depicted realistically, catering to the conventions you've developed within your own perspective, and knocking you over the head with obvious shit like Hollywood flicks.

But I guess you don't get that because your own skillset in design is utter garbage and you just aren't imaginative enough to really get the most out of it. I bet you have never walked into an art gallery and spent more than 10 seconds with a modern period artwork.

>worse popular painting
In my opinion, Munch's "The Scream." But it's probably still better than anything you've ever done.

[Anonymous No.2216873]

>>2216872
And I also ask you, if a highly detailed and rendered painting of a basement dweller's ballsack -- so zoomed-in that it appears almost abstract to you at first -- was placed before you, would you prefer it over Picasso's Guernica?

[Anonymous No.2216892]

>>2216380
I read the newspaper.

[Anonymous No.2216914]

>>2216206
Take Jimi Hendrix for example. Doesn't he understand that all that noise and distortion just sounds bad? I think we can all agree that it sounds pretty bad. I mean why does he use his instrument like that? People said that he was a skilled musician and that he made all that ugly sound intentionally but I don't buy it, nobody who could really play a musical instrument would make such ugly abstractions. Now the barbershop quartet, that was real music, it had gorgeous harmonies and melodies. True art, not that degenerate rock stuff. Why would I pay to listen to something so needlessly ugly?

[Anonymous No.2216997]

>>2216795
>to most artists of the time and of today, he does suck
citation needed

[Anonymous No.2217037]

why is /ic/ so easy to troll holy SHIT

[Anonymous No.2217052]

>>2216641
Yes

>>2216872
"M-muh style!"

[Anonymous No.2217056]

>>2217052
Shit meme, every man made object is stylized.

[Anonymous No.2217060]

>>2217056
The muh style "meme" is not about thingsa with style being bad

It's about using "style" as an argument for something that's obviously terrible being good.

see
>>2170068

[Anonymous No.2217062]

>>2217052
(after discussing Kandinsky, the Futurists, Neo-Plasticism, and Constructivism)

>I have learned a lot from all of them and they have confused me plenty too. One thing is certain, they didn’t give me my natural aptitude for drawing. I am completely weary of their ideas now.

>The only way I still think of these ideas is in terms of the individual artists who came from them or invented them. I still think that Boccioni was a great artist and a passionate man. I like Lissitzky, Rodchenko, Tatlin and Gabo; and I admire some of Kandinsky’s painting very much. But Mondrian, that great merciless artist, is the only one who had nothing left over.

-Willem de Kooning, 1950

[Anonymous No.2219496]

>>2215852
It's not just about "he was the first to do it." Most artists CAN'T paint pictures like picasso.

They can try to immitate Picasso but they will never paint like Picasso unless they have a similar level of talent.

[Anonymous No.2219501]

>>2217037
Combination of newfags and tumblrfags lurking.

[Anonymous No.2219556]

i was diagnosed with schizophrenia a couple weeks ago, sorry if my art a shit

[Anonymous No.2219560]

>>2219556

[Anonymous No.2219856]

>>2216206
I like it, I would have to see it along with some of your other work to get a feel for what you're going for. what is the size? medium? title?
>>2215778

[Anonymous No.2219864]

>>2219556
reminds me Ralf Steadmans art (gonzo)
I really enjoy this piece. post more if you have some.

[Anonymous No.2219875]

work in progress.
6'x4' Oil on canvas
let me know what u think.