/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.2604138]

ITT: Artists who have lost it

This looks amateur as fuck.

[Anonymous No.2604144]

>>2604138
>Samepose

[Anonymous No.2604148]

The skill is obviously there.

But he must have had a stroke or something because the poses are boring as fuck. Except for groot and the dude in the back.

[Anonymous No.2604228]

films aren't really known for their stellar conceptual art. case in point being this and ben moro's work on elisium. take a look at video game art.

[Anonymous No.2604233]

>>2604138
Who the fuck is Spark?

[Anonymous No.2604234]

>>2604233
A Park = Andy Park

[Anonymous No.2604258]

Looks fine for what it's meant to be. You are seriously exaggerating if you think this is "amateur".

[Anonymous No.2604268]

>>2604258
jesus christ draw more

[Anonymous No.2604369]

>>2604268

what the fuck. it looks flashy and dramatic, it includes all the characters, who are well defined, what do you expect it literally says "production concept art" in the picture. i cant tell if im being baited or if people itt are actually this retarded.

[Anonymous No.2604454]

>>2604138
literally whats wrong with this, asshole? looks great

[Anonymous No.2604457]

>>2604138

Meanwhile, an actual talented artist gives it a try for Guardians promo art.

[Anonymous No.2604462]

it's film production art work who cares

[Anonymous No.2604476]

I'm not good at art, but i'd like to mention how much more boring

>>2604138
is than
>>2604457

This is why hobby artists shit on proffessional artists. All pros ever draw is pussy or somebodies commission.

[Anonymous No.2604486]

>>2604369
>what the fuck. it looks flashy and dramatic
The poses are what's wrong. All three women are standing with the exact same pose, Beefcakeman has no action or exaggeration to his pose. Rocketman in the back looks like he's flying by holding onto a magic wand, and Chris Pratt looks like he's daintily floating to the ground instead of falling away from an explosion. There's no weight to anything, everything is floaty, and nobody is reacting to the fucking giant explosion behind them. I didn't think it was possible to capture the effect of a CGI greenscreen in a still drawing, but this guy managed to do it.

[Anonymous No.2604491]

>>2604138
If he did what he was instructed to do from the people he was working for, who gives a fuck? Literally no one's opinion on /ic/ matters because none of you were the client(s). Now shut up and draw you faggots. You aren't important.

[Anonymous No.2604493]

>>2604491
>Literally no one's opinion on /ic/ matters because none of you were the client(s)
Weh weh weh people are critiquing art on the art critique board weh weh weh

[Anonymous No.2604500]

>>2604493
Yeah, an artwork which you have no real context to because the artist doesn't post here and you're a bunch of randoms who weren't the client he did it for. So just shut up and draw, no one needs your irrelevant insight.

[Anonymous No.2604504]

>>2604500
>this much autism
Jesus Christ, and I thought /g/ was bad.

[Anonymous No.2604505]

>>2604504
>I have no real point
>time to cry autism
Your opinion doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.2604506]

>>2604491

Also, this is a valid point. Usually, artists will not give it their 100% on a professional commission. The point is to make enough money to be well off, so they tend to cut corners where they can.

[Anonymous No.2604511]

>>2604505
>comes into a thread discussing art
>nobody gives a shit about your opinions but I'm bothered so I'm going to keep shitposting because people with opinions TRIGGER ME

[Anonymous No.2604512]

>>2604511
>thread literally made to throw shade on artists
>"discussion"
Again, read >>2604505

[Anonymous No.2604520]

>>2604457
Promo art != concept art

[Anonymous No.2604542]

What is the point of threads like this?

[Anonymous No.2604548]

>>2604512
They might be throwing shade, but they're also engaging in formal analysis while you bitch and moan. Guess which is more productive.

[Anonymous No.2604555]

>>2604138
ITT no one knows the difference between an image done for concept art vs illustration/promo art.
Comparing a concept image to a finished illustration isn't really fair. Concept art is generally quick and dirty, getting the idea across is more important than how well its drawn. That's also why photo bashing is regularly used in concept art.

[Anonymous No.2604559]

>>2604548
>they're also engaging in formal analysis
But they aren't. You've got dumb faggots comparing promo art to concept art as if they are contextually the same thing. You're an idiot and a novice just like the rest of them. Kill yourself. There is no discussion here.

[Anonymous No.2604581]

>>2604520
Except OP's pic is promo art despite it saying 'concept art'. Sure, Andy could get a higher level of finish but that's not the problem it's everything else.

[Anonymous No.2604595]

>>2604555
>getting the idea across is more important
And piss poor design choices, along with glaring mistakes do ruin a concept piece. The intent doesn't change the bad parts. There is never an excuse for poor execution. So the two can be looked at in the same way.

[Anonymous No.2604618]

>>2604581
>>2604595

The only way we could meaningfully compare the two would be if they were both executed to serve very similar purposes, which they do not. Just because Andy's piece is being used as a promo piece doesn't mean it was created with only that intention in mind - knowing his other work, this piece probably solved a whole slew of problems and the folks at marketing though to use it. Dave's, on the other hand, is a promo piece and a promo piece only.

There's a huge difference between an in-studio artist who comes in every day to solve problems of design, of story moments, of "the execs are feeling uneasy and we need to show them something cool without actually knowing what they think is cool", and a freelance artist who consistently gets hired out for eye-catching promo illustrations. Quit shitting on other professionals.

[Anonymous No.2604627]

>>2604618
>Quit shitting on other professionals.
Does it hurt your feefees? :3

[Anonymous No.2604742]

This is the same person who was defending the abysmal photobashing of that fight between egyptian gods

[Anonymous No.2604760]

>>2604559
>faggots comparing promo art to concept art as if they are contextually the same thing
Has nothing to do with the fact that they have applied formal analysis to the OP image. Nothing.
See:
>>2604486
And compare it to the most thoughtful post you've written ITT. You're ignoring the art entirely so you can whine and argue.

[Anonymous No.2604900]

>>2604618

If either one fails to communicate the idea it was intended to then it is shit--it's a failure of the execution, of the artist. It's that simple. Both can be critiqued the same way. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.2604988]

>>2604476
>All pros ever draw is pussy or somebodies commission.
topkek

[Anonymous No.2606830]

bump

[Anonymous No.2606981]

>>2604457
Promo art is not the same as concept art you utter retard.

[Anonymous No.2607133]

>>2604486
Did you see the jet-pack propellers you retard? Despite samepose, it is a good "feeler" composition. Doesn't make too much sense, but amateur? Fucking calling that amateur? get out

[Anonymous No.2607138]

>>2607133
>Despite samepose, it is a good "feeler" composition

[Anonymous No.2607217]

>>2604138
Lazy and uninspired.

[Anonymous No.2607495]

>>2604476
You realize that the second picture is Dave Rapoza?
He is very far form being a hobby artist.

[Anonymous No.2607543]

To think he used to make those cool God of War promo art...

I know OP's pic is supposed to be concept art (though also used for marketing purposes). But I agree with the anons who find it uninteresting. Actually, I'd say most of Park's marvel works are pretty mediocre.