/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3242318]

Ruan Jia just posted this on his Weibo

looks like hes taking another approach to painting, the mad man experiments a lot.

[Anonymous No.3242321]

>>3242318
link

[Anonymous No.3242323]

about time

[Anonymous No.3242328]

>>3242318

Looks like he referenced some russian CP

[Anonymous No.3242335]

>>3242318
Good to see

[Anonymous No.3242345]

>>3242321
>Weibo

[Anonymous No.3242361]

>>3242318
>no weird sickly greenblue light
About fucking time he dropped that lol

[Anonymous No.3242387]

>>3242318

>lacking his signature style
>bland composition
>loli proportions
>why is the thigh so short
>where is the other leg
>the size of that foot
>hiding anatomy sins behind drapery

I hope this was a study, honestly I'm disappointed considering how good his fantasy illustrations are.

[Anonymous No.3242391]

>>3242387
its a practice demonstration calm down hoe

[Anonymous No.3242392]

>>3242387

Ruan is going to ONLY paint lolis from now on. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.3242466]

>>3242387
>>loli proportions
What does this even mean?

[Anonymous No.3242482]

>>3242466

It means that she has the proportions of a pre-pubescent child. The girl in the painting looks about 11.

[Anonymous No.3242485]

>>3242482
So?

[Anonymous No.3242488]

>>3242485

Hence loli proportions.

[Anonymous No.3242542]

>>3242482
im not seeing it. she looks 25-ish to me.

[Anonymous No.3242569]

[Anonymous No.3242572]

>>3242328
Lmao

[Anonymous No.3242576]

>>3242569
so yeah, 25-ish.

you guys are stupid

[Anonymous No.3242577]

>>3242542

I think it's head size in proportion to her limbs. I looked up the actress and according to the source I found she is 5ft 0.5in so she has the same height as many 11 year old girls.

[Anonymous No.3242581]

>caring this much about some rando artist

please nuke this thread

[Anonymous No.3242582]

>>3242581

>Ruan
>random artist

pick one

[Anonymous No.3242587]

>>3242582
sorry let me correct myself

>caring this much about a generic overrated artist

[Anonymous No.3242705]

>>3242587
>ruan jia
>generic
lol ok kid. let me guess, youre the faggot who was comparing his work to 12 year moon wolf illustrations?

[Anonymous No.3242711]

>>3242705
He is a generic weeb artist. The only thing that makes him different is he that he makes 200 hour paintings. not that hard desu. He's way overrated on this board, and no I was not the wolf guy. fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.3242736]

>>3242711
yup its you. dude youre not gonna convince anyone that youre right, fuck off.
>not that hard
yeah i wana see you try bitch

[Anonymous No.3242744]

>>3242736
I don't feel like wasting 100 hours to settle an argument with a beginner.

[Anonymous No.3242751]

wow id be embarrassed to put this ''painting'' on my wall. it's like her eyes are being yanked open with fishing line to make her look more anime.

[Anonymous No.3242752]

He still can't draw tho

[Anonymous No.3242753]

>>3242705
Anon is right. That shit is boring fucking boilerplate. I think we know who the real faggot is.

[Anonymous No.3242761]

>>3242744
lol you dont have to
you clearly made it sound like youve done it before
>not that hard

[Anonymous No.3242763]

>>3242753
cute

[Anonymous No.3242768]

>>3242761
The work i've done at his level has been posted online, I don't want to reveal my identity on this board

[Anonymous No.3242779]

None of you blind bastards can see that the ear is laughably misplaced? Not just a little, ridiculously so.

[Anonymous No.3242781]

should I read this trash thread?

[Anonymous No.3242796]

>>3242768
>The work i've done at his level has been posted online, I don't want to reveal my identity on this board

I just got the feeling you're nowhere as good as ruan jia.

[Anonymous No.3242848]

>>3242781
you can safely skip it

[Anonymous No.3242916]

>>3242711
>He is a generic weeb artist. The only thing that makes him different is he that he makes 200 hour paintings. not that hard desu.

His art features believable, controlled lighting, controlled values, controlled edges, color temperature harmony, surface texture that's indicative of the material he's trying to depict while still remaining relatively abstract in the brushwork, solid shape design(in MOST cases, I'll admit there's a few head-scratchers mixed in there), and pleasant color harmonies if you're a normal human being that isn't just trying to be a contrarian shitlord for shits 'n gigs.

He makes almost everyone else that is actually good, look like an amateur in technical terms. Period.

[Anonymous No.3242918]

>>3242916
Couldntl you not tell he was trolling by the first line?

[Anonymous No.3243100]

>>3242918
You can never tell who's trolling and who's genuinely mentally impaired on this board. Besides, there's so many people hopping the bandwagon on shitposts that it's good for the soul to see someone write a post with some sense once in a while, right?

[Anonymous No.3243200]

>>3242916
>His art features believable, controlled lighting, controlled values, controlled edges, color temperature harmony, surface texture that's indicative of the material he's trying to depict while still remaining relatively abstract in the brushwork, solid shape design(in MOST cases, I'll admit there's a few head-scratchers mixed in there), and pleasant color harmonies if you're a normal human being that isn't just trying to be a contrarian shitlord for shits 'n gigs.

I wouldn't go that far but I can see where you are coming from. His hue/saturation/value balance is good but he had a photo reference. In his design where ever he deviates from the reference he just do generic boring stuff.

>He makes almost everyone else that is actually good, look like an amateur in technical terms. Period.

Absolute not. It sounds like you are one of those clueless weebs who like to hang around here.

[Anonymous No.3243475]

>>3243100
Unable to detect sarcasm is a sign of autism. Rage trolling obviously wrong sides of a discussion is a sign of stupidity.

[Anonymous No.3244058]

>>3242318

Reminds me a lot of John Singer Sargent

[Anonymous No.3244135]

>>3242482
>>3242542
She looks 17-21 to me.
This is what happens when you study too much Loomis, you stop seeing people as individuals and start thinking of them as canons. Not everyone is 71/2 heads tall as an adult.

[Anonymous No.3245458]

>>3242318

It's just a simple photo study nothing to get worked up about.

[Anonymous No.3245465]

>>3243475
>Unable to detect sarcasm is a sign of autism.
Not autism, but in fact a lack of intelligence, you edgelord. Stop overusing autism meme.

[Anonymous No.3245474]

>>3244058
Yeah, the model and the way he painted the skin reminds me of Sargent's studies during his stay on Capri.

>>3242569
This is gonna sound dumb, but it's cool to see his study isn't a 1:1 translation of the reference. Maybe it was just a quick study or something, but it's reassuring that you don't have to copy something photorealistically to effectively learn and that even pros make mistakes.

[Anonymous No.3245477]

>>3242318
>painting
>"painting"

it's digital
flat background as usual. model staring blankly into the distance, as usual. "new approach" …. rrrright

[Anonymous No.3245486]

>>3244135
this. so much.
people start treating every figure the same.

[Anonymous No.3245506]

>>3242569
Is that Black Sails?

[Anonymous No.3245643]

>>3244135

Not really. Obviously people can tell it's an adult, but even in the reference photo her body proportions are child like.

[Anonymous No.3245650]

>>3242318
the way he hinted at a room, the wall, the floor, all of that sucks. all he ever does is masturbate over female bodies in such particular pictures. she seems to look at something outside, but i can't be made to care what it is. there is no appeal in this picture. it's a girl, either waking up from a sleep or just posing. where the fuck is her right leg? is she an amputee? her entire right half of the body seems missing. the part in the triangle in her arm says nothing, nothing about the blob of color in the background or about her hair or right should/chest.
her leg and her biceps look flat and somehow like wood, brushed with sandpaper. Ruan Jia is so goddamn overrated. what do people see in his work? I seriously don't get it. it's boring as fuck.

[Anonymous No.3245661]

>>3245650

Well to be fair it's a study, you shouldn't expect any narrative

[Anonymous No.3245666]

>>3245477
the painting technique is different, are you new by any chance?

[Anonymous No.3245668]

>>3245650
lol.

[Anonymous No.3245669]

>>3245666
plastic pen, tablet and pixels have nothing to do with painting

[Anonymous No.3245671]

>>3245650
its like youve never seen a real oil painting before lol lool lol i want newfags to stop pretending they know anything about painting

[Anonymous No.3245672]

>>3245669
you probably think painting has strictly to do with pigments and oil and brushes. newsflash bud thats never been the case. you wana tell me the caveman /paintings/ arnt paintings at all? do our fingers have nothing to do with painting?

[Anonymous No.3245674]

>>3245672

they are drawings, you moron.

>>3245671
>posts a real painting, thinks that it has anything to do with the cold, dead style of Ruan Jia
You know so little, but you open your mouth. I'm a painter you dipshit. I paint with oils.

[Anonymous No.3245678]

>>3245674

inb4
>POST YER WERRK
>POST WEEERK
>POST YA WOOORK

[Anonymous No.3245679]

>>3245674
>im a painter
no you're not

[Anonymous No.3245683]

>>3245679
whatever you say, child.

[Anonymous No.3245684]

>>3245674
you realize the oil painting is 10x as worst than ruan jia's right? the shitty glaring on the scratches/texture/degeneration of the canvas is whats most of the flaws. pic related is digital, dumb kiddo

[Anonymous No.3245687]

Go back to MOMA for fug's sake

[Anonymous No.3245688]

>>3245684
what hides most of the flaws* anyways this is probably the garbage you get off to, shit taste as usual.

[Anonymous No.3245691]

>>3245684
>another grill staring blankly into nothingness
> /ic/ digital fartist thinks it's "majestic art"
>probably can't afford studio, let alone paint a real painting
I feel sorry for you

[Anonymous No.3245694]

>>3245691
sure gramps, i hope that turpentine sneaks up on you in your sleep

>hurr durr im a trad fag and painting is strictly easel, bristle brushes and oil!

[Anonymous No.3245696]

>>3245691
>another canvas or crude sculpture slathered or comprised of shit by Chris Ofili
>MOMAron thinks it's "majestic art"
>probably can't afford an Intuos Pro, let alone render a real pair of anime tiddies
I feel sorry for you

[Anonymous No.3245699]

Ruan Jia is your wolf-moon-teenage-poster painting kitsch artist and some people have a hard time accepting that. His work is shallow, indifferent and decorative.

[Anonymous No.3245701]

>>3245699
oh its you. nobody cares about your opinions. we already established that.
go masturbate to your Raphael paintings you dumb cunt

[Anonymous No.3245705]

just look at this mess.
is this scruffy, indifferent shit supposed to be folds? it's a joke.

[Anonymous No.3245706]

>>3245705
its a practice you dumb cunt
how is it any different from pic related?

[Anonymous No.3245707]

>>3245705
>it's a joke.
as if you can do better

[Anonymous No.3245711]

>>3245706
>>3245701
>its a practice you dumb cunt
You can see a lot in someone's studies, despite it just "being practice".

Look at this shit. I've found some "housewife painting course" quality fold studies and it beats Ruan Jia's brown mess by far. All this shit-artist is doing is copy folds from photos indifferently and then he just leaves it at that. He sucks. There's nothing more you can add to that. He sucks, but because he is self-regarding and your standard Wacom masturbation-tier digital fartist, he doesn't see it.

What he does is not "painting", it's "kitsch reminescent of painting" … I can see him jerking off in Photoshop for some half hour over this shit, changing crappy brushes here and there, changing the saturation of the color, cause that's such a nice easy trick. And then, at the end, he takes the sharpness tool and just sharpens up some little stops here and there (red arrows) to give it some cool finishing touch, like he learned it from some other digital art idiot. I can't take this shit seriously. And you guys and OP fall for it like the creative cucks you are.

[Anonymous No.3245713]

>>3245705

Anon, people don't have to render out every part of a study. If he wasn't practicing fabric why spend a ton of time rendering fabric?

[Anonymous No.3245719]

>>3245713
That's not the point. You can hint at plasticity with just a few gestures. Rian Jia is trying to do that, but he always fails. You can even see it in the thumbnail, it's just a mess, nowhere near "this is fabric, folded up". I would bet that he uses multiple references. He is unable to simplify and abstract areas in a picture that are not the main focus. You get caught up in these problematic areas, because they become apparent.

[Anonymous No.3245750]

>>3245711
this was practice too, you wana keep talking shit dumbass?

[Anonymous No.3245756]

>>3245711

[Anonymous No.3245757]

>>3245756
nice, but too many crisp edges for my tastes.

[Anonymous No.3245765]

tfw u dont have cute loli sister like ruan jia
why even live

[Anonymous No.3245767]

>>3245750
>shows some concept art excercise that has nothing to do with "pseudo painting" as in OPs pic
>>3245756
>another values and greyscale exercise
so, you admit that his final works and little adventures into what is supposed to look like "fine art" art crap?

[Anonymous No.3245768]

[Anonymous No.3245770]

>>3245765
aah so that's why Nambo Jambo is after Ruan Jia so much! asian degenerates at their best.

http://oi67.tinypic.com/21wvww.jpg

[Anonymous No.3245772]

>>3245767
>concept art
goes to show show just how much you know buddy. and fyi thats not concept art. lurk more

[Anonymous No.3245776]

>>3245772
and it still has nothing to do with Ruan Jia's stupid little detours into "look, I can do something that looks a bit like painting, too!"
OP is completely overrating Ruan Jia when it comes to his mediocre, bland, pseudo-painting digital masturbation works.

[Anonymous No.3245784]

>>3245776
sure

[Anonymous No.3245822]

post that other value study pls. the one with the butt

[Anonymous No.3245830]

>>3245776
Bro, you're not good enough to shit on Ruan Jia. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? You're projecting a ludicrous, self-absorbed attitude on a person you've never met before just because their work somehow acts as the equivalent of suffering from a golf ball-sized hemorrhoid for you. You need to chill. The world's not going to end just because someone else likes something you don't like.

[Anonymous No.3245836]

>>3245830
Bro, you need to get your head around the fact that some sucker for Ruan Jia is constantly posting >>3242318
>look! this is the latest twitter upload crap from master senpai Ruan Jia! Look at it! Agree with me! Say that it is great!

This is a fucking art critique board, you idiot. What point would there be to it other than talking about the stuff that is being posted? If you are so content with his little detours into pseudo painting, why don't you point out to me what you find so intruiging and good about it instead of getting the old "you can't do it!" shit going?

This is legitimately becoming a spam posting contest on /ic/ between this sucker for Ruan Jia and the "Art was a mistake" groundhog day faggot.

[Anonymous No.3245837]

>>3245836
ok

[Anonymous No.3245852]

>>3245836
>why don't you point out to me what you find so intruiging and good about it
I did that earlier in this thread.
Right here >>3242916

But it's pointless to share that with you, because you're not open to having your opinions challenged. You can tell a lot about the quality of someone's art by what kind of character they display. And your character lacks insight, lacks humility, lacks consideration for possibilities outside of your comfort zone, etc. How could your art be much better than your mind?

Do feel free to prove me wrong or present an "actual" counter argument if you disagree. But from what I've seen so far, you're just here to shitpost.

[Anonymous No.3245871]

>>3245684

>durrr the goal of painting is to make it as smooth as possible with no visible brush strokes

[Anonymous No.3245880]

>>3242916
I'll make it easier for you to follow, since you have problems with comprehensive reading. All of your points, all the thinks you admire in him >>3242916 were being taken apart in my posts.

>His art features believable
where the fuck is her right leg? is she an amputee? her entire right half of the body seems missing. the part in the triangle in her arm says nothing, nothing about the blob of color in the background or about her hair or right should/chest.
all he ever does is masturbate over female bodies in such particular pictures. ( >>3245650 )

>controlled lighting
flat background as usual. ( >>3245477 )
the way he hinted at a room, the wall, the floor, all of that sucks. ( >>3245650 )

>controlled values
He uses photo references. You'd expect to have a good controll of values with this easy, enema-tier way of taking values with the pipette, but no, like any other artist, his low and dark color tones are just a brown, dark mess with no details.

>controlled edges
look at the legs and the ugly cloth ( >>3245711 ) ad you call that "controlled edges"?

>surface texture
her leg and her biceps look flat and somehow like wood, brushed with sandpaper. ( >>3245650 )

>still remaining relatively abstract in the brushwork, solid shape design
And then, at the end, he takes the sharpness tool and just sharpens up some little spots here and there (red arrows) to give it some cool finishing touch, like he learned it from some other digital art idiot. ( >>3245711 )

>pleasant color harmonies
That he copies 1:1 from photo references with the dropper tool. Wow, much impressed!

It seems to me like you have hardly any exposure to painting and can't really tell how what he does is an indifferent, reference-based drawing process that has nothing to do with any of the qualities found in painting. Yet, he goes for this "look, it's almost like I'm a painter, wooo!" schtick.

[Anonymous No.3245882]

>>3242916
I'll make it easier for you to follow, since you have problems with comprehensive reading. All of your points, the things you admire in him >>3242916 were being addressed in my posts.

>His art features believable
where the fuck is her right leg? is she an amputee? her entire right half of the body seems missing. the part in the triangle in her arm says nothing, nothing about the blob of color in the background or about her hair or right should/chest.
all he ever does is masturbate over female bodies in such particular pictures. ( >>3245650 )

>controlled lighting
flat background as usual. ( >>3245477 )
the way he hinted at a room, the wall, the floor, all of that sucks. ( >>3245650 )

>controlled values
He uses photo references. You'd expect to have a good controll of values with this easy, enema-tier way of taking values with the pipette, but no, like any other artist, his low and dark color tones are just a brown, dark mess with no details.

>controlled edges
look at the legs and the ugly cloth ( >>3245711 ) ad you call that "controlled edges"?

>surface texture
her leg and her biceps look flat and somehow like wood, brushed with sandpaper. ( >>3245650 )

>still remaining relatively abstract in the brushwork, solid shape design
And then, at the end, he takes the sharpness tool and just sharpens up some little spots here and there (red arrows) to give it some cool finishing touch, like he learned it from some other digital art idiot. ( >>3245711 )

>pleasant color harmonies
That he copies 1:1 from photo references with the dropper tool. Wow, much impressed!

It seems to me like you have hardly any exposure to painting and can't really tell how what he does is an indifferent, reference-based drawing process that has nothing to do with any of the qualities found in painting. Yet, he goes for this "look, it's almost like I'm a painter, wooo!" schtick.

[Anonymous No.3245904]

>>3245882
Damn this post is really good and detailed, can someone else confirm his information?

[Anonymous No.3245913]

>>3245904

Just a salty tradfag. Move on

[Anonymous No.3245926]

>>3245882
her leg isn't in the reference photo

[Anonymous No.3245934]

>>3245926
care to share the ref photo then?

[Anonymous No.3245938]

>>3245882
>where the fuck is her right leg? is she an amputee? her entire right half of the body seems missing. the part in the triangle in her arm says nothing, nothing about the blob of color in the background or about her hair or right should/chest.
maybe thats because you actually cant see any of her right half from that angle you dumbass
>>3242569

[Anonymous No.3245957]

y'all aren't just stupid, yer blind

[Anonymous No.3245958]

>>3245957

[Anonymous No.3245964]

>>3245934

It's in this thread

[Anonymous No.3245966]

>>3245882
>That he copies 1:1 from photo references with the dropper tool.
confirmed blind, or at least colorblind

[Anonymous No.3245967]

>>3245964
sorry m8, my bad. glad to hear it

[Anonymous No.3245970]

>>3245938

See that sitting on the cloth just underneath the knee? Yeah, that's a hand. >>3242569

it's interesting with the reference to see just how careless he treats other elements in the picture, like the haptic of the cloth. in his rendition, it gives no sense for space at all.
He also fucked up the face and head entirely. It just became that same general trained shape and character that he always draws when he does women. Here eyes in the illustration are dead and like some glass eyes of a doll. The careless crack where the light comes through in the door that he scratched with some random structure brush is the typical sympton of people who work with photo references on computer screens for hours an hours. Even black values are actually lit up, because all pixels are lit up at all time. The digital work station will always lead to these typical flaws in digital illustration, as you work from digital photos (lense distortion, color aberations etc., pre-existing composition) and you view these photos in turn on your computer screen, which has a different color spectrum altogether again. And then, to top it off, Ruan Jia copies a photo with the existing composition and thinks it's some kind of achievement. How about you give credit to the photographer? (it's a generic model shot, but still) The result is a washed out, blurry rendition of copied color values.

I find absolutely nothing appealing in this entire workflow, from start to end.

[Anonymous No.3245971]

y'all kneegrows are blind beyatches

[Anonymous No.3245976]

>>3245970
>Even black values are actually lit up, because all pixels are lit up at all time.
Black values are lit up to correct for the flattened color range typical of photography. Here he interjects with his knowledge of how light and dark behave in life vs a photo to yield believable colors.

Shouldn't you be in a cafe scribbling unflattering portraits of uggos, Brian?

[Anonymous No.3245981]

>>3245970
ok

[Anonymous No.3245985]

>>3245976
>Shouldn't you be in a cafe scribbling unflattering portraits of uggos, Brian?

Shouldn't you be in some spa, sucking 70yr old pensioners dicks, Janet? How random can you get?

[Anonymous No.3245993]

>>3245970
>It just became that same general trained shape and character that he always draws when he does women.
Holy shit, you're right.

[Anonymous No.3245994]

>>3245985
You're a contrarian tradfag, the usual suspects being Brian, Chumbum and Illustrat. You might not be Brian, but your shitposting is equally uninspired. Nobody here will convince you to like Ruan and you won't turn any weebs here.

Why are you even fighting an upstream battle on a Chinese cartoon board, when there are many respectable forums for middle-aged housewives to post your flower paintings?

[Anonymous No.3245997]

>>3245994
>posting equally uninspired
So that's how you describe opinions that you don't agree with. nice! You must have a difficult life, dealing with criticism like a teenager.

>>3245994
>Why are you even fighting an upstream battle on a Chinese cartoon board
Because it's an art board and I came here to discuss art. Are you fucking dense?

[Anonymous No.3246008]

>>3245997
>opinions that you don't agree wit
It's the same trite shit every time.
>digital painting isn't real painting
>look at these literal mistakes here
>artist x is bad and probably doesn't know how to use a brush
If it's not Brian it's another tradfag of the week. I honestly question why you'd come to shit up threads that clearly aren't for you, derailing with debates of no consequence.

>Because it's an art board and I came here to discuss art.
You've been grossly misinformed of what /ic/ is actually about. Then again your brand of whining isn't anything new, you already fit right in.

Carry on

[Anonymous No.3246036]

>>3245970
>. Even black values are actually lit up, because all pixels are lit up at all time.

What does this even mean? If that was the case, digital reproductions of traditional paintings would look bad aswell.

[Anonymous No.3246040]

>>3246036
>If that was the case, digital reproductions of traditional paintings would look bad aswell.
guess what: they do.

[Anonymous No.3246071]

>>3246040

Get a better monitor.

[Anonymous No.3246076]

>>3245719
There's nothing wrong with using multiple references

[Anonymous No.3246092]

Good lord not another worship/hate thread.

I'm still confused as to why Ruan Jia is worshiped here. Not dismissing that he is a very capable, above average artist.

> But he worked for ArenaNet

There are a lot of game artists/concepts working for ANet and other companies that you don't hear about.

[Anonymous No.3246283]

>>3246008
Got dam.
This.
And I'm a tradfag.

[Anonymous No.3246327]

>>3242392
Hell yeah

[Anonymous No.3246329]

>>3242318
well it's just a craig mullins homage really but w/e

[Anonymous No.3249620]

>>3245506
yes