So people actually like this shit just because its in traditional medium?

[Anonymous No.3280423]

Do normies even appreciate fundies?

[Anonymous No.3280425]

>>3280423
Normies will like anything that looks d33p and/or professional on a surface level. Those are the two keywords that mediocre artists like to abuse.
The medium doesn't really matter.

[Anonymous No.3280428]

>>3280425
Are you sure. I doubt people would buy this to hang on their wall if it was a digital print.

[Anonymous No.3280431]

>>3280428
because if it's digital then it must have been made by pressing a few buttons so it looses it's ''deep'' or ''professional'' allure

[Anonymous No.3280453]

>>3280423

I have no idea who the artist is, but my guess from the pic is:

- fairly attractive and uses his cool artist bro persona to build his brand.
- posts lots of WIP pictures like pic related of himself working on a new piece to make his followers feel "involved with the process" and part of his creative lifestyle
- posts frequent updates and is productive
- super consistent style, easily identifiable
- never appears to put any particular effort into what he is doing, he's just "talented"
- occassionally posts motivational "dude believe in urself bro" and tfw to intellegent type quotes

[Anonymous No.3280455]

>>3280431
nerds use digital, dude

[Anonymous No.3280472]

>>3280423
>Do normies even appreciate fundies?
Litterally No one except artists cares about "muh fundies". If people actually like his work let them.
Make distinction b/n pretentious modern art(not all modern art is pretentious) and and art that you dont like b/c they dont follow the rules.
A pretentious modern artist would pretend that his/her painting has deep meaning that others cant appreciate.

[Anonymous No.3280693]

>>3280431
or maybe because it isnt unique. you can print your digital "artwork" multiple times

[Anonymous No.3280703]

>>3280423
fuck i know, right? if digital art didn't exist, tradfags wouldn't have anything to compare their art to, hence their art would be shit by aesthetic standards. Since there is digital, which is far superior in production and the outcome, tradfags can sell anything they make if they just say "hurr durr, digital easy, you get amazing art with a press of a single button" "not me, bro, i'm real hardcore artist" and so on
it's fucked up, it's sick, it's childish
trying to reason with them is like trying to explain to vegans that humans are omnivores and supposed to eat everything

[Anonymous No.3280704]

>>3280423
btw, RAINBOW art is GAY
degenerates love it
iSheep too

[Illastrat No.3280705]

Digital is easy

[Anonymous No.3280719]

>>3280705
your mom is easy

[Anonymous No.3280724]

>>3280719

[Anonymous No.3280730]

>>3280423
I don't get the hate for this pic? It's a cool design and would make an interesting print for someone to put on their wall.

[Anonymous No.3280759]

>>3280730
It's very bland and fairly unoriginal.

[Anonymous No.3280773]

>>3280423
Its easy to look at a picture for a few seconds and then press the like button, doesn't mean they think it's good enough to spend money on. And the other fact is generally speaking that it's easier to like something if you can't see the flaws behind said piece. Why would someone appreciate fundamentals if they have no understanding of fundamentals.

[Anonymous No.3280862]

>>3280428
I would buy it as a poster or a sweatshirt.

[Anonymous No.3280915]

>>3280730
the bottom is okay, but i think its just a picture scaled up. and the colors are just mindlessly sprayed on with no thought on composition or direction or anything.

>>3280773
cuz it might still speak more to people even if they arent aware. I dont know shit about movies, but i can still tell the difference between a hollywood movie and a logan paul vid in 0.1 sec.

[Anonymous No.3281347]

>>3280693
if you value art based on it's uniqueness and not beauty, craftsmanship, coolness or idea then you are a shallow person

[Anonymous No.3281352]

>>3280423
Rattle can paint is not traditional medium.

[Anonymous No.3281419]

>>3281347
those eyes...
he is so beautiful

[Anonymous No.3281560]

>>3280759
yeah, this

it's just very basic "look colors and also a b/w spaceman" like you see it once and you get the gist of it.

there's no further investment needed in order to understand and "explore" the piece

[Anonymous No.3281561]

>>3280423
tell me how this OP pic is any better than this crap you can find in any major city in summer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNY1a-WmL0I

[Anonymous No.3281563]

>>3280705
oh look it's "i don't use photo references, all from the mind, i swear!" illustrat

[Anonymous No.3281564]

>>3281561
i dont think anyone in this thread was arguing that OPs picture was especially "good", anon

what you posted, that 'style' is only liked because it produces interesting pieces quickly, despite the fact that spray paint is an obvious crutch for lack of technical talent. just look at how uneven and sloppy that ring is at the end, completely loses it's form in front of the planet

[Anonymous No.3281566]

>>3281564
"So people actually like this shit just because its in traditional medium?"
is pretty much true. that's why people like galaxy painting: you can see how it's done, it's comprehensible with OP pics splashy color crap and "my mind is full of color hurr durr" joke. normies like that, that's my point. normies like watching people create pictures.

[Anonymous No.3281568]

>>3281566
on that aspect yeah, i agree. It gives them a feeling of vicarious creation, like they're part of the creation. "im the audience and im watching it so im just as important as the artist"

kind of like what >>3280453 touched on a bit here

but it's not even so much so that the finished product looks good or bad or whatever your opinion of it is, the "art" to these people is just the creation of the piece

[Anonymous No.3281573]

>>3281568
thing is, i did this "head explodes with colors" in my teens and so did many others, i'm sure of it. it's just something so standard, any kid drawing stuff is going to do this thing where the head is opened and stuff is "coming out of your mind". so you take that as a totally been-done-to-death sort of starting point. and the process of seeing something being made - to a normie, who can't draw a tree without curly loops - is admirable. if you draw in public, you'll get people watching over your shoulder and going "oh that's nice!"
it really is just about watching something being created, i agree on that. and it still works, despite it being done over and over again.

[Anonymous No.3281588]

Normies don't care for fundies, they just want stuff looking good. They give no fucks if an arm is out of proportion, if the artist hid the hands, if the figure has no gesture or if it was traced.
If it's appealing they're gonna love it regardless.

If something looks like shit it'll look like shit to most people.

[Anonymous No.3281591]

>>3280423
To be honest this picture doesn't upset me in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.3281595]

>>3281573
Yeah, it's not a concept that requires a lot of thought, it just "looks nice" to some people. moreso than the same exact thing being made digitally because at least in a "traditional medium" there's that craft aspect and also it has a physical presence when you look at it. plus the idea of texture and general "aura" of the piece as opposed to a flat digital image

most of this guys work follows this same kind of style, he has some animal photography and this: "All my artwork are redesigns of original photos brought on the internet." on his site

none of it is very interesting

[Anonymous No.3281603]

>>3281595
>"All my artwork are redesigns of original photos brought on the internet." on his site
i wouldn't expect anything else. yeah it does appeal to some people. and at the end of the day, why not? i myself keep complaining about shit being sold, while original stuff is being overlooked. but i'm beginning to think, well every piece has it's audience, so fuck it. there's so many approaches. this guy in particular is just someone who copied the technique from others and goes on to even copy from random google search photos. taking things straight from google is embarrassing af on its own. i've seen this dude draw a giant horse with charcoal, so i went on to search "horse" in google and sure enough it was one of the top high res pictures you can find. i think it's lame to do that, but so many creative people do it these days. well shit, at least make your own photograps, yknow?

[Anonymous No.3281617]

>>3281603
yeah when i was looking through his stuff i thought that some of it looked kind of neat but so much of it is possibly a "redesign" that it's not so interesting anymore. Reducing it to the most basic level, it's essentially just putting a filter over an image. I can't really hate on the process since it's apparently working for him to some degree, but personally i don't think i would ever care much to just "redesign" works like this.

Sure it nets praise from people, but it carries that feeling of just being made because it's easy and it appeals to the audience, as opposed to being something that the artist/designer intrinsically wants to make.

[Anonymous No.3281626]

>>3281617
yeah i could get endlessly furious about what kind of crap is getting exposure these days. but then again, there are som many applications for art: art therapy, education, decoration, as a political statement (the kind of shit i usually hate, mostly non-aesthetical), art that is just about copying something that's been done before, art with a specific purpose (portrait instead of photo), art in architecture. standalone, original art pieces are hard to come by these days, especially stuff that hasn't been done before. everybody is obsessed and leaning towards digital, in every respect. it has the biggest potential at the moment. vidya as storytelling, VR technology, 360° stuff (Björk, Beak, Squarepusher have done it already), programming visuals, high res projections and so on.
i still believe there is an uncanning appeal to traditional art as in oil painting. i love the process, it's probably all about the process to an artist, the product is almost secondary. at the end of the day, you need to follow what feels best to you. if you want to be another concept artist, fishing for commissions, go for it. if you want to be a fine artist and consider being broke or doing odd jobs on the side, go for it, if it feels right.

[Anonymous No.3281628]

>>3281626
*uncanny

[Anonymous No.3281637]

>>3281626
yeah, thats pretty much my outlook on it too. Going through design classes and such i've grown more and more attached to the process, specifically. Looking through pages and pages of different preliminary sketches sometimes has more appeal than the actual finished product, just seeing the different iterations of what it could have been, and retracing the steps that led to the eventual creation. One of the things i've learned to "design" with is the idea that i want to make things that i myself would want to hang on the walls in my home

One of my close friends is a graphic designer, so he does 99% of his work on a computer. We were talking the other day and he mentioned how he hadn't done much pen + paper work in his sketchbook in months, and honestly it kind of made me a little sad. I heavily prefer physical media over digital tools.

[Anonymous No.3281645]

>>3281637
>We were talking the other day and he mentioned how he hadn't done much pen + paper work in his sketchbook in months, and honestly it kind of made me a little sad. I heavily prefer physical media over digital tools.
i really don't know how people can prefer digital over paper. i got a decent wacom board for cheap, but all i do is coloring and cleaning my finished drawings and linework. i'm currently going about, drawing landscapes, people in shopping malls, in public spaces, doing portraits, sketching as much as i can, trying to avoid procrastinating. i've never gotten into that clean, cheesy, smudgy look of digital drawings. it hardly ever impresses me, but i think you can do a lot with it, if you know how to use it. call me old-fashioned, i enjoy the smell of the chemicals when painting, i like using fixative for my charcoal drawings, i want to hear the charcoal scratch over the paper. if i get impatient, i can put pressure and speed into the gestures and it will show. i like the structure you create on the flat surface. none of that can really happen in digital. not saying it's any better, but it's just my thing to work analogue. have a lot of friends who do it, too. i have this one obsessed digital art friend and he's really cocky and in love with himself and his work. he tied traditional media and failed imo, as his rather kitsch related motifs don't mix well with trad in a way, can't say why. it just doesn't really work. he dropped out and pretty muched flipped off the entire class and teachers, lmao. stick to what you're good at, i guess.

[Anonymous No.3281974]

>>3280431
I fucking hate this.

When show people my art at first they're really impressed, and then they look closer and realise it's digital.
Suddenly it's worthless and i put 0 effort into it and they fucking "i can do that too" me because "it's just pressing buttons".

No you fucking can't, grab the fucking stylus and show me if you're so confident.

[Anonymous No.3282064]

>>3281419
You have 0 idea if they actually looked like that you fag

[Anonymous No.3282251]

>>3280453
>not a cool art bro so you ll never make it.

[Anonymous No.3282305]

>>3281974
>at first they're really impressed, and then they look closer and realise it's digital.

>look closer and realise it's digital

nah senpai, digital art just looks flat from all distances, sorry

[Anonymous No.3282311]

>>3281974
post some of yer work

[Anonymous No.3282455]

>>3280423
You're not supposed to appreciate fundies.
Because, you know, it's the foundation for the greater artwork.

[Anonymous No.3282474]

>>3281563
Haha, I mean, it's obvious he doesn't use reference, right?

[Anonymous No.3282717]

>>3282474

>>3282585
>No reference used btw
what a fucking phoney little shithead
https://www.instagram.com/chauncey_da_god/

trump, rihanna, jay z …

[Anonymous No.3282730]

this place really truly is the stupidest place on the internet. no wonder so many ppl here do digital art.

[Anonymous No.3282784]

>>3281347
while someone would probably pay a thousand dollars for a beatiful masterfully crafted tradicional painting of a known artist, when it comes to digital art they would probably pay him $10 per month to be able to download the high-res version, thats it.
i doubt someone would pay someone more than $100 to use a digital painting as the desktop background

[Anonymous No.3282808]

>>3282730
bad bait jason

[Anonymous No.3285120]

>>3282784
ah, we talking about payment? then yeah, you are right. I was thinking more about appreciation

[Anonymous No.3285122]

someone take that can away from this canvas toy

[Anonymous No.3285128]

>>3281352
Come to the yard and tell me this rusto ant tradition you fucking artfag

[Anonymous No.3286563]

>>3280423
>HOW COME NOBODY LIKES MY UNFINISHED WIP QUICK SKETCH OF A GIRL STANDING IN 3/4 VIEW