On "Master Studies"

[Anonymous No.4665550]

It's not considered a "Master" study if the artist you are learning from isn't a master. Copying Sargent paintings or Bouguereau paintings or anime won't get you anywhere because it's too easy. Their styles are beginner tier. You'd get just as much from copying a photograph, because in essence those artists are trying to make their art look like photographs, and any semblance of a "style" is incidental, and not their intention.

You'd be better off studying Degas, or Ingres, or Goya, or El Greco, or artists who actually "mastered" their respective personal styles. You won't gain anything from copying academic artists because their goals were to create art that was a copy of what they were looking at but as a painting, and most of their work was done sight size, further reducing any impact your "master study" of them would have.

TLDR: Do studies of artists who weren't just copying what they were looking at.

[Anonymous No.4665560]

Master study thread? Alright, lets study this.

[Anonymous No.4665565]

B E G O N E C U M F A R T I

[Anonymous No.4665575]

>Be Sargent
>Try to copy exactly what you see
>Fuck up so spectacularly that you accidentally paint everything more beautiful and full of personality than the scene you had set up to copy.
>slowly drink and eat yourself to death because you will never be the digital camera you always dreamed to be.

[Anonymous No.4665579]

I am so sick of this ngmi schizo. Hope the mods permaban him soon, it will improve this board tremendously.

[Anonymous No.4665582]

>>4665579
I'm giving you advice, I'm so tired of you ngmi's not understanding what I'm saying. Read the fucking OP and try to grasp it with your single digit IQ

[Anonymous No.4665597]

>>4665550
>bouguereau is too easy
>sargent is too easy
Getta fuck outta here

[Anonymous No.4665600]

here is my master study

[Anonymous No.4665608]

>>4665582

Thanks, but no thanks, I'm not taking advice from the likes of Brian Comforti.

[Anonymous No.4665610]

>>4665600
Very nice, id like to see more

[Anonymous No.4665613]

>>4665600
Let me guess. Foot fetish?

[Anonymous No.4665615]

>>4665550
>>4665560
Literally samefag
BEGONE CUMFARTI

Someone ban this twit, for the love of GOD.

[Anonymous No.4665617]

>>4665610
thanks I will put more effort into the next one

[Anonymous No.4665622]

>>4665615
Idk why you all disagree with me on every opinion I have. Shouldn't that tell you something? That you're all wrong? This is such a crab bucket ngmi hole of course I feel justified that I'm right when you losers disagree with me. Anyone in their right mind would take the opposite advice you ngmi's give them

[Anonymous No.4665625]

>>4665550
No one gives a shit what you think lmao. Why would I ever listen to some no name, random cocksucker on this disease ridden board.
Also post your work, you have zero room to talk as of now.

[Anonymous No.4665626]

>>4665600
That foot is broken

[Anonymous No.4665632]

>>4665550
Now post your "master studies"

[Anonymous No.4665634]

>>4665625
It's Brian, his work is the next post.
Don't encourage it.

[Anonymous No.4665635]

>>4665622

https://psychcentral.com/blog/maybe-the-problem-is-you/

Your work sucks giant horse cock. If you were an amazing painter peoplr would be inclined to bieve you, but you're bottom of the barrel. Go cry to your mom and dad.

[Anonymous No.4665640]

>>4665634
Ah that explains it, his artwork has no appeal and is the work of a true beg who can't improve so his opinion is meaningless. Hiding this thread now then.

[Anonymous No.4665641]

>>4665635
>If you were an amazing painter peoplr would be inclined to bieve you
If I was a shit anime coomer artist people would be inclined to believe me, but since I'm an amazing artist you crabs get self-conscious every time my work is posted because it reminds you how much of a failure you are

[Anonymous No.4665643]

>>4665640
cya, also you're not gonna make it

[Anonymous No.4665684]

>>4665643
Ew gross

[Anonymous No.4665692]

begone cumfarti

[Anonymous No.4667632]

>>4665608
>not taking the advice of people better than you
NGMI

[Anonymous No.4667651]

>>4667632

You're not. :)

[Anonymous No.4667853]

He has a point tho. Can't tell if it worked for him or not.

[Anonymous No.4667942]

>>4665550
>most of their work was done sight size
sight size only meant a place on the floor, not that bastardization on what Gammell turned it into. They never worked sight size in that way they used comparative measuring. Sight size as your talking about was taught by gammell to his students circa 1950-1980 possibly a little before but I forget when Paxton died, but after Paxtons death gammell went full spaz and did the sightsize transfer shit.

[Anonymous No.4667985]

>>4667942
point still stands that if Sargent or Bouguereau heard you calling their work "stylistic" they'd be frankly embarrassed, because that was never what they were trying to get across. It'd be the equivalent of someone in 100 years doing a master copy of a hyperrealist portrait of morgan freeman that some twitter shitter did

[Anonymous No.4668036]

>>4667985
Your missing the point of copies, especially early on in training. While they can be done for learning styles, copying of the flat can be used for a multitude of things in regards to technique of material, eye training, design, etc. So if you view master copies from only one perspective you are limiting yourself. Also they both have a Sargent and Bouguereau have a style almost all the masters knew they were not recreating reality like a photograph, but rather the reality of the eye which philosophically speaking is different from our views today. You should read a lot of actual writings from the period that are many out there available in archive and google books that discuss the duality of style and realism.

[Anonymous No.4668054]

>>4667985
>Sargent or Bouguereau heard you calling their work "stylistic"
can you cite sources? The Charteris is the closet thing we have to Sargents own thoughts and it doesn't seem that he would be against saying he had a style; stylization for sure. He was after the impression of the eye, an optical impression, and he could differentiate that from the academic which he could also do as seen from his mural work in boston library. I think at the time in question style was a different concept, impressionism wasn't often viewed as a distinct style at first but rather a sketch and the unfinished element that became stylized was due to the nature of speed required to capture fleeting effects. Not lets be loose and stylize reality.

[Anonymous No.4670497]

Cool. I'll just do it anyway.

[Anonymous No.4670732]

>>4665550
This is nitpicking to an autistic degree, and serves no actual purpose in art education.
>TLDR: Do studies of artists who weren't just copying what they were looking at.
It's kind of hilarious that you used Ingres for you "DON"T DO WHAT I DONT DO!" post. Ingres was primarily known for his portraits, which are literally painting what he saw. Goya also often sat models for reference, along with everyone else you listed. Degas is most well known for his paintings of dancers, which were done in the dance studio, looking at actual dancers.

So, did you have an actual point, or are you trolling? Because the only way you've accomplished anything is if you're trolling.

[Anonymous No.4672480]

>>4670732

Brian BTFO

[Anonymous No.4672496]

>>4670732
>Ingres was primarily known for his portraits, which are literally painting what he saw. Goya also often sat models for reference, along with everyone else you listed. Degas is most well known for his paintings of dancers, which were done in the dance studio, looking at actual dancers.
could you be more not gonna make it? you literally can't into that Goya, Ingres, and Degas had personal styles unlike Sargent or Bouguereau? do you not have eyes? Ingres especially. If you think Ingres didn't stylize his work you've completely missed the point of what even HE stated his intentions were.

[Anonymous No.4672507]

>>4672496
could YOU be more not gonna make it? you literally can't into that Sargen and Bouguereau had personal styles? do you not have eyes? If you think they didn't stylize his work you've completely missed the point of what even they stated their intentions were.

[Anonymous No.4672525]

>>4672507
his work is so completely lacking in any appeal that it makes me feel embarrassed FOR you guys that you like him. Sargent is truly one of the worst artists I've ever seen, it actually makes me so confused how someone could be so clueless on how to paint

[Anonymous No.4672532]

>>4672525
I can't even bring myself to look at his work for more than a split second because it's so cringey and bland. It makes me physically ill that someone is so disrespectful to fine arts.

[Anonymous No.4672556]

>>4670732
this anon is fucking based, destroyed that fuckin guy /w facts and knowledge

[Anonymous No.4672561]

>>4672532

Funny, that's what this entire board feels whenever you spam your trash

[Anonymous No.4672887]

>>4665622
OKAY NARCISSIST

[Anonymous No.4672913]

>>4672496
Again:

>TLDR: Do studies of artists who weren't just copying what they were looking at.

YOU listed artists who literally copied what they were looking at. You're wrong. But, you're a narcissist, so you're literally incapable of admitting that.

And, you know nothing of my career, and never will, because I don't post personal info on 4chan. But your flexes of 'selling paintings on eBay" are cute. I've worked as a professional artist probably longer than you've been alive, but I'm not a narcissist, so i stand by my words. I'm either right, or wrong, and I'm not using my client's commissions to beat people over the head with to prove I'm right, like you abuse people with your art.

But it's fine. You're suffering from narcissistic personality disorder, you're literally incapable of self diagnosis, self awareness or treatment, so I'll just keep correcting you when you're wildly inaccurate and feeling bold by attacking master artists. Because getting you to rage quit yet again will give us another short window of time to discuss art without you running into the middle of the room and bellowing "LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE".

You wanna go another round? Try me. Your naive, ignorant view of art through your distorted lens of narcissism and probable addiction is amusing, but laughably easy to tear down as the fraud that it is.

[Anonymous No.4672930]

>>4672913
ok lol. your arts still bad

[Anonymous No.4672941]

>>4672930
That's okay, cumfarti, or whatever your name is. I still think you're a troll, even though even the casual, ignorant knowledge of art that you have is slightly more than most 4chan trolls invest into their bullshit.

But I expect a childish response like this, because that's all you're capable of. If I expected you to have a rational, adult conversation about art, I would have attempted it long ago - but I realized long ago you're not here for art, you're here to be toxic and childish, regardless if that's actually your work, or you stole it to troll with.

[Anonymous No.4672970]

>>4672941
i like how you refer to me posting my art as "abusing you". It's not my fault it makes you feel insecure. I'm not assaulting you with my better-than-yours art. Some people are just better at art than other people. If you don't like making art why don't you just do something else? If it makes you this insecure when someone's better than you do one of these three things
>get better
>quit
>shut up

[Anonymous No.4672977]

>>4672970
You posting your work isn't the abusive part. It's the way you interact

[Anonymous No.4672985]

>>4672970
I really didn't expect you to understand - or god forbid have a moment of clarity - over what i said, and, again, I expected you to react like this - and it changes nothing. It's still all "ME ME ME ME I'M BETTER THAN YOU ME ME ME ME.' Which is what narcissists do. Abusers very rarely have the ability to see the effects of their abuse, because if they could, they wouldn't do it, unless they're a sociopath. Wanna add that to your profile? Because I'm game - you're a bundle of mental illness, so more in the pot is doable.

PS - You'll never get me to shut up - the more aggressive you get to take over this forum, regardless if it's trolling or mental illness, the more I'll be right here, throwing it all right back at you. It's not particularly hard to do, either.

Let's have some fun, though. You act all high and mighty as some "sooper" artist, but what about the photographers and models who's work you steal, to make your art? How do you think they feel about using their art and work to give you whatever it is you seek here? Let's discuss that.

That is, if it's really your art. I'm still holding out the possibility that you steal the images from someone else as a very elaborate, aggressive troll.

[Anonymous No.4673044]

>>4672985
an essay and you've said nothing. What's wrong with using reference? I even compensate models sometimes if it's possible.

how about you? hows it feel to suck ass at art and still be making money at it? probably pretty terrible if you're threatened by me enough to write all this shit. You can't make me not have made these paintings. I will always have been and will always be better and more impactful than you, but nonetheless you still make more money than me. That's gotta make you feel like quite the imposter XD

[Anonymous No.4673048]

>>4672977
>It's the way you interact
The way I interact is the exact same everyone else here interacts, the difference is it stings harder when I say I don't like someone's work because you guys respect me. The solution to that is make work that I like, which people occasionally do, and I say as much, but you guys assume you know every time I post, and never see my critiques or advice

[Anonymous No.4673074]

>>4673044
>I even compensate models sometimes if it's possible.
That's a lie.
The rest of your response is the expected garbage. Every time you reply I lean more towards this being an elaborate troll. Feel free to prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.4673083]

>>4665622
Bro no one wants to see those weird ass titties everyday

[Anonymous No.4673095]

>>4672985
We should just list off every different kind of abuse he's using in each part of his posts and tally them up to find what his favorites are.

[Anonymous No.4673097]

>>4673074
I thought he said he used pics of naked ladies online and that's why he doesn't always show faces lmao

[Anonymous No.4673148]

>>4673097
You get a gold star.

[Anonymous No.4673710]

>>4665643
neither you if you keep making self portraits

[Anonymous No.4673733]