[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

View post   
File: 37 KB, 697x440, images (56).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6222992 No.6222992 [Reply] [Original]

Painted by Cabanel when he was 24, the fallen angel was despised and rejected by the academy who called it 'an incompetent' composition'

>> No.6222998

cuckademics are tasteless pseuds.
more news at 11

>> No.6223002

>>6222992
academicels sure sound like crabs, hope Canabel asked them to post their work

>> No.6223013

>>6222992
Just like this board lol

>> No.6223016

>>6222992
It is reddit the painting.

>> No.6223018

They were right.

>> No.6223019
File: 477 KB, 1080x1301, IMG_20220818_222207.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6223019

>>6223002
I would crab him too, this is his self portrait painted at 13

>> No.6223024

id trust their authority over a bunch of retards from /ic that just see an old piece and think its automatically good
youre all a bunch of stupid fucking faggots

>> No.6223029
File: 197 KB, 1280x727, Alexandre_Cabanel_-_The_Birth_of_Venus_-_Google_Art_Project_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6223029

>>6222998
Well he joined the academy after painting this one

>> No.6223030

>>6222992
He told them "pyw" and the crowd started clapping

>> No.6223036

>>6222992
Can you share his prompt?

>> No.6223037
File: 145 KB, 368x479, 29.06.2022_21.55.07_REC.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6223037

>>6223036

>> No.6223038

>>6223029
holy shit how the fuck did they study the water that well before photography

>> No.6223045

>>6223036
"Angel be bussin no cap, academism style "

>> No.6223054

>>6223029
Can see the beautiful boobies.
I would suck on them titties.
>>6222992
Can't see his dick
Nothing to suckle on

They were completely correct.

>> No.6223056

>>6223024
>i will simply let other people form my opinions about whether a piece is good.

fuck OUT of here. or stay actually, you need this place to live as you do

>> No.6223058

>>6222992
only retard bissexual reddit tier women like this shit so they are FUCKING RIGHT

>> No.6223065
File: 454 KB, 1280x1680, William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_-_Les_Oréades.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6223065

>> No.6223066

>>6223065
average 4chan users dream

>> No.6223088

>>6223038
they went outside

>> No.6223097

>>6223056
i already formed my opinion you mental midget
the composition isnt that great, its a well painted figure with some angels flying in the sky
now fuck off and die

>> No.6223158

>>6223029
I like how drawing with "shapes" wasn't a thing before.
And now every draftsman does it like it is some kind of religious ritual.

>> No.6223232

>>6223097
>admit its a well painted figure
>bitch about /ic/ also enjoying parts of the piece
>appeal to the authority of some nameless academics because of how salty you are

imagine being this much of a bitch just because you cant draw. anyway back to my drawing

>> No.6223237

>>6222992
The first thing you'll gravitate towards are his eyes, then notice the stuff in the background which leads you out of the painting away from the subject. Trash composition. No talent.

>> No.6223247

>>6223065
>Bouguereaux
Ah yes, history's greatest and most prolific loli foot fetish oil painter. Please refrain from sharing his works, if you will.

>> No.6223254

>>6222992
What's the point of joining some sort of academy if you're already good?

>> No.6223285

>>6223254
If you think the OP image is good, you have yet to grasp just how skilled the great artists and art teachers of the past were.

>> No.6223296

>>6223065
Literally what did he mean by this?

>> No.6223389

>>6223232
>>bitch about /ic/ also enjoying parts of the piece
But nobody even said they liked the painting lol.

>> No.6223400

>>6223232
be a little less obvious with the projection there little ngmi-chan

>> No.6223465

>>6223038
Lol, anon you just have to spend some time in front of a body of water, and look, use your eyes. Be still, pay attention to what you see. Patiently taking in the information necessary.

You don't need a camera.

>> No.6223468

>>6223038
Technology made us weak..

>> No.6223505

>>6222992
>despised and rejected by the academy who called it 'an incompetent' composition'
crabs are a really old thing I guess

>> No.6223510

>>6223158
what does it mean to draw with shapes? srs

>> No.6223536

>>6222992
My attention is drawn out of the frame to the right.

>> No.6223540

>>6223029
>a girl and her abortions

>> No.6223840

>>6223540
Lol

>> No.6223865

>>6222992
And they were right. The composition sucks.

>> No.6223896
File: 2.05 MB, 4033x2291, cabanel-birth-of-venus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6223896

>>6223158
How do you draw without shapes?

>> No.6224126

>>6223296
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oread

>>6222992
There definitely are technical skills, but indeed, composition-wise, it's poor: why is the light falling on his legs (not only what does it mean, but also why is there a second source of light opposite to the sky)? what are the barely perceptible angels figures doing in the background exactly? Eyes are lead away from the painting by that over-light leg and never brought it

There's also a poor edges handling, like on his right leg around the butt.

>>6223029
Unique source of light unifying the painting, every bit of the painting is clear, yet all areas are subordinated to the main character, there's a composition "loop" keeping your eyes in the painting. Way, way better indeed.

>> No.6224137

>>6223896
I'd cum so hard all over this

>> No.6224141

>>6222992
it was rejected not because they thought it was bad, but because it didnt conform the the academic norms of the time
basically Cabanel was crabbed by the academy
after this he just said "fuck it" and began doing more shit that conformed to the academics ideals like >>6223896
Cabanel is an example of an amazing artist getting discouraged by jealous dunning krueger crabs

>> No.6224178

>>6223029
Imagine if an art school today said "you must be this good to enter"

>> No.6224260

>>6224178
IIRC, it was a matter of being elected, not a matter of being accepted as a student. Basically, members of the Academy, in fixed numbers (60 or so), elect their peers. The goals is supposedly to help promote a certain high-standard. I say supposedly, because, as any social organisation, it becomes corrupt over time, friendships will go in the way, people feel super-important for being elected, etc. I suppose they get public fund that they can then redistribute to fulfill those goals.

>> No.6224270

>>6222992
>>6223029
>paint naked male
rejected
>paint naked female and naked babies
ok you're in
hmmm....

>> No.6224279

>>6224126
Good post.

>> No.6224374
File: 3.01 MB, 3732x2550, Alexandre_Cabanel_-_Fallen_Angel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6224374

>>6224126
>why is the light falling on his legs (not only what does it mean, but also why is there a second source of light opposite to the sky)? what are the barely perceptible angels figures doing in the background exactly? Eyes are lead away from the painting by that over-light leg and never brought it
Nonissues

>There's also a poor edges handling, like on his right leg around the butt.
I don't see it.

The painting does have a messy composition, and mainly due to lucifer's wings. Had it made it a conventional nude laying on the ground it would look fine.
Still, it's more interesting than the nude girl painting, even though the latter has a better composition.

>> No.6224491

>>6224374
>Nonissues
Care to argue why? Curious

> due to lucifer's wings
Again, curious to know why you think so

Would be interesting to know what they originally thought wrong of the composition.

Here's a slightly different version, it's a bit tricky to know how it looks in real life: https://arthistoryproject.com/artists/alexandre-cabanel/fallen-angel/

>> No.6224509

>>6223029
Based Coomer

>> No.6224631

>>6224126
>why is the light falling on his legs (not only what does it mean, but also why is there a second source of light opposite to the sky)? what are the barely perceptible angels figures doing in the background exactly?
that's from where Lucifer fell: the light, heavens
>Eyes are lead away from the painting by that over-light leg and never brought it
Isn't it the opposite? He hides from "the light", his face draw attention by contrast because it's the only central part that is obscured: the beauty of his body contrasting with the darkness on his eyes. Interestingly, it's probably the last part you fix your eyes on.
I don't like the wings, though. Those seem just put there, like they don't belong to Lucifer.

>> No.6224677

>>6224631
Yeah I concede, the eyes catch the eyes; it's a bit difficult to asses the "real" lighting situation, as we have 3 different pictures, with three different lighting scenarios though

>Isn't it the opposite
I mean, if you look at >>6223896, regardless of where on the figures you eyes land, the painting has enough spots of contrast to call your eyes to some other figure, creating a loop, that trap your eyes in the painting. It's a "common" technique: he speaks a lot, so I'm not 100% this is all in here but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOauhi2lvNU

Then just to be clear, there are still the source of light from the sky, but there's another source of light shining of the body. Again, this is unusual and could have been considered bad taste

>I don't like the wings, though. Those seem just put there, like they don't belong to Lucifer.
I think it's because of that weird value/edge transition around there. But well, we could argue that it makes sense semantically: why would he deserve wings anymore? (I doubt this was the original intent)

>> No.6224825

>>6224491
>Care to argue why? Curious
Sure. The main reason is I just don't think the problems you brought up are very detrimental where they do exist:

>why is the light falling on his legs (not only what does it mean, but also why is there a second source of light opposite to the sky)?
I'm assuming you mean here that the focus is drawn too much to the legs, and while I do agree that it's overblown, it's only slightly overblown and doesn't take away from the piece.
As far as an opposite source of light goes I assume you mean the clouds.
Adding "nonsensical" light sources can be used as a compositional tool, and that's the way it's employed here. And while I don't really like these clouds (definitely one of the weak areas of the composition) they do serve a purpose to balance with the brightness of the sky in that area (if that area was left empty or just as bright it would make for a worse composition).

>what are the barely perceptible angels figures doing in the background exactly?
What they are doing isn't important when it comes to composition.
He had to put something in the sky to balance with the darkness of the ground, and the angels serve that purpose.

>Eyes are lead away from the painting by that over-light leg and never brought it
Goes to the first point, it is a problem, but it's not huge. The lightness of the torso and legs is still similar enough.


>Again, curious to know why you think so
The wing's are a major problem in the composition for several reasons. The first one that stuck out to me is the tiny sky crevice it introduces near the left edge, the second is that it introduces a huge black area to the left corner which pulls on the balance of the picture (it would look a lot better if that area specifically was brighter). The third reason is that it creates this awkward peak which is on the same level as the head, and the fourth, less dramatic issue, is that it creates a "tilt" or "slope" to image which doesn't look very good.

>> No.6224831

>>6224491
>Would be interesting to know what they originally thought wrong of the composition.
Definitely

>Here's a slightly different version, it's a bit tricky to know how it looks in real life: https://arthistoryproject.com/artists/alexandre-cabanel/fallen-angel/
Way better version than the one I posted, and the issue of the lower left corner that I noted isn't as apparent in here. Judging paintings from photos is an issue, yeah.

>> No.6224859

>>6224825
>Sure.
Nice

>As far as an opposite source of light goes I assume you mean the clouds.
Nope, I meant to say that the light falling on his body isn't related to the bright area in the sky (there's a gradient in the sky, on your pic, it seems to originate between his left knee and head). The light falling on his body seems to come from the viewer's POV.

>He had to put something in the sky to balance with the darkness of the ground, and the angels serve that purpose.
Alright, I get what you mean, from a visual perspective. I think that from a "story" point of view, their actions or expressions could have been made clearer: there's usually some interesting backstory behind fallen angels, it would have been interesting to use that space for that, while keeping it visually subdue

OK for the wing too; this would have been difficult to depict him with white wings, eh!

>> No.6224866

>>6223247
>posts painting with a bunch of grannies
>noooo stop posting this pedo
Your wall is not my problem.

>> No.6225322

>>6224270
don't forget the depictions of nude children in it.

>> No.6225326
File: 151 KB, 636x800, Klimt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6225326

>>6225322
those are cherubs not children, how many winged children do you see flying around?

>> No.6225356

>>6223019
Better than 99% of /ic/

>> No.6225396

>>6225326
>my 1000 year old vampire is not a 10 year old they just have a 10 year olds body

call it whatever you want, its all fictional depictions of a young person (granted, given how old it is, potentially not so fictional) I don't care, but let's call a spade a spade.

>> No.6225430

>>6225396
Why do Americans get so triggered by nudity

>> No.6225457

>>6225430
Because they're circumcised. It's a victorian custom.
Pretty much every circumcised country is a sexually repressed shithole.
Jews, Muslims, niggers, Koreans and Americans.

>> No.6225622

>>6224374
it's not lucifer it's beelzebub you fucking retard nugger do your research before talking about shit you fucking dumb retarded ape nigger

>> No.6226338

>>6225457
>sexually repressed shithole
>Americans

>>6225430
>Americans
>triggered by nudity


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsm4poTWjMs

>> No.6226464

>>6225622
lucifer is another name for beelzebub.

>> No.6226486

>>6226338
Jews really did a number on you, huh

>> No.6226506

>>6226338
>we aren't sexually repressed look we have twerking nigroes
The absolute state

>> No.6226904

>>6222992
Both my favorite painting and my goal body. I always look at this at the start of the day.

>> No.6226954

>>6226338
Half the words are censored, retard anon. Yes, that song is sexually repressed.

>> No.6226960

>>6225457
>It's a victorian custom
Victoria era was all over naked little girls.

>> No.6226963

>>6223065
Imagine the smell

>> No.6226971

>>6225430
quite literally said I don't care, but the argument that they are not depictions of young nude children is fucking retarded.

>> No.6227554

>>6226464
You're fucking retarded you stupid mongoloid nigger. They're not even close to the same you retarded uneducated zoomer, you need to be over the age of 18 to post here.

>> No.6227737

>>6226954
Sexual repression is good to an extent. Left to their own devices humans would commit all sorts of shit including necrophilia.

>> No.6227751

>>6222992
Maybe his CV wasn't good enough to let him get in.

>> No.6230741

>>6227554
Look at Mr. Buzzword over here

>> No.6230777

>>6222992
The composition is indeed poor
>inb4 pyw
If you have functioning eyes you can tell when the composition in a painting is lacking or not

>> No.6230808

>>6227554
watch out everybody! edgy twitter guy is here!

>> No.6230827

>>6222992
That painting has a lot of appeal, but a guy can't just symbol draw (or paint I guess) and expect to get into a prestigious school.

>> No.6230829

>>6230827
You are legitimately braindead