A thread dedicated to the human form in all its splendor
Post your favorite nudes
Post your own nude paintings you've made
Or post your own nude pics to inspire
bourgereau my nigga
have a couple by serge marshennikov
shitty sketches that don't even have decent anatomy, the function of which is clearly as an aid in jacking off rather than a study of the human figure?
very little value outside of beating your meat.
you should see alyssa monk's work in person. at a distance it looks photographic, but up close it becomes very painterly.
>my painting professor was whining because she was a successful artist
pretty different styles though, I prefer Monks. She tends to be more painterly, less photographic (though she does have some work that is pretty photographic)
plus her play with the effects of glass/water/reflections takes it to the next level for me. spricks is technically proficient, but his work doesn't really do much for me.
closeups of various work by Monks in this video:
not that guy but are you sure you know what painterly means? also there are hundreds of artists doing super realist paintings that just look like photos and if you're impressed by that it's pretty obvious you haven't done much painting yourself. I'd like some of her work as pictures, but the fact that she just copied it exactly how it is makes it boring as a painting. and the few pure whitein some spots makes it look sorta amateur-ish
Well what's artistic about using a grid to copy photographs directly.
At that point is there really a point to paint the damn thing.
98% of the viewers of the piece will see it digitally, through a screen anyway, so it loses the possible liveliness of color that a traditional painting can be capable of, as opposed to a screen (think looking at a master painting in real life versus an image), but the entire painting was already referenced from a photograph, so information on color has already been lost but also form.
And when it comes to the design aspect, all the work's already been done, and it'll look no different as an oil painting or the photograph on a 586x880 pixel image.
I suspect that for most viewers of her painting that the awe factor comes from not being able to believe that its a painting, but hey it brings in the dough.
But on the upside her tendencies are slightly shifting in her newer work.
>are you sure you know what painterly means?
positive. did you watch the video? there are several clear examples in it.
> there are hundreds of artists doing super realist paintings that just look like photos and if you're impressed by that
I'm not, as I've already explained.
>it's pretty obvious you haven't done much painting yourself
I've been painting for years, I have a degree in painting, and a studio where I make a living selling paintings
>she just copied it exactly how it is
wut. she rarely does that (except in her early work), and when she does, she creates a painting that I'm not interested in.
>I suspect that for most viewers of her painting that the awe factor comes from not being able to believe that its a painting
quite the opposite for me. When I saw them at a distance I wasn't too interested, they seemed too photographic. But when I got closer, I could see how textural and painterly the actual brushstrokes were. When your face is a foot from the canvas, they seem almost abstract.
this. only problem is if you're a pedo who gets hard looking at naked kids. when I go over to my friends house and their 2 year old is running around naked, I don't shriek at them to cover up their obscene and pornographic child.
some nudity for the thread since I seem to have derailed it with an Alyssa Monks discussion
Rubens, after Titian