I think it looks like shit. It's the kind of work I try to avoid extremely hard. That being said it's no doubt skillful and there's a HUGE market for this exact type of work. Basically 90% of game companies will be very interested if you have a large body of work that looks like that.
>>2341545 I like this one best. The overly-vibrant colors in the other ones are I think what makes it ugly, despite the technical skill and detail. This one has more variety in the palette, and the only very saturated colors are in the focal point of the image.
>>2341540 I don't like this one. That bright point in the sky conflicts with the warrior's bright figure. He should be the focal point of the image, but the eye is drawn to the far background simultaneously. This disrupts the flow of the composition.
The other two mostly just have boring composition. I'd say the art as a whole is good quality, but this guy has so much potential to become great if he studied colors and composition more. I think the flashiness is why I'm not a fan of this type of art, even though I do like fantasy in general.
>>2341540 Very commercial stuff (not a bad thing, get money anyway you can). Creatively - i see blatant muscle mass and edgy spiked armor. If i think about it some, only forces some banal stereotype of "cool".
>>2341540 Value seems to be off and that is too much bright green. The character design is also terrible but I get those are game models and the formation looks monotone and boring. I think it's ugly but I think the same about a lot of wow art as well as the game's visuals.
>>2341540 This one's dull. The guy in front is the centerpiece, and everything else just blends together. It's just really mechanical; there's no oomph to it at all, and the layout of soldiers and background elements are incredibly uninspired. >>2341542 This one's ok. Layout and colors could be better. The artist understands contrast, but he only has a basic understanding of unity. The first image is covered in a layer of green, this one's covered in blue. Normally that's fine, but if it's too obvious the colors can't breathe. >>2341544 Egh. >>2341545 This is the best one. The background here is finally given the attention it needed.
>>2341867 Jesus, his beard isn't even the same color as his hair. But poor design aside, there should be some blue in the background. The armor sticks out too unnaturally, there's no unity. And I just realized this guy's background's are all very limited in hue, what's the deal with that?
>>2341868 The water looks great and the colors aren't awful, but the composition is very bland. The focal point is just about in the center, and the other areas of detail are in a ring around it. There's little visual interest, and despite the detail the image just looks boring. I do like the value shift in the sky, but the tentacles need to be posed or positioned differently, they're too uniform.
I'm seeing a trend. This guy is very good at illustrating detailed characters, but his weak points are colors, composition, and backgrounds.
I guess this kind of art serves its purpose well, but I can't help but think that given the same brief, a better artist could have served the purpose in a more original way in terms of both treatment and concept.
I gues you could call them 'conventional' or 'cliche'. They are fairly well painted, though, I guess.
>>2341880 Don't forget that the art director would share some of the blame in these cases. I don't know what this artist's personal pieces look like, but it's possible they were steered towards a certain look. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some style guide that emphasized oversaturated backgrounds.
I agree that it's possible to get better results using the same brief, but time constraints and outside direction could be at fault.
>>2341892 Wow, I like this much more. Is he told to use all heavily-saturated colors or something?
>>2341894 The other one's excused because it's a portrait, but the composition here is still pretty bland. I think having the single high-contrast rose and no other interest is what makes it underwhelming, but there's also a kind of subtlety and stillness about it that I like. I like that the outermost stems curve outward rather than perfectly conforming to the concentric rings, it breaks up the uniformity and pushes you toward the rose. And the warm colors on the stems balance the contrast between the warm petals and cool leaves.
Do you have a link to his portfolio/gallery?
>>2341899 Also, this. His stuff all seems pretty unoriginal, which is a shame because he's rather skilled.
>>2341867 This one has the same problem as the others, in that the backgrounds are too dull. The blue of the armor also really sticks out, but I'd be fine with that if it wasn't for his hair. It was a really bad decision to make it red; the armor stands out more, and the character's face blends into the background because of that. Like the other guy said, more blues in the background would unify everything, but personally I'd rather change his hair color to something dark, move the castle backwards, and fade it more into the background. >>2341868 I like the color on this one, what ruins it is the layout. I understand the idea behind positioning the tentacles like that, they're meant to look epic like pillars. But that just doesn't work here. First because they're too small, second because of their silly ass shape, third because I just don't think their shadows stand out enough. The shark and merman are also not positioned very well. It isn't advised to have the focal point in the center like that, and the merman's fin overlaps the shark's tail which just looks awkward. >>2341892 >>2341894 Both of these are well drawn. They're not very interesting, but they are more successful at what they were trying to do than most of the other images.
>>2341923 Doesn't matter what I do, look at what this dude does, lmao. For real, imagine sitting down and thinking "alright, got a bit spare time now to create something that I care for, something I'm passionate about" and then painting a rose with a swirling thorn comp.
>>2341540 I think whoever did that is trying to emulate Madureira and is doing a pisspoor job at it. I can sense the shitty underdrawing even under the rendering, and jesus christ that composition is hideous and uninteresting.
Oh its the >Lets "critique" the professional artist who is way better than us to make us feel better about not even being half as good as he is thread >inb4 "hurr you don't need to be better to critique someone!" they need to be here for your critique to actually mean jack shit.
>>2342348 >Implying you know anything about composition the face and the foreshoulder shine because it brings you attention to them due to the increased value in comparison with the lower part of his body and the right of the image. Notice how things get brighter when heading toward the focal point, that's intentional and one of the principles of composition.
>>2342382 just because you plaster a green light against some shiny purple to bring attention to it it doesn't mean it's good. it's the palette version of 'HEY LOOK THERE'S SPIKES HERE IT MEANS IT'S EDGY'
your only reasoning for good composition was 'if it's bright it guides the eye there'. as if contrast/bright was the only thing that guided the eye. as if guiding the eye was the only important thing in composition
the palette isn't balanced (way too high, what's supposed to be far back is warmer than what's in the front), the shapes aren't balanced (there's the huge sword to the right and nothing to the left, the shoulder and back take too much importance compared to the head and hand)
everything shines and is all over the place like in pretty much anything lol-dota-wow related. it looks like shit but it sells I guess
>>2342526 As non-sensical and lazy that image is (and arguably a lot of his work in general), Maciej is still miles ahead of the other guy in this thread.
>>2342530 Never seen it but I assume it's pretty biased. You can cherrypick examples to make a point pretty easily. There was a LOT of shit art from Frazetta's time, and there is a LOT of shit art now. And there was good art then and good art now. I don't much see the point in that comparison.
>>2342348 >digital artists are always shitting on fine artists yet they have not a single idea about composition
Madueira is actually a traditional artist who works mostly in pencil. Guess by your logic that means traditional artists are all bad at composition now. Next time you should at least google the artist in question before you start your elitist digital art bashing, you autistic little shit.
>>2342469 >as if guiding the eye was the only important thing in composition You have no idea what you are talking about please stop. >there's the huge sword to the right and nothing to the left there's smoke on the left side >the shoulder and back take too much importance compared to the head and hand Intentional. He obviously wanted to show his physique. >everything shines Not true. >Saying dota has bad artists ;)))))
>>2342714 Stop white knighting for photobashers. Literally every thread these con artists are mentioned you make sure to bring up this 5% number you pulled out of your ass alongside your assertion that "[it's] almost nonexistent in illustration" like that's even the point.
Also, that picture is ridiculous, the mammoth itself looks alright, but the village slapped on it, presumably to make it more "epic" is a laugh and a half.
>>2342348 >digital artists are always shitting on fine artists yet they have not a single idea about composition It does have good composition. How about you compose your ass off of this website and stop polluting the internet by trolling, you pathetic loser.
>>2342735 Its looks more like a war mammoth with modern tech on its back, which depending on the scenario could be interesting.
>need recon in an area but your machines can't treck it >build a satellite on top of a mammoth and have it go in I'd say thats more creative than >lets have a guy fighting a giant animal >that's totally new right guys?
>>2342780 >something being intentional doesn't make it good it does make it intentional and implies he does have an understanding of composition and the skill to use it properly to convey what he wants to express. He wants to show off the man's build and his weird skull face, he does that properly using compositional flow and values which you said it lacked. You are exactly the type person I was talking about when I said people in this thread are baseless shit talkers who have no idea what they're critiquing and are doing it solely to make themselves feel better.
Go back to your "studies" and pretend you're actually going to get somewhere. You're nowhere near skilled enough to critique anyone yet.
I'm not. I'm just getting sick of noobs like you constantly whining about photobashers and completely blowing that shit out of proportions. I get it that you are too insecure to look at good current commercial artists and you desperately want to push this narrative that the entire art industry is just photobashing hacks, but that's flat out a lie and you know it.
>>2342735 That's what Peleng does during livestreams. He just draws random shit. But yeah, I'm sure you are so much more creative than he is.
>>2342785 An artist who draws traditionally with pencil on paper is somehow not considered a traditional artist because he works in comics? Are you retarded?
Traditional art is not synonymous with fine art you idiot. It just means you use traditional media, regardless what industry you work in.Whether it's fine art, comics, concept art, illustration, industrial design... whatever.
>>2342836 >I get it that you are too insecure to look at good current commercial artists
I'm not, I know of plenty and appreciate their work. The picture is a joke, but one based on the reality of the fact that there are people out there that are being lauded for running a photo through a couple of filters in photoshop.
>you desperately want to push this narrative that the entire art industry is just photobashing hacks, but that's flat out a lie and you know it.
I didn't say that.
Even if there was only one photobasher on the face of the earth, they would deserve to be shamed for it. This is about what some people are doing, not how many people are doing it.
>>2342846 Seems like it's only one idiot doing it. Funnily enough, he based his entire first shitpost on the assumption that Madureira is a digital artist, trying to get his little "hurr why are all digital artists so shit at xy" thing in. Which is kinda hilarious considering Madureira works almost entirely traditionally.
>>2342855 You said "digital artists are always shitting on fine artists yet they have not a single idea about composition"
Digital art is a medium, fine art is not. When you say that digital artists know nothing about composition, then the implication is that artists who use traditional mediums do, why else would you specifiy digital artists? Unfortunately for you, the artist in question is not a digital artist.
>>2342868 I was wrong implying that the dude was a digital artist
Even then I've seen lots of digital artists dissing painters, yet it's way too common to see poor composition even in professional digital artists than achieved painters
Adding to this, said work is a digital work, and the composition to me is mediocre and forgettable, I've already explained why. A merit I'd recognize is that at least it isn't as abysmal as most of the others posted in this thread
>>2341692 I mean it's a fantasy art style directed towards as many people as possible. it's not dirty, it's not stinky or uncomfortable in any way. the imagery is all bright colors, high contrast, and presents an image of power and magic in a simple yet very appealing way. it's attractive and portrays the imagery in a cool, attractive way, without really forcing an emotional response in a positive or negative way.
>>2341671 this, in contrast evokes more emotional and sensual response for me. it looks old. i can smell the dust and swamp gas, hear the dove fluttering and cooing. i can imagine the textures of their ragged clothing and armor. I can visualize the landscape outside of the portaits. yet for others it could be unattractive BECAUSE they can imagine all these things.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.