Archived threads in /ic/ - Artwork/Critique - 1257. page

>>2296638
I wouldn't consider that hyper realist. That being said, it is actually quite good if you genuinely are the artist and not a troll.

>>2296638
how long did you take to draw this piece OP? A few weeks? A month?

So what exactly are the differences between "photorealism" and "hyperrealism"?

is photorealism just copies of photographs that aren't exact enough to be called hyperrealism? are all photorealists secretly trying to be hyperrealists?

File: IMG_20150827_232211.jpg (969KB, 2087x2087px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 2087x2087px

Paper and acrylic.

File: 20150622_124001.jpg (2MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4128x2322px

About 3 ft? Maybe.

File: 20150825_131838.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

Sorry some of the files are large.

>>2296133
>Michelangelo is by far the greatest artist
I don't think it's possible to make that claim about ANY artist. He is one of the best, but there is no single best artist, let alone one that is far ahead of others.

Plus tastes change. What you say is the best may not be agreed by people in the future. Hell, for hundreds of years Raphael was considered the greatest Renaissance artist and only in the past 150 years or so did Michelangelo replace him. I mean personally I like his work more than Raphael or Da Vinci, but I won't make a statement of him being the best. Plus when you compare him to more recent artists it really becomes an apples to oranges type thing because their goals and aesthetics are so different, and you can't say one is better than another unless you set out strict criteria that will favour a particular time period.

>>2296137
>Hell, for hundreds of years Raphael was considered the greatest Renaissance artist and only in the past 150 years or so did Michelangelo replace him.

Really? wow...he is not that impressive: only a few of his paintings are really great.

>>2296141
If I remember correctly he was admired for his composition, draftsmanship, and the emotion he put in his figures and images. But yeah his influence was massive, that's why the Pre-Raphaelites came about--they felt people were taking too much from Raphael and rejected that as an aesthetic and standard.

>>2295303

fuck her right in the pussy

>>2295303
She built up a large fanbase over years, has a style that appeals to non-artists, paints characters that have established fanbases and puts softcore pornographic images of these characters behind a paywall. And she hopped on the patreon thing at just the right time.

>>2295303
People pay an amount of money equal to "so much fucking."

You're welcome.

>>2295028

thanks for contributing to the thread. why do you post on an art critique board if you are hostile to the humanities?

>>2294204
They all look the same pretty much. Take a step back and work only with silhouette and try to get different shapes for each design.

Like >>2294207 they're pretty monotone

This might help you find new forms you wouldn't otherwise have thought of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxoNLP_6ok4

>>2294204
Design language seems to be really consistent across all designs- if this is what You were going for, then good job. If You asked me, I don't really like that design too much, don't ask me to elaborate though- I find design to be very difficult to discuss, since there is no mathematical formula (the closest You can get is 25% of the form should be busy and rest should let Your eye rest, but I never cared for that rule either). Presentation wise- Your perspective seems to be correct for the most time, however there are obvious mistakes, like a front of no 22 and no 27 follow seem to follow separate VP's compared to wings and rear spoilers (I forgot how You call them in English). Also some forms seem to follow horizon in the middle of a form, while other axis still follow VP situated somewhere above (You seem to have two horizons in other words).

>>2294160
Show us some of your work for context

File: IMG_0075.jpg (63KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x480px

>>2294160
>>2294163
These are some copies of images from the book. Next are some from my trying to draw from one of those timed figure drawing things.

File: IMG_0076.jpg (67KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x480px

>>2294171

Also: OP fucked up the thread Edition.

File: 12291941_988476414528868_2954816457922647666_o.jpg (123KB, 1080x1350px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1080x1350px

Some fanart.

on first glance i thought she was holding a dick. cleaner lines would be nice and her dick holding hand needs a bit of love (looks kinda off).

>>2289511
>anime
>mattering

Jesus fuck, before your trip go find a Rothko and sit in front of it for a half hour.

>>2289516
Anime does matter. A hell of a lot more than anything an american cartoonist makes. There are still fans for old anime that aired back in the 80s and some of them were marvels of animation even top art colleges showcase to their students.

>>2289511
Take a chill pill and think rationally man. Don't just move to Japan then find work, instead get in contact with small (or large, your choice) animation studios first before moving countries.
Also, if you're going to attempt to be an anime animator, be prepared to go to other Asian countries instead (Outsourced work etc.)

take things one step at a time, and remember that in the end,
>It all returns to nothing

>>2282264
If you go to a top tier school and don't take a lot of debt, yes. (This is a bit different for artcenters concept art program). If you're not good enough to go to a good school on scholarship, then you aren't good enough to get work outside of it.
Obviously you can teach yourself technical skill at home, but art school teaches you how to formulate and execute ideas. Also the connections you make in art school are very very important.

art hasn't been worth it since the time of the ninja turtles ended

>>2282271
Non Americanfag here, do good art schools even offer scholarships? I've never heard of places like Art Center offering scholarships.

>>2296166
>I think he might end up becoming one of the greats of
he's just another in a long line of human-photocopiers

>>2296166

>I think he might end up becoming one of the greats of our age.

naw man, he just does boring figures he doesn't have anything to say. At the end of the day technicality is just a tool for communication, it's not the actual thing to achieve.

>>2296166
One of the best draftsmen around. His painting is rather uninspired and weak imo, just muddy mushy messes. His sculpture is okay but nothing special.

I don't see why he would be considered one of the greats though. Nothing he's doing is outstanding enough to make him go down in history, and he brings nothing new to the table. Plus his real strength lies in his initial studies and his drawings. He has no finished work of any real value.

File: Block 1 - Activity 4 - Abstraction 2.jpg (1MB, 1024x3072px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x3072px

They are images of the abstraction proces

>>2295981
What the hell is this ? Is this some stupid art school teacher not knowing shit`?

File: Block 1 - Activity 4 - Abstraction 3.jpg (662KB, 1024x3072px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 1024x3072px

This would be the final composition.
can you sens a screw driver?
top image is the tip of a screwdriver.
mid image is the rotation and the soket of a screw
last image is a set of screws driled

>>2295692
wtf are you on holy fuck, quit drugs bud.

No. Even the randomness is influenced by previous images archived in the brain. Is you put a baby trying to draw, the only gonna make what he has seen so far, if you put a fetus trying to draw, he didn't draw anything, because he knows nothing, but if you put a blind man to try to draw, he can do it himself, and his drawings will be guided by perceptions it receives from the other direction (basically touch and sound)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1IY6plQKGI

File: quarthex.gif (24KB, 468x482px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 468x482px

>>2295692
Yo, man, like, whoa

I don't think it's possible to draw something that's literally imperceptible to humans.
If you want, you could try to draw the 'strings' from string theory. iirc, strings are essentially 'rolled-up' dimensions that make no sense and essentially can't be explained visually.

Anything you try to draw, no matter how simplistic, or complex, or abstract, can always be related to something that exists.
While the picture you have posted here probably doesn't quite exemplify what you're trying to get across exactly, any conscious human is going to be able to recognize any number of shapes or lines in that painting.

I don't think it's possible, but go ahead and try, if you like.

>>2294976
They're just human photocopiers. There is some degree of skill, but not nearly as much as the plebs in that comment section think.

The finished product has no more artistic value than the photo they copied, sometimes it has even less.

It's craft, not art.

File: Creative Illustration - Andrew Loomis pg. 159-160; Loomis' Closing Thoughts on 'Realism'.jpg (951KB, 1026x2820px) Image search: [Google]

951KB, 1026x2820px

It's technically impressive but pretty boring a lot of the time. That said this picture of a crashing wave is certainly more appealing than a lot of the hyperrealism paintings I'd seen that were still lifes of household objects.

>>2292356
>>2292357
is there any more?

those two are pretty dead. working from photographs and imagination sucks all the life out of painting. You aren't painting light like you should be. The images are piercing straight through the layers of light that would naturally be in front of what you are viewing. Gives everything a really dead look. Look at the impressionists and post-impressionists to get a better idea of what I mean.

>>2292356
They're pretty nice, you're better than me at rendering things out. However even I can see that your perspective is fucked, you really need to work on that.