>>2288099 No it's not. It's just a desaturated version of a pollock. What materials did you use? >>2288107 If you want to draw memes, it would make sense to get a foundation of cartooning. You know, the disney stuff
Yeah I desaturated it and lowered the contrast because otherwise it was interfering with the figures too much.
Yeah learning a bit more about cartoons might be helpful. The main thing I'm worried about now is that I'm not so sure traditional rendering/drawing is the right approach, how do I know I'm not just bringing in a bias as someone who typically draws
>>2288127 what's wrong with a bias? That's what constitutes personal style. But really I'd like to know why you chose that background; cause IMO it still does a good job of interfering with the figures. Even a monochrome background would look better than that.
I was going to just use some random texture but that seemed meh. So me and my friend were thinking about it, he mentioned pollock. I thought it was genius because the piece is basically anti greenberg (the critic who championed pollock and the abstract expressionists in the 50s). The abstract expressionists were all about aesthetic and no content. My work is all about content and isn't concerned with formal elements. The philosophies are exactly polar opposite so it's a joke. What I thought was interesting though is that when I put them together there are actually some similarities between the foreground elements and the pollock background. Both don't have a coherent composition, both have a random everything everywhere color palette, neither have a focal point. So I think it makes them more cohesive than if it was just white. But maybe I should lower the intensity even more.
Sorry if I sound like a pretentious asshole but that's the reasoning
>>2288141 >My work is all about content bro what content? your work makes 0 sense just like theirs but with the added bonus of shitty photoshopping. if this drawing is meant to make people feel better mission not accomplished. This just makes art as a whole look bad. please stop.
Reaction images/reaction memes are all about content, if I'm using a sad meme it doesn't matter which specific sad meme image I use, it just needs to convey sadness. That's the opposite of abstract where there is no underlying meaning being communicated, it's purely visual.
Look at the individual reaction images and what they mean and that's the same thing my piece means. I'm not adding any new content.
In this case, each individual meme is supposed to communicate "I know that feel", that's what the piece as a whole is supposed to do.
>>2288153 ok sure. i'll bite. reaction images ARE content. They are technically the start of a concept since they are popular culture now. What they aren't is a joke unto themselves.
It's like this. If I take idea "A" which is "Bodybuilders", it isn't content if it is just a drawing of a bodybuilder. No matter how much "style" i use to make it my own. It's not until you go from "A" to "B" that it starts to form a concept.
Let's say "B" in this situation is dissecting the word "Bodybuilders" into "Body Builders" or someone that builds bodies. "A" to "B" is technically content but it's not an image yet so it cannot be your concept. You have to go from "A" ( bodybuilders) to "C", "C" being the thing that is being built.
So if you go from "A" to "C" with bodybuilders off the top of my head I can think of two concepts.
1) Bodybuilders chiselling at a statue and thus "Building a Body" or 2) A bodybuilder building Frankenstein's monster which would also be "Building a Body"
you see what I'm getting at? You have not made content, you have simply made "A" which is "memes" in this case
sorry I'm confused. I just want to make people feel "I know that feel", idk about anything else. Sometimes I get tired of everyone talking like Duchamp, why can't art just be original and stupid and naive. Like memes.
>>2288178 that's like saying you want to paint a picture of a dog to make people think "dog" you fucking simpleton. there's nothing original about what you are making. jesus christ i hope i never meet you in person you sound like the most boring idiot in the world
I'm figuring out for myself how the internet art movement works. What it is and isn't interested in, the tools it uses, etc. It's already here and been here for a while, I want to internalize it and then work within it.
>that's like saying you want to paint a picture of a dog to make people think "dog" you fucking simpleton
Memes don't work like that, a meme would use a dog to convey a feeling that has nothing to do with a dog. Also memes tend to not be about nouns.
>>2288141 Expressions, colours, lines - emotions that they bring are a content on themself, IMO, mate.
I like the content but it's really hard for me to get the background, composition choice as it's not my piece of cake (especially taking someone else's picture as a background). Cause all the pictures with pairs are redrawn yes?
Grab a sledge hammer or find a tall building and throw your computer off of it. You can paint, what you can't do is separate yourself from this cancer. As far as giving up realism, do it but still work off objects. Do go full abstract like your other works. Base in reality, find your style. Play with colour, do value studies in full chroma colour of proper value. Go with a feel instead of autisticlly rendering or being a pretensions twat.
Fuck Johnson, your masterwork of some dicks at a table is so dead it hurts. How do I know it's meant to be a dead marriage without explanation? Fucking contrast between the figures and everything else.
your current works sucks for the same reason your past "traditional classical realist" works suck. they are made by some spoiled self-centered yet uncultured upper middle class kid with no insight and too much internet.
the form of "traditional realist" or "classical realist" training you had is a joke and a lie. you'd still continue to use them as straw men and blame realism though.
>>2292735 >spoiled self-centered yet uncultured upper middle class kid with no insight and too much internet.
Hurts because it's true. Although I think internet constitutes culture so in that respect I'm "cultured".
>you'd still continue to use them as straw men and blame realism though >I love realism, Rembrandt is and always will be my fav artist of all time. Just because I'm moving in a different direction doesn't mean I have a problem with it.
>>2293141 >I like both thinking and feeling, it's silly to think of them as a dichotomy.
My point was you are thinking too hard, online culture, the avatar project, etc are shit dead paintings but have technical skill. You are trying too hard breh, it's so contrived. Just set up a still life and play with it. Smash some emotion into your work, I wasn't using the word autistic for no reason.
Break, go high chroma feel it out. Then come back to your ideas and they might shine.
Set up a still life and paint it everyday. Same lighting, same scene, same perspective. 10x10in canvas max. Watch as you figure this out.
I think the main thing is that I get bored very easily. Traditional art is boring to me, abstract is boring to me, contemporary art is boring to me. Deep internet stuff (I realize the reaction images aren't that deep) isn't boring, it's moving, it's fascinating.
Painting in Rembrandt's style is dead but the fundamental principles underlying his work are still very usable. Plus I don't think you can be like Rembrandt by painting like Rembrandt, he lived in a very different time and made a lot of innovations in his day. When he was working his style was still original and artistic, if you paint like him today you're just copying somebody else.
>>2293141 >I love realism, Rembrandt is and always will be my fav artist of all time. Just because I'm moving in a different direction doesn't mean I have a problem with it.
I'm saying that training practices that are now called "traditional realism" and "classical realism" etc are lies that have nothing to do with any of the old ways of drawing or painting (even if they try to be like them) and that they lead nowhere good. It's easy to understand that someone practicing it would be dejected after not seeing results comparable in greatness to any of the old masters and seek something else.
>>2293568 Many of Rembrandt's art would have spoken not only to his time, but to a time centuries before his, and centuries after even now. Can the same be said of Internet memes?
Religious painting is a thing because of how widespread it is. Are the mass media cult icons of the 70's and 80's even remembered 30 years on? What makes you think norm shit such as rare fucking pepes will be remembered in as little as 10.
At least Rothko can be understood without the shallow use of cultural trends. Modernity made many forms timeless.
You are literally retarded Johnson. Why the pseudonym, we know who you are.
Reaction images use empathy to convey emotions, that's timeless and has nothing to do with cultural trends. That's also why religious paintings still work. The people who've had the best reactions to these works are adults who only use facebook and small children because they don't come to it with all this cultural baggage. They just see the emotions and empathize.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
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 content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.