Poor appleflinger or Bad Taste

refuse commercial work and work at arbys, making as many personal worthless and tasteful works you want

If you were worried about bad taste you would not be browsing 4chan

>>2616558
Don't worry. No one will ever ask you to do this kind of commercial work. You will have plenty time to work on your little personal projects for the rest of your life.

>>2616558
what does this have to do with taste? He got a briefing from the art director about what they wanted in the promo art and he illustrated it. Also how is this "vulgar"?

shit taste is a terrible affliction. It's a pity that people like Applesomething arent aware of thier condition. This poor thing probably thinks it the next best thing in digital art. Pity.

This should be a lesson to every anon. You can do your 12 regime all you like but it wont change a thing if you fail at the aesthetic form of things.

>>2616558
It looks like it's photobashed from various paintings that also might have been photobashed

>>2616558
>tasteless vulgar crap
>bad taste
>my future

>>2616767
This doesn't say anything about his taste though rather about the taste of his client who commissioned that work.

I mean, clearly you have never worked as an artist before, so let me ask you, how much creative control do you think an illustrator has over commissions from big studios like CDPR? Obviously, to some degree they have creative control over rendering and compositional choices etc, but the subject matter at hand and the individual elements that need to be in the artwork are usually laid out very detailed in the briefing.

>>2616596
According to some of his posts on permanoobs, he is aware of his taste issues.
But I should admit, he still remains kind of an inspiration for me (as a hardworker). And his personal works are aesthetically not so bad.

>>2616964
>>2616767
oops, wrong link

File: Sandbox - 0118.jpg (355KB, 800x546px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 800x546px

>>2616964

His rough photo studies are the most aesthetically pleasing of his works to me.

>>2616780
>This doesn't say anything about his taste
No--it says everything about his tastes. That's not how commissions works. A client doesn't expect the same work from randomly picked artists. A Client selects the artist that has the style they are after, the vision they are after. And the artist works with the client whose idea they can agree on or can get behind.

That shitty painting not only tells that Applesomething is tasteless and stupid about aesthetic forms, it also tells that he/she/it has poor taste in clients. It's ugly.

>>2616558

Something about this looks really... Off. Like >>2616770 said, everything just seems to stick out in a really fake way.

>>2617008
The thing about photo studies is that for the most part the big aesthetic questions aren't left up to the artist doing the study. Those big aesthetic questions, those big problems, are already done by the photographer.

This is why it's consider poor judgment to use photo studies in a working portfolio. Studies obfuscate the artist's hand. It's difficult to distinguish between what was the artist's choice and what was the photographer's choice.

This also why photobashers are always on thin ice with their work. You really can't tell for sure whose creativity you're looking at. You can't tell for sure how reluctant they are to the assets, the photos. So skill and creative vision are drawn into question.

And when an artist's makes a bad choice off the photographer's choices it becomes embarrassing. Like in your example, the pile of dirt between the 2 armored vehicles. The study is shit because of that poor choice.

It looks like shit because it's photobashed and had shitty filters on top of it

Even a pencil sketch of that same scene can be more aesthetic

>jelly
/thread

File: anglehitler.jpg (342KB, 2048x1392px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 2048x1392px

>>2617047
like this?

File: 1431319102024.png (337KB, 821x598px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 821x598px

>>2616558
>>2617061

I'll never understand why anyone would want to make such dull, bland and boring illustrations when they could utilize their skill in creating something unique, new and appealing.

>>2617073
like weeb shit, you mean?

File: 10425163_559816174144739_8566411154638974543_n.jpg (80KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x667px

>>2616558
Hannes always had terrible taste.
He can render good and understands the principles of illustration but never delivers anything fresh
that said I do enjoy some of his works(old ones mostly,this new stuff is so trash)
pic related bro

File: 1442088295284.jpg (3MB, 3000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x4000px

>>2617081
yup

>>2617073
$$$$

>>2617043

Calm your balls buddy, I just posted it as a example of his work that I like and not as an invitation to discuss the ethics or merits of photo studies. You don't think it's good? Too bad, I think it's fucking awesome. He's at his best when he sticks to loose brushwork and plenty of hard edges IMO

Also everyone else needs to calm their balls too. Pretty much all professional illustrators have produced shitty work with weak aesthetics somewhere in their career. Earlier this year there was a thread where some of Bengus (the Capcom artist) recent work was posted. It looked rushed and the figures where weak. Big deal. I imagine the deadline was strict, the pay was so-so or perhaps he just wasn't feeling the project. Even famous artists have to pay the fucking bills and sometimes take jobs they don't particulary like.

>>2617043
> This also why photobashers are always on thin ice with their work. You really can't tell for sure whose creativity you're looking at. You can't tell for sure how reluctant they are to the assets, the photos. So skill and creative vision are drawn into question.
thats a pretty good point. I'll keep this in mind.
t. photobasher

>>2617100
Exactly
That's shit.

>>2617116
>>2617121

You sound upset. Touch a nerve did we?

>>2617073
what if that is my ultimate goal?
what you consider dull others may say its the opposite

>>2617121
>I imagine the deadline was strict, the pay was so-so or perhaps he just wasn't feeling the project. Even famous artists have to pay the fucking bills and sometimes take jobs they don't particulary like.

All that bitching to say what? That it's okay to not try and do a good job.

5 words for you

not

going

to

make

it

>>2617155

Nope, just explaining the reality of being a freelance illustrator to some of the naive people in this thread who have somewhat romantic notions about the job. If you want to to only create beautiful art and strive for high ideals you need to be either extremely successful or get into fine art.

>>2617155
If the client thought he didn't do a good job, they'd have hired someone else. CDProject aren't some tiny company on a strict budget and promotional artwork is the kind of artwork where the art director will bug the artist over and over again until it comes out the way they want.

This isn't some kid on deviantart who pays some artist and then has to hope for the best outcome and has to accept whatever they get.

File: tumblr_nqfcvz5kwI1sa2z61o1_1280.jpg (327KB, 1073x1650px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1073x1650px

>>2617022
>it also tells that he/she/it has poor taste in clients

You are so unbelievably retarded it's not even funny anymore. Some of the best artists in the world worked for CDPR. I guess now you're gonna tell me Mike Mignola also has shit taste and poor taste in clients.

>>2617022
How old are you?

File: muhstyle.jpg (234KB, 409x3248px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 409x3248px

>>2616558
>How to protect my future works from a bad taste?

By reading books by good artists: they'll talk mostly about finding solutions to the difficulties encountered but anything about composition is great to know.
By thinking about quality constantly when you reflect on your work.
By dissecting the works of people you admire.

After a while your brain will rewire itself and do it on autopilot.

An example would be to google paintings with card players to see how they depicted similar scenery in a different way.
> Caravage, Georges de la Tour and of course Cezanne
> I think the Cezanne's card players is still one of the most expensive painting ever sold?

Probably Algen knows about them and maybe was inspired by them to draw his picture

>>2617143
post your work.

>>2617061

That's pretty much better than the finished piece.

File: hearthstone.jpg (61KB, 736x558px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 736x558px

Hannes has always had this style. His focus was always realistic lighting/rendering over interesting design. He's always been lighter on creative design, just look at his MtG work. The compositions and colors are usually the most interesting parts of the image, not how he designs the costume, background or how he stylizes the faces/figures. The way he designs armor, weapons, clothing, hairstyles, etc. is always fairly generic and not the focus of his work. Jana was always the more creative one, IMO.

If you do tons and tons of studies from life and never draw in a sketchbook to develop an interesting stylized shape language then you're work is going to be more photo ref looking, which is why he draws that way. He's obviously known for doing lots of photo studies.

It could also just be what he likes to look at, not much he can do about that.

>>2617073
Well, he's being paid by a company to make this and the art director is giving him a brief on what they are looking for. He's creating something within the bounds of what they want. The fact that he is already prone to boring shape design only enhances the level of "meh" since the premise is generic and boring to begin with. There's plenty of artists out there that could do this same image in their style and because of how they draw it'd be more interesting to look at.

TL:DR No one has the perfect solution but OP should probably make sure to draw a lot in his sketchbook from imagination. Most artists I see with interesting styles and design sense draw a shit ton in their sketchbooks, not just do studies from life.

>>2617181
>>2617211

Is baby going cry now?

>>2617167
You have no first hand experience. You're a neet. What do you know?

>>2617329

A few years, actually.

File: frank_frazetta_themoonmen.jpg (270KB, 908x1200px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 908x1200px

>>2617242
Here you go champ.

>>2617332
A few years of shit

I can't believe how stupid people are on this thread with no experience, no job, and only some sort of idealistic fantasies on how everything works. If a client asks for you to put a giant fucking dick in the middle of the painting for 2,000 extra, would you? Would you think of "taste" or would you think of your financial obligations first?

>>2617073
Because they're getting paid for it, idiot.

>le client is always right
>le market makes the rules

Is this the birth of a new epic meme?

>>2617509
Unless I force it, it'll never catch on.

This is what Hannes used to say. http://algenpfleger.tumblr.com/post/95847707615/your-work-has-kind-of-stagnated-over-the-years Some great artists would be disappointed.

> Question
> your work has kind of stagnated over the years :\ i dont think the studies are helping anymore
> Answer
> this is another one that i’ve been getting a lot (again mostly on tumblr) and i’ll try to answer it as honestly as possible. there’s a few things many people might not know that lie behind the “wall” of making it professionally.

> 1 batting average. i don’t know if this affects just me, but i imagine it’s somewhat widespread. working commercially is very different from producing personal pieces in one key aspect - you’re expected to deliver, and when a piece is going nowhere, you can’t just quit. the sketch is approved, you’re being paid and you have to finish the painting even if you don’t want to, aren’t feeling it, are sick or have other commitments. this leads to results that can be disappointing. you don’t see these because i don’t upload failed pieces. the main thing i’ve been working on in the past year has been to develop a workflow that allows me to deliver as reliably as possible. i’m happy to say that my dud rate has gone down strongly, actually since i’ve starting working on magic again i don’t think i’ve done a painting that i won’t be able to put in my portfolio. two years ago, my failure rate was embarassingly high.

> 2 speed. this is another thing that’s not visible to you, but economically it’s extremely important. i can finish (including planning and drawing) a complex painting in three to four days now no matter what. it used to vary wildly. again when you’re working commercially, reliability is key.

>>2617624

> 3 brushwork and edges. this might not be as flashy as the supersharp edges and the lighting that used to dominate my work, but i’ve spent a lot of time on this. i can’t say whether it’s actually improved my work or not, but it’s definitely gotten it closer to my personal taste.

> 4 life. i know how this sounds from the guy who used to be all about drawing all day, every day, but i’ve started doing other things. first of all at some point your health will politely ask you to start working out, taking away about 8 hours of your week. you’ll start eating better, cooking more fresh stuff, costing you maybe another 5 hours. i also play both handball and volleyball, both adding up to maybe 15 hours a week. then comes a point where you’ll want to have friends, read books, travel and explore other hobbies (i make a little bit of electro/house and play piano). and last but not least, and i apologize to the social justice control board of tumblr for this, but you’ll also want to talk to girls, who’ll be very much in favor of this, especially if you’re a well-shaped little seal like me. all these things are very much necessary because you’re a social creature and because you need to avoid career killing burnouts or health issues.

> 5 personal growth. maybe i’m more flawed here than others, but doing nothing but art for years and never interacting with people except online friends will leave you with a lot to catch up on in terms of social skills. this takes effort, nerve and time. i still believe that blasting through the 10,000 hours to go pro in three to four years is the best way to do it, as it allows you to be relatively young when reaching your main goal in life, but you’ll find yourself with a number of things to clean up in your character. ignore this at your own peril.

>>2617627

> overall, all this accounts for a reduction of the time i spend on art from maybe 80 hours a week in 2011 to about 25-40 hours a week now, with much of the remainder being spent on the first three points i mentioned above. all of this is not to make excuses, but to give you an insight into why my (and maybe other professionals’) improvement rate slowed down visibly after a certain point in my career.

>>2617624
>>2617627
>>2617632

this guy sounds full of himself. I'm getting hints of autism from the fake fawning and the speculative "advice".

thanks for posting. now i know to avoid this dumbass.

>>2617639
>full of himself
He' pretty self-deprecating actually.
>hints of autism
>fake fawning
>speculative "advice"
>dumbass
Seems like an honest answer about his shortcomings. Calm your tits.

>>2617639
I dunno, he sounds simultaneously full of himself/defensive/with a healthy dash of uncertainty.
Its understandable, I'd act the same if some random anonymous asked me such a shitty question. I'd never tell anyone what anonymous said to him, esp to his face.

I do however, contest the idea that you have to work 60 hours a week to make a 'great' piece of work. If applefinger thought more about making a great graphic read on his compositions and put more emphasis on storytelling rather than 'muh rendering' he'd realize that its doesn't take that much more time to make a really iconic image with depth.

I'm usually able to finger which magic card was done by applefinger. They usually have 1. some super cool lighting to cover up 2. lame graphic reads, 3. poor storytelling, and 4. a dud of a composition that says nothing. Fuck, his lighting isn't even deliberately thought through. He's just throwing up light sources without any understanding on how it impacts tone, story, and character. You don't have to push thousands of miles of graphite to get the last three right.
There are many artists who have very full lives, and fruitful careers by just focusing on the last three without resorting to photographic rendering. Maybe applefinger should give that a try.

>>2617657
Hi hanes

>He' pretty self-deprecating actually.

People do that put on a show of humility. It's fake and narcissistic. Autists like that do it because they think it makes them into some kind of coy character. It's all about them putting themselves down. He's really into himself.

>>2617663
>I'm usually able to finger which magic card was done by applefinger.
Anybody can do that. Look for the card with dull lifeless shit art and bingo.

>>2617679
>People do that put on a show of humility.
No shit. The few things of his I've read have been forgettably typical. If he's an autist with his head up his ass then post it here for the rest of us to enjoy. Nothing posted so far reads as even slightly autistic or amusing.

>>2617714
You seem upset. Possibly autistic?

while all of you Augusta are speeding out in this thread appleflinger is drawing or painting. You guys can call him as shit as you want and you may even be right, but at the end of the day you're only wasting your own time by arguing about it instead of trying to git gud.

>>2617728
I was hoping you'd have something cringe-worthy that the guy's done. Mildly irked/10.

>>2617735
he might be playing handball

>>2617740
And I was hoping you weren't autisticlly waiting for gossip about a tasteless artist that no one cares about.

Guess we've both been disappointed?

>>2617073
because people need to eat