Contemporary drawings

File: draw21-unt-tyson.jpg (277KB, 815x1000px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 815x1000px

Nicola Tyson

File: wpid-wp-1414099343056.jpg (71KB, 500x631px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x631px

Derek Overfeild

File: edp.jpg (72KB, 470x220px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 470x220px

Ed Pien

File: nadg.jpg (211KB, 470x613px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 470x613px

Nadia Moss

File: hos.jpg (2MB, 1027x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1027x1200px

Benjamin Shamback

File: pilot-parallel-pen-081.jpg (151KB, 990x606px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 990x606px

>>2617375
>>2617367
>>2617364
>>2617357
>>2617354

Holy fuck. Nuclear holocaust cannot come soon enough. What have we done.

>>2617425
? the derek overfield piece is not even far from a traditional gesture drawing..what do you want me to post, all rembrandt worshipers?

>>2617425
No one knows what you're talking about.
Care to elaborate?

Is this the type of art that requires an "education" to not look like doodles, shit scribbles and a single mediocre life study?

>>2617438
I like drawings..and these drawings, weather you like them or not, explore a variety of techniques/styles and ideas. Do you only like paintings that use 100 percent smoothed out realistic brush strokes and completely tangible subject matter?...I've only been on this board a few days..of course i was expecting a lot of anime art and what not but i didn't know i would get attacked for mentioning anything that's slightly outside classical art/cartoons

Some of those are really good

>>2617441
>these drawings, weather you like them or not, explore a variety of techniques/styles and ideas

Those are called "studies", anon. Artists make lots of mistakes when they're experimenting so that they can create beauty in a finished piece. Not every dick graffiti needs a frame.

>Do you only like paintings that use 100 percent smoothed out realistic brush strokes and completely tangible subject matter?

I like drawings that look like they actually took effort and skill to draw. Only >>2617375 looks like it fulfilled at least half of that requirement

>>2617445
which of these look like they have mistakes? The horsehead piece looks like it was gone into with the least intention if anything.

>>2617455
What I'm saying is that the drawings themselves are mistakes.

You can prove me wrong by showing me examples of these artists displaying any kind of fundamental knowledge of any kind, because otherwise I'm going to keep assuming that they did not "intend" to create this shit, but that they had to, because they can't make real art.

>>2617461
PS: Overfeild is pretty good

>>2617461
The reason I look for pieces like these at all is because I want to see different techniques/ideas expressed through drawing..I don't care if they can draw photorealistic portraits.. if that's what I felt like looking at i would...The skill of drawing is part of what allows these artists to make these kinds of pieces...skill is not just anatomy and shadows..if you believe that then drawing might as well just be a step on the road to classical painting (which some people do consider it)..I probably draw more than the average artist which is part of why I can recognize some of these techniques as different and interesting.

>>2617471
Fundamentals =/= photorealism. Pls read the sticky

>>2617352 shit
>>2617354 shit
>>2617357 shit
>>2617364 shit
>>2617367 shit
>>2617375 this is actually pretty awesome and magnitudes better than the rest

If you like anything other than loomis you need to read loomis - ic

>>2617375
>drips
its like im back in art school

other than that this drawings great though

>>2617481
so if you saw a non objective painting with very nice brush work, use of color etc, would you dismiss it because it's not real art?.....I didn't pick any of these pieces to piss people off. hell the piece on top looks a lot like egon schiele who I would assume is respected on here, unless i'm wrong.

File: James_Abbot_McNeill_Whistler_012.jpg (438KB, 2024x2718px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 2024x2718px

>>2617506
>so if you saw a non objective painting with very nice brush work, use of color etc, would you dismiss it because it's not real art?

Nope. This isn't about style of painting or abstract vs representational. This is about giving art the respect it deserves by actually understanding what the fuck you're doing. You do not have to spend time convincing most people that pic related is art because the artist was clearly skilled and worked hard on it.

>>2617576
why does the OP pic not take skill..I know plenty of artists that can't draw like that....on top of that taste and ideas mean just as much as skill...also, who is "people?" any random person that sees a piece? If I make something and a guy who walks in off the street says "my 3 year old could do that" i really don't care.

>>2617583
>why does the OP pic not take skill

Dude c'mon, it looks EXACTLY like a blind contour drawing of a women petting a (dog?) drawn by an absolute beginner artist with Parkinson's.

>on top of that taste and ideas mean just as much as skill

ideas and taste don't mean shit if you aren't able to convey them with skill.

>also, who is "people?" any random person that sees a piece? If I make something and a guy who walks in off the street says "my 3 year old could do that" i really don't care.

People as in the public. Everybody. You don't have to take every piece of criticism to heart but if your work is only appealing to circlejerking snobs then it's not going to go anywhere.

>>2617592
>if your work is only appealing to circlejerking snobs then it's not going to go anywhere.
Not him, but anon, that's exactly how many special snowflake modern artists get rich.

>>2617425
everything other than life drawing and zbrush dragons is totally gay
-t. concept artist

File: 1448649680532.jpg (55KB, 457x566px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 457x566px

>>2617644
Well you're not wrong

>>2617644
<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/l46Cq2R3yB160lpCg" width="480" height="314" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/l46Cq2R3yB160lpCg">via GIPHY</a></p>

>>2617678
>giphy.com/embed/l46Cq2R3yB160lpCg

Looking at all the discussion in this thread, I get the feeling that the majority of the people on /ic are more ilustrators than artists.

>>2618092
>illustrators are not artists
nice meme faggot

>>2618092
>being not shit means you're not an artist!

>>2618141
i won't say illustration isn't art...but don't expect respect if you go around saying everything made after 1900 isn't art