http://www.robertoferri.net/ This is the best Italian paint

File: file.png (888KB, 548x800px) Image search: [Google]

888KB, 548x800px

>>2673487
>all those sexy bodies
>the colors


I want him to be my daddy .

File: thumb_up_squidward.jpg (4KB, 122x125px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 122x125px

>>2673487

>>2673562
muh dick

>>2673567
ikr

File: file.png (14KB, 399x299px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 399x299px

>>2673487

>>2673487
OH GOD

MY

FUCKING

DIIIIICCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

waiting for the d/ic/k to come in and bash him while drawing shit anime in their spare time.

>>2673581
I know right?

>>2673581
he is taking a while ,we just have to wait but it's here , u can feel the stupidity

>>2673581
watch me
>>2673562
tail too high
>>2673487
tail not connected to the body

overall, good at rendering, shit at imagination

>>2673598
Who hurt you bro ?

>>2673487
Something off about it. I think the lighting is inconsistent somehow. Also
>This is the best Italian painter alive right now. He's considered to be the "second Caravaggio".
According to who exactly?

>>2673599
my father

>>2673599
my critique still stands tho

File: file.png (65KB, 500x265px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x265px

>>2673606
Then try not to be like him and hurt others , okey , promise ?

>>2673598
>tail too high
I can kinda excuse that because humans don't have tails normally. But what the fuck is going on with the feet?

>>2673616
the feet are normal, he got high heels by his bones outgrow

and the humans don\t have tails excuses is not founded, there's been humans born with tail, which is a continuation of the spine, and not a bifurcation of it

>>2673610
not until he stops

File: caravaggio_3_big.jpg (39KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 800x600px

He has an amazing sense of anatomy and lightning but I still find his work extremely boring to look at.
Caravaggio's pantings always had more than what meets the eye, even in his simpler compositions, his characters sometimes reek of bizarre and complex backgrounds with stories you simply can't decipher just by looking at them.
With this stuff I feel like I can get a glimpse, say hey this has good anatomy but it doens't guide my eye anywhere, it doesn't make me wonder about the characters, it's just boring.

>>2673598
>shit at imagination

He's amazing, but this is one point I will concede. Sometimes he'll piece together a lot of things from animals parts to skeletons to religious imagery, but still manages to make them boring to look at despite his fantastic skillset.

>>2673624
Well put. Caravaggio's dark spaces recede indefinitely into a luscious satin-like darkness. There's an incredible sense of visual depth that alludes to a narrative depth. Caravaggio never shows more than what's necessary and takes full advantage of the unknown.

>>2673487
This on the other hand is an incredibly tiny space. It's a combination of the mostly well-lit backdrop(at least in comparison to Caravaggio's) as well as the very near shadow the man's arm casts. As well, the bright white cloth not only creates an awkward focal point and detracts from the bodies' light tones, but it also highlights an awkwardly thick shadow on the left side of the man's calf. And of course, where the fuck is that tail coming from?

All in all, it's nice, but it's no "second Caravaggio".

>>2673634
I honestly thought the tail was coming out of the shadows, not his body

he's objectively good, but the smoothness bothers me, it makes everything look airbrushed

The poses are really quite bad. You can tell he's trying to be inventive and interesting, but the poses have a quality of the same poses you normally see in a contemporary figure-drawing studio setting, where people learn to draw the figure. It makes the composition lack a sense of purpose, as if the figures are stitched together from various life-drawing studies done before-hand, done in that same familiar lighting scenario. I don't say that that is his way of working; only that that is the effect. The draperies also lack purpose and for the same reason.

A similar error can be said of his phantasia. There is really no reason for them other than to be strange. And, if they were meant to have meaning, under the name of allegory, it fails in even understanding the meaning of the term. There is no real story behind them. I suppose this my criticism extends to his inspiration coming from the 19th century symbolist movement. There is a much clearer and effective construction of plot, using symbols, in allegorical works before symbolism (particularly in the Renaissance) which yet do not draw too much attention to the use of symbols.

Perhaps he hasn't studied how myths operate enough. There are compositions (if you can call them that) that have an academic nude figure in an empty background, scatter some strange symbols here and there, and call it after a mythological figure. It doesn't make clear or indeed have any of the mystic meaning behind a myth. It shows hardly any insight into the nature of the subject. Only as props for his strangeness.

As for skill, it should suffice to say that the best art are those that hide the skill.

As for the drawings, they are well rendered, yet lack any of the sprezzatura in lines that is characteristic of old master drawings.

File: 1471452870312.jpg (67KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 633x758px

>>2673692
>>2673681

>he's serious

yawn more nude people bathing in lamp light

ITT limp jelly D/IC/ks

>>2673718
Can you stop with the meme spazz a second and prove him wrong?
No?
That's what I thought

>>2673730
>ITT whiny d/ic/k sucker wants validation for his boring taste

>>2673730
Nothing to be jealous of. He has good technique but below average composition and worst of all shit taste

File: file.png (201KB, 430x241px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 430x241px

>>2673692
>>2673681
>>2673598
>the never pleased ''art expert'

>>2673762
He's not wrong though. Nobody seriously considers Ferri to be a "second Caravaggio". A blind man can see Ferri is lightyears behind, and isn't innovating either. He's good by today's standards of this type of painting, but he pales in comparison to even the weakest of Caravaggio's followers.

>>2673772
you never know when to stop

>>2673782
That was my first post in this thread you nitwit. How about you hop off Ferri's dick for a second to get a more accurate view of how he really is.

>>2673762
Okay fine. He's perfect in absolutely every single way.

How dare we, mere mortal men, even BEGIN to question the brilliance of Roberto Ferri?! We are but plebeians by comparison and are not fit to constructively analyze his perfection!

That what you want to hear?

>>2673786
i don't even like the guy, that was also my first post on this thread. I'm just chuckling at your weak trolling attempts.

>>2673772
>but he pales in comparison to even the weakest of Caravaggio's followers.


This is retarded, it's like people on /ic/ just refuse to wrap their head around the idea that modern painters can hold a candle to the old masters.

I'm not going to say Ferri is flawless, but he's damn good, and definitely on their level. If his paintings were a few hundred years older I almost guarantee you half his critics would suck his dick.

>>2673835
Some modern painters can hold a candle to old masters. I would consider Mian Situ, Phil Hale, Jeremy Lipking, Jenny Saville, Richard Schmid Steve Huston, Antonio Lopez garcia etc to be around the same technical level as many old masters. The top guys of the past though are still better than the top guys today. When you look at the best artists of a 500 year period in which art was continually developing and skills were passed from one generation to the next, obviously you will get better artists than the small window of time in which contemporary artists live, also because most of the methods and schools and lineages of painting were destroyed/lost in the last century so we're still trying to catch up to where we were before.

>>2673623
Beat your dad and shove something up his ass then. faggot.

>>2673487
Probably one of the most boring painters alive

>>2673898
You know you're creatively bankrupt when the best you can do is add a tail.

>>2673487

Why is there a dark outline around his calf? If it is a deliberate stylization it doesn't appear consistent.

>>2673909
It looks really clumsy. Almost like he decided "Hey you know what would really ruin this painting? A bright white cloth that just completely ruins the composition's balance of value. I really needed to show off my cloth-rendering skills anyway!" and then he forgot to lighten up the calf afterwards so it didn't look like a complete cartoon.

The woman's crotch looks way too dark. If those are pubes he really skimped on the detail. If, on the other hand it's just a shadow, then it looks like a last-second attempt at censorship.

The more I look at this thing the more I hate it. Sure it shows technical skills, but even there it's flawed. I'm sure this guy can make a living off his art, and can inspire others to follow, but it has little merit in the world of contemporary fine art.

In a few of his other pieces I saw on his site, he did display more of an understanding of Caravaggio's deep shadows, but he still falls short even as a mimic. There are no new ideas present in his works as a mimic, and as such it is an INSULT to compare him in any way to Caravaggio.

But really I'm just ranting for the fun of it. I wish this guy well in his sales.

>>2673487
>"second Caravaggio
did he stab anyone in the dick yet?

>>2673487

Lipking and Gurney are better

>>2673937
>But really I'm just ranting for the fun of it. I wish this guy well in his sales.
I dunno, I agree with everything you wrote. I've noticed that in the past too that the more I analyze Ferri's work the more it falls apart. I wish him the best, but to me it's clear he is nowhere near the artists he is emulating. Basically he is just taking some superficial things from them and hoping we won't notice that the rest is missing.

Then again, you can say the same for 99% of modern "masters".

>>2673905
Is it supposed to come out of one of the figures or is it just there to show he can render croc skin?

>>2673957
Probably the latter. He often just sticks in random limbs or animal parts with no real source. When he does human animal hybrids it's usually more spelled out and obvious.

File: LUCIFERO-olio-su-tela-146-x-114,5-cm-anno-2013.jpg (178KB, 608x800px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 608x800px

>>2673948
Superficial is definitely the way to describe it. Take this piece for example. It looks like it was finished but then he remembered how much people like Michelangelo's David so he just slapped on some big veiny forearms.

>>2673965
Lol he's got the worst case of chronic studio lighting and posing I've ever seen. And yeah those forearms and hands look pasted on, same with that foot. He has no idea how to bridge the gap between school studies and Art.

>>2673718
Go away.

>>2673762
It's so easy to jump on a bandwagon isn't it?

Honestly this dudes' paintings are nice but it's the "second Carvaggio" that gives us reason to judge and frankly in that light, there's nothing that really stands out from the vast amount of other painters who can render light just as well.

File: L'INSIDIA olio su tela 25,3 x 30 cm anno 2011.jpg (348KB, 831x700px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 831x700px

>>2673971
It's a shame because some of his more abstract stuff can be pretty interesting, but it seems to be few and far between. Considering that this piece's dimensions are far smaller than his other (typically less interesting) works, it seems that he really doesn't give a fuck either.

>>2673624
True
Ferri is more like second bouguereau with kitschy soft rendering and how insipid his art is

>>2674012
The difference is that Bouguereau was so technically skilled that he overcame any kitschiness in his art to still produce powerful stuff. Nobody who idolizes him comes close and are just stuck with technically inferior kitsch shit.

Those look like 3 different figure studies stitched together in photoshop.

Old masters were telling a story or conveying a message with their compositions. There's nothing to decipher or read here but criticize it at face value.

File: Ferri.jpg (445KB, 1203x800px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1203x800px

Tried a paintover to see if making some of the changes suggested by this anon would help >>2673937

The old masters weren't even that good lmoa

>>2673487
that's just a turboshit comparison considering painters now have unlimited resources and sources of knowledge and shit

>>2674090
There's a distinct lack of mentorships and great teachers though which have been an absolute necessity in the past to fully unlock one's potential. There's no great art critics either. Painting as an artform is also less relevant than it ever has been so gets less support from the public and government.

>>2674090
Limitation actually made the way easier for painters to get as good as they could. Obsessive types, like the ones who would usually lurk this site wouldnt have had anime and videogames to burn through their time. Picture the autistic, stingy michael angelo, had he been born in the 90s he would be a neet, pony idolizing italian weabo

this shit way to realistic 4 me
i almost thought it was shooped

>>2674140
hahaha

Shit anatomy.

>>2673487
Humans are their own slaves. We chose to become slaves of our own creation. Fuck this world.

>>2674672
Hi, mark.

>>2674702
Hey baby. We still on for tonight?

I want your panties white and wet tonight.

File: 1473267731232.jpg (49KB, 600x384px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x384px

>>2673782
>>2673835
Eh, he's not wrong. I've seen tons of people say they're the Rembrandt or artists that think they're on par with the old masters but not really.

>>2673629
Agreed, thats the problem I have with most of these atelier type artist. Their level of skill is insane but to me, the art as a whole is cheesy and boring. Its just not relevant to today. Similar to the way that top hats were fashionable in the 1800s... and we all know what a "gentleman" wearing a top hat today would look like

>>2674078
this actually, in my opinion, is better an is more classical looking than the original. Good job (You).

>>2674912
>>2674078
Probably the reason why the light on the leg is so low is because Ferri used the atelier/studio lighting standard: strong light, relatively close to the subject. It's quite an unnatural set up.

>>2674078
nice paintover

>>2674078
Awesome, thanks for the demonstration of my amazing advice.

But seriously though, you've improved the overall sense of value focus immensely by darkening the BG and slightly toning the white cloth. Also the addition of the pool of blood in the bottom left corner completes the triangular composition and was an element that "Mr. Caravaggio 2.0" sorely missed. A++

>>2673487
He's skilled, but there's something missing.
I believe that the styles of the old masters still have a place in contemporary art, but this guy's art looks like a sterile, commercialized imitation. It looks like a combination of comic book art, fantasy art and the covers of those shitty erotic novels women used to read in the 80s and 90s.

>>2675469
Yeah. Old Masters never draw commissions or biblical fanart for moneys. They always work for free to create real art. And their nude lolis are not porn. Oh wait...

File: fuckoff.jpg (195KB, 1599x762px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1599x762px

Yep. The man lacks taste. Like pic related.

Reminder that you can study the shit out of anatomy and go to your figure drawing sessions and grind away at paintings consistently and still produce trash. Fuck.

>>2675495
But let's think a little. Tons of old masters painting same tier shit but about their time frames.

>>2675495
This is so disgustingly bad it's brilliant.

File: Pietro-Annigoni--Mr.jpg (110KB, 768x974px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 768x974px

Pietro Annigonsi is a lot better Italian painter. (or was). Consider his portrait of Kramer ;)

File: 34806422.jpg (31KB, 563x421px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 563x421px

alright maybe he is kitch but what the fuck are you going to do that's original and interesting when you're rendering your balls off like that anyways? become an ironic memer like Nerdrum?

>>2675642
Don't worry about originality or being interesting. Truly great masters don't care about being original. They just are, without the originality being the main point of their art. Concern yourself first and foremost with the good, and the things which manifest the good. What are the best subjects? How do we find what are the best subjects? What is best in man? What is the best way of laying out the subject? What themes are the best? What technique is best? What gestures? How should drapery be painted? How should the light be painted? Why? What are the best models to imitate? What is the best way to imitate? How do these all relate into one complete work? Study them thoroughly and know them that you can leave the mark of goodness with confidence, purpose, and confidence in your purpose.

That which is good is sufficient in itself. It does not depend on past art although it may model after past art, as most if not all good art have. It does not depend on time either, as that should suggest that it would only be good now, or, in the future, good in relation to the time it was made.

I gotta say I love this thread, things like these are pretty much the reason /ic/ is my favorite board.

>>2675495
It is almost kitsch

>Roberto Ferri is an Italian artist and painter from Taranto, Italy
>from Taranto, Italy
>Taranto
>Taranto is a coastal city in Apuiia, Southern Italy.
>city in Apulia, Southern Italy
>Southern Italy

I think I found the problem.

>>2673487
probably just a "speed painting"

:^)

>>2673681
Exactly. I'm all for rejuvenated interest in figurative art, but theres more to it than just faithful representation. It was no glimpse of the ideal