I made a painting

>>2833062
If you're serious about your art, you need to study more on painting, start attending some courses maybe. It lacks any fundamental knowledge of fine art, but it looks interesting. So if you're not a complete meme yourself I say you can start to work harder and more seriously on this and you'll achieve a good result.

File: 2016 .jpg (84KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 960x720px

>>2833074
>If you're serious about your art
What if the point is that it's all a goof?

>it lacks any fundamental knowledge of fine art
I mean, it is intentional schlock art. It's all acrylic and most of them where done within a 3 hour time limit. I studied fine art at the one-day-a-week public art school in elementary and middle school. Does that count?

>So if you're not a complete meme yourself
Like and subscribe to my youtube page!

>I say you can start to work harder and more seriously on this
How can I get more serious?

>and you'll achieve a good result.
Any specifics on how to spice these memes up for better results?

File: IMG_4185.jpg (24KB, 270x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 270x360px

>>2833074
Like should I be striving either more toward or more away from photorealism?

Any thoughts on the fact that most of them are made to hang crooked?

They all have this washed out look to them, you're diluting the paint too much. Acrylic is not watercolor.
And your colors are all dirty, like you're mixing black into everything or just never clean your brush.

File: IMG_7290.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>2833158
>They all have this washed out look to them, you're diluting the paint too much.
I feel you on that. There's definitely a few that I fucked with too much water and too many translucent layers and whatever. But is there anything intrinsically wrong with having a bit of a washed-out aesthetic? I like how it came out on evangeline lilly and james franco.
>And your colors are all dirty
Yeah I see that in a bunch of them but it's also kind of an intentional choice you know? Do you think that it's ill advised to go for a dirty aesthetic?
> or just never clean your brush.
I don't.

I find the black contours on some of them kind of misleading, deoesn't fit in.
Also agree with the anon above, try thicker paint.

>>2833180
Maybe it's just because of the photo but his left hand seems too small to me.

File: IMG_7278.jpg (2MB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3024x4032px

>>2833181
>I find the black contours on some of them kind of misleading, deoesn't fit in.
Totally agree. Black lines essentially indicate I was giving up/bored. I set out not to force any contour lines but tend to stop giving a shit if I'm sunk a few hours and don't like it anymore.

>Also agree with the anon above, try thicker paint.
Yeah I'll have to. I've definitely been getting more and more into water color acrylic for whatever reason.

>>2833186
Yeah I think it looks small too. I know it's to scale because I cheated and it was printed and transferred to canvas with graphite paper. I think it doesn't look as tiny currently since I added more shadow to stress the depth but it still looks tiny to me too.

File: IMG_7411.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>2833186
>>2833200
Still looks small. I guess middle and ring need more definition.

Also, any suggestions on how to unfuck will smith and how to finish whatever the fuck her name is?

>>2833180
Other than the unappealing aesthetic, which I suppose is subjective, dilluting your paint too much will weaken the paint film and risk it not bonding with the canvas properly. It's especially troubling if you work in many layers, where you're constantly going to be lifting and scraping the paint that's underneath. Thinning with medium is better than using pure water, but even then you shouldn't abuse it. Golden recommends a maximum of 3 parts paint to 1 part thinner for their Open acrylics.
If you're thinning acrylic like a watercolor you should at least seal your thin underpainting, or ideally varnish the painting when it's done.

As for purposely creating a dirty aesthetic, I don't see a problem if you can do it convincingly. Looking at those particular paintings it seems more like bad color mixing than any conscious attempt to make them grimier, though.

>>2833213
>As for purposely creating a dirty aesthetic, I don't see a problem if you can do it convincingly.

Whats your opinion on the OP captain america piece? Did that one last night and I'm generally satisfied with how it turned out. And I think there's a good thing going with the Evangeline Lilly confirmed for autism.jpg.

The Ron Swanson one I did in an hour 4 hours ago and it definitely is way too dirty and I totally see what you're saying about the layers. When I tried to lessen the shadow on his face by the side burns I took all the layers under and couldn't be bothered to remix that tone.

>Looking at those particular paintings it seems more like bad color mixing than any conscious attempt to make them grimier, though.

Mostly true, although the way I've been justifying it to myself with some of them is that it's a wabi sabi thing and I'm rolling with it no matter what. Which would you say looks the least shitty?

>>2833210
paint over it

File: IMG_7413.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>2833317
https://youtu.be/wKbkDjMTLDI

Took it in a different direction.