Can we have one of these?

>>2943624
...It literally looks worse...

>>2943624
2017 vivi forgot to wear tampons and it gave her cancer

File: lee_radziwill_1972.jpg (22KB, 547x550px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 547x550px

no we can't. can we talk about how warhol was a complete fraud and hack?

>>2943630
agree, the left has some accidental grace about it

I'm fairly sure that the left is the improved version.

It is technically just so much more refined that I refuse to believe that the right one is the improvement.

>>2943703

It isn't 'technically more refined', it's just more appealing.

The person added details and definition to all the areas that make the person look fucking ugly.

On a technical level I think the right is better, but aesthetically the left is better (which isn't high praise).

>>2943655
can we talk about how much of a fucking faggot you are?
>h-he was a h-h-hack! trust me! a h-hack!

When you can't tell which one is the new, something must be wrong

>>2943718
It doesn't take a brilliant mind or great talent to do the things warhol did. What does that make him in your opinion?

>>2943728
what have you done?

File: 1402784588180 (1).png (554KB, 720x595px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 720x595px

>>2943624
I love those

File: 1355055278293.jpg (357KB, 784x744px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 784x744px

>>2943839
my fav

File: 1355057465716.png (314KB, 900x450px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 900x450px

>>2943840

File: 1355109052618.png (681KB, 1600x367px) Image search: [Google]

681KB, 1600x367px

>>2943842

>>2943758

what makes warhol such a genius?

If your only answer is "he's famous" you might be a retard.

File: 1355109298891.png (242KB, 784x744px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 784x744px

>>2943843

File: 1355239028834.png (2MB, 850x2180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 850x2180px

>>2943845

File: 1402554779536.jpg (158KB, 900x680px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 900x680px

>>2943848

File: 1402578456456.jpg (2MB, 900x7000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 900x7000px

>>2943850

File: 1402555659008.png (670KB, 784x744px) Image search: [Google]

670KB, 784x744px

>>2943854

>>2943844
he dared to do what no one else would´ve tought of at his time and succeeded.

File: 1401667981201.jpg (642KB, 1200x744px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 1200x744px

>>2943855

>>2943843
>gets sadder as she grows up

ceramic vases

>>2943624
The body on the right looks slightly better but that face is terrible. Learn to draw more feminine faces
And make the neck smaller so it doesn't look like a angry trap

File: thats just like your opinion man.jpg (46KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 400x400px

>>2943858
>he dared to do what no one else would´ve tought of at his time and succeeded.

He caught lightning in a bottle for his shitty art getting funded by a bunch of contrarians.

>>2943867
I think you missed the point, that's not OP's.

>>2943860
>2.5~ years to correct woman's feet
>almost 3 years to fix the man's
for what reason

>>2943858

[vague platitude]

What did he dare to do that was so genius?

>>2943879
I wonder if they're still photometer

Fun drawing exercise idea: Redraw the shit drawings.

>>2943839
Autism is strong even in brazil

>>2943843
I mean... at least he got better.

>>2943850
if this was 2 days instead of over 4 years it would be good

>>2943710
Dude you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

If you can't see that the left one is straight up better than the right one, you are beyond help. (arguing about whether it is 'aesthetically more appealing' or 'technically more refined' is just nonsense since it both means basically the same)

Just look at the shadows, the anatomy, the colors and the details. Everything is more refined.

Look at the shoulder pads. The fact that he properly aligned the buttons and made them a reasonable size makes it already so much better.

His techniques for everything got better, which makes it - like I said - technically more refined and therefore aestehetically more appealing.

>>2943624
>>2943630
>>2943659
>>2943703
>>2943710
>>2944238
I do believe the left is the re-draw.
At the bottom of the pic, the artist says:
>"I really didn't manage to draw her crown again though"

The crown in the left portrait looks like an after thought, not to mention it is much smaller than the crown on the right.
Ergo, the left is the reproduction.

>>2944095
not really

1 and 2 look like they could have been from a fun comic strip, not a good one, but a fun one.

3 looks like they just transitioned to digital and don't really know what to do.

4 and 5 are painful for different reasons

6 and 7 while you can say they are better, I have seen art like that, everything is clean, everything is sterile, everything looks like they took their time to get it right but is forgettable the second after you see it, unlike 1 but mostly 2.

they did get better but they lost something they use to have.

>>2943854

this person needs to be shot

and make them pay for their bullet and shooting labour costs

File: IMG_0101.jpg (51KB, 510x346px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 510x346px

>>2943854
The fucking 2005 portrait in the middle is literally unironically better than me while everything else in both directions is disgusting aliens
How the fuck does this happen?

>>2945928
It's called observational drawing, anon. That portrait is clearly drawn from reference, anyone can learn to draw like that in a couple of months. The other stuff is from imagination, and is shite because the artist has no concept of fundamentals, style, shading, etc

>>2943843
>start off as a girl
>end up being a boy(girl)

P O T T E R Y

>>2944238
>(arguing about whether it is 'aesthetically more appealing' or 'technically more refined' is just nonsense since it both means basically the same)

Are you retarded? Have you literally never seen the study-monkeys on this board who grind their fundies and still produce boring shit?

Technical skill =/= good aesthetic sense. Sycra, for example, has gotten better on a technical level and stylistically gotten fucking awful.

The colors on the left aren't better, it looks like he took the exact same tone and desaturated it for shadows, the shadows are just a soft brush, at least on the right he sprang for some hard shadows and varied the palette a little.

The nose and facial features in general on the right are hideous, I'm not disputing that, but to say the left is 'technically more refined' isn't true. It's not. It just looks less garbage because he didn't over-define the facial features. If the face was prettier it'd be 100% better than the left.

>>2944310
They probably feel the same way anon...

>>2943848
His sprite work isn't even that bad.

>>2947049
>Are you retarded? Have you literally never seen the study-monkeys on this board who grind their fundies and still produce boring shit?

>Technical skill =/= good aesthetic sense.

Fucking this. Take a look at a classic example, mercwip, it's fundamentally sound but lacks nearly any creativity whatsoever and therefore looks boring and generic as fuck.

>>2943840
>7 fucking years

In that amount of time you could birth, raise and train a child to draw a better picture

>>2943843
>being a fur fag your entire life

>>2943855
Gonna lewd that bitch.

>>2945928
is probably an issue with you not understand what drawing is for