begginers doubt

>>3025644
colors, values and edge control at finest, and starting with big shapes first.

>>3025644
On very simple terms, something is "realistic" if you can infer light hitting objects on a space/structure. Light can look very complex but it always follows certain rules we can at least feel, if those rules are broken, you get incoherent lights and shadows, which will give you an artificial look no matter how many details (polish) you add to it.

>>3025652
This
I knew a guy who could describe more with a few clean brush strokes of varying sizes than i could with literally hours of scratching away at the canvas. Just get the large areas down first with as little painting as possible, then the image looks cleaner. The worst thing that beginners do is make several brush strokes for something that could easily be described with one.

>>3025644
Our memory does not capture any scene in great detail but composites various impressions. A loose painting must remind us subconsciously of this process in some way and thus feels more alive.

File: harvest-moon.jpg (1MB, 894x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 894x900px

>>3025644

The key is to let the brain fill in the missing parts. With hyperrealism you're given every shape on a platter essentially. With looser styles of realistic painting your brain will have to fill in the missing parts so to speak and will cross reference with your memory bank. I think that's why such art can give you a profound sense of it being a real place, despite not having as much detail in a photographic sense.

File: the-arctic-circle-1.jpg (254KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1920x1200px

>>3028297
I knew I was not the only one, this is one of those things that's always been lingering on my mind, I can make some half descent renderings but I've seen people that manage to make things look almost tangible in just a couple of minutes placing brustrokes in the right places.
Is there any good video or tutorial about realistic simplification?

>>3025644
Some paintings like the one in your ref take advantage of how the brain processes visual information - all art does to a certain extent.

That particular painting I believe I've seen a print of it at a friends house when I was very young and it's gigantic, you can see the brush strokes.

>>3025644
Continuing - >>3028619, all rendering is really making different materials look separate to your brain.

In line drawing this is done by closing off sections (skin closed off from hair) having different line lengths for different materials (skin strokes longer than clothes strokes, etc.).

With shading this can be done using different value ranges for different objects, different textures.

Different space-width varieties for different objects. The detail level of a rock will be consistent within the rock and a piece of wood will have a different detail level that's consistent inside of it. Etc.

I know this is hard abstract stuff to picture with just my words - but the point is you have to make different objects have their own unique patterns - because the brain picks up on patterns and lumps them together as a single object.

Paintings like the one in your OP are relying on how your brain processes one object from another based on light, value, edge, consistency, perspective, etc. like another person said, the painting is begging your brain to 'fill in the missing pieces'.

Some super-masterful artists like Yoshitaka Amano do the same thing but with more cartoonish illustrations.

Sometimes his anatomy looks like it is done by a 10 year old and yet, his art blows your mind and you think 'how can something drawn so incorrectly look so unbelievably amazing?' its because Amano draws for appeal FIRST, he knows what's actually important, and he's feeding your brain candy. Your brain loves being tricked in that way it would seem, and it loves contrasts.

Long story short: Your brain is looking for patterns. Use patterns to trick the brain into seeing things belonging together.

>>3025644
Something else that helps that particular painting out is the cars. Note that the cars are extremely specific and accurate in perspective, they might even be photographs, and everything else around them are large artistic brush strokes, much looser, but following the perspective. There is possibly a photo plate underneath.

This contrast of sharp/accurate detail vs. blurry and undefined is helping the painting quite a bit, it wouldn't have the same effect if the painting were all loose, or all tight.

Also keeping in mind that normally, things further away have less contrast than things up close, in this case the highest contrast is the contrast between the tight cars and everything else, it's the part of the painting that has the most detail.

>>3028369
great painting as example... feeling lost in it.

>>3025644
Chances you are seeing the difference between photoreferenced crap made by mindless copy monkeys vs real artists who draw from life.

Here is an illuminating quora answer that explains it much better than I could, also ft. patron saint of /ic/ himself St. Sargent

https://www.quora.com/Why-didn%E2%80%99t-great-painters-of-the-past-reach-the-level-of-realism-achieved-today-by-many-artists

File: marco-bucci-rainyday.jpg (126KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 400x400px

>>3025644
You make every detail abstract as heck