what do you think?
why are you doing this
>>2287959
why not?
also the title is "I know that feel"
Do you guys think I should give up rendering for a semester? Just stop doing traditional realism drawing all together? It's starting to feel like a bias. Like how do I know that's the right approach?
Please don't perceive that as "I think I'm past realism". No "YOU HAVENT LEARNED FUNDAMENTALS FIRST" posts plox
>>2287944
not entertaining, confusing, pretentious
>>2288001
You're just supposed to feel "I know that feel" the way you do when you see the reaction images online.
>>2287944
literally reddit the art
>>2288018
how so?
>>2287979
You don't need to do anything senpai, you've already pioneered a new art movement with your avant garde masterworks, I shall dub it - shitpostism.
>>2288027
The internet pioneered the art movement before I came along man, I'm just taking part. None of the images are even mine, I'm just taking what's there and putting it in groups
>>2287944
masterpiece 10/10
it truly does act as a touching reminder that we are all just vehicles for genes and memes.
>>2287944
Why are your wojacks so shit while everything else is great?
>>2287944
why are the realistic things drawn so well while the feel guys are drawn that badly?
>>2288004
That's not what it feels like. Also what's up with the random ass background? You should have put some effort into that
>>2288098
It's a pollock.
>>2288114
Yeah I desaturated it and lowered the contrast because otherwise it was interfering with the figures too much.
Yeah learning a bit more about cartoons might be helpful. The main thing I'm worried about now is that I'm not so sure traditional rendering/drawing is the right approach, how do I know I'm not just bringing in a bias as someone who typically draws
>>2288127
what's wrong with a bias? That's what constitutes personal style. But really I'd like to know why you chose that background; cause IMO it still does a good job of interfering with the figures. Even a monochrome background would look better than that.
truly the most autistic image man has ever created. bravo.
>>2288132
I was going to just use some random texture but that seemed meh. So me and my friend were thinking about it, he mentioned pollock. I thought it was genius because the piece is basically anti greenberg (the critic who championed pollock and the abstract expressionists in the 50s). The abstract expressionists were all about aesthetic and no content. My work is all about content and isn't concerned with formal elements. The philosophies are exactly polar opposite so it's a joke. What I thought was interesting though is that when I put them together there are actually some similarities between the foreground elements and the pollock background. Both don't have a coherent composition, both have a random everything everywhere color palette, neither have a focal point. So I think it makes them more cohesive than if it was just white. But maybe I should lower the intensity even more.
Sorry if I sound like a pretentious asshole but that's the reasoning
>>2288141
>My work is all about content
bro what content? your work makes 0 sense just like theirs but with the added bonus of shitty photoshopping. if this drawing is meant to make people feel better mission not accomplished. This just makes art as a whole look bad. please stop.
>>2288145
Reaction images/reaction memes are all about content, if I'm using a sad meme it doesn't matter which specific sad meme image I use, it just needs to convey sadness. That's the opposite of abstract where there is no underlying meaning being communicated, it's purely visual.
Look at the individual reaction images and what they mean and that's the same thing my piece means. I'm not adding any new content.
In this case, each individual meme is supposed to communicate "I know that feel", that's what the piece as a whole is supposed to do.
>>2288153
ok sure. i'll bite. reaction images ARE content. They are technically the start of a concept since they are popular culture now. What they aren't is a joke unto themselves.
It's like this. If I take idea "A" which is "Bodybuilders", it isn't content if it is just a drawing of a bodybuilder. No matter how much "style" i use to make it my own. It's not until you go from "A" to "B" that it starts to form a concept.
Let's say "B" in this situation is dissecting the word "Bodybuilders" into "Body Builders" or someone that builds bodies. "A" to "B" is technically content but it's not an image yet so it cannot be your concept. You have to go from "A" ( bodybuilders) to "C", "C" being the thing that is being built.
So if you go from "A" to "C" with bodybuilders off the top of my head I can think of two concepts.
1) Bodybuilders chiselling at a statue and thus "Building a Body"
or 2) A bodybuilder building Frankenstein's monster which would also be "Building a Body"
you see what I'm getting at? You have not made content, you have simply made "A" which is "memes" in this case
>>2288165
sorry I'm confused. I just want to make people feel "I know that feel", idk about anything else. Sometimes I get tired of everyone talking like Duchamp, why can't art just be original and stupid and naive. Like memes.
>>2288178
that's like saying you want to paint a picture of a dog to make people think "dog" you fucking simpleton. there's nothing original about what you are making. jesus christ i hope i never meet you in person you sound like the most boring idiot in the world
>>2288197
I'm figuring out for myself how the internet art movement works. What it is and isn't interested in, the tools it uses, etc. It's already here and been here for a while, I want to internalize it and then work within it.
>that's like saying you want to paint a picture of a dog to make people think "dog" you fucking simpleton
Memes don't work like that, a meme would use a dog to convey a feeling that has nothing to do with a dog. Also memes tend to not be about nouns.
>>2288211
Can you please not explain to me what memes are over the Internet. Christ you're an ass hole.
Don't know who did this, but it's much better than your shit and shows what more ability could enable you to do.
>>2287944
meme/10 would tell you to fuck off
>>2288667
BIG
>>2287979
You should give up realism. Your ideas, goals, and subject matter suffer because of the way you're executing it. Realist traditional drawing and rendering simply don't fit with this stuff.
it looks like a collection of rendering studies at the moment. ditch the drawing focus on what you're trying to say with your work and what it's purpose is.
>>2288141
Expressions, colours, lines - emotions that they bring are a content on themself, IMO, mate.
I like the content but it's really hard for me to get the background, composition choice as it's not my piece of cake (especially taking someone else's picture as a background). Cause all the pictures with pairs are redrawn yes?
>>2288753
Yeah that's what I'm thinking. It's a bias, I think next semester I wont do any realism at all
>>2288877
Don't think in terms like "realism or not". How can you best express this thing? Simplify or expand upon each concept as it needs. Develop, think, create.
>>2288959
Yep. Right now I'm thinking I'll use found imagery and photographs and then digital manipulation going forward. If I use drawing it will be unsophisticated not traditional
>>2288667
internet pls
>>2287979
draw from imagination and not stock images on the internet you dweeb. that dog is amazing but why would you only draw photos when we already have photos themselves.
Johnson, your work sucks.
Grab a sledge hammer or find a tall building and throw your computer off of it. You can paint, what you can't do is separate yourself from this cancer. As far as giving up realism, do it but still work off objects. Do go full abstract like your other works. Base in reality, find your style. Play with colour, do value studies in full chroma colour of proper value. Go with a feel instead of autisticlly rendering or being a pretensions twat.
Fuck Johnson, your masterwork of some dicks at a table is so dead it hurts. How do I know it's meant to be a dead marriage without explanation? Fucking contrast between the figures and everything else.
This isn't hard, don't think. Feel.
>>2287944
holy shit go away.
your current works sucks for the same reason your past "traditional classical realist" works suck. they are made by some spoiled self-centered yet uncultured upper middle class kid with no insight and too much internet.
the form of "traditional realist" or "classical realist" training you had is a joke and a lie. you'd still continue to use them as straw men and blame realism though.
dude im diggin godzilla's scales. draw more lizards; less internet jokes.
>>2292747
There's no joke
>>2292639
Good question, I'm thinking I'll give up rendering
>>2292699
I'm not interested in Abstract Expressionism. It doesn't have anything to do with me and it's too much of a stereotype.
>This isn't hard, don't think. Feel.
I like both thinking and feeling, it's silly to think of them as a dichotomy.
>>2292712
no.
>>2292735
>spoiled self-centered yet uncultured upper middle class kid with no insight and too much internet.
Hurts because it's true. Although I think internet constitutes culture so in that respect I'm "cultured".
>you'd still continue to use them as straw men and blame realism though
>I love realism, Rembrandt is and always will be my fav artist of all time. Just because I'm moving in a different direction doesn't mean I have a problem with it.
>>2293141
>I like both thinking and feeling, it's silly to think of them as a dichotomy.
My point was you are thinking too hard, online culture, the avatar project, etc are shit dead paintings but have technical skill. You are trying too hard breh, it's so contrived. Just set up a still life and play with it. Smash some emotion into your work, I wasn't using the word autistic for no reason.
Break, go high chroma feel it out. Then come back to your ideas and they might shine.
Set up a still life and paint it everyday. Same lighting, same scene, same perspective. 10x10in canvas max. Watch as you figure this out.
>>2293141
Remembrandt is dead, his art is dead and irrelevant. Sure he was an amazing painter, but there is little use for his work today.
That you Duchamp and company for destroying art, it was the greatest gift to man. Progress through rebuilding.
>>2293558
I think the main thing is that I get bored very easily. Traditional art is boring to me, abstract is boring to me, contemporary art is boring to me. Deep internet stuff (I realize the reaction images aren't that deep) isn't boring, it's moving, it's fascinating.
>>2293560
Painting in Rembrandt's style is dead but the fundamental principles underlying his work are still very usable. Plus I don't think you can be like Rembrandt by painting like Rembrandt, he lived in a very different time and made a lot of innovations in his day. When he was working his style was still original and artistic, if you paint like him today you're just copying somebody else.
>>2293141
>I love realism, Rembrandt is and always will be my fav artist of all time. Just because I'm moving in a different direction doesn't mean I have a problem with it.
I'm saying that training practices that are now called "traditional realism" and "classical realism" etc are lies that have nothing to do with any of the old ways of drawing or painting (even if they try to be like them) and that they lead nowhere good. It's easy to understand that someone practicing it would be dejected after not seeing results comparable in greatness to any of the old masters and seek something else.
>>2293568
Many of Rembrandt's art would have spoken not only to his time, but to a time centuries before his, and centuries after even now. Can the same be said of Internet memes?
>>2293603
>It's easy to understand that someone practicing it would be dejected after not seeing results comparable in greatness to any of the old masters and seek something else.
kek, no I never felt dejected I painted this by 18 http://lurkersupreme1.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=24 , look through my portfolio before I moved to digital
>Can the same be said of Internet memes
Yes
>>2293610
>Can the same be said of Internet memes
>Yes
Religious painting is a thing because of how widespread it is. Are the mass media cult icons of the 70's and 80's even remembered 30 years on? What makes you think norm shit such as rare fucking pepes will be remembered in as little as 10.
At least Rothko can be understood without the shallow use of cultural trends. Modernity made many forms timeless.
You are literally retarded Johnson. Why the pseudonym, we know who you are.
>>2293721
Reaction images use empathy to convey emotions, that's timeless and has nothing to do with cultural trends. That's also why religious paintings still work. The people who've had the best reactions to these works are adults who only use facebook and small children because they don't come to it with all this cultural baggage. They just see the emotions and empathize.
>>2293721
>Why the pseudonym, we know who you are.
I'm not trying to hide
>>2288667
holy shit
OP here
Hm, maybe I'll throw this idea away. Feeling like I want to burn everything tonight.
>>2294341
Do it faggot.
Grab your camera, hit the ghetto and get out of your white middle class mindset. And for the love of god Johnson, don't try and be deep. Just paint.
Gogh had his labourers, where will you find yours?
