Graydon Parrish
Have you guys and girls heard about him? His work is sublime (pic related).
He draws like an angel.
No, nobody on here has heard of him, because he's just another one of those boring atelier drones who's entire career consists of drawing long pose studies of naked people. There are a million of those guys and they're all the same: so wrapped up in technical masturbation that they never advance beyond endless training.
>>2288162
Honestly, this seems pretty true. Proko is a pretty good example. Technically masterful as he is his actual creative endeavours are pretty sub par. Seems like when you've spent a decade hammering your brain with realism and perfection you can't break away from it when the time comes to actually make something novel.
>>2288235
ruan jia
Could they be a descendant of Maxfield Parrish
>>2288237
>rua...
Stopped reading.
>>2288162
>>2288216
I can picture you guys as young kids, discovering books with art history, seeing drawings by Michelangelo and Leonardo and imagining yourselves producing beautiful things like those great masters from old times…And then I see your bitter comments now, and imagine the violence you commit against yourselves to think that people like Pollock and Warhol are great artists, and imagine the kind of twisted people your University teachers are, and I can’t help but feel pity for you.
he's obviously good, and very knowledgeable.
his talks are worth watching for all the bouguereaufags out there.
the only criticism i have is that he mixes neoclassical mannerisms with modern subject matter and i find the result really jarring to the point of comedy. i mean look how goofy this is.
>>2288257
>pollock
>warhol
>art college
Good one mate.
>>2288262
That is embarrassing. Does he have autism? I get the exact same vibe from this painting as I do from pic related
>>2288140
He's very well known in modern atelier circles. Personally not a fan of his though, and as >>2288262 points out his finished work is laughable.
Most people coming from modern ateliers though have work that lacks emotion, honesty, and ambition. >>2288162 is hitting the nail on the head. I mean, out of all the hundreds of people who are going to those ateliers and doing that work...who has work that honestly holds any value? I can name maybe two or three at most.
>>2288257
You're completely missing my point. I idolize classically trained artists, proko included, and work daily chasing their level of work. But my point still stands, whenever Proko (I'm using him as an example because we've all seen his shit) goes to actually create something outside the realms of reality it comes out looking stale and unimaginative.
>>2288272
I wouldn't call Stan a classically trained artist. The lineage he follows is very separate from that of ateliers like Grand Central Academy (or even any of the Russian academies which is ironic considering how he pushes his heritage) and actually has its roots in illustration.
But yeah his work is stale for sure.
>>2288272
How would one avoid becoming boring and stale as an artist?
>>2288356
Hard to say, make it so your entire drawing life isn't based entirely around studies I guess.
>>2288356
be interested in more than just technique
>>2288356
muh style
>>2288262
I think I've seen this posted on CA.org.
>>2288382
This
and muh storys
>>2288262
Funny thing it's mostly the grade school level symbolism that ruins this painting.
And that frame. Who the hell thought that frame was a good idea?
>>2288257
Dude, the University teachers doubtlessly think Pollock and Warhol are geniuses and anything approaching academicism is trash.
>>2288247
>implying he's not
>>2288262
This is the type of shit that will end up in Spectrum, though. They eat that crap up.
>>2288262
That composition is really... really... jarring.
It's like the only honest part is the towers and everything around them is just filler
>>2288262
OP here.
His technique is, no doubt, sublime. Just look at the light and shade, the contours, the flesh of the models: he is capable of achieving perfection with his handling of oil.
That said, I must agree that this particular painting doesn’t strike me as magnificent art. He was not capable of bringing the terror, the tragedy, the feeling of pain and loss to the composition.
I think that he has spent a lot of time crafting his technique, but he need to read more books on poetry, more novels, more essays, more human materials. He don’t seem very gifted when it comes to have ideas. He can give his human beings perfect flesh, blood, veins, sinews, bones, but they lack consciousness; using a cliché expression, they “lack soul”.
It’s a pity. With such a great theme and he having so powerfull skills. He should have used a even bigger canvas and created some sort of hell like the Sistine Chapel Apocalypse of Michelangelo: several colossal human beings being devoured by fire, smoke, ashes, glass powder, all with faces of terror and helplessness.
His painting looks comic…he seems to be mocking the event. He should have made an enormous painting that would attack peoples brain and punch their stomachs and their spines.
