what are some artists that are good for doing studies of? I only know about John Singer Sargent..
>>2288874
any artist you like really, but you can never go with old masters
>>2288885
yeah but do you have any examples? where should I start?
>>2288888
Bridgeman, Rembdrant, Marc Crilley..
Mark crilley
>>2288874
>John Singer Sargent
So ... you want to learn to make boring art?
Protip: if you get dazzled by technical complexity you'll bore the shit out of everyone who isn't a nerd with a technique fetish.
>Sargent
Give Zorn a try
Ingres seems pretty good
Sorolla is pretty fun
Bob Ross
You can even study modern masters
Like Ruan Jia
Mike Mignola
Dave Rapoza
Karl Kopinski
Sparth
Craig Mullins
Pic someone you like and literally copy one of their pieces as close as you can get it.
>>2288874
this tub of lard
>>2288929
Seconding Sorolla.
He's got a nice mix of more abstract, extremely economized and more rendered works.
>>2288921
why do you think I made a post asking for more suggestions of artist? fucking d i p
>>2288921
please anon educate all of us here. Your wisdom is desperately needed by us plebs.
>>2288874
>http://master-painters.tumblr.com/
Go to Archieve, find artists.
>>2288921
he's asking who to study, not who to make his art exactly like ya dummy
I still have no idea how people on this board actually think Marc Crilley has any value as an artist
>>2289008
lel I just followed this a few days ago
>>2289192
they're trolling
>>2289233
met him and didn't get a long, but god he can paint like fucking sex to the eyes
>>2289249
>met him and didn't get a long
storytime
>>2289249
whats the story here? I know he started doing more foreign trips.
>>2289249
tell us more
>>2288957
wait, is dip filtered?
dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip dip
>>2289617
no, is not, a little disappointed desu senpai
ponkan8
>>2288874
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/forumdisplay.php/270-MASTER-STUDY-OF-THE-DAY
go seek and have fun
>>2288874
I dont know but studying sargent seems pretty pointless, he is very loose and hard to analyze because he abstracts basically everything and knows his way around anatomy and is great at ligth and dark, I think its hard especially for a starter or mediocre guy to study him.
>>2293214
He's good for every level artist to study him. You will learn different things from him at different stages.
>>2288874
Don't do studies of other artists work, that's a horrible idea. I'm a good oil painter, never did a study of someone else's work. They are super boring and a waste of time. Look at other artists techniques and then apply them to your own subject matter. You will enjoy what your doing way more and because of that you will invest many more hours because it's not work, it's passion. Doing studies of other peoples work is one of the least artistic things you could do
>>2293220
Different anon but I looked up work from every artist mentioned in this thread a couple days ago because I felt like doing a study but I ended up not choosing one. It wasn't because I didn't like what I saw, it's just I somehow feel like I don't retain the information, I'm just making a photocopy and not learning why those colors go there. I've done master studies before when I had painting class but I still don't know how to invent my own color. How do I make these studies more effective for myself, to the point where I really am learning color and light theory that I can apply to original work?
>>2293223
>Doing studies of other peoples work is one of the least artistic things you could do
True, but it's also one of the most educational. It's a staple exercise that has been used for literally hundreds of years and has helped the greatest artists of all time reach the levels they did.
>>2293224
Start off by just doing it a copy like a photocopier until you can match the colours and shapes accurately. Once you can do that properly you can start analyzing the "whys" behind things.
So if you are studying colour you need to look at the situation. How many light sources are there? What are the type are the light sources (sun, sky, direct, ambient, artificial etc)? Do the light sources have a temperature? Has the artist shifted all the colours in one direction or another (perhaps all the colours are warm, or everything is painted in a high key)? Why did they do this? What are the local colours? How do the colours change as the form changes? For example in the OP pic by Sargent the skin is lit with warm light so is a nice warm flesh tone, but he is indoors and there is not much fill light in the shadows, so they quickly turn to a very dark value. The halftones are all more grey than the planes in the light. And the highlights are a pale yellow. You can see in this image even though all the colours are warm tones he is controlling his temperatures by mixing grey into areas, which gives them a cooler appearance than the more saturated areas.
If you can break down a colour into four attributes--hue, value, saturation, temperature--you can identify how the colours change depending what the local colour is and the direction of the plane (and therefore the influence of the light sources). You can then take this information and apply it in your own work.
>>2293234
Alright, I'll try to be more mindful of these questions during my next studies. Thanks, anon.
>>2293234
>staple
No it wasn't. You see most of that in the french academic tradition, if that's what you want fine but it's not my taste at all. If you look at the great renaissance and baroque painters you will find very few master copies. I've never seen a study in Rembrandts portfolio and I've seen basically every work he's ever done. His apprentices also didn't copy the masters work directly, they learned how to paint like him by applying his techniques to new subjects.
>>2293223
Depends on what you consider a "study"
If you are just trying to copy something exactly then you might not learn so much
But if you deconstruct the image in pieces and try to really understand and figure out what their process is, or how they do certain things, you can learn a lot
>>2293258
yeah it's essential to learn how they painted, deconstruct their work, read about the processes, etc.
I was talking about copying exactly
>>2293255
You can find examples from Renaissance. Leonardo's students copied his works. There is that one copy of the Mona Lisa that was done by his student and is better preserved than the original so tells us a lot about the use of colour and the techniques they used then.
In the Baroque period you get people like Rubens who have copied Titian.
And even if you ONLY look back to Academies from the 19th century, you still have a good 150+ years there. And there were some fantastic painters from that era. I think you would be hard pressed to find famous artists since then that have never done a single master copy in their life. Even Sargent has done his share.
>>2293260
Yeah but I hate work from the French academies and Sargent. I don't like Rubens either. I love titian, I really like Leonardo. I think you'd be hard pressed to find copies of other artists work that they invested real time in in either of their portfolios.
>>2293255
>I've never seen a study in Rembrandts portfolio and I've seen basically every work he's ever done
Really? I feel like there's a lot of his very early work that is non-existent today, so you can't say what he did or did not paint early on in his training (which is when mastercopies would be done). It's entirely possible that he did do some as a teenager. Or not. But you can't say definitively that he didn't.
>>2293270
Okay well it doesn't matter if you like their work or not. I was just providing a historical basis for master copies, which does exist. The fact of the matter is that many of the greatest artists in history did it as an exercise and it has been done for over 150 years. It most definitely is a good learning tool because it makes it easier to understand the decisions the other artist made and discover things about their process.
>>2293271
The process itself just violates my principles as an artist to be honest and it was such a huge thing in the french academic tradition which is an era I hate. It's a personal preference at the end of the day, it's just something that always grossed me out. I can paint like a photograph so I know it's not essential because I've only done a handful of small master studies in my life which I always hated and didn't get that much out of.
>>2293275
>I can paint like a photograph
That doesn't mean you can make good art. Art is about human decisions, which is why we study masters to see what decisions they made. Literally every good artist has studied other artists. Often this involved copying. Other times it's just looking intensely and analyzing in your head. Your buddy Rembrandt did this a lot, he would collect artwork and definitely took things from other artists to use in his own work.
>>2293289
I used to go through textbooks about classical techniques, got my nose on tons of classical paintings to see how they did it, etc. That's not what were talking about. Were talking about investing hours doing an exact copy of another artists oil painting.
>>2293292
Doesn't have to be an exact copy and doesn't have to take hours. You can do a 20 minute colour sketch if you so want.
William Bouguereau
Most of the copies of old masters by other artists were mostly done with sketches on paper. Copying oil paintings in oil or any medium near to exactitude as a significant part of one's training is mostly a waste, of time and resources. Doing studies after master works was essential to training, but not by mechanically copying shapes and values as we are told to by various contemporary sources. I imagine there were a lot more copies on paper compared to the extant sheets we have which are mostly drawings for a planned painting, since copies after other works often aren't worth saving as much as the mature works of an artist.
Michelangelo and Rubens are popular to study, for better or for worse, because they drew and painted a lot of nudes. It seems also a trend to copy after tenebrist artists like Caravaggio because the dark shadows makes the figures seem to protrude out of the background, but I'd steer from that direction because it's easy to develop bad habits such as reliance on copying shadow shapes and values instead of understanding form.
I personally suggest first studying after drawings of good draughstmen than painting. I won't name any specific artists, but late 1400s and most of 1500s are the best for this purpose. If you can, attend museum drawing exhibits regularly.
