I want to know what you think of:
>Types of art
>artists
>Traditional VS Digital
Blank chart ITT
Blank
>>2302576
>>2302590
lol upboats 2 the left you glorious bastard
>>2302598
It had to be done. You seriously just did not put Mark Brunett RIGHT NEXT TO Kim Jung Gi. That nigger is nowhere near his level.
He belongs on the lower half of the chart.
>>2302685
>mark brunett
Literally who
>>2302694
>not knowing the name of the artist you put in your own image
Uh huh, sureee Mark I see what you trying to do.
>>2302701
Kek
>>2302701
I didn't put Mark Brunett near KJG, I put drawings from imagination on moderate skill/impressive to artists. I think that's pretty accurate.
>>2302732
Stop embarrassing yourself, mark. I know it's you.
>>2302576
least skill + most interesting to audience is 2D ecchi fan art
3D CGI animation is most difficult and mostly appreciated by artists
>>2302740
Are we assuming that the general public has shit taste/ opposite taste to artists or something?
Because certain pieces of art fits both category and according to the chart would be as good as something that appeals to nobody.
>>2302765
Whoops didn't mean to quote that.
>>2302576
i used my own work instead of searching around. this is just my opinion though, some people might say portraits are harder than landscapes. And "Jokes" is subjective. Some jokes take longer to write than others, and some are more demanding images than others.
imaginative work is high skill you shit mongers. Making something that communicates purpose with a strong grounding in reality is thinking out of the box. Drawing from life shows technical skill, but the purpose from drawing from life is to learn how to recreate life, making imaginative work the final goal for the process.
>>2302765
The center is appeals to everyone.
Godlike art would be horizontal center and extreme right
>>2302788
Can I see the source of your copy.
My dick needs to know.
>>2302836
im >>2302788
and i agree. but i'd argue writing jokes is the ultimate goal of the process, and ultimately a completely neutral thing that everyone can be a part of.
the part i agree with is that imaginative work is the final goal, not necessarily that it takes more skill. You can kind of draw anything from imagination and it cannot be subject to critique, because it is wholly stylistic, and based entirely on your memories of what to draw and how to draw it.
It's easier to appreciate something from imagination because it's hard to critique. It's almost automatic for the artist, and very little skill is used in creating it as opposed to:
Work done from life. Having the goal of imitating ( I hate the word "copying" and "reproducing" when used to describe life drawing) life in your work is both more difficult to achieve and harder to appreciate because the genuine article exists in nature already, and so the intention of imitating it makes it very easy to critique, and harder to appreciate. Does it look like the thing? No? It's bad.
That's why it can be easier for artists to appreciate life drawing. Not because it is seen as some ultimate goal for drawing, but because it represents an effort that is universal to all artists, and something that only people who have spent some time trying to achieve themselves can truly appreciate.
That being said, you could learn everything there is to learn from art simply drawing from your memories. Doesn't make it more important than life drawing. Life drawing enhances that work, and some artists aren't satisfied with simply learning the lessons of art, and continue to want to make better, and more beautiful pictures.
>>2302819
What does this even mean?
>wanting to impress artists
aka circle jerk
>>2302898
Rush vs. Nickelback.
If you don't choose Nickelback you're a pretentious, circle-jerking faggot.
>>2302788
Is there a bigger faggot than crosshatch fruit man who currently posts on this board?
>cant take criticism
>posts own work where it wasnt asked for or relevant
>muh style
>>2302957
lmao that fruit picture really fucked u guys up, huh? keep doing your anime studies
>>2302855
late to the party but here you go
>>2302788
>i used my own work
Man are you serious
>>2303013
sorry i dont have 10 Turner Broadcasting Systems of artwork in folders spread over 6 hard drives being cooled in a warehouse in Nevada like the rest of /ic/
>>2302957
Yes
>>2303018
You don't have Google either, apparently
>>2303018
that's sort of a prerequisite to being a good artist. best start collecting.
>>2303042
They're still around?
>>2303122
well you're still posting :^)
>>2302788
>imaginative work less skill than portraits, life drawings and landscapes
>imaginative work less impressive to artist than portraits, life drawings and landscapes
>imblying
Thread over guys.
>>2302788
None of your work is impressive to neither artists nor the general public.
>>2303176
Either you are very dumb or you didn't quite understand this chart.
>>2302576
This chart is dumb. Where does something that is not impressive to either go? Where does something that is impressive to both go?
>>2303230
Impressive to both goes center
Impressive to none goes in the gabbage where it belongs, dumbass!
>>2303176
I agree with this one except for the photo copy. That shit belongs off the left side of the screen and anyone who disagrees cant draw for shit
>>2303226
i like it
>>2303314
doing a proper photocopy takes a larger amount of technical skill (correct value realtionship, correct proportions) than doing animu crap or tumblr stuff, even if the result is bland as fuck. If doing photorealistic copies was easy for the average joe, everyone would do them and they wouldn't be showered with "OMG U so talented" crap. Anyone can churn out tumblr doodles without having knowledge of value and proportion (MUH STYLE)
>>2303226
underrated
So instead of projecting how about you guys actually do what I did and apply it to your own work? What is the easiest thing for you to do that you feel good about doing? What is the hardest thing to do you feel good about doing? What is the easiest thing for you to do you aren't impressed by and so forth. Instead of saying doy tumblr stuff anime photo bashing
>>2302576
I'm new to this board.
Who is Kim Jung Gi and why is he so loved here?
I googled his work: it is very nice, but not Michelangelo or Leonardo level.
>>2303421
you're gonna have to try harder
>>2303427
I am not kidding.
I have been on /lit/ and /sci/ for ages, but just started a drawing course a few weeks ago and came to this board for the first time.
That guys work is nice, but it looks like Manga art: he just spend a lot of time on his drawings, but it is not something that you look and think “My god, how was this made? How could he draw this lines, give this sense of depth, of tridimentionality, etc.”
I don’t find Kim Jung Gi impressive: it’s good, but not something unreachable.
>>2303436
>he just spends a lot of time on his drawings
Cosmic levels of autism and retardation detected
>>2303440
Explain to me why do you think he is so great? There are thousands of artist like him in the Manga industry (they all draw very well, but is not something unreachable).
Like I said, his drawings have nothing of the sculptural aura of Da Vinci and Michelangelo.
>>2303442
His visual library, along with his internalized knowledge of construction and perspective allows him to draw everything straight out of his imagination. It's a level of skill that a lot of us can only dream of.
his art is not literally what i'm amazed by, it's the way he can effortlessly convey exactly what he wants (WITHOUT underlying construction or the use of reference).
>>2303436
>I have been on /lit/
Get the fuck out, we don't need /lit/-level of shittery here. It's bad enough as is.
>>2303442
The WAY he draws is most certainly unattainable for the vast majority of artists. Haven't you seen his videos? He can draw incredibly complex scenes with multiple vehicles, characters and creatures in a enviroment with a fish eye perspective straight without a underdrawing.
>>2303442
watch any of his live demos on youtube, if you don't think that's impressive at least on a skill/draftsmanship level you might be on the wrong board
>>2303447
Ohhh, now I get it.
But that is also a matter of training. Photographic or eidetic memory have not been verified by science to this day: its most likely a stuff of legend (there are some exceptions on savant people with different brain structure). The real deal here is drawing several times some of the main things you are going to work with (human figure, buildings and citys, cars, portable objects, some of the most famous animals, trees and vegetation): after you have done this lots and lots of times you end up knowing by instinct how to draw.
>>2303457
I don't know what you're arguing. you could say that stuff about literally any artist. "oh, they aren't impressive because if I spent thousands and thousands of hours I could do the same thing"
yeah? and? what are you trying to prove? that kim jung gi is a human?
>>2303457
While there are a lot of skilled artists that can draw straight without a underdrawing from imagination, I have never seen anyone else rival his EXTREME accuracy and ability to start a drawing from any point. Realize that even most comic book greats (who are masters in their own regard) can NOT draw like Kim Jung Gi. They might be able to produce a similar end result, but not draw with the same speed and ease as he does. Prome wrong if you can, I'd love to see someone who rivals his skill.
>>2303465
>Prome wrong if you can, I'd love to see someone who rivals his skill.
how about any artist who can paint? jung gi does drawings. he doesn't do drawings as a study for paintings, he does drawings as solitary pieces.
he can't paint, he can't capture likeness, he can't use color, he can't paint light, he probably couldn't sculpt. Name an artist better than him? that's as easy as saying "Name an artist".
And while I'm at it, Gustave Dore's illustration work did what he does better over 100 years ago.
>>2303486
and honestly im googling his work right now and the perspective stuff is so tasteless and dizzying. look at too many of them and you literally get lightheaded.
>>2303486
I am talking about his process which I explained in my previous post. Give me a name of someone else that can DRAW in the same manner he does - skill in painting or sculpture is irrelevant.
>>2303341
That is literally what happens. So many people copy photos and they get tons of praise and they think that theyre good so they go after a career in art but copies require almost ZERO skill so they fail and work at starbucks.
Anyone can photocopy, not everyone can stylize with good shapes, construction, and design. The crap tumblr drawing you see are almost always symbol drawings/ memorized shapes.
They may look pretty, but those people always fall on their ass when they have to draw outside of their symbol library.
Milt Kahl is a prime example of what Im saying. I know a 100 people that can photocopy, but ZERO that can cartoon like him
>>2303486
>he can't paint, he can't capture likeness, he can't use color, he can't paint light, he probably couldn't sculpt.
Opinion discarded. If you were familiar with his work you wouldn't be saying this
>>2303509
well then enlighten me. i think kronprinz is okay because he has a foundation in life drawing. I've never seen that from Kim Jung Gi.
show me either a portrait, an oil painting, a study for an oil painting, a landscape, or really anything from life he's done and maybe I won't think he's such a hack.
>>2303511
Maybe 50% of his work online are life drawings
Looking through this thread, some of the art critique on 4chan is suddenly making more sense.
>>2303512
you have a funny way of saying 0%
>>2303525
Elaborate, my good friend.
>>2303526
Not 0%.
>>2303546
what life are you living in where that is what reality looks like.
there should be one of those "THIS IS WHAT THIS ARTIST SEES, ONLY THEN WILL YOU UNDERSTAND" memes for this guy.
>>2303526
One of the first hits on google image search. Don't be lazy nigger
>>2303553
done from imagination. find me one still life. find me one example of him not acting like some savant weirdo.
>>2303551
You are ass.
Life drawing to an accomplished artist is like being able to chop onions for a professional chef. The only people who are impressed about that sort of shit are the ones who struggle with it themselves or don't know how.
Drawing from imagination in consistent panoramic perspective, with good forms, construction, use values and space...
It's like you're such an amateur, you don't even know how easy he makes it look
>>2303546
ba perspective /
>>2303134
you got contemporary art wrong
the people who care about it are actually the artists and people into art
>>2303675
The only reason people care about contemporary art is because of the social aspect associated with it and that is partly because rich people use it as an investment object to avoid tax that they buy and sell back and fourth among themselves to maintain the value.
Nobody admire two buckets of paint and a bucket of feces thrown at a canvas or whatever the new hot thing in contemporary art is.
