Wow...
I can't believe this level of realism is humanly achievable.
>>2309090
>spending this much time becoming a human photocopier
>>2309090
meh
Damn
>>2309095
asians are the master race. it's not even a question.
>>2309093
this
no fucks given
>>2309095
Copy that.
It's easier to realism on a big canvas t.bh
>>2309095
It looks like his neck is perfectly straight and his head placed sideways.
>>2309111
this
u wonder why chinese illustrators make their photoshop canvas over 5000 pixels wide ?? it's the same irl. this isn't impressive at all
>>2309090
Neither realistic or particulary impressive. Train your eyes, anon. If you think that's good your'e likely a symbol drawing rookie.
>>2309122
typical ic... even if you work one year you will never be able to achieve that, go back drawing your manga doodles.. that will lead you nowhere stupid tumblr cunt
Anyone with a 10ft10ft canvases and a couple of hundred hours and photo references can come up with that.
>>2309095
>>2309090
I hate this thread
fuck you
he looks like a cock
>>2309126
you're shit and you know it
>>2309143
Took 5 hours on Microsoft paint to come up with this. Only 195 more hours left to go
>>2309143
none of them have to lmao they're all right
>>2309148
no, they aren't.
>>2309149
why cant you acknowledge that it takes incredible talent to come up with genuine ideas and that posting any of your actual work leaves you open to having your art swiped by artistic vultures looking for their next big idea?
>>2309150
lmao SON. I feel rly bad. I hate you but I feel bad. I want you to die but only so you can see the light. I want you to discOver the meaning of art. The Tehnical Skill. The Pure Creation
Please Lean these Things. Please, Die
>>2309149
dont bother with them, they are bitter because this guy is skilled and they arent. just ignore and sage bro
>>2309149
>hundreds of hours, massive canvases, grids, photo ref and projectors is skill
You ever been to an art gallery before? The stuff old masters pulled off with just oil paint on much smaller canvases, without the aid of photoref. That is incredible skill. This is just drudgery.
Pic related. Cunt did that when he was 18.
>>2309159
they both require incredible skill. stop being such a faggot dude.
heres some better hyperrrealistic drawings of some kid and a yo yo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCUxG63lgE0
>>2309159
thanks
being a photocopier isn't skill, it's what the fucks on instagram do for a couple of likes to get paid by sponsors.
>>2309165
post some examples from instagrams that you follow that match that level of realism.
>>2309159
wtf lol WRONG. A lot of these artists used a grid and reference, and they sometimes draw the same reference 20 times before painting. Also reminder that normand rockwell traced pictures. Yep. and most of the concept art industry are photomontage artists, reference addicts and trace 3D images. Open your eyes and stfu.
>>2309095
His head looks really weird on his neck. In fact his neck is fucked up. Too bad the artist spent all that time rendering rather than learning anatomy or how to draw.
>>2309170
you're literally responding to 18 year olds that begged mommy for a wacom tablet last christmas because they're in love with deviant art artists that they came across in 4chan wallpaper threads on /b/
they trade and jack eachother off over their nothing shitty attempts at digital fantasy landscape art and will never do anything unique or impressive
>>2309175
kek thanks for the reminder, cya guys imma go draw
>>2309093
>/ic/ posters lack skill, so they comfort themselves by calling their superiors "human photocopiers"
>>2309090
love how they remove the million crutches they use when they take photos of themselves working.
this kind of art is a bit like magic. one big illusion.
>>2309153
>open to having your art swiped by artistic vultures looking for their next big idea
Are we literally donut steel levels of autism now?
>>2309175
This sounds awfully detailed to be made up. I take it it's from your own experience.
>>2309170
Missed the point of my post. I never implied they didn't use or do any of that. Honestly ask yourself whether or not you'd have an easier time producing a massive hyper realistic piece from a photo or painting something like the Velazquez I posted from only life references.
>>2309185
it's from my own experience of browsing this site yeah. I don't into digital art.
Technically very skillful and interesting but artistically kind of boring. It's cool that you have trouble immediately distinguishing it from a photograph but after you get past that the painting doesn't offer you much more than the photograph would. Unless the real piece of art is the demonstration of the artist's skill or some weird meta shit like that.
>>2309182
Are you that much of an imbecile? When you have Donald Trump and Hollywood Exec's lurking 4chan for ideas then it would be safe to say that there are other people that are already established coming here for some spark of creativity.
>>2309095
>>2309191
Fair enough that anonymously sharing creative ideas might be a mistake, but that's no excuse for not sharing other work.
>>2309191
Then sign them dipshit.
+ If the Hollywood exec's were impressed enough to try and steal from you I'm sure they'd just offer you a job.
>hurrr realism is easy and anyone can do it!
Show us your doing it then.
It's impressive the quality he can manage, it's not the highest tier of art by any means, but if you can't recognize the skill here then you have no business on a critiquing board.
>>2309095
The details an artist decides to leave out are as important as what they keep in. It's what makes a painting a painting and not a photo, it's what makes a painting individual to an artist.
When you copy every pore, blemish and imperfection mechanically from a photo, with no selectivity what you get is a photocopy. Cameras have no taste, this shit has zero artistic value in my opinion.
I can admire the craftsmanship and patience it took to make but I could say the same about someone completing a 10,0000 piece jigsaw. There is no creativity here.
>>2309274
This.
Although I too can appreciate the patience and skill it takes, for me there is no wow factor to photorealism. Nevertheless, all art is beautiful, let people chase what they want to chase.
>>2309274
hahahahaha
god you must be terrible at drawing
couldnt this be useful in the sense that you're "over preparing" yourself for the things you actually want to apply your skills too? i mean it just seems like if you could bang out 'realistic' (not photocopied) just realistic with more simple brushstrokes really quickly
>>2309090
Boring.
>>2309090
that's an intense color picking exercise.
I have to go with the crowd that are not that impressed though. Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed but just not as much as people who can't draw.
An example. I'm still an art noob so I show this in that context. I made this a week or so ago. I used the image to the left for ref. The resolution was not that high but if you look at the smaller version of the painting on the background monitor then it starts to become photo realistic.
It's the same principle at play in those images. If you walked up closer to those images then you would start seeing the flaws.
>>2309291
>You're not good at drawing!
Nice argument chief.
>>2309311
this is why you must never take ic word for granted folks EVERY TIME they post art it's shit.
>>2309291
Are you an idiot? What he says is common fucking knowledge that artists have understood long before the invention of the photograph. That is the reason why realism masters are infinitely superior to human xerox machiens and create work that is way more beautiful than anything a camera could ever capture.
You should probably quit art and just buy a camera. Art is clearly not for you. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of pleb one has to be to believe that fucking facebook photocopy "art" is actually impressive.
>>2309383
He's right though and it's a pretty good example, even if you don't like the image. Sounds like you are just butthurt that even a self proclaimed noob artist told you off so effectively that you had to resort to an ad hominem attack.
>>2309262
No one ever said realism is easy. The image in question is not realism. Realism requires design choices of the artist, simplification and grouping of the tonal range, edge control, harmonizing the color palette, using detail as means to guide the eye to the focal point(s) and leaving out detail where it's not needed etc.
Why the fuck do so many noobs constantly confuse photorealism and hyperrealism with actual realism? I mean, I would understand it if you were some random idiot posting on /b or /v/ or something, but if you are on /ic/, chances are that you are an artist or aspiring artist yourself, or at the very least are interested in art and yet you still don't understand something as basic as the difference between photorealism and realism?
>>2309095
kek dat broken neck
>>2309417
I think it's supposed to be an homage to Michelangelo's David, but yeah, the neck looks fucked on this version
>>2309397
He's not right. Are we comparing an ant picture with a normal sized picture? To me it's just seems that you guys are jealous of OP skill. You will never be able to get to his level of realism. So go ahead and comfort yourself by convincing yourself that you can top any realistic artist with ant picture, where we basicaly lose all the important details. The funniest part of this is that his ant picture still has obvious errors of construction plane and symetry, a very cringe worthy representation of ic.
Why do the d/ic/ks at /ic/ shit on something most wont even come close to. Photorealism besides from being a human copy machine takes skill to do, being able to produce drawings with such accuracy is something that not many artist have. Either way this is impressive not as impressive as drawing from imagination, but still very impresive.
>>2309090
photorealism will continue to improve photographic technology and editing tools continue to improve. It will only plateau when photography plateaus.
>>2309420
>He's not right. Are we comparing an ant picture with a normal sized picture
Sure he is. You are basically looking at a ton of small images that size next to each other when you look at the photo in the OP. The camera is several meters away from the canvas. It's very easy to be precise under those conditions compared to more normal situations. I wonder how huge a resolution you would need to catch all the color details on that painting in the OP.
>>2309383
I wonder if you realize that you are one of the faggots you talk about. According to you we should not take you serious. /ic/ isn't a club, dumbass.
>>2309419
Kinda reminded me of that bust of Alexander the Great.
>>2309095
>/ic/ will defend this because someone who is popular on social media made it
this is what this board has become
>>2309090
When I read this post for the first time I honestly thought it said "wow, I can't believe this level of autism is humanly achievable."
And I though: "yeah, neither can I."
>>2309170
Rockwell didn't trace photos you massive knobhead. He used reference that he interpreted and stylized, see picture. Hyperrealists lack this ability as they more or less rely on making literal copies. Regular people don't understand the VAST different in skill this demands but people on this board should
>>2309420
what about the guy who did this last week in the draw thread?
>>2309180
Has nothing to do with the poster's skill. do you think they'd level the same insult against Rembrandt or Michelangelo?
Consider this- maybe that anon finds more merit in a work that exhibits creativity and style, instead of a copy of a photograph.
>>2309530
Another example here with Gil Elvgren. Again, not LITERAL COPIES. Stylized. Interpreted. Hyperrealist can NOT do this kind of work.
>>2309530
I seem to recall seeing photos of Rockwell tracing, but it was incredible. He didn't copy exactly, he edited and exaggerated throughout the process. Anyone who has spent any amount of time doing art will know that if you compare the tracing of someone skilled vs unskilled the difference will be insane. Good art isn't made from the accurate placement of lines, it's the way you put down those lines and which you choose to not put down.
Anyways, I'm pretty sure he traced but that doesn't diminish my opinion of him at all. Drew Struzan traced too, and you know what? No one has come close to being able to do what he did. I think Fuchs also traced on occasion, but he was an absolute master.
Your image shows exactly how much editing was going on when these guys drew. THAT'S where the artistry lies.
>>2309542
Okay found the image, it's from his book Rockwell on Rockwell. He traced a projected image but changed it a lot. A blind person can see that this is very different from what hyperrealists do.
>>2309545
Yes exactly. Ok so he may have used tracing but not in the typical sense of the word and the manner anon implied.
>>2309545
you are shit at drawing if you think he would need to trace to achieve that line drawing. If he is making changes to the source during the drawing then it is unlikely that he's tracing.
>>2309552
Did you even read what I wrote in that post and the one before it?
Also no shit he didn't "need" to trace. He only started using photographs and tracing late in his career. He already had decades of experience making hundreds of illustrations and drawing from life. The only reason he switched to photos is that the cost of hiring models was no longer making it possible to do. And the tracing just sped him up, same reason Struzan traced. It was not a matter of lack of skill, it was a matter of hitting a deadline.
>>2309557
nowhere in that image does it say he traced it. That's just your conclusion, dimwit.
>>2309562
Literally the first sentence he says he used a projector.
>>2309541
Muh loomis
you can do it with enough time and dedication and love for the craft.
Pic related, painted when he was seventeen years old.
Shit coming in 3,2,1.... ;)
>>2309645
this is a painting?
wow....nice work.
I still prefer my Michelangelo, but this is great.
>>2309645
The hate seems to be directed towards dedicated /ic/ shitposters that are regularly trying to promote some random artist as the next coming of jesus and will go facebook_defenseForce on anyone opposing
It's like they are trying to find excuses to not practice and try and get better.
>>2309090
I prefer Emanuele Dascanio
>>2309090
FUCK YEAH IN THE FUTURE I WILL BECOME A CHINESE PLOTTER CYBORG
>>2309645
by the way was a young norweigian who painted that not the chinese guy in OP pic
>>2309645
I understand how it can come across as complete witchcraft to a beginner, as it did to me back in the day... But it's all about having a LOT of time and patience and copying shapes like a puzzle. Obviously it requires skill in handling the materials and mixing the right colors etc. but likely the artist couldn't have sat down on a foldable chair in the same street and made a fast ink sketch from life with a good result. It's a a good excercise for observing shapes and value but the transferable skills are less than you might think.
>>2309645
basically the picasso of this generation
>>2309678
kek.
>>2309718
Anons is it possible to develop with time such skill and knowledge to make this type of paintings, as detailed as they are, with no reference and only memory so to speak???
If yes... Is there any example?
>>2309742
Purely from imagination? Honestly senpai I've never seen anything close to that. But if you combine photo reference, 3d modeling and imagination I believe you could.
All pure imagination stuff is essentially based on visual library and symbols and conventions in some form of another. If you fuck around a bit with some models in a 3d modeling package you'll quickly understand that the complexity of light is impossible to calculate without reference. Cast shadows quickly become INCREDIBLY complex when you have architecture and natural elements like trees.
Even someone like James Gurney uses clay figures to figure out light situations.
Are there hyperrealistic paintings of imaginary things? Creatures, etc.
>>2309746
>>2309742
This is done purely from imagination, but it isn't nearly as complex as the street painting. Also it has a 3d render look rather than photographic.
>>2309742
Possibly you could get close, but why would you want to? The people that are interested in this aesthetic are happy to copy photos. People who want to paint from their heads don't want their work to look like photographs. So the lack of overlap means there's almost no one who is interested in doing hyperrealism from their head.
The closest I can think of is some of Brad Rigney's work. Ignore the stuff he did in the last year or so because he started using some photos, but before that he did 100% of his painting without reference or any photos. I suspect the fact he was working digitally made it easier to achieve this without ref because it allows you to play around and rework things continuously until it looks good.
>>2309754
Pretty sure Algen said on those interior things he used phototextures for some things like the wood on the table, he skewed it into perspective and then maybe painted a bit on top.
>>2309758
No, he said that he painted the textures 100% from imagination. But yes, he used the distort tool to skew them into perspective (which can be seen in his process videos) which is why it has that 3d look. Essentially he's doing a primitive form of 3d rendering.
>>2309757
Can you give me an example of his non photo bashed work? I haven't looked at his stuff too much but at a glance it seems obvious which part are invented and which are photosourced
>>2309095
HAHAHAHAHAHA
>>2309095
I can't stop laughing.
>>2309768
Something like this is painted:
http://cryptcrawler.deviantart.com/art/Planeswalkers-Pantheon-244408198
Of his new stuff it is sometimes a bit hard to tell when exactly he used photos. He is a very good painter and can match that photoreal style fairly well. I notice it mostly in the backgrounds or sometimes some texture overlays. His new stuff has more blatant use, but I think there was a time where he dipped his toes in and it was a little more subtle. Like the following two were done at the same time, one clearly has trees photos in the background and scale textures used at the bottom, but the other one looks like it could be completely manually painted:
http://cryptcrawler.deviantart.com/art/Dark-Queen-Guinevere-363210566
http://cryptcrawler.deviantart.com/art/Dark-Queen-Guinevere-Advanced-363207550
Anyways, his old stuff that has that slight 3d or plastic look is all painted. Then he started using texture brushes a bit more and it was still all painted. Then he started using some photos rather subtly and it is tricky to tell. Now he uses it in larger areas and it is obvious especially at full resolution. For what it's worth I think he has only gotten better and I don't mind him using photos.
>>2309780
Ok, thanks. First one might be painted, but it doesn't look photographic at all. The other two had blatantly photobashed figures with painted armour sitting flatly on top. The trees and smoke are pretty obvious aswell. Not saying I could do better, but I'm not convinced he can paint characters that look photographic from scratch (which was what was requested)
>>2309869
I don't think those figures are photobashed. I mean, they might be, but I wouldn't be surprised if he painted them. His specialty is that soft rendering of skin. He did this one without ref or photo: http://cryptcrawler.deviantart.com/art/A-Hostile-Takeover-152821862
And that was a few years before. The treatment of the skin looks similar to me. And he has closeups of the faces for those other ones too that he's posted, and at the very minimum they are heavily painted on top of.
But yeah, he's not a perfect example, he's just the closest I can think of. Most artists aren't interested in having their work look photographic if they paint from their heads. Or they just use photos directly like Maciej because it's easier and faster and in many cases will likely look better than what you can invent anyhow (if you are trying for a photo look that is).
Pic related was done in the 1700's. Tight realism is nothing new, nor is it anything special. There's a reason Rembrandt is famous and Seybold isn't.
>>2309889
Implying that getting cannonized on art is based on skill alone. More like novelty, connections and chance. If skill alone was crucial we wouldn't have such a degeneracy on fine arts these days.
The second I saw the OP I knew exactly what to expect from this thread.
It always surprises me how many things /ic/ say require no skill when a tiny fraction of /ic/ has the skill to do it.
It's not imaginative, sure, but it sure as shit isn't easy.
>>2309765
>No, he said that he painted the textures 100% from imagination
That's called MARKETING!
>look mom, no hands
As long as nobody calls you out on your shit it's a competetive strategy to boast as much and as many unrealistic claims as you can stack on top of each other.
>>2310022
That pisses me off.
I'm ok with people not saying one way or the other, but saying you didn't use reference when you practically copied one straight up is really shitty.
>>2310022
What proof do you have to assume he is lying?
He's good at rendering, it's not an amazing feat by any means to paint a wood texture from imagination. He uses the same technique in his process vids. He uses smart objects so he can paint directly on the texture in perspective.
And I recognize that painting, must have been from the sijun days.
>>2310051
>What proof do you have to assume he is lying?
Occams Razor.
>>2310026
That girl even has the kr0npr1nz haircut in the traced version
The lesson is that it doesn't really pay to be too photo realistic with your art because faggots will claim you are "cheating".
>>2310062
That's not proof, just your subjective interpretation.
I find it more likely that he painted it based on the process videos I have seen. Why are you so impressed with a painted texture that you assume it must be impossible? If you do a few material studies of wood and then paint it from memory in high resolution and scale it down, it WILL look good if you've got decent skills.
hyper realism is realism + 200 hours
not saying it isn't impressive, but it's more of a circus trick that relies on novelty.
>>2310022
he's literally done streams where you can see him do the textures. he uses a lot of gimmicks, but he does hand paint them. whether this has made him a better artist in the long run is a another question.
>>2309889
sheeit, this is really good though
>>2309889
That's what people looked like before camera's soiled our vision of the world?
>>2310186
And occam razor says you're just jelly.
Well /ic/, I've finally completed my masterpiece.
It took me hundreds of hours, but I've finally finished my hyper realistic version of Jeong's masterful work.
I've lined them up side by side for comparison. Mine, of course, is on the right.
>>2309175
this should be in the sticky, too accurate.
>>2311343
no, no, these colors are wrong - scrap it and start again
>>2311343
>this isn't a stereoscopic image
I strained my eyes for nothing.
>>2309095
A+ rendering but goddamn that neck.
>>2309143
Certainly not perfect but at least I try to have some kind of personal style and I don't just mindlessly copy.
Vermeer used cheat techniques as well. He's no different to OPs artist.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt3089388/
>>2312576
>>2309095
As everyone said, that neck is fucked up. Head can't turn that far. It looks more and more horrible the more I stare at it. The chin area has been neglected completely.
Amazing rendering detail, no doubt about that. But if he can't make it absolutely 100% perfect anatomy-wise, then why go for a photo look? Also, the hair looks weirdly unnatural compared to the face.
I don't see the point. He's not telling me anything. His art is like a boring puzzle.
not trying to be negative but why do people who like ultra realism always paint old men? is it because the flws become harder to notice?
I think drawing a girl or a child would be a bigger challenge
>>2312607
Because they can paint all the wrinkles and pores and details. A young girl or child has a smooth more airbrushed face which typically isn't conducive to this level of detail-oriented painting. Also there are people who paint highly realistic children and women. Someone like Marina Dieul comes to mind. Dreadfully boring stuff though, and even worse in person. Maybe she doesn't really count as a hyper realist though. So someone like Gottfried Helnwein is probably a better example.
>>2309090
Lol that neck
>>2309645
Dat chromatic aberration... ugh
>>2309746
Yeah but who says you have to make it exact? You just have to make it look like it's exact. Just like it's much more difficult to draw a believable face than drawing a believable animal, you can rely on the ignorance of the observer. All you need to do is add all of the details that you can come up with and have them look plausible.
>>2309090
I hate it when they paint famous actors.
>>2309190
this
plus the neck is a mystery
>>2309645
>took him half a year
I honestly think it might be detrimental to spend that much time on copying a single photo. Imagine how much real knowledge you could acquire in that time.
He made this mediocre piece of shit 6(!) years later, it really proves that hyperrealism doesn't necessarily make a good artist
>>2309757
>there's almost no one who is interested in doing hyperrealism from their head
nope
>>2309095
Size.
Whats the point of make it almost as big as person.
Facebook.
Why he draw Zuckerberg
>>2309090
extremely boring autistic who couldn't come up with a creative idea if his life depended on it
Oh yeah he's totally going places
I've done hyper realistic graphite drawings; one of the most mindless, banal experiences of my life.
>>2309095
There, I corrected his anatomy.
I'm getting really good at drawing letters! This page took me a year to do, but I feel that hand-inking each curve and sarif is much more valuable than having a cold, unfeeling printer mindlessly duplicate it. Definitely worth the time and effort to flawlessly mimeograph something by hand.
His left eye is literally ready to roll away anytime.
>>2312956
kek
>>2309536
So many people fail to grasp this on this fucking board
>>2309274
>The details an artist decides to leave out are as important as what they keep in
This is a very good post
>lol he just copies photograph mindlessly
>lol bad anatomy. impossible neck position
Make up your mind, niggers.
what the fug
>>2313277
oh shit
B U S T E D
U
S
T
E
D
>>2313683
>homage
>busted
you serious?
>>2313771
>Not getting the sicc pun
>>2313806
darn I missed that entirely
look what I just did
>>2309090
Because gooks.
Also, daily reminder that KJG's official Instagram follows Kr0n.
>>2309090
A+ as a copier, F as an artist.
>>2309754
that IS a 3d render dumb dumb, you can tell from the patchy noise that the global illumination gives off.
shit needs more samples
>>2313930
I thought so too when I saw it the first time, but it isn't. If you've dug deeper and seen his livestreams you'll understand his technique. He uses the path tool to get the super sharp edges and the transformation tool to place the handpainted textures (made as editable smart objects).
>the neck is fucked up
you never fail to impress me /ic/
>>2313968
is that u
u cute maynnn
>>2313968
The shape of that neck is completely different you dumb fuck. It shows all the subtle shifts from the tendon of the sternocleidomastoideus, to the belly of the muscle, and then the attachment.The hyper realist piece has completely botched anatomy and looks like a bent tube.
>>2313968
how do I get this gud with my neck, /ic/
>>2313968
you are really cute holy fuck
>>2313987
god dammit anon
your jawline makes me feel like life is worth living
>>2313683
kek
>>2313979
You just have to copy that.
>>2313046
>Chapter 1: Loomings
>>2309565
If you're implying what I think you are, then you're missing the point.
>>2309090
i've always wanted to become a camera.
>>2309143
Oh fuck off. I don't need to be better than they are to say that something looks off in the picture.
I can't bake a cake but I still know when one tastes like shit
>>2313968
ooo nice face.. i mean ahh fag aah shut up
>>2313995
I thought its right arm was a nose from the thumbnail.
>Remember the one gorillion Loomises
>>2313277
I'll explain it for you retards.
Statues were carved to be viewed from BELOW that's why the anatomy seems to be "off" when you look at it from straight frontally.
That neck is only this long because it's supposed to create an optical illusion for the viewer watching it from below
>>2316524
This is not true of all statues, but certainly if it were to be placed up on a wall it would be the case.
>>2313968
post dick pls - no homo
>>2309095
Is this meant to be a human version of michelangelo's tomb of guiliano de medici? is that why the neck's so long?
>>2317341
>>2309095
Yeah on closer look i'm pretty sure that's what he was going for.
>>2316524
Uhhhh, but if he's taking the statue and reinterpreting it as a painting, why would he carry over the anatomical adjustments?
>>2317345
I guess so it's obvious that it's the statue.
This is from a local magazine. Guy is of greek descent. Maybe it's a regional thing?
>>2317502
ignore this thread. everyones retarded. people irl look goofy as fuck, not like perfectly space out loomis skulls. I should post some of the abominations from my hs.
>>2317502
Greekneck
>>2317502
It's a called Mannerism. Artist portrayed figures with sort of an abstract feel to them by elongating body parts, putting left hands on right arms, etc. It started around 1520.
>>2312956
>copy that
>>2317502
Lol nah, as a Greek, that definitely isn't the case.
>>2317624
Post a picture of your neck as proof or be condemned as a Greekneck.
>>2316524
The neck still looks super long from below. Actually, from every angle, because it *is* super long.
I think a better explanation is: "muhchaelangelo's style" (I mean, look at those tits). Different people in different times had different sensibilities when it comes to the 'ideal' looking human. Also, people just have wierd anatomy sometimes.
>>2309533
>highschool/10
>>2317628
No bully.
I think the long neck was a stylistic choice at the time.
>>2317916
An average neck...
That proves it!
You are not actually of Greek descent.
>>2317946
Hes like the algen of renessaince
>>2317988
>I personally find women with long necks more attractive, and I don't even know why. It just makes their silhoutte look a lot better in my opinion, appears more "classy" to me.
>>2317946
This painting is pretty much the poster child for mannerism. Mannerism's stylistic tendencies were definitely deliberate but they were more contrived than serving some purpose
>>2317946
I can't believe anyone cares.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7l_4wUfKEE
>>2309159
But what about the Hockney–Falco thesis?
>>2309095
>>2309095
You people realize that it's based on a bust right?
The neck is also not that far fetched since there is such thing as a person with a weirdly proportioned neck.
>>2317946
>>2309090
This anon is correct. The period is called "mannerism" which was characterized by humans having long necks. I think the most famous example is the Birth of Venus.
damn art history came through for me for once
All this talent wasted...
he should draw anime
>anon you like art right?
>look at this isn't it kewl
>what -- what's wrong?
>>2318495
>implying Botticelli was even alive during the Mannerist period.
>implying Botticelli's work resembles Mannerism at all.
>implying Mannerism is defined by long necks.
did you get an F in art history?
inb4 you embarrassingly try to claim you were trolling or baiting.
>>2309274
this is my new /ic/ favorite post
>>2309274
>>2319659
At least you found some use for your degree in art history.
>>2319688
nah, it's just regular history...
>>2309274
This joins what John Mccartin said. He feels like too many details will end up being detrimental to his work.
>pic related
>>2319832
Pretty much every good artist has said something to that effect.
>>2312591
Right eye is too far from the nose, besides it looks weird. Not enough contrast. Go practice nigger.
>>2317502
AIM AT THE WEAK POINT FOR MASSIVE DAMAGE
