Is this good quality art? If it isn't, why not?
>>2341540
>>2341540
2
>>2341540
3
>>2341540
>>2341542
>>2341544
>>2341545
I think it looks like shit. It's the kind of work I try to avoid extremely hard. That being said it's no doubt skillful and there's a HUGE market for this exact type of work. Basically 90% of game companies will be very interested if you have a large body of work that looks like that.
>>2341631
Yeah, it's your standard game fantasy style.
What styles are you particularly interested in, if you don't mind me asking?
bad composition: palette is poorly chosen, colors aren't balanced at all, everything shines, position of the main shapes are all over the place
content is very unoriginal, lacking any sort of subtlety
those are some of my thoughts when I see your standard LoL-Diabloesque concept art
>>2341641
keep in mind that this artist has drawn commission work for Hearthstone, and probably other high-tier game companies
Not defending him, but interesting to know while critiquing the work
>>2341545
I like this one best. The overly-vibrant colors in the other ones are I think what makes it ugly, despite the technical skill and detail. This one has more variety in the palette, and the only very saturated colors are in the focal point of the image.
>>2341540
I don't like this one. That bright point in the sky conflicts with the warrior's bright figure. He should be the focal point of the image, but the eye is drawn to the far background simultaneously. This disrupts the flow of the composition.
The other two mostly just have boring composition. I'd say the art as a whole is good quality, but this guy has so much potential to become great if he studied colors and composition more. I think the flashiness is why I'm not a fan of this type of art, even though I do like fantasy in general.
It's generic but checks off enough checkboxes to get work and meet the demands of most fantasy illustration gigs. Nothing in them is really interesting from an artistic standpoint though.
>>2341540
Very commercial stuff (not a bad thing, get money anyway you can). Creatively - i see blatant muscle mass and edgy spiked armor. If i think about it some, only forces some banal stereotype of "cool".
>>2341663
All of those spikes and sharp edges FORCE FEED you the idea of murderous, evil, sinister. Which should be more subtle in my opinion to actually have any meaningful effect. edit
>>2341663
Not a huge fantasy fan, but this is more appealing to me. edit
>>2341545
this one's pretty cool, but i'd prefer seeing sharper edges in some areas.
The colors could use some work.
Personally I'd make them less saturated and stuff. Too lazy to explain so here, have a quick edit.
>>2341540
Value seems to be off and that is too much bright green. The character design is also terrible but I get those are game models and the formation looks monotone and boring. I think it's ugly but I think the same about a lot of wow art as well as the game's visuals.
>>2341692
You made it look dull and edgy.
>>2341711
I'm not gonna say it's good, but desu I think it still looks better than the original.
I have a dislike for very saturated colors tho.
>>2341634
shit like this. thought it was obvious and i'm sure everyone here is sick and tired of the JJ elitist crew but... yeah
>>2341711
You're not wrong. But I agree with him, it does look better.
>>2341540
This one's dull. The guy in front is the centerpiece, and everything else just blends together. It's just really mechanical; there's no oomph to it at all, and the layout of soldiers and background elements are incredibly uninspired.
>>2341542
This one's ok. Layout and colors could be better. The artist understands contrast, but he only has a basic understanding of unity. The first image is covered in a layer of green, this one's covered in blue. Normally that's fine, but if it's too obvious the colors can't breathe.
>>2341544
Egh.
>>2341545
This is the best one. The background here is finally given the attention it needed.
>>2341849
couple more for you to critique
I am really starting to realize this art is painfully generic
>>2341849
>>2341867
Jesus, his beard isn't even the same color as his hair. But poor design aside, there should be some blue in the background. The armor sticks out too unnaturally, there's no unity. And I just realized this guy's background's are all very limited in hue, what's the deal with that?
>>2341868
The water looks great and the colors aren't awful, but the composition is very bland. The focal point is just about in the center, and the other areas of detail are in a ring around it. There's little visual interest, and despite the detail the image just looks boring. I do like the value shift in the sky, but the tentacles need to be posed or positioned differently, they're too uniform.
I'm seeing a trend. This guy is very good at illustrating detailed characters, but his weak points are colors, composition, and backgrounds.
>>2341540
>>2341542
>>2341544
>>2341545
>>2341867
>>2341868
I guess this kind of art serves its purpose well, but I can't help but think that given the same brief, a better artist could have served the purpose in a more original way in terms of both treatment and concept.
I gues you could call them 'conventional' or 'cliche'. They are fairly well painted, though, I guess.
>>2341880
Don't forget that the art director would share some of the blame in these cases. I don't know what this artist's personal pieces look like, but it's possible they were steered towards a certain look. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some style guide that emphasized oversaturated backgrounds.
I agree that it's possible to get better results using the same brief, but time constraints and outside direction could be at fault.
>>2341890
here's one that isn't for a company
>>2341892
personal work
>>2341892
Wow, I like this much more. Is he told to use all heavily-saturated colors or something?
>>2341894
The other one's excused because it's a portrait, but the composition here is still pretty bland. I think having the single high-contrast rose and no other interest is what makes it underwhelming, but there's also a kind of subtlety and stillness about it that I like. I like that the outermost stems curve outward rather than perfectly conforming to the concentric rings, it breaks up the uniformity and pushes you toward the rose. And the warm colors on the stems balance the contrast between the warm petals and cool leaves.
Do you have a link to his portfolio/gallery?
>>2341899
Also, this. His stuff all seems pretty unoriginal, which is a shame because he's rather skilled.
>>2341867
This one has the same problem as the others, in that the backgrounds are too dull. The blue of the armor also really sticks out, but I'd be fine with that if it wasn't for his hair. It was a really bad decision to make it red; the armor stands out more, and the character's face blends into the background because of that. Like the other guy said, more blues in the background would unify everything, but personally I'd rather change his hair color to something dark, move the castle backwards, and fade it more into the background.
>>2341868
I like the color on this one, what ruins it is the layout. I understand the idea behind positioning the tentacles like that, they're meant to look epic like pillars. But that just doesn't work here. First because they're too small, second because of their silly ass shape, third because I just don't think their shadows stand out enough. The shark and merman are also not positioned very well. It isn't advised to have the focal point in the center like that, and the merman's fin overlaps the shark's tail which just looks awkward.
>>2341892
>>2341894
Both of these are well drawn. They're not very interesting, but they are more successful at what they were trying to do than most of the other images.
>>2341899
So what sort of imaginative and creative shit do you paint in your free time?
>>2341899
Well ain't you a ray of sunshine.
>>2341923
Doesn't matter what I do, look at what this dude does, lmao. For real, imagine sitting down and thinking "alright, got a bit spare time now to create something that I care for, something I'm passionate about" and then painting a rose with a swirling thorn comp.
![Tidehunter-ravage[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Z1hstfI.jpg "Tidehunter-ravage[1].jpg")
>>2341905
>the merman's fin overlaps the shark's tail
... he's grabbing it with his hand
>>2341933
Ah, well shit. That doesn't change my critique much anyway, there were better angles to choose from.
>>2341671
way too stiff, composition is boring as well
>>2341951
Anon I don't think you understand the point of those pieces. They're just to give players an idea of what a character looks like.
>>2341631
>I think it looks like shit
>/ic/
>>2341634
Hey man if this is your work I didn't mean to insult it (or you) by calling it commercial garbage etc, I hope you don't take that too personally.
>>2341996
Not my work lol, I wish I was a professional artist getting money from companies like Blizzard
no offense taken
>>2341646
so?
it's mainstream and it sells, but it looks bad
>>2341879
too much loomis
>>2341540
I think whoever did that is trying to emulate Madureira and is doing a pisspoor job at it. I can sense the shitty underdrawing even under the rendering, and jesus christ that composition is hideous and uninteresting.
Pic related is how you do this kind of art
>>2342301
this isn't good either
why does everything have to shine
digital artists are always shitting on fine artists yet they have not a single idea about composition
>>2341540
I couldn't draw it/10
>>2342348
>why does everything have to shine
?????????
Oh its the
>Lets "critique" the professional artist who is way better than us to make us feel better about not even being half as good as he is
thread
>inb4 "hurr you don't need to be better to critique someone!"
they need to be here for your critique to actually mean jack shit.
>>2342348
>Implying you know anything about composition
the face and the foreshoulder shine because it brings you attention to them due to the increased value in comparison with the lower part of his body and the right of the image.
Notice how things get brighter when heading toward the focal point, that's intentional and one of the principles of composition.
>>2342348
>digital artists are always shitting on fine artists
That's news to me, sure it's not the other way around?
>>2342380
>Implying "hurr dur" is wrong.
>Implying others can't benefit from the critiques.
>>2342406
>implying half the critiques aren't blatantly wrong or stupid and the other half is vague nonsense
>>2342447
>damage control
your ignorance is obvious for everyone to see.
>>2342454
which damage control did I do?
your only reasoning for good composition was 'if it's bright it guides the eye there'. as if contrast/bright was the only thing that guided the eye. as if guiding the eye was the only important thing in composition
the palette isn't balanced (way too high, what's supposed to be far back is warmer than what's in the front), the shapes aren't balanced (there's the huge sword to the right and nothing to the left, the shoulder and back take too much importance compared to the head and hand)
everything shines and is all over the place like in pretty much anything lol-dota-wow related. it looks like shit but it sells I guess
> :^)
Does anyone have that picture comparing Frazetta's commercial art from the 70's to commercial art today?
>>2342526
As non-sensical and lazy that image is (and arguably a lot of his work in general), Maciej is still miles ahead of the other guy in this thread.
>>2342530
Never seen it but I assume it's pretty biased. You can cherrypick examples to make a point pretty easily. There was a LOT of shit art from Frazetta's time, and there is a LOT of shit art now. And there was good art then and good art now. I don't much see the point in that comparison.
>>2342537
>Never seen it but I assume it's pretty biased
This is why you shouldn't assume things; it's a joke picture. Basically it shows Frazetta's "the Mammoth" beside some stock photographs of an elephant and an mma fighter.
>>2342546
>and I forget to post the picture
>>2342546
Oh, I've seen that actually then. It's satire but still cherrypicks to make fun of a rather narrow section of the industry.
>>2342526
Look at the hands, that looks traced/photobashed as fuck.
>>2342526
Can you remind me what ISN'T a photograph in that picture, if anything?
>>2342551
It is, I was there for the thread where that was exposed-not that it wasn't patently obvious to begin with.
>>2342348
>digital artists are always shitting on fine artists yet they have not a single idea about composition
Madueira is actually a traditional artist who works mostly in pencil. Guess by your logic that means traditional artists are all bad at composition now. Next time you should at least google the artist in question before you start your elitist digital art bashing, you autistic little shit.
>>2342552
>Can you remind me what ISN'T a photograph in that picture, if anything?
There are some ugly sploches of brushstrokes on top of the photo in the background. I think that would be it.
>>2342548 >>2342530
>>2342348
>yet they have not a single idea about composition
If you think that is badly composed then you are a fool.
>>2342469
>as if guiding the eye was the only important thing in composition
You have no idea what you are talking about please stop.
>there's the huge sword to the right and nothing to the left
there's smoke on the left side
>the shoulder and back take too much importance compared to the head and hand
Intentional. He obviously wanted to show his physique.
>everything shines
Not true.
>Saying dota has bad artists
;)))))
>>2342574
it's beautiful
>>2342530
>>2342574
Why not compare it to actual commercial art today instead of the muh photobasher boogeyman, which makes up less than 5% of commercial art and is almost nonexistent in illustration?
>>2342714
Stop white knighting for photobashers. Literally every thread these con artists are mentioned you make sure to bring up this 5% number you pulled out of your ass alongside your assertion that "[it's] almost nonexistent in illustration" like that's even the point.
Also, that picture is ridiculous, the mammoth itself looks alright, but the village slapped on it, presumably to make it more "epic" is a laugh and a half.
>>2342714
>let's draw a mammoth in a mystical landscape XD
>okay now let's uh... draw a city on top of the mammoth! epic! XD
>man I am so fucking creative
the mind of the average commercial artist today
>>2341660
>Nothing in them is really interesting from an artistic standpoint though.
Arrogant.
>>2342348
>digital artists are always shitting on fine artists yet they have not a single idea about composition
It does have good composition.
How about you compose your ass off of this website and stop polluting the internet by trolling, you pathetic loser.
>>2342597
something being intentional doesn't make it good, please stop being so dense
I can't believe the rest of your answers are serious, for example how in hell does the intense neon green of the smoke counterbalance the sword? are you blind?
>>2342557
>comics
>traditional art
?
great thread. i mean really, some of the critiques are some informative and teaching. i still believe /ic/ is good if you ignore some shitposters.
>>2342735
Its looks more like a war mammoth with modern tech on its back, which depending on the scenario could be interesting.
>need recon in an area but your machines can't treck it
>build a satellite on top of a mammoth and have it go in
I'd say thats more creative than
>lets have a guy fighting a giant animal
>that's totally new right guys?
>>2342714
This looks weird. Mammoth is ok, but rest of it looks weird.
>>2342780
>something being intentional doesn't make it good
it does make it intentional and implies he does have an understanding of composition and the skill to use it properly to convey what he wants to express.
He wants to show off the man's build and his weird skull face, he does that properly using compositional flow and values which you said it lacked.
You are exactly the type person I was talking about when I said people in this thread are baseless shit talkers who have no idea what they're critiquing and are doing it solely to make themselves feel better.
Go back to your "studies" and pretend you're actually going to get somewhere. You're nowhere near skilled enough to critique anyone yet.
>>2342824
So you disagree but can't explain why
It's ok if you like that drawing but if you deny that the composition is poor you should educate yourself
Oh wait, thanks to the artist's hand we know the character is buff. Please
>>2342730
>Stop white knighting for photobashers.
I'm not. I'm just getting sick of noobs like you constantly whining about photobashers and completely blowing that shit out of proportions. I get it that you are too insecure to look at good current commercial artists and you desperately want to push this narrative that the entire art industry is just photobashing hacks, but that's flat out a lie and you know it.
>>2342735
That's what Peleng does during livestreams. He just draws random shit. But yeah, I'm sure you are so much more creative than he is.
>>2342830
>can't explain why
we've literally explained exactly what compositional ideas were used and how they were used.
Are you literally retarded or just a fucking idiot?
Noone here is claiming its the best piece in the world, but he clearly knows what he's doing.
>>2342785
An artist who draws traditionally with pencil on paper is somehow not considered a traditional artist because he works in comics? Are you retarded?
Traditional art is not synonymous with fine art you idiot. It just means you use traditional media, regardless what industry you work in.Whether it's fine art, comics, concept art, illustration, industrial design... whatever.
>>2342820
>Peleng
>his art looks weird
You don't say.
>There are people here shitting at Madureira
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
>>2342836
>I get it that you are too insecure to look at good current commercial artists
I'm not, I know of plenty and appreciate their work. The picture is a joke, but one based on the reality of the fact that there are people out there that are being lauded for running a photo through a couple of filters in photoshop.
>you desperately want to push this narrative that the entire art industry is just photobashing hacks, but that's flat out a lie and you know it.
I didn't say that.
Even if there was only one photobasher on the face of the earth, they would deserve to be shamed for it. This is about what some people are doing, not how many people are doing it.
>>2342842
And I said fine arts in my first post, not traditional. Please read before you shitpost next time
>>2342846
Seems like it's only one idiot doing it. Funnily enough, he based his entire first shitpost on the assumption that Madureira is a digital artist, trying to get his little "hurr why are all digital artists so shit at xy" thing in. Which is kinda hilarious considering Madureira works almost entirely traditionally.
>>2342846
I mean personally its not to my taste, but I can recognize he's pretty good and knows what hes doing.
>>2342855
You said "digital artists are always shitting on fine artists yet they have not a single idea about composition"
Digital art is a medium, fine art is not. When you say that digital artists know nothing about composition, then the implication is that artists who use traditional mediums do, why else would you specifiy digital artists? Unfortunately for you, the artist in question is not a digital artist.
>>2342868
I was wrong implying that the dude was a digital artist
Even then I've seen lots of digital artists dissing painters, yet it's way too common to see poor composition even in professional digital artists than achieved painters
Adding to this, said work is a digital work, and the composition to me is mediocre and forgettable, I've already explained why. A merit I'd recognize is that at least it isn't as abysmal as most of the others posted in this thread
>>2341540
as art, no.
as product design targeting a specific demographic, it's pretty good
>>2341692
I mean it's a fantasy art style directed towards as many people as possible. it's not dirty, it's not stinky or uncomfortable in any way. the imagery is all bright colors, high contrast, and presents an image of power and magic in a simple yet very appealing way. it's attractive and portrays the imagery in a cool, attractive way, without really forcing an emotional response in a positive or negative way.
>>2341671
this, in contrast evokes more emotional and sensual response for me. it looks old. i can smell the dust and swamp gas, hear the dove fluttering and cooing. i can imagine the textures of their ragged clothing and armor. I can visualize the landscape outside of the portaits. yet for others it could be unattractive BECAUSE they can imagine all these things.
just my totally unprofessional opinion.
>>2342890
Why can't advertising be seen as art?
Is it because of the motives behind the piece?
>>2342956
They can, that's not what he's saying. He's saying this one in particular succeeds as being an ad, but not as art.
>>2342891
Is that Baizley or just a copycat? Never seen it before...
>>2342551
>looks traced/photobashed
>not knowing maceij kuciara
