https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMVJfp834uw
How can one guy be so based?
>>2463832
i dont get it. isnt he supposed to sketch it, then block in, then shade? did he drew them separately then just trace it together?
and some people on this board think if you just work hard enough you'll be just as good!
>talent ain't real
>>2466811
he drew 50 pages a day as a kid, if you can do that then it's still hard work.
>>2466765
He has the image in his head but applies the rules of construction and perspective as he lays down ink
Basically, Kim Jung Gi can draw most things like you can draw a cube
>>2466811
He's in his late 30s or early 40s and has been drawing an insane amount every single day for the last 20 years.
Am I the only one who doesn't like his style and think his art is cluttered and not pleasant to look upon?
>>2466833
Same with a lot of other artists and he's still in a league of his own. Grow up.
>>2463832
I can't tell what's going on in that picture.
>>2466853
the composition in his big images is lacking, yeah. Doesnt read so well. Probably partly due to his process.
>>2466857
Yea, it's just an eye sore. It's like a where's waldo.
>>2466765
>isn't he supposed to
there are no rules when you're a savant lad
>>2466854
The final image isn't that impressive actually. What's impressive is his unbelievable visual library and his confidence with which he can just draw with a brush pen on a huge ass canvas, without any underdrawing.
The end result is not in a league of its own. There are lots of comic book artists and illustrators who could do a better job than this, by sketching out proper gestures, doing thumbnails, planning the composition etc. There's a reason why Marvel hired him to record this as a video. The process is way more impressive than the end result itself.
I saw him draw at CTN, and someone asked him to draw a flamingo. He couldn't remember how they looked, and they kept coming out more like eagles. Eventually he just asked someone to pull it up on their phone.
REMEMBER /ic/
EVEN KIM-JUNG GI NEEDS REFERENCE SOMETIMES
>>2466873
>the final image isn't that impressive actually.
*tips fedora* it's gorgeous. and keep in mind this is on a massive canvas so enjoying it as a jaypeg isn't the same as seeing it in person and marveling at all the fun details up close.
>who could do a better job than this, by sketching out proper gestures, doing thumbnails, planning the composition etc
he could have made a better final product if he did those things, he has sketches and other works he has put more time in.
I disagree anyway. his work has a very unique look that another comic book artist wouldn't be able to replicate. and certainly not with the same speed and fluidity and style.
you're unjustly criticizing hjs method.
>>2466881
>flamingo
I don't even remember how they looks like.
This ones cute. I like caps "uh, no" expression
>>2466886
If you look at enough of his work, you'll get sick of it.
To me he is only valuable to watch use a brush pen.
>>2466899
I disagree, I have a lot of his worked save because I like looking at it.
>>2466886
>he could have made a better final product if he did those things
But he didn't. That's the point. He wasn't hired to do his best work, but to make an exibition video for Marvel to hype up their new comic event. Just search for KJG variant covers. He's done a bunch of them for DC in the past.
His work is obviously very good, but if you actually look at his illustrations and comic book pages, he is definitely not this godlike artist that no one can possibly compete with. There are plenty of artists who are better at it.
>>2466906
That image is pretty crude
>>2466906
actually nvm. wtf is going on in this picture. a bunch of naked grown men watching flowers and huffing nitrous? what's wrong with kjg
>>2466913
>But he didn't. That's the point.
neither did your imaginary artists.
I can what if if you want to what if
post examples of artists who you think are better, or better yet make a thread for them.
I dont see the point of coming into a thread about a particular artist and going "yeah well there's better artists, blah blah he's not that great"
The only thing I have against Kim Jung Gi, really, is that he convinces beginners that drawing fast = good
The only person who understands the value of your fast process is you - everyone else judges the artwork that comes out in the end. Not realizing this traps you in this world
>>2466927
>I dont see the point of coming into a thread about a particular artist and going "yeah well there's better artists, blah blah he's not that great"
If you can't deal with different opinions, then don't write dumb shit like >>2466854 where you claim that he's in a a league of his own and no other professional artist can possibly compete.
KJG doesn't even make the top 20 list of illustrators working for Marvel and DC. He has other qualities and he's certainly a very impressive artist, but once again, his end results are not what Marvel paid him for. His end results judging from the variant covers he did for DC are run of the mill mediocre.
>>2466950
>Not realizing this traps you in this world
what did he mean by this
>>2466955
I didn't make that post.
>run of the mill mediocre.
opinions and taste.
there's no reason to compare that particular artist to what kim jung gi does, they have different methods to achieving different goals and styles. I think that piece is great but there's nothing stylistically unique about it, it's just a nice realistic rendering of those particular characters.
>>2466957
You get caught in a self destructive style most likely
>>2466955
Honestly not that impressed anyone with a monochrome of skill can produce something as average as that.
It probably took that artist a week+ to create that where as something from KJG, an afternoon.
ya, nah, you're an idiot.
>>2466994
>It probably took that artist a week+ to create that where as something from KJG, an afternoon.
And once again, you refuse to judge KJGs work by its own merits and have to add his speed / work process to your evaluation.
>Honestly not that impressed anyone with a monochrome of skill can produce something as average as that.
Right, everyone with a "monochrome" of skill can paint like Phil Hale... Not even sure how to reply to such utter retardation.
>>2466955
The enormous difference in quality between the heavily referenced woman, and the non-referenced creature in the background is quite telling.
>>2466893
If someone posted that Daredevil in the draw thread, they'd be ripped apart. Just saying.
>>2467007
There's no "enormous difference in quality", you're just butthurt I dared to question the idea that KJG isn't the greatest comic book illustrator in the world bar none and now you're lashing out at one of the many artists who most sane people would consider to be a better illustrator than KJG.
I swear, you KJG fanboys are annoying as shit. If you don't want to use reference, that's fine, but don't complain when your end resutls don't look nearly as good as those of someone who does use reference, plans out his images, does gestures, sketches etc.
>>2467025
I'm not the same guy, you fucking idiot, and I'm not even a fan of KJG.
Look at the details on the woman's face. Then look at the blotchy mess that makes up the creature's face. Look at the creature's back and upper arm. The lower arms seems more detailed, because it looks like he references a real arm.
>>2467003
i meant modicum you fucking bitch. And yes given time and references any average painter could produce the work of that idiot.
>>2466873
90% of comicbook covers are trash, this is awesome
>>2467010
why? there's nothing wrong with the perspective anatomy or lighting.
it probably would get shit on because /ic/ is full of idiots that only like things a certain way.
>>2467025
>I swear, you KJG fanboys are annoying as shit
then don't come into threads about him talking out of your ass? it's obvious no one is fanboying over him we're just pointing out the flaw in your comparison.
you're comparing images of one or two highly rendered individual characters to his work when it's a completely different fucking genre of art at that point. all your saying is "my taste in subject matter is superior!"
So many jealous shitty digital painters in this thread LOL. You guys arent even real artists!!
>>2467056
Nah that anon is right, the process is far more impressive than the final product.
>>2467658
you're an idiot like the other anon
>>2467070
>because /ic/ is full of idiots that only like things a certain way
Holy shit, this so much.
>>2466811
>implying he didn't spend decades working hard
yeah, just poopoo all that away, he was born with it xDDDD
