Subject matter aside, who is more skilled technically? Van gogh (left) or ruan jia (Right)
i want to beat your skull to a fine dust and scatter it in the nearest river
kys
>>5217387>>5217388Huh? It's an honest question
>>5217387Lmao I felt something similar when I read the OP
>>5217384Retard
>>5217387>>5217388>>5217448what the fuck is wrong with the people in this board?
>>5217462threads like these ruined this board
>>5217470what's wrong with this thread?
>>5217384Van Gogh of course
gogh away and stop ruaning this FUCKING board
>>5217475No BOOBA
>>5217387>>5217388>>5217446>>5217448>>5217470>>5217496seething but too scared to say what they think
>>5217384Van gogh...
This is Van Gogh's pencil work. You tell me OP.
>>5217577dios mio, get this man some loomis immediately
>>5217577Soul
>>5217577wtf is that face kek
>>5217470make better threads, I'll reply
This is Ruan Jia’s pencil work. You tell me OP.
>>5217384just goes to show that technical mastery isn't everything. I'd rather look at a Van Gogh any day.
>>5217697No, It just means you have a certain Taste.
>>5217694OH NO NO NO NO NO NO
>>5217694soul>>5217577soulless
>>5217694>posts 30 second sketch before its completely painted over
>>5217694>>5217794who did it better?
>>5217694That's like a rough composition sketch, someone already posted his pencil work here >>5217677
>>5217387Sounds about right.
I still don't get why people don't realize that Vinnie sucked ass. He wasn't loser trash for nothing in life in a time when unlike today, artistic skill was still valued.
>>5217384Ruan Jia is nothing more than a billion chinese drones plagiarising the west, the japanese and each other and condensing the all copying and stealing into one or two random lucky people that can mass-produce a "perfect" synthesis of everything.Ruan has no imagination or creativity. Just the pinnacle of a billion soulless stealers. Kind of like if you cut and pasted together the juiciest paragraphs of every literary masterpiece book and claimed it as your own masterpiece. Any charming flair that he might have was stolen verbatim from someone non-chinese.Whether you like Gogh or not, he didn't have the fat internet hose to force feed him endless hype material nor did he have a stealing culture pushing him up. He drew and painted what he saw and liked, and had to come up with his own way of doing it.
>>5217384Left is better because i can feel an actual emotion from it while the right feels like a shitty world of warcraft screenshot.
>>5217384I don't think Van Gogh was ever particularly famed for his technical skill.Like his paintings are valued for something different. I'm not maybe the best person to explain it as he's not my favorite artist or anything but some of his works do have a certain raw emotional quality to them.
>>5218104He wasn't famed for his technical skill, but his skill did progress quickly considering he began at 27 and died at 37.What he's most praised for is his bold use of color, beautiful impasto brush strokes, and unique vision that reflected his psychological state. Also, he was one of the first western artists highly influenced by Japanese art, his Starry Night most likely was inspired by Hokusai's Great Wave.There are two aspects that make a great artist: craft and skill, and cultivating an idiosyncratic vision. /ic/ seems to be stuck on the first while either ignoring or shitting on the second.
>>5218153The "vision" part of art is something I struggle a lot with, but I don't pretend it isn't important. I have quite a bit of skill but still can't decide what my art should be "about". Lots of searching for my voice in recent years. Technical skill can make your art pop out and be noticed but the vision part is what people come back for. It's supposed be the reason why people look at your art, and unless they're artists themselves and looking to learn something they're not going to stay interested long if the only thing on display is technical mastery.
>>5218163Yeah, vision is where the deep digging begins. I find two avenues are needed to develop a vision:Influences: Find the art that both inspires and moves you. Look at a lot of different things: fine art, comics, movies, books. Find the themes that these artists deal with. And don't just look at the obvious suspects in your chosen medium, dig deep into history and find the more obscure artists, some who might be rougher as far as polish, but speak to you in some way.Life: Miyazaki said modern anime suffers because its creators "don't spend time watching real people." The same can apply to much of art. Great art is infused by insight into life and humanity. Everyone's experience is unique in some way, and incorporating that experience into your art is essential. But it's vital to learn from others, which means to get out of the pop culture echo chamber. Tarantino, despite loving movies, became a great scriptwriter by listening to how other people talk. Miyazaki's movies have so much humanity because he's observed other humans. Art, in the end, is about life, which is about you and others.
Ok does anyone here agree with this:The problem with art today is it is overly influenced by photography.take these two examples:>>5217577>>5217677Van Gogh's has a different feel to it don't you think?Ruan's and many famous artists of our time are either very cartoony or when rendered out, too photographic. It loses charm in the monotony of texture. Gogh's drawing is not perfect but we can see he has chosen what aspects of the drawing he wants to 'design'. Gogh is not merely trying to render a realistic image or adhere to formulaic anatomy.Another argument: The old masters had better stylizing ability than any modern cartoonist today. For this reason they have the appeal of 'soul'
>>5218210I agree. Even in my own work I can see a difference between something I drew from life vs something I drew from a photo ref. Photos tend to have a specific "look" to them which is different from real life and if you stay close to the reference you can sort of smell the photo through the drawing. Something even more obvious I feel is when something is referenced from a 3D model. Like I'm not saying it's obvious enough that I could say with 100% accuracy what drawing was referenced from life vs photo vs 3d model (and some artists are better at hiding the referencing than others) but there are subtle things that can show through, and the more polished the rendering, the more likely it is you can sense the nature of the reference.The "soul" that you can see in the old masters, I suspect, is precisely the fact that most of their works were done from life. You can just see more of the artist's interpretation in there.
>>5217959Souless?He seems to have a universe trought his different paintings,so his work have a bit of soul.
>>5218223Yeah I think that's the secret. I even remember Loomis making urgent point of drawing from life whenever possible.
>>5218153please explain whats so good about his art work.Not trying to shit on him, But I really don't understand the Praise. If someone were to make his work today in a world with out him no one would care i feel
>>5217959 Vinnie didn't steal? Did you see the shit he made when he had seen some ukiyo-e prints?
>>5218245No one cared about him back then either. Two key words I can think of with Van Gogh are Vibrancy and Flow. His sense of rhythm and colour is almost unmatched. Seeing his paintings in real life is also a must because he does some interesting stuff with paint texture and volume. Vincent's command of the more technical fundamentals are less convincing, but his pure creativity and Romantic persuasion are generally considered his factors of greatest appeal.
>>5218245I just did (impasto, color, unique vision, Japanese influence). His self portraits are his best work, full of luminous use of color and expressionistic brushwork.Either you get it or you don't. If you don't feel free to continue jacking off to over-rendered digishit where every figure looks like a lifeless porcelain doll.
>>5218245theres nothing good about van gogh, some of his very late paintings before he died were all right, but you could take the crow wheatfield painting and put it in the /beg/ thread and the same people praising van gogh in this thread would shit on that painting
>>5218259Of course you don't get the appeal of Ruans work, you don't paint.
>>5218261>/beg/Come on, stop being contrarian. You know that even your favorite artists today would pay respect to Van Gogh's work and influence.He is an important figure in art, you don't have to like his work to appreciate that fact. (I don't like mozart for instance). If you can't you are delusional.
>>5218263I've taken painting classes where I've painted with oils and acrylics (and no I can't post them, they're in my dad's addict over an hour's drive away, but here's a perspective study to keep you company).Regardless, if you're arguing that one needs to study the technical side of an art to appreciate and evaluate it, you're missing the point of art.
Fresh out of /beg/
>>5218276nta but the point is there's something in ruans work that you personally are just incapable of appreciating, much like some people are incapable of appreciating what's good about gogh. both your opinion and theirs are based in the same technical fetishism, just from different angles. to talk about missing the point of art and in the same breath deny the claim that someone may find something meaningful where you see nothing is peak irony
Never change /ic/
>>5218292When I look at this ruan guy's art I just see the epitome of modern, hollow concept art. It doesn't make me feel anything at all, while with Van Gogh I at least feel some expression of the world-soul of the time and culture he lived in.Now this may just be how contemporary art always appears, and why great artists are often not appreciated in their own times. But the idea that 100 years from now museum walls will be adorned with the kind of art I'd expect to see in the latest D&D rulebook seems quite far-fetched.
>>5218297Unironically soul vs soulless
>>5217462lots of crabs around here just idolize le old master
>>5218306Have som self awareness you schizoid, if it weren't for your art teachers influence telling you Gogh is some sort of artistic mastermind you wouldn't give a shit about his /beg/ tier art.Just cause something hangs in a museum doesn't make it good.
>>5218314>Bad > Good
>>5218332I don't think you've really thought this all the way through. What does make art "good" then?
>>5218339Sure as hell ain't what snobby 50 y/o art critics tell me atleast.
>>5218345In some sense it kinda is though. If the purpose of art is to express the individual's creative spirit into the global consciousness, that will necessarily be mediated by culture. Someone has to decide what will hang on museum walls and what will enter the public realm of discourse in order to be judged.The idea of atomized individuals judging all works of art on their own, separated from any influence of the culture around them is nonsense.
>>5218306Making an impact on a movement or on the history of art to warrant a museum place is very far from the point of art, once again. The fact that van gogh inadvertently ended up doing any of these things is, by your admission, not what makes his art "good" - that's just the reason normies go to museums and take pictures of it. what makes it good is much more personal and completely unconnected to the physical context in which you see his work. there is a two way relationship when it comes to this - for art to communicate with you, you must first on some level communicate with it, and this is exactly why art is so incredibly diverse and exists in a gazillion forms. the point is, whether a ruan painting exists in the concept art sphere or in the fantasy illustration sphere or in the culinary sphere is completely irrelevant, and even if it never sees the light of day as a historical artifact, i can look at it and say "nice" for literally any reason completely personal to me - maybe based on shared values, or maybe on my own, doesn't matter. this is the basis of why art has meaning at all. music taste, film taste, taste in anything amounts to the same. you may not see it but you're inadvertently expressing your subjectivity on the matter when you say "X good y bad". art doesn't have to be anything, it quite simply has to BE, and someone might find some way to connect with it. look at leyendecker and think about how he fits into this. look at sargent. and then look at all of them and see how different they all are, and wonder how it's possible to reconcile them with each other, if art should look a certain way. and this is totally confined within the realm of representational painting - there's plenty more outside of that
>>5218365conversely, i think you're too hung up on this dogmatic idea of "culture". culture is inherently pop culture, that's what gives it any authority, but plenty of things exist on the boundary of pop culture and outside of it too. believe it or not, while people aren't completely detached from their environment, they are also not entirely defined by it to the extent you're describing
or maybe I can put it this way - the job of the artist isn't to inject himself into the public consciousness, as you seem to think. it is only to make something he believes in. gogh wasn't injected into the public consciousness by his own efforts as an artist - he simply made something he believed in, and the injection happened retrospectively. it might well not have, but it turned out it did. this is the great dogma of "culture" you give so much power - it's more of an obituary than some ruling force which dictated his purpose as an artist. history went the way it did but we can only say that in retrospect - it really could have gone in any direction whatsoever
>>5218366You're right, I think all art has value in the way you describe, so in that sense all art is "good". Having said that, I also think if you're going to say some art is better than other art, it's hard to get away from cultural consensus being the determining factor of that.Like, is a banana taped to a wall better art than some hyper-realistic drawing an autist spent 100 hours on but got 10 likes on instagram? Personally I would bite the bullet and say yes, if the banana creates a greater impression on the cultural consciousness.
>>5217384vang gogh doesn't need to prove himself to youhis work and legacy speaks for itself
>>5218401hope van gogh sees this
>>5217887his works speaks another truth in the appeal artyou must be a soulless bug if you can't understand that
>>5218398Of course, but that's part of it. Great art can't be forced, it has to be a genuine expression of the individual working through the culture they are immersed in. Individuals are determined by their culture but culture is determined by the creative forces of individuals, and when those two things meet is where the best art is created.I think it's probably true that this can only be determined as an "obituary", once we have been removed from the culture that the art sprang from. Who knows, maybe people will look back at us in 200 years and consider Magic the Gathering cards as high art, I could be totally wrong.
As the only person in this thread who is actually gud at painting, I'm officially closing this thread. There is no redeeming information here. Both of these meme artists are shit.If poor mister Gogh was here today to witness the Academian Hebrew witchcraft his life's work is subjected to, he would cut off his other ear.Jia on the other hand could stand to hold a real brush once in a while or maybe a pencil if the weight didn't break his wrist. You show me a decent plein air painting and ill say something nice, but until this printer paper looking onions boy stands out in the sun and paints from observation like a real painter, I'm inclined to believe he'd only combust from UV damage.As for you reading this: >>5213748
>>5218424Nice, your work got selected as the thread OP image, congrats anon
>>5218297how is van gogh better?
>>5218418but these two forces meet all the time, that's the nature of life. they are meeting right now in us talking about this, in the things we value and in the things we choose to dispute. does that mean it is the best art? not necessarily. rather, i think the idea of "best art" is a ghost, and the very culture you speak about illustrates this quite effectively. there is really no such thing, and whether you speak with the cultural consciousness or against it, you are simply offering a perspective in the moment, and it is based on this consciousness and may or may not alter it, after which point something else becomes "best art". what culture considers to be good is given value only by the existence of the culture, but you have the power to give value to things regardless of the zeitgeist and in doing so change it in some way. what you choose to give value to is your identity as an artist, and whether it's "the best art" by some standard or not is totally moot - people have been discussing this ever since they developed the faculty to discuss, and will continue to do so until the heat death of the universe. as for the magic cards, who knows, but honestly who cares? there's plenty of commercial art from the past - religious art, fantastical art, vanity portraits - that is held in high esteem today. it is not the nature of the art, though, that brings people to it - it's in the values and convictions of the artist. skill is very much an expression of this too - to show skill is to show the value of skill to you
>>5218292>nta but the point is there's something in ruans work that you personally are just incapable of appreciating, much like some people are incapable of appreciating what's good about gogh. both your opinion and theirs are based in the same technical fetishism, just from different angles.nah, technical fetishism is the last reason why I enjoy Van Gogh's work (he attained just enough expertise to execute his vision).Those that I admire for their technical ability tend to be classicists in their medium: Hal Foster, Alex Raymond (attached), the Renaissance masters. Yes, I do look to artists who work traditionally to gauge technical ability. A technically proficient artist should be able to make a good drawing with a stick dipped in ink.Ruan Jia is good as far as mastering his chosen software and having an understanding of color and light. I don't deny that he's proficient at what he does, only that it leads to sterility if not paired with a more expansive vision.
You guys should try studying van gogh if you think his work is so "simple" and "lacking in technical skill"... He literally drew with paint, do you know how hard that is?
>>5217384Never heard of ruan jia and the painting tells why.
>>5218445>but these two forces meet all the time, that's the nature of life. they are meeting right now in us talking about thisTrue, but I suppose it only becomes "art" when it is done in a way that condenses everything and expresses it in a memorable way that will live on in people's minds. While shitposting on 4chan may be no different fundamentally, most of it will just be lost as noise. My idea of what the term "art" refers to probably encompasses more than most people's though.I agree with what you're saying though, it doesn't really matter and people should just like whatever they personally feel a connection with, regardless of whether culture decides it is "good art" or not.
>>5218263>Of course you don't get the appeal of Ruans work, you don't paint.Just wondering, what kind of paint does Ruan Jia use?
>>5218486shhhhhhhhh
>>5218476You're trying to convince people who have literally never touched canvas, Brian. These people couldn't begin to comprehend how hard plein air painting can be. That feeling when you're losing feeling in your fingers because the cold is setting in isn't something you can explain to people. You can't tell them what's it's like to be finishing a painting while your fingers literally stop working correctly. These people don't even know about using spit for medium because it's the only source or water that doesn't freeze. They don't even know what's it's like to lean into your easel to stop the wind from taking it away. They've never actually has to chase sunlight before it disappears or actually have to finish paintings from memory.
>>5218537>>5218476Stop talking to yourself brian and please seek professional help.
>>5218537>>5218476Lurker here. I really like these posts.
>>5217479>>5217546>>5217758>>5218314>>5218401I like Van gogh's art but let's be real guysSOUL means nothing if you die in poverty! It is not fun...
>>5218602That's the very meaning of soul.And the reason why I've sold mine.
>>5218554>>5218537>>5218476stfu brain cum farti
>>5218602honestly exept for the mental illness his life wasnt that bad materialy speaking
>>5217384oh my GOD who fucking CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARESWhy are you people so bad at realizing multiple styles of ART can coexist at the same fucking TIIIIIIIIIIIIIME and that you can like BOOOOOTH of them for different REAAAAAAAASONSWhy is this board so fucking STUPIIIIIIIDSTOP MAKING THE SAME FUCKING THREAAAAAAD
Van Gogh has soul because you can see true suffering in his works.
>>5217384define "technically"
>>5217384Soul vs Soulless
>>5218655successful ruan vs ngmi gogh>>5218643>Van Gogh has soul no, he was a ngmi like the 90% of ic.
>>5218766yet, you know about him
>>5218778By that logic you'd also think Hitler was cool, of course the gogh fanboy is a /pol/tard
>>5218781how being known makes someone cool?
>>5218787By your own logic yeah>known = good
>>5218797no, famous
>>5218801>famous = goodBy your logic you think ilya kuvshinov is a better artist than Glenn vilppu?
>>5218811who said famous = good
Van gogh gogh gogh goghNooooooooooo body's gonna love me like younobody's gonna love me like you donobody no, nobodynobody no, nobody
>>5218781Hitler was known for being a butthurt social retard who tried to take over Europe before offing himself, not his art.When he saw Van Gogh's artwork, Hitler called it degenerate art. Nazis stole a bunch of his artwork and kept it from the art world.Van Gogh is the antithesis of Hitler, someone full of creativity and humanity. Learn something ffs.
>>5218781>By that logic you'd also think Hitler was coolYes, that's right. Hitler was a very romantic person. SOUL!
>>5218781Hitler loved dogs more than he loved humans, he was a good person
>>5218820>trying this hard just to be heard
>>5218824I'll take your (you)s, thank you very much
>>5218424Nice
>>5218831here have ANOTHER ONE
>>5218813You
>>5218842quote
we are so smart for art
>>5218843>Gogh was ngmi incarnate>Ruan successful artist almost all professional artist nowadays like>No Gogh was based, he's famous according to all the normies!famous = good -Anon 2021
>>5218476I would say the same obsessive personality which both contents itself with paints and a surface for hours yet holds the ambition of creating something which impresses upon the viewer a perceived impossibility of technique is something that both Ryan and Gogh share. Also, values over color dude.
>>5218852>my art daddy could beat up your art daddy
>>5218852i'm not them, are you famous by any chance anon?
>>5218860SO WHY ARE YOU FUCKING RESPONDING TO IT YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKING BASTARDFUCK OFF LEAVE THIS BOARD, QUIT ART, FUCK OFF
>>5218866because, unlike 90% of /ic/, he is not a nobody
Ruan Jia needs his computer, photoshop setup, custom brushes, filters, etc. just to get to work.Van Gogh could make something awe inspiring with a $10 paint set from Micheals.Winner: Van Gogh, the Trad Chad
>>5217384I like van gogh's example more than jia's - honestly more soul
>>5218879man uses tools to create object, groundbreaking
>>5218879>Van Gogh's paintings are worth $10aren't you being a little harsh?
>>5218879Man make fire with lighter hmpf, loserCaveman make fire with stick oooo very coolCaveman best man
Personally think you can only compare their body of work, not individual images.In pic related at least, jia's is more technically skilled. With the perspective, rendering, colours.Left is arguably better though because of its purpose and feeling evoked, as well as the originality of the concept at the time.What matters most isn't what's the most technically skilled, but what provides the most value for other people.
>>5218912All this talk about Gogh evoking some sort of feeling with his art, I'm curious, what does he invoke?
>>5218924have you ever seen one of his paintings in person?
>>5218927Yes I have actually, and they were just as unimpressive as the jpgs are, now enlighten me, what does Gogh work make you "feel"
>>5218934good feelings and sad feelings at the same time, some paintings just sad
>>5218936So good feelings + sad feelings = great artGotcha
>>5218941>Left is arguably better though because of its purpose and feeling evoked, as well as the originality of the concept at the time.let's ignore everything else, yes
>>5218941Another anon here, the texture of the work/technical skill is one of the key appeals to me. It isn't great but van gogh had his own developed style which verges on a pretty basic rendering skill but at the same time the composition is on point. Just like the other one said, it brings out the nostalgic feeling of mixed happiness and sadness
>>5218924Basically that feeling of disorientation and excitement you get when you're in a dream. His work in general is pretty dream-like.
>>5218891Where would Jia be without PS? Has he ever worked traditionally?
>>5218949>being bad when everyone else was good = originalityOk champ
>>5218955if art was a measure of skill it would be an olympic sport instead
>>5218954where would man who uses tool to create object be without tool? groundbreaking
>>5218969yeah bro of course bro every trade in which you can acquire skill has to be an olympic sport of course bro
>>5218976no, just the various arts
>>5218781You will never be a real woman.
>>5218272My favorite artist (Richard schmid) shits on van gogh in his book lmao
Look how quickly everyone copes about "soul" when asked a simple question. Just admit that Ruan Jia is more TECHNICALLY skilled
>>5218879kek this is ruan jia's trad work tho lmaooo
>>5219295It looks like garbage
I think /ic/ is one of the boards with the shittiest taste, imagine thinking that generic illustrato #3183 is better than van gogh
>>5219293>Just admit that Ruan Jia is more TECHNICALLY skilledIf you wanted to be so concerned with TECHNICAL TECHNICALITY SKILLS in your work you should've gone into STEM, because successful art has almost nothing to do with that unless you live in China
>>5219311Soulless coomer shit>>5219295Soul
>>5219318Seething STEM bug pleb
>>5219356nobody is seething about you biron, your opinions are just terrible and a displeasure to read
>>5219295pure soul
RUAN JIA'S ART IS JUST POLISHED TURD
>>5219295SOULOUL
Ruan Jia.
>>5219295>posts mud
>>5217387kekin truth bugpeople can't create, only copy. explains the whole classic violinist/rockstars anecdote.
>>5218257>His sense of rhythm and colour What does this mean? Rhythm in a painting?
>>5219396I can't explain it to a robot
>>5218272based
>>5219402BASED. I wonder how the hell that anon can comment. How he can pass the captcha
>>5219402>van gogh is better because of X and Y!!!!>can you expand on what X and Y is?>........ no because your a ROBOT REEEE
>>5219442>explain soul to meI don't think I can do that robot
>>5218912>Left is arguably better though because of its purpose and feeling evoked, as well as the originality of the concept at the time.this is so bullshit, if I had told someone who had no idea it was a van Gogh and told them my grandma painted it, it would only evoke them to tell me its nice out of not wanting to be rude
>>5219402I don't think you can explain it period. Explain it to yourself and right it on here
>>5219457he can't explain it because its bullshit. look at how he seethes when asked to explain himself
>>5219457His brushstrokes are rhythmic and vibrant
>>5219457>>5219461You're literally plebs, its fine, go try to emulate your corporate chinese "art"
>>5219463To define a word you have to use other words than the word you are defining.
>>5219463I refuse to accept that as an answer until you define the words "His" "Brushstrokes" "Are" "Rhythmic" "And" and "Vibrant"Clearly you are just being pretentious by using words that I don't understandI don't know what any words in the English language mean
his canvas has a lot of empathy and his colors are very icecream
>>5219466His brushstrokes follow a regular pattern but with enough variation to keep the viewer interested in the art just like it happens in music and they are pure and often posses high chroma
His artform has a profound deliberateness and his brushtip is fluid. Perhaps the most fluid of them all.
>>5219484yes you can tell by his brushstrokes that his liver enzymes were at even levels, truly breathtaking
>>5219484Was that so hard?
>>5219488>>5219487For robots, yes
>>5219484If you enjoy that legitimately, purely by its own merit. Regardless of the name of the painter. Then it's fine by me.Personally I think it's ok. Nothing to get excited by.If I compare the pics of op, then the one on the left looks 2 dimensional perhaps with more soul than the one on the right. Which has an imaginative quality and a depth but looks a little cheap perhaps.
>>5219453i'm going to start posting van gogh's in /beg/ threads asking for crits
>>5219487kek
>>5217384juan ria
>>5218912>>5217479>>5217546>>5217694>>5217959>>5218153>>5218272>>5218476>>5218879follow up question, whose better, schmid or van gogh? or is schmid also a soulless bugman?
>>5217546>>5217697>>5217959>>5218200>>5218257>>5218259>>5219463show us an example of this ""vibrant"" brush work. Post an artwork by a different artist that has the same brushstroke qualities
>>5219559I prefer van gogh
>>5219559who the fuck is schmid?you're all retards. van gogh is a household name, on par with michelangelo and picasso, they made it, nobody gives a fuck about some spic doing ebin medieval romance
>>5219579>wtf bro if normies don't know artist than they suck.Ebic
>>5219559schmid is american retard artist, american cannot create a good art so they create modern art, crap art, fake art then use money to make people believe it is art.
>>5219594t. dutch
>>5219562I saw this before posted in /beg/, specifically to Van Goth I think its how he does his paintings with lines that dont touch each other so they give the sense of direction and movement, also the mix of simple warm colors with a lot of complex cold colors
>>5219582uhhh yes? where do you think the money comes from? And when you're dead, what's the point if nobody knows who you were?
>>5219579People know these shitty artists yes, for whatever reason, but it's not because of their great art.go watch Picasso on youtube. he sucks. more or less. every comment says the same.And I'm open to anyone who personally likes picasso for example. If you have your own reason and you legitimately like him.Honestly it's absurd how sheepish people are. Whatever the topic is.Two related videos:https://youtu.be/Dw5kme5Q_Yohttps://youtu.be/EnBdGTX3vZc
>>5217384One makes me think wealthy art student who was taught everything they know. The other makes me think person who came from struggle who LEARNED everything they know
>>5219899Who is who?
>>5217387fpbp
>>5219579>on par with michelangeloYou are truly delusional
>>5218259why are you assuming that I like that stuff??I just don't see what you are saying like I read what you say but it really doesn't explain anything for me maybe I'm retarded? or maybe you already have a bias against other work kinda evident by the way you describe others work as "over rendered" it isn't really a real term
>>5219559>>5219594Schmid is, in the end, a mediocre artist. It could be genetic but from reading his book I'd have to put it down to attitude. Plein air is a great book but some of his opinions reveal his close-mindedness and stubbornness. e.g. his opinions on rock and pop music. Great American artists do exist. James Whistler, John S Sargent, Frederick E Church, etc.>>5217384Technical ability alone will never translate to great art. Perfect prose won't write a great novel, Perfect technique in music will not write great piece or play it well. There are hidden factors that make a work 'Great'. Romantic composers exalted Beethoven for his 'Creativity' 'Insight' 'Emotion'. All very vague isn't it?While we can break down the Eroica Symphony it'll never provide us a roadmap to that same level of greatness.I think we can all therefore agree that the exact qualities that make a work great are elusive. The people behind them however are innovative, open-minded, visionary and in the end great story tellers. They have something meaningful to say.Oh and fuck jannies
>>5220313Pyw
>>5220313if you can't even define what art is to any reasonable degree that people can agree on then there is no way to measure if anything is great or not. It's a useless metric that is only determined by a popularity contest. The only true method that is worth study and admiration is technical ability.I agree with the storytelling part 100%, but our current fashionable understanding of art is holding the different arts back. It divides rather than brings people together like a story does
>>5220911>The only true method that is worth study and admiration is technical ability.Dumbass
>>5220313>Romantic composers exalted Beethoven for his 'Creativity' 'Insight' 'Emotion'. All very vague isn't it?No, it's not. It's perfectly understandable. You can't compare "the great" painters, meaning those like Picasso to the actual great classical composers. The "art" world has sadly been infiltrated by what has nothing to do with art. This fact isn't even up for debate. See the video https://youtu.be/Dw5kme5Q_Yo
>>5219295Not bad, but looks too photographic
>>5221058Kek. Imagine beliving that bullshit. Also >>>/r/eddit
>>5217384>Who is the better artist?>Vincent van Meme>Meme JiaThese can't seriously be my choices...
>>5221146reddit buys into that shit so maybe (you)
>>5220965you can't get gud at something that is only defined as elusive. Anything that is deemed "you either got it or don't" isn't worth putting any time into
>>5219579>>5217964>>5218314>>5218479>>5218643>>5219295>>5219306>>5219308>>5219311The Absolute State /ic/
>>5221339Yep lmfao, and you ask one of them to "PYW" and they fall in shambles.
>>5221253We're /ic/, we deal in absolutes
>>5221146Learn how to make arguments before you post, you mentally undeveloped peon.
>>5217387this tb h
>>5221339deal with it faggot. Proves that most of this board has some healthy taste at least
>>5223036Nothing healthy about going caveman rage when somebody questions your programming, npc.
Jia is more technically proficient than Gogh. The problem is that Jia has a very boring art style. It's basically the Asian version of Globohomo, designed to be as appealing as possible to the greatest amount of people, but consequentially, it feels heartless. I'd love it if he could break out of his kitschy, over-rendered anime style, he obviously has the potential to be a great artist.I really like Van Gogh, his colours are beautiful, his strokes are fluid, and you can tell he really gave a shit - even if he was a madman.He's cute. I'd happily spend $15 and hang a print of one of his self-portraits on my wall.
>>5225473Drawing is the root of everything. – Vincent Van Gogh"Drawing is the basis of art. A bad painter cannot draw. But one who draws well can always paint". Arshile Gorky"Drawing is the artist's most direct and spontaneous expression, a species of writing: it reveals, better than does painting, his true personality." Edgar DegasIt takes 25 years to learn to draw, one hour to learn to paint. IngresNo. Juan Ria has no potential, he can't draw. He already reached his limit. He just 3 star gacha artist, with asian race for faster level up passive.
>>5217794>>5217798Both rook same!
>>5225508I feel this. I been drawing for a long time and I love my pencil sketches. Recently buckled in and started learning to paint and I feel like I'm learning so fast, but my paintings feel souless. I was chalking it up to just not being what I'm used to seeing. But, maybe it's deeper than that.
>>5225508Let's see some artwork big boss
>>5225557“The important thing is to keep on drawing when you start to paint. Never graduate from drawing.” John Sloan
>>5218476No attempt to match the colours, size, shape, values, anything. Why bother?
>>5217677I wonder if he has tremors
Is this some collective trolling? On the left is a beg-tier trash that anyone can do in a week of learning to paint while on the right is the result of a decage's worth of rigorous grind.
>>5217794This looks pretty bad, who is this meme eceleb?
>>5218899Well for most of his 'career' they weren't worth anything because he gave them to his brother to sell, and his brother just kept them since the market wasn't interested until close to his death. He was basically a NGMI until someone randomly bought a couple paintings at a small exhibitionEven Cumfarti is doing better than Van Gogh did in his lifetime, and I hate saying that
>>5228610Didn't he only become famous when his letters were released
>>5221058Picasso's art was shit and he was a communist wannabe on top of that. i am aware he could actually paint at one point then he started doing the bullshit he is known for. he was one of those infiltrators. also fuck Beethoven. Mozart was better and Beethoven knew it.
>>5217384idk who Ruan Jia is and I am familiar with Van Gogh. but looking at these two comparisons I prefer the right painting to the left. how about next time posting two comparable paintings together
>>5218259Van's self portrait is better than Starry Nightfight me
>>5219288Based mr Schmid
>>5219311BEGONE CUMFARTI
>>5217384>he thinks art is about technicall skillbeg and ngmi
The Dafen village in mainland china ca probably paint all of Van Gogh's paintings in Van Gogh style in an afternoon. Ruan Jia is just one Chinese artist that Americans know because of artstation.
>>5229877But anon Ruan has been admired by digital painters since 2010, long before artstation was even a thing
>>5229877confirmed zoomer
>>5218276>they're in my dad's addictSome poor junkie in your dad's basement with a collar on and an asshole crammed full of paintings, wishing for death but he serves a greater purpose as a painting storage device.
>>5225473you almost got it, jia doesn't really tell any stories in his art yet it has more detail/information than van gogh's. So the more information you share without it being a story the more it comes off as rambling. So it comes off as uncanny and that's why you get that heartless feeling. Does van gogh tell stories in his paintings, perhaps, I haven't really thought about it, but it doesn't matter because even if he didn't its not as large of gap as ruan's
>>5219899So?Do you think it's a mark of a great artist to ignore all advice from those more experienced than you?Do you respect artists who vehemently refuse to learn fundamentals, because they follow their own path?
>technically skilled painter vs overated lunatic who couldn't paint do save his own earGood bait OP
