>/ic/ never talks about him anymoreWhy?
>>7735929Meme artist. All that skill and nothing to say
>>7735929>>7735929buskers do this shit all the time. his art is ugly. his subject matter is ugly. degenerate. its not worth discussing. over use of fish eye lens to hide his imperfections. impresses normies. performative. nothing lasting or memorable. a moment in time and forgotten like guy doing caricatures in 5 mins on street corner.
>>7736050Talented and great draftsman, but once you see that most of his work is just mentally picturing a cube on the canvas and filling it with stuff, the gimmick kind of wears off.He's also dead, so there's that.
>>7735929He was a performance artist, which means his stuff wasn't really that interesting. Terada is similar. Very good at drawing, but I don't find his stuff very interesting. It's just random stuff thrown together. Very sketchy and unfinished. No real polished paintings, or comics, just mental masturbation not really aimed at any audience. I guess if you are into korean culture his drawings can be interesting.
>>7735929I like him, I went thru one of his courses and he made me realize that I don't care for technique nearly as much as visual storytelling, just imagine if KJG did manga like Boichi, Murata and Miura.I'm aware that Kim did manhwa decades ago but his webtoon stuff was boring.
The fact he even did teaching courses says a lot. If someone is really a great artist, then that person doesn't want to waste his time with teaching. KJG was phenomenal at drawing, but he didn't really have much to say. His drawings were just really well drawn caricatures and generic sci-fi and industrial stuff mixed with erotic. The only thing which made him stand out was that he could draw this stuff on the fly in front of people.
>>7736077>mixed with eroticHis "erotic" stuff is clinical, it doesn't turn anyone on, his girls are just kind of there, it's weird. Erotica should at least turn the viewer on, his stuff just kind of sits there. Your average hentai manga-ka is better at it than Kim was.When you look at Robert Crumb's stuff, you can tell he's getting off to it himself, Kim's work seems completely disinterested in the sexual outside of the basic representation of a nude figure, or an aloof girl giving a hand job.
>>7735929Might have something to do with him being fucking dead.
>>7736102Many dead artists are still talked about
>>7735929the way he was drawing is impressive, but he didn't create anything really notable
>>7735929He was an amazing artist no doubt. His work just wasn’t necessarily very visually appealing. He made stuff that was technically skillful but not pleasing to the eye. It wasn’t ugly by any means, but it wasn’t beautiful either
>>7735929By that logic we should have a thread for all the renowned artists who have died in the last several years. But we don't, cos there isn't anything new to say. What do you want us to talk about that hasn't already been said before?
>>7735929when you die your judged on your body of work, and the metrics for that are different than single projects or individual works. unfortunately his body of work is pretty lacking and there's really not much to talk about, (pretty much a comic few people have read and some live performance demonstrations). he is widely influential tho and alot of people look up to him so maybe one of his students or someone he inspired will make something that stands out in the future.
>>7736089>Erotica should at least turn the viewer onI disagree. It also can just be there to show anatomy and beauty. If I want to get turned on, I look at the real thing. Drawing is not really the best medium for porn.
>>7736207>erotic>/JˈrɒtJk/>adjective>relating to or tending to arouse sexual desire or excitementIf it's not erotic, it's not erotica, you dumb fucking nigger. Nobody opens up an anatomy book and goes hmm oh yes, this is erotic art
>>7736210>relating to or tending toThat doesn't mean it has to arouse people. Learn to read.There is a difference between erotic which is just there to give you a boner, and erotic which is just sensual, or almost religious. You can draw a pair big fat boobs, highly rendered, and make it an obvious focus point of a picture. Or you can just draw a nice pair of boobs in a more naturalistic manner, without making it the focus of the image.It's the difference between coomer art, and just erotic art. Coomer artist are hyperfocused on arousal, while many other artists just like drawing boobs every now and then.
If this picture is arousing to you is very subjective. I'm too decensitized to find this arousing, but I'm sure there are some little boys who could still jerk of to this. KJG just didn't hyper focus on porn or erotic like a coomer artist. He simply liked drawing nice girls every now and then, but didn't shape his whole persona around it.
>>7736221>>>/r/eddit
>>7736221>>7736230>this art is very erotic, I am not aroused at all???
>>7736240It obviously has erotic elements, but that doesn't mean it has to turn me on. It's just a lineart drawing of some old hag with nice boobs. It's nice to look at and very well drawn, but that doesn't mean I get a boner from it.
>>7736252>this is a great horror film>I mean I'm not scared at all, but maybe someone is, like a kid or somethingCope, retard.
>>7736240I think what you are confused by is the fact that not all artists who draw erotic pictures have the intent to make you jerk off to it.That's the difference between coomer artist and erotic artist. The coomer wants to make you jerk off, while the erotic artist just wants to depict Eros.
>>7736102Dead?! I didn't even know he was sick
>>7735929Incredibly skilled draftsman and cartoonist but there is more to art than depiction and even style. When you see the work itself, the performative aspect is irrelevant and it is judged in comparison to the works of other cartoonists who draw complex scenes with ink. Picrel is Mort Drucker, who could also stuff a page full of figures and gags; I think his humor is more relatable and the caricatures of famous people make it interesting even for normies. It's still more in the realm of commercial illustration/cartooning than art, however. In great art, there is a balance of the abstract design elements — the light and dark pattern, dominance of value, color, shape, etc. — with the representational, and the abstract elements support the representational holistically.But both Kim and Drucker could draw the pants off almost anyone, and it's worth noting that both were great at drawing hands.
>>7736261It's about the intent you fucking retard. Pic related has erotic elements in it too. Does that mean it's created for people to jerk off to it? There is an obvious erotic symbolic in it, but that doesn't mean the artist wanted people to get off to it.
>>7736274>Pic related has erotic elements in it tooNo it doesn't lmao
>>7736274you are just a pedo
>>7736276Of cours eit does. The water fountain easily could be a symbol for a dick. The girl is sucking a dick. Do you think the artist of pic related created this so people can jerk off to it too? Or did he maybe just wanted to depict a scene from mythology? Not all erotic art has to have the intent to make people whip their dicks out. You also can be erotic in a more subtle manner. Maybe it arouses you subconsciously, who knows, but it's not like pic related instantly gives people a boner.
>>7736230It's a fantastic drawing, but the lack of context (note how she is literally "cut off" at the thighs) and the expression on the girl's face makes it look more like she's performing a gynecological self-exam or trying to remove a grain of sand from her soft parts than self-pleasuring.
>>7736281They are literally having sex in that image
>>7736281You are unironically retarded.
>>7736284And? Does that mean the artist wants you to jerk off to it? It's a scene from a greek myth. It's not just some random coomer fantasy, but a depiction of a story of cultural importance. Just because a picture has erotic in it, doesn't mean its intent is to make you jerk off to it.
>>7736274seek help, tranny
the goal post... come back...
>erotic art is when the art shows an innocuous scene unrelated to anything sexual and doesn't excite or arouse the viewerReally activated my almonds
>>7736284>>7736288NTA but you guys are legitimately ape-brained if you can't tell the difference between porn and erotic art. Erotica absolutely doesn't need to turn you on, it's about visual interest. You can paint tasteful nudes without jacking off to them
>>7736296They are having sex
>>7736292You are just too stupid to think in abstract ways.It's about the intent of the artist and the focus of the image. Take Hajime Sorayama for example. He often paints highly detailed, highly sexual scenes, however this is not even his focus. His focus is about creating Eros, ie bringing things to life. He paints light and shadows to bring things to life and paint hyperrealism.His intent is not to turn you on, but rather to create a really well made painting. He doesn't just create smut but real artworks. Smut is there to make you jerk off, while art is just there to showcase your talent. Showcasing the talent of your craftsmanship is the focus point, not getting your rocks off.
>>7736296You're the only retard talking about jacking off, nigger. If you weren't so pajeet brained, you'd be aware white people get aroused and excited by erotica without losing all impulse control and masturbating on the spot.
>>7736303No, you're too cumbrained and worn out by decades of beating your dick to death to even recognize visceral eroticism and now conflate it with some abstract concept of it that you see in images of children drinking water. It's over for you.
>>7735929His artwork lacks appeal. His videos, interviews, life story are the appeal. Now that he passed away, well...
>>7736307The argument was about if erotic art has to turn the viewer on. Using your logic if an erotic drawing doesn't turn you on, it has to be bad, which doesn't make any sense, since there are obviously different degrees of eroticism. Some erotic is highly detailed and explicit, while other erotic can just be a crude and quick drawing. Your whole argument makes no sense. And apart from that, not all erotic has the intent to arouse you. It also can just inspire your imagination in a more subtle way, not necessarily make you horny.
>>7736282Well, you always have to keep in mind how KJG created his drawings. He didn't sit there for hours sketching for the most perfect face impression, but just drew the lines in one go. And in this context his drawings can be very erotic. Doesn't mean they make me whip my dick out, but he was very good at drawing nice women.
>>7736322That's not the argument at all, esltard. Learn to fucking read.
>>7736367>Erotica should at least turn the viewer onThat was the argument. Learn to read.
>>7736374You're talking to different people, you braindead cumbrain.
>>7736380Then you are arguing against the wind. That was what I was arguing against.
>>7736390The wind between your ears, more like. Learn English, you nigger.
holy shit stop falling for the bait you actual mouth gaping retards
>>7735929Why would I talk about a literal no-draw?
>>7736105Are they as talked about as when they were alive and relevant?
>>7736075"Why are you tired after drawing for only seven hours?" asks the diabetic who died of a heart attack at 47.
>>7736274>Pic related has erotic elements in it too.Uoh?!
RIP sensai these nerds know not what they type
>>7735929Este papacito koreano me recuerda a otro genial artista con mensajes de pichulas dibujando sobre durlock.
>>7736102skill issue, i still post online after my death
>>7736089Honestly, Asian art makes me wonder if Asians are asexual. None of their stuff is that sexy.
>>7737015that's where they get the discipline from, no porn to destroy their brain
>>7737060But 4chan told me porn was healing.
>>7736050Nature is cruel like that. Talent and willpower wasted on simpletons. It’s so rare that vision AND ability seem to come together in one person.
>>7737557I think it's more that you can't spend 12 hours drawing every day and have time or energy left over for deep thought.
>>7737557He did what he enjoyed doing. Guy literally just drew whatever he felt like drawing the whole day. If you are a manga artist or whatever you constantly have to draw tedious shit and think about stories and whatever. KJG was literally just doodling the whole day at an extremely high level, which is probably pretty fun.
>>7735929his art is weird
>>7735929he was the flavor of the month artist, nothing special about him aside from being the pinnacle of a doodler. humans are moved by stories, and those who tell the strongest stories will stand the test of time, he on the other hand will be forgotten.
He probably was killed by AI coprorations, because he was the prime example of an artist computers can't emulate.
>>7737996He died from the vaxx. Probably. Also he was a Korean sex pervert who traveled the world and probably knew things and ran his mouth. Also, when you kill an artist at the right time his shit becomes more valuable. This is why Picasso shit is relatively worthless for someone who's so famous. It's not really surprising. And it was probably the vaxx. Ack-
