Does anyone else remember a YouTube video called "Paul talks down to Proko" where some old guy talks shit about Stan's art? I can't find the video or the channel anymore.
>>7736173Paul-talk, his videos are on odysee.
>>7736186Thanks a lot anon. Any idea if or why he got wiped off YouTube?
>>7736198Why does it matter?
>>7736267Why do you ask?
>>7736173Paul-Talk and no matter how rough he may seem, it's a critique, he critiques and doesn't shit talk.>>7736198According to him Chinese bots he pissed off mass reported his channel, nothing to do with any of the other 200 people he critiqued that might have taken it badly, or elaborate trolls goading him into critiquing other artists.
>>7736198somewhere he said it's not the first time he's wiped off youtube, he might eventually put everything back on until he gets kicked out again.He had a big argument with that kike David Kassan and his dirty jew wife where they started talking shit to Paul under fake accounts but somehow blew their cover and ended up deleting all their messages, what a bunch of clowns.Look up his video on Bouguereau if you can; I found that one to be one of the most informative and at the same time the best critique of all the neo-realism being pumped out of academies these days.Btw, he has a great book available as a pdf for free on his site: >paulrhoads.org/
>>7736387his art looks just as shit as proko's.
>>7736387literally whoI don't like proko, but he looks like some pretentious fag
>>7736387hi paul, you are shit at art. how the fuck do you even support yourself, welfare?
>permabeg for 40+ yearsi would simply kill myself
>>7736434lol I'm not Paul>>7736407>>7736437I absolutely agree, his art is shit, but his criticism and his philosophy is great. You should ignore his paintings but use his theory to improve your own artwork.
>>7736441sure Paul, your subterfuge is just as bad as your "art", outline your figure drawings more, shit looks like a bad cartoon
>>7736441>>7736415>>7736387>>7736173>>7736186>>7736198go the fuck away "paul", proko is a legend and a multi millionaire
permabeg critics are like fat girls trying to give fitness advice to runway models
>>7736445fuck off stan
You either get good, be successful and hang out with your art homies doing workshops in Prague or devolve into a diminutive bald creature that makes video essays of successful artists in your house all day with the camera pointed up at your chin about how their art is bad when you can't even draw better than mental hospital patients told to "paint how they feel"
>>7736441idk i tried to watch the proko video but his critique is so vague and wishy washy, like he was comparing some obvious pre/beg/'s drawing next to proko's actually good drawing and saying the beg was "taking control of the page" better.>>7736447to be fair i think you can give good advice while also having shit art but those people are usually grifters when it comes to somewhere like youtube
>>7736441I'm literally listening to him right now and he just doesn't understand how western mainstream differs from eastern european formalismHe's a pseud.I have no beef with the art.
his whole thing is saying modern art is ugly and the classical artist needs to bring back beauty, except his stuff is garbage and modern art is actually beautiful if you aren't being a cherry picking retard.Shit channel but he does actually read so sometimes says something interesting. He's very adjacent to KIRAC who also do art critique from the center-right - they used to be cooler but started getting bankrolled by a dutch millionaire and lost a ton of their edge.
>>7736456>I'm literally listening to him right nowwhat video? I wanna understand what you mean with "how western mainstream differs from eastern european formalism". Please elaborate if you want
>>7736437>>7736407His paintings suck ass because no one can paint anymore, not in non alla prima anyway, and no diluted paint wash is not a glaze, modern realists have to color check 300 different micro colors just to do it alla prima, so you can't even blame him, his drawings and sculptures actually look good and like the classical art he espouses.
>His paintings suck ass because no one can paint anymore, not in non alla prima anyway, and no diluted paint wash is not a glaze, modern realists have to color check 300 different micro colors just to do it alla prima, so you can't even blame him, his drawings and sculptures actually look good and like the classical art he espouses.
>>7736486No faggot a stylized portrait of Frieren, an anime character in alla prima does not discount the fact that oil painting methodology and teaching has been lost for years.Paul never had a chance to learn proper oil painting in the style of the old masters NO ONE HAS, that's his excuse, people who still make serviceable oil paintings exist, that doesn't mean that they're ways everyone can paint especially if you're inspired by pre 17th century art, alla prima is very conflictive with the drawing styles and way you learn art from those masters.
oh oh, gypsy's malding again
>>7736445>net worth as a reason to like someoneWhy are zoomers like this? They espouse communism but only ever suck the status quo's dick. Holy fuck I would hate to be inside of a zoomer 's life.
>>7736469These are the three videos I listened to.The problem is that he's trying to look at modern art outside of the social and political context.Literally no one does that, because modern is literally a social phenomenon in history, period.And there's too much “I think”, even though there are literally many memoirs of contemporaries that are much more reliable.If you're interested in criticism of modern art, I'd suggest finding Roger Scruton (The True, the Good and the Beautiful) on yt and his lectures in general
>>7736445draw me a kangaroo stan
>>7736501>Roger ScrutonI love Scruton, but I also enjoy the perspective of an actual painter (as shitty as he may be) and a strict focus on painting. Thanks for the reply!
>>7736501>The problem is that he's trying to look at modern art outside of the social and political context.>Literally no one does that, because modern is literally a social phenomenon in history, period.That's the entire reason that Paul managed to cultivate an audience to begin with. This is an actual unique view, art history is viewed as stories of how the wealthy and the churches funded art, then the academy, and then the reactions to it, but it never discusses the techniques and why they came to be, degree chasing midwits who cannot properly clock painters mediums to this day using super high tech radiology reduce it to politics rather than the artists and their choices themselves, even if the art is expressly Marxist, expressly reactionary, whatever, it has more to do with the artists.
>>7736509>This is an actual unique viewThat's simply not trueJust, if you are an academic, you have to make careful conclusions, not take it from your head because "it seems to you"
>>7736498sounds like you hate your life already boomer xD
>>7736455>his critique is so vague and wishy washy, like he was comparing some obvious pre/beg/'s drawing next to proko's actually good drawing and saying the beg was "taking control of the page" better.Draw from life for some time. watch it again, then you'll get it.
>>7736548i have
>>7736437this is just an imitation. why not paint something you know? i dont know both these artists in the thread, but this painting is untrue. it's fake in the classical sense of the word. false.
>>7736387>this is the guy talking shitLMAO
>he's actually arguing that he prefers the drawing on the right because it's his studentohh no no noThis is what a life of crabbing gets you /ic/
>>7736589Why not strive to invent like the old masters? It sounds like you'd rather take up photography, are photos closer to the truth you're looking for?
>>7736610left is very stiff, right's rounded out forms describe the body better. They're both student drawings, but the right one has more appeal and succeeds in describing the form more
>>7736610Is Paul blind? Maybe that "student" is his lover? Unsolicited advice for anyone here who draws like the guy on the right: please PLEASE slow down when you do your construction block-ins. You don't need to get it right in 10 seconds no matter what Vilppu or anybody says, practice drawing slowly and then after you get comfortable and it's too easy, do the speed exercises, Also your sausage arms make Russian atelier art nerds cry.
>>7736668you retards are just contrarians
>>7736610He repeatedly tries to explain why and even clarifies that prokos and that drawing on the left are "snazier and flashier".Maybe what he's getting at is that once you see enough of those clean pinterest sketches they get boring.
>>7736684so you retards are unable to filter good content from bad content?how'd you even find this retard, he isn't even on youtube. there's no way you aren't paulthis is like purposefully going to a landfill to find used toilet paper to eat when you're starving
>>7736690Paul had a good 5k or more subs if I recall when he was on YouTube, his videos averaged even more views, he got into discussions with David Kassan (albeit there was a 50% chance he was baited by a troll but the fact Kassan replied is something) and Damian Chavez, and others, his critiques managed to capture people especially ones on this board who both hate the fuck out of modernism and rigid academicism. In a sense he was almost the ideal /ic/ bait jew tuber until it got nuked.
>>7736387nigga is this some sorta falseflag to get ppl to dogpile on this "paul" by pretending to be him
>>7736696>his critiques managed to capture people especially ones on this boardi have never once in my life heard of this fag and i've looked at this board every day for years instead of drawing
geg this is what worshipping le old masters gets you
>>7736437If this is beg, then Matisse was a pre pre pre beg.
>>7736696Paul is actually friends with a lot of big name artists, he studied together with Jacob Collins and other people at some point. There was some forum from like 15 years ago where Paul and Will St John got into a big argument so yeah, people in the field know who he is. I'll try to post that forum discussion if I find it, it was really interesting to see both views.
>>7736913here we go, the mentioned convo: >themusecommands.substack.com/p/conversation-with-a-classical-realist
>>7736668Do you know know your lefts and rights or something? No way you're this retarded.
>>7736638Old masters copied the classics and the real world.
>>7737054Classical Realists do the same. Then, they make threads like >>7734922. There's more to it than being satisfied with copying.
>>7736920>here's proof that paul is a notable figure in the art community>paul's blogpost>>7737066No, your drawings are not decent just because paul said soget back to work, you lazy piece of lard
>>7736457I was trying to watch some of his videos, and he Paul said that Proko doesn't use the paper properly. Showing Proko's rendered drawing with some other dude's 30 second gesture. What does that mean? How is one using paper better than the other?
>>7737348The best way I can describe it is that it seems as though he's saying that Proko's drawings are placed on the page like how you'd tape a photograph to a page. The drawing itself has zero relation to the page itself and is just placed there without a thought as to how much space the figure occupies. This is my interpretation but on an intuitive level I feel like I understand what he means. Of course, I could just be bullshitting myself too with some pseudo-philosophical shit.
>>7736173What's the video? I'm not going to watch all the content of that old one to find it.
>>7736173He looks like a schizo boomer doing stand-up about art.
>>7737367https://odysee.com/@Paul-talk:b/Paul-talking-down-to-Proko:9
>>7737361I think that it's moreso the composition and where the figure have been placed are not in service of a larger idea and emotion to convey. The figure takes up the page but it's placement is only considered so far as that it needs to fit on the page. It's a great study, there's just not a larger idea other than the competant statement of describing the human form. It's just not very artistic, nor is Proko attempting to be here. The drawing is largely for demonstration purposes. Although there is something to be said about placing your lines down sympathetically to each other and the composition as a skill to work on. I strongly suggest reading the practice and science of drawing by Harold Speed for some thorough theory and philosophy on art.
>>7736387Calling yourself a philospher of painting is obnoxiously pretentious and extrordinarily cringe.
>>7736861matisse paintings are ugly as fuck house decoration fodder but he obviously has better fundies than this clown
>>7737645Matisse's collection may be valued in the tens of billions, but he couldn't do a simple figure drawing. His stuff is so prebeg that people thought it was deliberate, like Picasso's.
>>7736638youre not inventing anything by imitating classical painting. you innovate by bringing the past to the present. why not use the classical style to paint a modern world, as if one of the old masters traveled to our timeframe? now thats inventive. painting a greek or roman place that doesnt exist anymore and youve never seen will make it unreal and non tangible. its fake
>>7736610I know what that guy means and it's the exact reason why I would always, ALWAYS prefer cool raw sketches with a great idea and SOME technical skill over blizzard/arcane/LoL/disney/samdoesarts sort of stuffI fucking love Moebius' Arzach, but would anyone call it ultra realistic or professionally rendered? I don't think so. But I've still drawn way more inspiration and passion for drawing from Moebius, Alan Lee's sketches and random peoples' raw works than from any single highly rendered piece of corporate art slop (think Blizzard and other companies like them)It's all about SOVL, anon. Not about being precise about your lines and rendering.
>>7737988are you sure you reply to the right guy?They both are quick sketches and the right one us dogshit
>>7738024NTA but right has soul and left doesn't.
>>7736859>crabbing his own studentAbsolutely devious.
>>7736859Maybe he is starting from a sort of a correct foundation. If you are "better" than him but drawing feels like a chore, you get sore eyes or shoulders (happened to me), you are doing it fundamentally wrong. But if you did it without tensing your body as you do now, you'd be way worse. If drawing feels like a dance you progress slower, but it's effortless.
>>7736437looks like he's got his head up his ass thinking about a bunch of abstract philosophical stuff but he doesn't have the humility to actually grind the fundies.
>>7738070I see no soul on the right whatsoever. It's just a poor drawing. Left doesn't have much of it, but some.
>>7736589sick of banal paintings. Let him invent.
>>7738070The picture on the left is just more refined.The more detailed the sketch is, the less room for imagination, and the more your inner crab manifests itself
>>7736445>proko is a legend and a multi millionaireSo is Andy Warhol. It doesn't make his shit any good
Sorry to go off on a tangent here but>https://themusecommands.substack.com/p/conversation-with-a-classical-realistThis post caught my attention.I see it and have things to say despite it basically going>Tradition is a strong word, Bouguereau is different from Botticelli -Paul>Yeah but what about Velasquez and Caravaggio- Will>True but they were an exception and still required a lot of imagination and adapting reality from the artists eye- Paul>Ok but unless you offer something better I will defend classical realism I still have things to say mostly in response to Will St. John because he also summarizes Paul in replies.>Regarding the quality pictures I have read threadbare remarks regarding “the truth and force of...psychological expression” in Giotto and the, “feeling of the drama inherent in space” in Caravaggio. But as soon as one begins talking drawing and painting realistically you say, “not the goal.” -WillDepends on the master, but more over we know for many of these masters when working on murals in specific were always incapable of being able to directly paint people. Moreover Paul clearly points out that they never cared for the models imperfections, they always went ahead and idealized the form. Only after Caravaggio, or a little before when adhering to classical antiquity ideals did people choose to draw the models exactly as they were.And it's funny because Caravaggio was a very degenerate artists. Arguably the first modernist. He did this to be cheap and transgressive. You can like his art work but he quite literally did this to rebel against tradition, he was a very pissed off little man and his generation followed him because they were also ready to break with tradition.So objectively although the timing is a little off two schools exist, and for what it's worth Paul seems to have won the argument and even you admit it, he is more traditional and classical than people who make 80 hr realist academic drawings of obese niggers
>Everyone knows this is not how it was done, but no one can do as it was done.- WillThat's the thing though Will, no one actually knows how it was done, they just say they do.This is very specific to the medium of oil painting, which is an inferior form of art to other forms of painting, and I have reason to suspect the jews introduced it to the west to accelerate western art decline for the long game, but that's another story for another time, the point is that it is a very demanding medium for the optical effects it offers, and requires very exact training that is now mostly lost due to the old master being a bunch of greedy honorary kikes.The people who claim to know read second hand art history or treaties on art that are meant for literal beginner level children that would have gone to studios to be assistants at age 10 and are basic advice with no real technical advice meant for anyone over age 14.No one actually knows what the fuck they're talking about, through verbal tradition and watering down of technique they think they do.Just look at the word scumble. A mistranslation word which now has multiple meanings.>Any medium heavy layer lightening the work is a scumble>No! A scumble must always be more opaqueBoth sides are arguing over the most meaningless technicality because everyone is stuck on 19th century hearsay.In the 19th century this shit degraded heavily, the academy system likely made students not care much for the actual teachings which were already being diluted heavily because Caravaggio and David both went far more alla prima than the masters at various stages of their careers.Gerome used to discourage students to paint directly, never glaze in class. Learn that somewhere else.Guess what his only 2 of his students ever gave a fuck about learning how to paint from him, the rest were just there for a passing grade.
>yapyapyapnone of you can paint and neither can the boomer lmao
>>7738337True, especially you, you couldn't paint if you took shit and smeared it on a canvas now pipe down nigger go tell someone to pyw just to call it shit.
>[seethes uncontrollably] AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Cont.So all throughout history oil painting knowledge has never been passed down. I can't blame them either. The old masters did this intentionally. They were honorary jews who were so obsessed with sucking the aristocracy's rich cocks so they kept methods secret, and kept knowledge mostly to direct teaching through pupils rather than anything of value like books. Again almost all the existing books especially pre 18th century are all so bare bones no actual learning value can be scraped from them.All this just leads to my second point.>I’ll defend Classical Realism as being the best thing going today, even though it hasn’t reached the standards of previous centuries. Until you offer something better I don’t know who is really going to listen.I get your point Will. Paul is most certainly turned now into a critic with no way to paint himself. The problem is Will, that there is a deeply false safety in modern classical realism.If you're totally fine with just painting like Leighton or David you are abandoning all other traditions.Direct painting based on observation survived. The rest didn't, if you just say there already exists a solution then you are not putting in effort into finding out how the other painters actually painted. It's self destructive behavior.Most classical realists will say that they have the keys to ancient painting when in reality they don't know shit past the initial last 200 years maximum. For further proof of this look at modern sculpture vs modern painting. Why is it that no one can make a painting that looks like it's made similar to pre 1600s works while modern sculpture is still relatively rooted? Because we lost the knowledge.Paul doesn't need to offer a solution, he needs to point out there is a problem and there is value in that, because it is objectively less damaging to art than offering a solution that doesn't actually apply at all.
Ultimately there are two schools of classical painting>All my figures are white male gods with ideal bodies and I don't want to paint reality I want to go above and beyond.vs>I love niggers, I love everything about nigger bodies. I want to paint and draw nigger bodies with as much loving rendering and care as possible.The major distinction is the 2nd group has the knowledge needed to paint niggers realistically.The 1st group requires a very specific training that cannot be found in alla prima painting or painting that uses "glazing as a cherry on top." Like one modern realist said it should be.But considering how many brown and black students I see studying in modern schools and ateliers I guess it shouldn't even be a problem anymore.This knowledge will be lost with white people in general and sad as it is, I suppose all the holohoax memorials and niggers in power portraits will continue and I guess the retards like Will St John and atelier circles will applaud the death of all white people as long as the Chinese browns and blacks overtaking us make socialist realism the official style of art instead of abstraction.>WE DID IT REDDIT! WE SAVED LE HECKIN TRADCATH TRADITION! *They said as white peoples corpses burn around them*
>>7738320>>7738332>>7738344>>7738349good posts, are you the russian guy with soul? Also fuck that kike Kassan.>>7738344>Why is it that no one can make a painting that looks like it's made similar to pre 1600s works while modern sculpture is still relatively rooted? Because we lost the knowledge.Really? So we somehow kept our knowledge of sculpture but lost the one related to painting? Isn't it maybe that sculpture is a purely superficial art (not in a bad way, just that everything is on the surface, what you see is what you get) whereas painting is about layering things on top of each other, transparencies, optical illusions etc, that is, it's not all superficial. Also, I really don't think there's such a thing as "the classical technique", there were several schools of painting very different from each other. The Florence school was very different from the Venetian school, which was very different from the Spanish school, which was very different from the Flemish school. They all had their tricks and techniques. Velazquez and Rubens were colleagues at some point in the spanish courts, yet they paint very differently. Heck, van Dyck pretty much learnt everything he knew from Rubens, and yet their differences not just in style but in technique are huge. And Vermeer also got his chops from people who came from the Rubens school, yet again, a completely different technique, so yeah.
>>7738404No clue who that is, I mean I might have an idea, but no.>Really? So we somehow kept our knowledge of sculpture but lost the one related to painting?Yes and this has more to do with the fact that there was less technology available, sculpture is a lot like tempera, or fresco, it's very limited. This is why I singled out oil painting not even just painting as a whole. The problem is oil is seen as the dominant form of painting today, I mean you can try acrylic but it's difficult, and if you work abstractly well I guess it doesn't matter.Sculpture was limited to the materials, you had stone, clay, and wood, and metal. In many ways you still do. Only with plastic did a new avenue get discovered.>Also, I really don't think there's such a thing as "the classical technique", there were several schools of painting very different from each other. The Florence school was very different from the Venetian school, which was very different from the Spanish school, which was very different from the Flemish school. Correct but the all had unifiers and still worked with a lot of layering.Like I said in my third post, somewhere around David it began to be cemented to work alla prima. The way that many artists worked began to change and on top of students just not carrying over their teachers techniques because they were there for a grade, not to help the masters painting get complete, not to copy the master, they just wanted practice and a grade, then almost all of them gradually forgot what was left of these techniques. On top of that the teachers themselves who could only paint alla prima discouraged students from deviating.This is all not even mentioning that techniques and mediums were trade secret for almost all old masters. None of them left text evidence intentionally, they were obsessed with hiding it if anything. Good for short term business, bad for the overall education of society, though in a karmic sense I suppose their punishment is where we are now.
