>>1286123
> it makes me wonder why good artists are so highly coveted that they get copied and traced
People are lazy. Also water is wet. The sky is blue. And you're eager to attack anyone who hurt your ego indirectly.
> imitated
It's a good way to learn. Also, before you try to act like I'm being contradictory again, tracing =/= drawing inspiration through imitation. Learn the difference, it is very important.
> Also makes me wonder why the legends of art through history are so highly coveted as well if putting them on a pedestal wasn't warranted and all.
We are not the old masters, and respecting them enough to want to be like them is as noble a cause as any. Never once did I argue that. Art is to be enjoyed, simple as that. "Putting someone on a pedestal" is not literal. I had hoped you knew that.
>Makes me wonder why people fly from all over the world to see the Mona Lisa or visit the Louvre.
Are you done being sarcastic? Jokes aside, again, I never once said art shouldn't be respected or taken as important. It is very important. All I said was to stop putting people on pedestals as gods. Every artist is a human being. A mortal like you and I. Every person has artistic ability at different levels, it's a matter of effort and practice. Not some divine spark only select few have. That was my point that you missed.
> Obviously comparing this porn and sophisticated classical art like Leonardo da Vinci is quite different, however, art is art.
No art is free of criticism. The end.
>I just found it pathetic how you wanted to put artists on the same plane as every other lazy fuck too incompetent to make a name for themselves cause you'd find it's not so easy.
I didn't though. All I did was put every human on the same level of potential, not output. Potential is pretty even on the whole, and the very few that actually do have debilitating limitations, are again, the very few. In general, it's safe to say that you have every right to attempt, and surpass whatever artist you respect. I hope you, and everyone interested in being an artist does that.
>Unless of course you decided to either be naturally gifted at art, or blow thousands of dollars on a degree in art which is highly competitive fields, in which case most degrees are useless and go without jobs.
You don't decide to be gifted, and effort will always beat out raw talent. Never give up, ok? I want to stress that. And, I'm sorry, but I disagree; It's important to take classes on some level. Very few of us don't need them, sure. But those who want to take their art into the career fields will find it necessary on average. More importantly, I can guarantee you that you will value criticism in person much more than faceless internet criticism that's usually steeped in venom. Don't think of a degree as a worthless money sink. Think of it as an investment.
>So which is it, something that takes years of practice or putting people on pedestals for something anyone can do? Last I checked not many were willing to devote years of practice for, and even the one's that do are still shit at it. I can name several artists who have been drawing for decades and still can't draw a penis.
It's literally both and I don't know how you missed that, so I'll repeat: It's a task literally anyone can learn, it's the repetition that deters people by the million. And if you're still "shit at it" after those years of practice, I guess those classes aren't such a waste after all, are they? A large part of learning art and being an artist is growing as a person. You need to accept being wrong about some things, and accept help from others. Some are faster learners. Not disputing that. But it is something anyone can do, given enough time.
>Once again, I point to a huge plethora of artists who have been doing this for decades and are still shit.
Once again, I point to art school. Sometimes you cannot teach yourself everything. To put it into perspective my rather short story: I myself applied for a United States Pell Grant to take some art courses in a community college. It did not cost me a dime, because I was, and am, poor. That did not stop me. I went through the proper channels, and strove to improve myself. Due to that time and effort in those classes, I learned how important gesture drawing is to a piece. I learned to accept that people move at different paces, but we all get there if we want it bad enough. ( I was one of the worst in the class. And by the end, I still was, but I was still better than when I started. That meant more to me than being better than strangers.) I learned that it's ok to mess up, but it's inexcusable to destroy the mistakes. Keep them, learn from them, and move on. All things I took with me because I went to school. Something they should do. Of course, this is just as anecdotal as your "plethora of artists", so take it as you will.
>Actually, core fundamentals start with actually studying and observing the image you intend to depict. When the statue of david was being constructed it was said Michaelangelo would look at the plain square slab of marble every day for months at a time, and envision what he would create. He studied what he wanted to recreate.
You don't just stare at your medium hoping for divine intervention. That's ridiculous. If that was Michelangelo's method of mental preparation, that'd make more sense. But the marble itself would have taught him nothing that his studies of the human body did. And I can tell you now, part of that study was breaking the human form down into core shapes before building up to the grander details he sculpted. There is now avoiding this, as it would take far to long to keep remeasuring finished studies. It's unrealistic to expect.
>Versus now and what we have as acceptable human anatomy is...trash scattered all throughout this place and the excuse of "artistic style" to justify bad anatomy.
You think any of these artists picked up a proper medical anatomy book to see what all this shit looks like? No, they draw from their mind and most of the time don't know what the fuck it looks like in their mind.
That's debatable. I don't really think you understand ht difference between idyllic body types and applied. What the old masters had were idyllic in nature; No imperfections, no bodily traits: Just a perfect idea of what a person SHOULD look like.... not what one actually does. Medical texts also use an idyllic form because it's easy to reference. But people are flawed. Sometimes your head is too big. Nose is too long. Your butt is flat or your eyes are too far apart. My point is that anatomy varies and while many do still need to practice more, it's not as bad as you seem to think.
If anything at all, you seem really eager to shit on people for not being the old masters, despite how hard they're trying. I've done nothing but critique this artist, yes, ARTIST, on his work. And he accepted my words. Whether he uses them or not is his decision, and I won't be hurt if he doesn't. I hope he improves, just like I hope everyone improves. Art is a skill, and like any, I repeat, for the hundredth time: It requires repetition.
>Hurt my ego? If I had any feelings you just hurt the last god damn one kiddo.
>Kiddo
Are you serious? I know I hurt your ego. You're very upset and lashing out because someone disputed you, even when it didn't even start with you. You can continue being upset... but I do still want you to know, I'm not out to hurt you, internet stranger. I'm here to offer Douga criticism, help you understand art a little more as an emotional task, and maybe jerk it to some of the works here if I feel up to it. It is a porn site, after all.
TL;DR: Chill, dude.
|
