Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/2/13 02:00 PM, test-object wrote:

At 1/2/13 01:49 PM, Fifty-50 wrote: Guys, I don't really understand why some people think this kind of painting is actually good. I even heard someone say that "it displays a good sense of anatomy and technicality." I'm sorry but I genuinely think this is horrible actually. Actually it's worse than horrible. I don't know. What do you guys think?

First you tell us what your problem with it is, so we actually know what the issue is.

Well firstly, it looks like something a kid would finger paint actually. To be exact it looks lazy. Like he said "fuck it." and just went apeshit on the canvas. It's like he isn't even trying. That's what I think.

At 1/2/13 02:03 PM, Fifty-50 wrote:

At 1/2/13 02:00 PM, test-object wrote: First you tell us what your problem with it is, so we actually know what the issue is.

Well firstly, it looks like something a kid would finger paint actually. To be exact it looks lazy. Like he said "fuck it." and just went apeshit on the canvas. It's like he isn't even trying. That's what I think.

It also doesn't help that paintings of similar quality gets millions in revenue.

At 1/2/13 01:49 PM, Fifty-50 wrote: Guys, I don't really understand why some people think this kind of painting is actually good. I even heard someone say that "it displays a good sense of anatomy and technicality." I'm sorry but I genuinely think this is horrible actually. Actually it's worse than horrible. I don't know. What do you guys think?

I like this painting quite a lot. It has a lot to read in to it and the colours make me feel things. It's taste, of course, and understanding for the history of art.

There is essentially two types of art; Art which imitates nature and life, and then there is art which 're-creates it', giving a controlled environment that the artist could not achieve by making it wholly realistic.

This is quite a good casual read on it

At 1/2/13 02:15 PM, LegolaSS wrote: What i would say is this...

If ANYONE can pick up a brush/pen what ever and replicate the picture / drawing... then its not good.

if its going to be hard to replicate because there alot of skill involved in the picture. then i would say it is good.

however im not saying simple paintings are bad, im saying as long as skill and effort has gone into them then i generally like them.. the more skill and effort, the more i like them *most of the time*

Does replication matter if they were incapable of making it in the first place? Look at David Shrigley, on his mad brain could come up with most of that stuff

At 1/2/13 02:12 PM, test-object wrote: This guy does about the same thing (although in more detail). What an asshole.

Haha. I can see what you did there. Although I may come off as a douchebag by saying that the other painting of a woman(?) is terrible, I really think it is. Van Gogh is a different case still, since in my opinion, you can still see that he at least didn't make the whole painting half-assed. I mean if someone posted art like that in our forum how would you respond? If he was a nobody?

At 1/2/13 02:24 PM, LegolaSS wrote:

At 1/2/13 02:19 PM, AnotherOtto wrote: Does replication matter if they were incapable of making it in the first place? Look at David Shrigley, on his mad brain could come up with most of that stuff

a guy in a bed?... a cat shaking hands with a mouse?... a face?.... are these really things that no one else has done before?...

but seriously this is childish artwork. maybe someone out there likes this. but this is not for me.

i would say dali's artwork is the work of a mad genius brain.

I like David Shrigley plenty but I won't act like I'm saying he's better than Dali, that's not what I was trying to say at all. I want to reiterate my point which is just because something is replicatable easily does not mean anybody could have come up with it. Not to make this about Shrigley, we can move on from him now, but there is only one David Shrigley from Scotland who does all sorts of strange creations in reaction to the world around him.

Any art that is a conscious response is worth a look and think about, I think

Don't get me wrong though. I'm thinking the painting is shit but it doesn't necessarily make the artist shitty. Maybe he's like Picasso. He started with realistic traditional paintings and shifted to confusing abstract art.

At 1/2/13 02:47 PM, test-object wrote:

At 1/2/13 02:37 PM, Fifty-50 wrote: Don't get me wrong though. I'm thinking the painting is shit but it doesn't necessarily make the artist shitty. Maybe he's like Picasso. He started with realistic traditional paintings and shifted to confusing abstract art.

You have very conflicting ideas of what makes 'good' art, Flowers. First someone HAS to draw according to real-life to get the permission to draw differently? That seems incredibly unfair.

I just think that good art should be something that was done with effort and skill not something sloppy that you can put together in 20 minutes.

At 1/2/13 03:04 PM, test-object wrote:

At 1/2/13 02:52 PM, Fifty-50 wrote: I just think that good art should be something that was done with effort and skill not something sloppy that you can put together in 20 minutes.

Don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be. It's got a neat way of directing your eyes to the action by increasing the brush strokes, it has a fingerprint, there's an idea of composition and the technique adds to the subject.

I don't particularly like it, but I don't think you can call it 'worse than horrible'.

Yeah that was uncalled for I know. I have to be honest though, I still can't see how beautiful it is. Maybe I'm not artistic enough. lol

At 1/2/13 03:10 PM, test-object wrote: You're just a dreadful artist fifty, and should be ashamed of what you make.

Love you <3

Yes, I am fully aware of that.

Love you too sweet cheeks. <3

Gentlemen and ladies. I have a picture that I would like to be edited slightly for wallpaper use. How would I propose this? Do I make a thread or is there one for such a job?

Something utterly bothering me, Xwaynecoltx repeatedly whoring out the ability to frontpage post to link to old art he made.

At 1/2/13 04:08 PM, lovingthedark wrote: Which aspects make it "this kind"? I just don't know exactly what you mean. Painted with a large brush? Fairly unblended strokes? A semblance of fair proportions but bad rendering? Ugly ass colors? Drunk chicks with toilets?

I'm not really sure where you're coming from, but if I had to find merit in this piece, I'd focus on the nontraditional subject matter- the black humor behind the toilet, the swath of toilet paper, and the miserable woman. I'd talk about how the lack of detail in the strokes and the queasy color choices support an overall air similar to a hangover, blunt and uncomfortable. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the piece, but it's not completely without value.

The thing that irks me about it (like I've said before) is the fact that it looks lazy. If you consider the technical aspect of this piece (the detail, shading and anatomy) it's horrible. Please tell me, if you look at it, does skill and talent come to play? To be honest I think a kid can paint like that. I've seen finger paintings by children and this comes dangerously close to that.

I guess the only merit in this piece, like you said, is the context.

At 1/2/13 11:02 PM, big-jonny-13 wrote: Shoutout to test, the only person who I'm assuming actually read the AFA results

I read them this morning, but I really didn't know what to say... I finally put a reply though.