Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/3/13 12:17 AM, lovingthedark wrote: Kind of. I'm a big believer that you should pick the technique that best suits your idea, regardless of the skill level required. Would the painting promote the same feel if it were lusciously composed, every stroke carefully rendered and blended like a neoclassical painting? I think a bit of this style's uglyness suits the piece's message. The blocky, fragmented strokes speak to a psychological state I don't think absolute realism could convey.

Mind you I'd probably prefer the neoclassical stylings or a blend of the two, but that's my personal bias speaking. Abstraction has its uses.

I see what you're saying. I guess the uglyness does support the main context of the painting itself. So if you put this style on a different context, like say a portrait of Michael Jackson. Would the messy strokes still be something applicable if you remove the context? Now how would you judge it?

You know what just forget about it. I realized that it's pointless to keep ranting on this subject.

At 1/3/13 01:17 AM, Fifty-50 wrote: I realized that it's pointless to keep ranting on this subject.

That said. That portrait is fucking terrifying.

At 1/3/13 01:47 AM, M-Vero wrote:

At 1/3/13 01:17 AM, Fifty-50 wrote: I realized that it's pointless to keep ranting on this subject.

That said. That portrait is fucking terrifying.

personally I found it easy to masturbate to.

At 1/2/13 11:54 PM, Fifty-50 wrote: 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.

"Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up."
Picasso

Besides lazy quote throwing I do agree that some art is just lazy and it will take a trained eye to spot art that genuinely is of merit but in that sort of style. That's why there's art historians I guess. I agree it makes more sense to do things that are good at the first glance, but I guess that's not always what an artist wants to create. It's like those albums that grow on you or something.

it is my opinion that fundamentals should always come before stylization, and stylization before fundamentals is the great satan of media

At 1/3/13 12:20 PM, Template88 wrote: it is my opinion that fundamentals should always come before stylization, and stylization before fundamentals is the great satan of media

I don't quite agree with that. Although I certainly think fundamentals are important, and although I believe that breaking fundamentals for the sake of breaking fundamentals or because the person generally doesn't understand them is not a good thing, I don't believe art necessarily has to be as rigid as always having the end goal be to portray objects as accurately as possible. I think the way you portray an object is just as important artistically as the actual content. For instance, in that picture that Fifty posted, there would be an entirely different mood if it were painted in any other way. True, if that style were applied to a different subject, such as that slightly terrifying portrait of Micheal Jackson, it just doesn't look good. But that doesn't matter because the style was chosen to suit one particular image. If you choose the right content, I believe it's possible to make a style work that would otherwise just be bad because the style and the content communicate with each other so to speak in order to portray an idea together. Art is just as much about the idea as it is about the technique.

Granted, I only believe this to a certain point. I don't believe it applies at extremes. The picture posted is on my border between acceptable and not.

At 1/3/13 12:20 PM, Template88 wrote: it is my opinion that fundamentals should always come before stylization, and stylization before fundamentals is the great satan of media

it is my opinion that you're full of shit fed to you by every art school teacher you've ever had
in my opinion of course

What is this abstract/toilet/woman art that all you guys are posting about? I can't find in the last 5 pages... ahh... could somebody please link me so I can have an opinion too?

At 1/3/13 03:19 PM, Lucky wrote:

At 1/3/13 12:20 PM, Template88 wrote: it is my opinion that fundamentals should always come before stylization, and stylization before fundamentals is the great satan of media

it is my opinion that you're full of shit fed to you by every art school teacher you've ever had
in my opinion of course

>implying ive had art school teachers

Guys calm down. I've seen over a few threads that we aren't nice to Template. We should all love each other!

fifty, while i appreciate the gesture, lucky has no reason to be nice to me, and ive insulted about 99% of the artists on this site here in my off comments towards the forum in general many, many times. I deserve whatever i get.

Also carrion you use fundamentals in your work, as does test object. I have nothing against stylization, my own work is heavily stylized. I am against stylization with no structure (or fundamentals, when it isn't done on purpose) or as an excuse for bad art. I see nothing wrong with that portrait of jackson.

Well you've got to admit though, the portrait of Michael Jackson does look quite horrid. I think I don't know why but I want it for my house.

Wait maybe that's the reason artists like these sell things.

At 1/4/13 09:38 AM, Fifty-50 wrote: Well you've got to admit though, the portrait of Michael Jackson does look quite horrid. I think I don't know why but I want it for my house.

Wait maybe that's the reason artists like these sell things.

i like the odd use of color and the thick meaty brush strokes, and of course the semi-horrifying look of his face.

At 1/4/13 09:41 AM, Template88 wrote: i like the odd use of color and the thick meaty brush strokes, and of course the semi-horrifying look of his face.

Yes. It's as if that it will come out of it's frame and try to rape you. Quite a unique feeling.

At 1/4/13 09:49 AM, Fifty-50 wrote:

At 1/4/13 09:41 AM, Template88 wrote: i like the odd use of color and the thick meaty brush strokes, and of course the semi-horrifying look of his face.

Yes. It's as if that it will come out of it's frame and try to rape you. Quite a unique feeling.

feels like half of my sexual fantasies.

At 1/7/13 01:34 PM, lovingthedark wrote: Hey! Adobe is offering Photoshop and CS2 for absolutely free right now! Offer's so popular though the site is down for the count right now, so give it some time.

It...It's so... beautiful... *Tears*

Heres a picture of something

Jeeez I had to grave dig this topic it was 4 days old :o

I didn't want to make a new post haha. Anyways, I was just curious. What would an honest price an artist would ask for on an album art piece? I've already asked somebody but I've just never done this before. I won't be making any money for it, it's just purely for entertainment purposes only. The image would be pretty graphic there might be a lot going on so it might not be something somebody can finish in an hour or two.

something wrong with the portal? i think its been two days since i've seen anything new put up