It's cool.

Sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks.

At 7/14/12 03:18 AM, killerrob wrote: \ I think some of my work is better then what some scouted people have out there.

I can only speak for myself and I do not always agree with other people's scouting criteria, but I can give you an idea of how I go about it. There's a huge gap in volume between the very few artists I actually like and the ones I consider scoutable- I try to have a much more open mind with regards to the latter. For me, it becomes largely not an emotional reaction but instead a judgement of whether or not a user has developed a base level of skill.

At present I find your work exhibits only a most fundamental understanding of composition (something vitally important to realists and abstractionists alike), and no ability (or attempt) to depict the illusion of three dimensional space convincingly. While I quite like your color choices in le monde de couleurs and necromantic, I find the coloring of the rest of your pieces distasteful. Many of your pieces are so blurry, filtered, or small that I really can't respect them. In short, I'm not prepared to scout you.

I'd love to see you try to draw or paint something with a real-world equivalent, so that I can evaluate your skills more fairly.

At 7/14/12 12:33 PM, lovingthedark wrote:

At 7/14/12 03:18 AM, killerrob wrote: \ I think some of my work is better then what some scouted people have out there.

I can only speak for myself and I do not always agree with other people's scouting criteria, but I can give you an idea of how I go about it. There's a huge gap in volume between the very few artists I actually like and the ones I consider scoutable- I try to have a much more open mind with regards to the latter. For me, it becomes largely not an emotional reaction but instead a judgement of whether or not a user has developed a base level of skill.

I don't think I want to be scouted by someone who doesn't do abstract or doesn't paint. Others wouldn't understand what a base level of skill is.

At present I find your work exhibits only a most fundamental understanding of composition

I don't know what wouldn't be fundamental in psychedelic art

(something vitally important to realists and abstractionists alike), and no ability (or attempt) to depict the illusion of three dimensional space convincingly.

Necromatic was an attempt at 3D, but your right. Although I think some of my textures come out as 3D

While I quite like your color choices in le monde de couleurs and necromantic, I find the coloring of the rest of your pieces distasteful. Many of your pieces are so blurry, filtered, or small that I really can't respect them. In short, I'm not prepared to scout you.

I don't see why people think my art is "filtered". I don't know what that even means.

I'd love to see you try to draw or paint something with a real-world equivalent, so that I can evaluate your skills more fairly.

You don't respect my style of art (no real things) but that's okay. I think my skills are pretty much on display for what I have, which might be a bad thing. I already explained this to someone else or you, but I like to create things, not replicate, so I won't do something with a real world equivalent

Do you know any abstract artists on here? I'd like to see their input.

I like your work a lot too. Mainly "Perspective" and "Clairvoyant"

Work in progress:

I wanted to do something b&w

At 7/14/12 05:36 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote: Hey is this picture hand drawn or made with a drawing program?

This one

Painted.

On page one I explained how I made it.

At 7/14/12 05:49 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote:

At 7/14/12 05:44 PM, killerrob wrote:

At 7/14/12 05:36 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote: Hey is this picture hand drawn or made with a drawing program?

This one

Painted.

On page one I explained how I made it.

Then how did you do the lines across, which you can clearly see better in the tan area? Also, did you draw a piece and copy it around? Its veeeerry alike to the rest of the parts.

I didn't do those lines that's the canvas. I gave it extra detail in XPaint because it looked good.

It's supposed to be alike. I drew one part then repeated it around the center.

BTW I don't think you should criticize my art as "filtered" or "fractal" if you couldn't do it yourself.

At 7/14/12 06:05 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote:

At 7/14/12 05:56 PM, killerrob wrote:

At 7/14/12 05:49 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote:

At 7/14/12 05:44 PM, killerrob wrote:

At 7/14/12 05:36 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote:

I don't have the newer flash programs, I have Macromedia Flash 8 portable. You want the half of us to stop thinking this? We want proof. If it was copied and placed around, the lines wouldn't match up like they do and it would be very weird shape. You even contradicted yourself at the beginning by saying they are 100% hand drawn, which is the reason why all these answers don't make sense. Canvases won't fit in a scanner.

Flatbed scanner, (-_-). My canvases aren't as big as you think.

Being able to draw lines like that isn't always digital. If you want to see how I do it you would have to wait 2 months for me to a make one. I don't have much free time any more, but I guess I could record all my work and speed it up.

I didn't say all my pieces were 100% hand drawn, just the one everyone said was "fractal". There are 2 pieces 0% hand drawn on there, you just have to look. Also I shouldn't say hand drawn, I should say hand painted.

This isn't the type of critique I want. I knew newgrounds wouldn't respect my work and immediately think I didn't do it

At 7/14/12 06:22 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote:

I didn't say all my pieces were 100% hand drawn, just the one everyone said was "fractal". There are 2 pieces 0% hand drawn on there, you just have to look. Also I shouldn't say hand drawn, I should say hand painted.

This isn't the type of critique I want. I knew newgrounds wouldn't respect my work and immediately think I didn't do it

Necromantic and Question were released two weeks a part, both say new. Now,does it take two months?

I do work simultaneously sometimes. Although I remember doing Necromantic a long time before Question. I must of lost interest or was busy with work. Almost 2 years ago, I don't quite remember.

I did "Fire" and "Take Me Away" at the same time, however. And I think I started 3 paintings at the same time back in 09

At 7/14/12 06:29 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote:

I did "Fire" and "Take Me Away" at the same time, however. And I think I started 3 paintings at the same time back in 09

And that pic you said you gave up on is the same dark outlines as question, the white one on the first page.

Oh no my art is similar, I must not do my own work.

Do yourself a favor and stop trying to make be look like a liar. I don't want "advice" from a 13 year old who knows nothing about psychedelic art and probably couldn't paint for shit.

Haters gonna Hate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2YrTxfbToM&feature=related

At 7/14/12 06:42 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote:

At 7/14/12 06:38 PM, killerrob wrote:

At 7/14/12 06:29 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote:

Similar?. its exactly the same thing, except question is scaled closer to the middle than that. None of this leads up. I don't fucking care if I'm 13, atleast I gave good questions instead of making up shit.

Questions not critique. I don't want fuckin questions

At 7/14/12 06:55 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote:

At 7/14/12 06:48 PM, killerrob wrote:

You gave up to a 13 year old. Whats there to critique? They are all the same and judging by everyone else, you should try to draw something else.

You can't do it, don't say shit.

At 7/14/12 08:49 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote:

Irrelevant. Stop trying to put my argument aside.

Why not? It's a stupid argument

At 7/14/12 08:59 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote:

At 7/14/12 08:51 PM, killerrob wrote:

At 7/14/12 08:49 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote:

Irrelevant. Stop trying to put my argument aside.

Why not? It's a stupid argument

If you can scan me a WIP right here RIGHT now, I'll stop arguing.

The only work in progress I have is this experiment from yesterday, the colors are bad so I might trash it:

At 7/14/12 09:18 PM, NuclearWarFare wrote:

If you can scan me a WIP right here RIGHT now, I'll stop arguing.

The only work in progress I have is this experiment from yesterday, the colors are bad so I might trash it:

Nevermind, I was hoping for a painting in progress.

It's not done. The lines doesn't have all the design or texture, and the colors aren't fixed digitally yet.

I found this. I must of done this last year and lost it, it's not done either.

At 7/14/12 09:12 PM, killerrob wrote: The only work in progress I have is this experiment from yesterday, the colors are bad so I might trash it:

I think it would look better if you didn't use that filter on it. It looks likes the rough pastel filter or underpainting or something. It just muddies everything up. Kind of a turn off.

At 7/14/12 09:23 PM, Sockembop wrote:

At 7/14/12 09:12 PM, killerrob wrote: The only work in progress I have is this experiment from yesterday, the colors are bad so I might trash it:

I think it would look better if you didn't use that filter on it. It looks likes the rough pastel filter or underpainting or something. It just muddies everything up. Kind of a turn off.

Nah it's not a filter. I just found this and it didn't dry right.

It's not even complete and I threw it out.

Old art I had in my save file:

At 7/14/12 09:32 PM, killerrob wrote: Nah it's not a filter.

I'm talking about the one with the orange sun like shape in the middle. It has those grainy lines horizontally across it. You didn't use a filter on that one? The texture on it looks remarkably like the one I've uploaded below. And it's consistent in direction so it was obviously applied on top after you mirrored the image to give it that symmetrical look. How did you manage to get this effect without using filters?

At 7/14/12 09:51 PM, Sockembop wrote:

At 7/14/12 09:32 PM, killerrob wrote: Nah it's not a filter.

I'm talking about the one with the orange sun like shape in the middle. It has those grainy lines horizontally across it. You didn't use a filter on that one? The texture on it looks remarkably like the one I've uploaded below. And it's consistent in direction so it was obviously applied on top after you mirrored the image to give it that symmetrical look. How did you manage to get this effect without using filters?

There are no such lines on the one I made unless you quoted the wrong post.

The other one is a canvas and I didn't get the chance to remove the texture because I wanted to post it quick

I think your thread title isn't really suitable, since we literally can't critique these "paintings". But either way I'm starting to doubt your credibility. I can't really see some brushstrokes in your paintings which is quite suspicious, and the pixels are really obvious now that I look at it. I'd like to see you actually draw something though.

At 7/15/12 01:55 AM, UncuterOwl wrote: This is a scan of a painting on canvas? Can we see a larger image showing the whole thing next to recognizable object (soda can or pencil) to get an idea of scale?

Yeah .... can you show a photo of these paintings?

At 7/15/12 01:18 AM, killerrob wrote: The other one is a canvas and I didn't get the chance to remove the texture because I wanted to post it quick

... how do you remove the texture?
And why?

At 7/15/12 07:33 AM, CankerousKitty wrote:

At 7/15/12 01:18 AM, killerrob wrote: The other one is a canvas and I didn't get the chance to remove the texture because I wanted to post it quick

... how do you remove the texture?

ctrl+z

At 7/15/12 01:44 AM, Fifty-50 wrote: I think your thread title isn't really suitable, since we literally can't critique these "paintings".

This pretty much sums it up, you ask for critiques yet there is literally nothing to critique. They're all radial things. How would somebody even begin critiquing that. I'm not going to say that there is no skill involved because I don't know and I don't care to delve deeper into your process.
I guess the one thing we'd be able to give any criticism on is your color choice. I would highly recommend that you branch out and do abstractions of stuff that actually exists. Like a toaster, or a frog.

Kisses.

At 7/14/12 09:32 PM, killerrob wrote:

At 7/14/12 09:23 PM, Sockembop wrote:

At 7/14/12 09:12 PM, killerrob wrote: The only work in progress I have is this experiment from yesterday, the colors are bad so I might trash it:

I think it would look better if you didn't use that filter on it. It looks likes the rough pastel filter or underpainting or something. It just muddies everything up. Kind of a turn off.

Nah it's not a filter. I just found this and it didn't dry right.
At 7/15/12 07:33 AM, CankerousKitty wrote:

At 7/15/12 01:18 AM, killerrob wrote: The other one is a canvas and I didn't get the chance to remove the texture because I wanted to post it quick

... how do you remove the texture?

You guys are lucky my homework is boring
The top right quadrant is Killerrob's "original painting", I did some dust removal in photoshop (all filter, no manual actions) which gives the bottom half.
Next I added a nice canvas texture using the "texturizer" filter in photoshop. It's not the same color; but you'll see the lines match up. Mind you, this is at standard settings; I didn't even have to adjust the texture zoom.

Did it myself, called texturizer. I would love to see a photo of your "canvas," otherwise you're looking pretty foolish.

you Sneaky Pete.

Been long enough for killerrob to explain himself, but J-qb's pic is damning evidence that these are clearly computer generated with a canvas filter slapped on - and not pain stakingly drawn by hand.
The bullshit meter is off the charts in this thread,

At 7/14/12 03:18 AM, killerrob wrote: I think some of my work is better then what some scouted people have out there.

Hahaha