I'm pretty new to this forum...but really enjoy it's diversity...
I'm not much of a concept artist..but I'm trying....my main love is fine art and inparticular the figure and portraits.
Thought I would share this Study with you...PainterIX artists oils.
Last edited by mark malone; August 2nd, 2005 at 04:20 AM.
Little bit of an oxymoron if you like fine art and your doing digital. Use real oils, the computer will only give you bad habits. As far as the figure goes, all the little tiles, or 'brushstrokes' are fragmenting the figure and breaking the form. And although the head is foreshortened it's a little on the small side relative to the figure. But seriously, if you into fine art, don't even bother with digital, waste of time.Originally Posted by mark malone
Being stubborn towards humanity since 1982
You're obviously stuck in some time warp...having studied for 3 yrs for my BA (hons) in Fine Art one of the main things learn't was to avoid narrow minded ideals such as yours...Fine Art can cover a varied array of media..sculpture...installation...photography...an d digital.
I will always stay true to my traditional skills but I will in no way ignore what is current....for it is this discovery that defines Fine Art.
The term "fine art" was coined in 1767 in reference to the arts that were "concerned with beauty or which appealed to taste" (S.O.E.D 1991).
Just because it is not to your taste does not mean it is not fine art.
The true oxymoron seems to be you are in a 'Concept' forum and yet you plainly seem not to have any.
Thank you nevertheless for replying and airing your views.
Portrait in DIGITAL :
Last edited by mark malone; July 31st, 2005 at 03:57 PM.
no need for hostility man, perhaps you read it more harshly than I meant it to be. There's nothing wrong with being current, more power to you. But when you say 'fine art' the first thing in my mind, and probably lots of other peoples is gallery painting. It would be a tough sale if you were to pitch digital work to a gallery, thats all. And just because I don't like digital doesn't mean I'm narrow minded.
You are correct however, this is a 'concept' forum, and if there were any other forums that were halfway decent, that were strictly traditional drawing and painting, believe me I'd be there.
Being stubborn towards humanity since 1982
No worries man. I've looked at wetcanvas before, but unfortunately theres lots of 'sunday painters' and the like, nothing really serious.
Being stubborn towards humanity since 1982
Hey Tiny...just checked out your Portraits....gotta say they kick ass....you should post your stuff in the WC forum...you will be hailed a God.
I know what you mean about the sunday painter thing...but it is a terrible thing to get snobby about art....I'm guessing you didn't always churn out work to such high standards....but your decision....there are some very talented artists in the figure forum of WC...you just got to sift a little.
I know what you mean, every forum's like that, you have to weed through stuff. I didn't mean my 'sunday painter' in a snobbish way, more so, I like to talk to people who are serious about the pursuit of art, and not casual types or hobbyists. And no my work wasn't always the best, hell, I still don't care for the portraits you mentioned, but if anything I was always serious about the craft. Anyway, carry on. This thread is about your work, and I'm sorry I sort of derailed it.Originally Posted by mark malone
Being stubborn towards humanity since 1982
I actually like your painterly approach in the figure on your first post. I disagree with anyone who says that learning a new medium will give you bad habits. It will only help to increase your artistic vocabulary.
I do agree that as a fine artist, you should also develop your skills in natural media. If you sell a painting direct to a customer or through a gallery, it will be important to the buyer that the piece they bought is a one-of-a-kind original. You could also sell digital art as fine art but you would most likely have to number your prints the way etchers & engravers do. Digital artwork is far more useful for commercial art where the intended use is for publication in print or for the web.
Art Direction & Design
I agree, there's nothing wrong with developing skills in digital, as well as natural media.
A few things though. I have to agree with Tiny, the larger brushstrokes seem to really detract from the form of the nude figure, some as well with the portrait. I would love to see some finer details in the portrait especially. I think it would really add volumes to the piece.
"No, dude, you can't go in there. You got chicken karma." -Sifl & Olly
Thanks Mark and Windy for your input.
Windy can you ellaborate...regarding the 'Finer Details'
I agree with you that it's great to learn new mediums as its similar to learning a new 'language' But last time I checked there wasn't an 'undo' button on a canvas.Originally Posted by figure2
Being stubborn towards humanity since 1982
I just look at digital in a more practical aspect.
It's quick, less mess and I love the 'undo button'.
There are some people that paint with toilet paper, does that mean they're not a traditional artist?
Besides, people like Justin Sweet are making a mint just using digital. If you want to make a 'consistant' living in the 3D Game or Comic Book industry, I wouldn't push it aside entirely.
Damn it, I can't find that link on Toilet paper painting.....there use to be a guy who did landscape paintings with toilet paper for hotels.
Last edited by NoSeRider; August 1st, 2005 at 12:44 PM.
justin sweet can paint with oils like nobodies business.
Look, nobody is arguing digital as a valid medium, but it's strengths aren't in teaching people good habits. (undo, infinite zoom, color picker...) edit: of course, that's just a general rule of thumb.
And about the first piece, the first thing I thought was that the head was pretty small.
Last edited by jetpack42; August 1st, 2005 at 06:14 PM. Reason: save my ass against nitpickers
Originally Posted by jetpack42
Or is the body pretty big!!??!!
Anyway ...thanks everyone for what i think will be an ongoing debate about the advantages and disadvantages of Digital......remember kids...all views and opinions are valid....but try not to enforce yours onto others.
(Disclaimer: Last comment meant generally and not directed at any one individual or organization)
you can simplify all the strokes in the nude figure study and make a stronger and more concise impact..the main problem is that the strokes dont describe anything on the form.. there's no clear sense of anatomy, and its breaking up the way the shoulder connects the arm to the back.. its very patchy and ambiguous as of now.. the portrait suffers less of this because you keep the values similar from stroke to stroke.. all the strokes have the same exact shape as well..
repeat after me: "less is more....."
No expert or critic, but cool work man, keep posting.
Thanks Loop and Halflife for commenting....
Some more nude studies...mixed media..Conte, Gouache and Collage.
Some more digital stuff...
A couple of Large (30x40 inches) Oil Portraits painted with Colourshapers Silicon Brushes.
Last edited by mark malone; August 2nd, 2005 at 04:42 AM.
this last batch is really strong, the top portrait in perticular. One thing that bothers me is arbitrary hard edges. for instance, in the top one, above the guys right eyebrow, or in the middle of his right cheek. it just looks strange. Really solid use of value with the colors though. On the lady, her swollen blue-lined right side of her lip looks strange. Also, you have a brushstroke screwing up her right nostril. These are really excellent though, I dig em.
Thanks Jet....and looking again I see you are spot on with your crits...thanks for pointing them out.
Your figure work looks messy and all over the place right now. Think things out first and focus on getting an accurate depiction of your subject.
My main focus in my work is expressionism...and using the media to portray this by using varied and expressive strokes...I am not a photorealist!!!
Does that mean that you have to disregard understanding your subject? Seriously man, I don't see it in your work especially the figure stuff. And, I'm not being mean here, just honest.Originally Posted by mark malone
Maybe you shoudl've mentioned your expressionist stylings earlier and I might've changed my mind posting in the first place.
Take it easy man...
... woah. the first image i saw in the thread as it loaded was the one of the guy holding the newborn. i say again, woah. the fact that you can pull off something that looks so believable with a few (seemingly random) strokes is a true credit to your studies. im amazed. youve even achieved a realistic lighting with just a few deviations in colour. stellar stuff man, i look forward to more soon
To try and avoid sounding 'Mean' and 'Spiteful' in your posts try reading them as if you had just posted something and this was the reply you are reading about something you have put a lot of time and effort into.Does that mean that you have to disregard understanding your subject
" Patdzon...your 'Angel Sleep' Looks messy...which line am I supposed to focus on?...."
Do you see how short and aggressive that seems? And an air of almost total disregard for something of which you may be quite proud of, I personally like this sketch..of yours and the majority of your other work....I however dislike your curt way of replying to posts without any intellectual thought or reason.
I would appreciate it if you would not just criticise...but also explain your reasons for doing so....."the shoulder looks off....the face is too long...the colours don't work and would've looked better with a different colour combo...etc...etc...." as it is wasting my time and yours if you do not do so....
'Stoph thank you for your thoughts, I appreciate both your comments and reasons for liking the piece.
I may post more...but I am finding that although this forum is overflowing with talent it is lacking any intellectuality...with a few exceptions.
Originally Posted by mark malone
you know, you need to learn how to take criticisms. I already pointed out the problems in your work.
"Your figure work looks messy and all over the place right now. Think things out first and focus on getting an accurate depiction of your subject."
What the hell did you find offensive on my crit??? I even gave you advice for crying out loud. I wasn't mean on you. What I gave was my own generalization of what I think is wrong with your work. Accept it.
Well, just be prepared to get that kind of criticism here. The way artwork is seen is what distinguishes art forums most, at least the ones in know of. The members here generally like clearly communicated forms. Some are into realism, and everyone here will judge you by their standards.
When you post figure drawings, we usually suppose you want to work as a concept artist or illustrator. Of course you're free to do what you want artistically.
Edit: Saw jetpack had already said more clearly what i wanted to say.
mark- Nobody who has posted here so far is out to insult you. Any comments related to your work are people trying to give you an unobjective opinion, as it's hard to tell the mistakes in our own work. Any artist can gain alot from this kind of help, and wether you agree or not, it's good for you to hear. Being aware of the way other people percieve your work will help you change it to be more appealing. If you disagree, at least it's something to keep in the back of your mind as you work on your next piece....
All I am saying is, don't underestimate feedback, and nobody has been out to attack you. Keep 'em coming.
I think that what Patdzon said and how you took it are totally different things. Miscommunication.
First I'll say, wether youre painting more expressive or realistic, the same rules apply, but youre just using them in different ways. Sargent new his 'rules' just as good as Bouguereau or Ingres.
I ramble on a lot, so I'll translate what he said into long ramble terms.
Right now your figure work is 'messy,' as in, it's not very decisive. You may put down 15 lines for the arm, but which line is it that you want us to see? Right now it looks like youre thinking of a line on a paper, and not a contour of a form. All that a contour is is the horizon edge of a form. If I were drawing a landscape, I wouldnt try to draw descriptive hills in the foreground, then make a bunch of random non-descriptive lines to draw in the horizon. Your contour is the edge of the form, it has little bumps and 'hills' that come up from the foreground,peak up on the horizon, and vanish off past your site. You dont get that when you try and just draw 'expressive' lines on a paper. The interior modelling, whether you do it very loosely or tight, depends upon your contour.
I'll give you an example on one of your pieces, FigStudy1Custom.jpg. Ok, look at the arm and shoulder area of the lady. The contour (which isnt even a "LINE" its often represented as a line, but in reality, a contour is the horizon edge of a form. It's a concept, not a line)... the contour is very non descriptive. It kind of 'wobbles' from the shoulder down to the forearm right now, I dont see the forms of the deltoid curving over, I dont see the tension and relaxation of forms in the arms and shoulders. Then I see a form popping up out of the top of the arm, down by the forearm. This wouldnt happen in real life, as theres no form there that would pop up like that, and limbs tend to taper, not just buldge out in random areas (unless you have a tumor I guess? haha). Basically what I'm saying is, you just quickly drew a 'line' representing the arm and shoulder (be it a line or in paint)... its not thinking about what is rounding towards us, or what form it's the edge of. So when viewed, it looks 'wobbley' and 'messy'.
This can also be applied to your other drawings. Such as markspaintings052Custom.jpg. If i look at the leg, I see just a line that goes from the top leg, curving down into the lower legs shin. There's so many forms that are there, so much bone sticking out, and it creates a ton of different angles, forms coming out towards the viewer, things falling away from the viewer. There's a lot going on in the knee! But youre not drawing the horizon edge of the knee, you're drawing a non-descriptive half circle. So, it appears non-descriptive, i.e. "messy."
(Now, I know you want to paint loose, your drawing still should be pretty accurate.)
As far as your brush strokes (in your paintings) being messy... I like a lot of it. I personally would recommend having the majority of your strokes being perpendicular to the light source. Of course not all of them, you have to add interest and stuff.
If you look at light washing across a figure, even across a face, you'll see that things that are closer to the light source are lighter-- because light diminishes as it travels, so if I put a light above my head, my forehead will definately be brighter than ANY part on my foot. Also, as the form turns away from the light it gets darker. This happens in every single inch across the figure, because every inch its further from the light source-- or that it turns away/towards the light is HAS to change. The top of the forehead will definately not be the same value as the bottom of the forehead, let alone the chin. That's why I say to keep your brush strokes moreso perpendicular to the light source... If I use strokes perpendicular to the light source, I can still get the washing of the light, even if I'm being loose. But if I carry the same stroke, thus carrying the same value, the whole way from the top of the forehead to the bottom, or the top of the hand to the bottom of the hand, etc etc, then I'm not working with the light washing across the form.
You did it very good on the daddy's face in MrSeli.jpg. But in the guys arm underneath the baby and on both of his hands you were carrying the same value the whole way across the form. I'll bet that right under the babies cheek was dark (cast shadow and stuff), and then if you looked, it rounded out of it, reached a peak value at one part on the arm, then turned away at the bottom. You didnt capture the arm turning towards us and then down, but only the washing of light from right to left. The same can be said on the bottom hand. This makes it look not like a nice loose painting, but a 'messy' (or non-descriptive) arm and hand.
So anyways, I'm done rambling. I probably sound like I'm ripping you apart, but I'm kind of being nitpicky, eh? haha
I must say though, your use of color is very good. I envy that! I don't work in color nearly enough.
Sorry for the long winded critique. I always type a lot. You clearly have a good eye, everything looks like its in really good proportion, your values are pretty good, and the color is excellent. But, like I said, slow down, think of what form your drawing the horizon of (or contour, or line, or whatever you want to call it), and think it out. Think of the light washing across the form, and let your strokes work with the light, not against it. And as far as lines, one line of varying width describes so much more than 100 lines put in the same place!