/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3659564
can you really call it chicken scratch when it still looks very even and clean?

It's not chicken scratch, you idiot.

Its the illusion of texture it gives.

>>3659587
>illusion
isnt it just texture if its done well?

>>3659564
this is the product of learning fundamentals, read the sticky OP because otherwise you wouldn't have made this thread.

>>3659564
more 3d like aesthetic same as chromatic aberration, also not chicken scrath you twat

>>3659600

Well all drawing and painting is an illusion in a sense

>>3659648
Our lives are an illusion

>>3659657
We live in a society

Sketches often look better because they are essentially void of mistakes. If they arent finished you cant say its bad. Mistakes like that person's right elbow arent as significant than if it was a finished fully rendered piece. You can justify mistakes in a sketch, you dont justify them in a finished work.

>>3659564
the word and made-up concept of "chicken scratching" only exists in the western world, particularly used by non artists pretending to know shit about art.

Meanwhile nips laugh at western pigs who deliberately avoid trusting their feeling, and avoid just drawing how their style and perception leads them to.

also
>OP never read a manga

>>3659985
Chicken scratching is a real problem, the pic in OP uses nice long lines, with confidence and direction, just with some restatements. Restating looks better than chicken scratching most of the time, despite being "messy". Chicken scratching is creating many small lines joined together to create on larger line, it usually looks like shit.

>>3659564
>Chicken scrath

>>3659564
>>3659985
This is not chicken scratch, are you blind?

Looks like shit

>>3659567
you sure

>>3660779
Post your work

>>3659564
Loose linework adds randomness which can function as details when done right.
I personally prefer clean lines tho, since it looks more elegant.

>>3659564
That's not chicken scratch. That line work is confident and with purpose. It looks good because the lines resemble basic enough forms to simplify the drawing and understand it as opposed to more convoluted pieces.

More of this? Where? >>3659564

>>3659564
youd be surprised, a lot of nonartists think this just looks 'messy' and 'unfinished,' or they'll say 'uhh not much to look at. got a finished piece?'

its just artists that wish their sketches looked better that think this is nice.

>>3666238
...is that... is this true?

>>3666276
what?

yes. yes it is.

>>3666238
>>3666276

People who aren’t familiar with the process never appreciate good sketches

>>3666396
This. So much so for me that I generally dislike works that look “finished” more than I do more sketch type works, a la Schmid.

>>3659564
Damn that's amazing. It feels like it has a ton of depth and it's just a simple line drawing.

>>3659564
Who’s the artist?

>>3666396
>>3666405
feel like i got a /ic/ flavored redpill

>>3666396

Yep. The average person off the street literally thinks it takes more skill to recreate a celebrity photograph in graphite than to draw like Kim Jung Gi.

>>3666470
thats a good point

never forget the shit taste of the average norman

>>3666486

I remember a plebbit thread were they discussed why the old masters weren't more skilled than 16 year olds drawing "photorealistically". I'm still cringing just thinking about it.

>>3666470
Not to discount the graphite portrait, but that kind of thinking amazes me. The skill to copy and map out something like a graphite portrait from a photo is great and necessary practice but to think that abstraction and stylisation somehow discount skill is crazy to me.

But then again I don't get the finer points of motor sports or football so what do I know.

>>3659564
This isn't chicken scratch these are restatement lines.

Artist? Sauce? Something?

>>3666238
this, most of my tumblr follows are other artists because i barely finish drawings
even master sketches will look "unfinished" to normalfags

>>3659674
>Sketches often look better because they are essentially void of mistakes.

This. Your brain puts the rest of the image together in its imagination

>>3659564
BEING THIS RETARDED

>>3659674
i dont think so, i think that 'imagination' effect applies to any work of art, and its more commonly known as 'bringing shit to life.' painters can bring figures to life in a couple brush strokes but you'll never know until you get a reeeeal close look at it...

>>3667644
>>3666410
>>3666234
@ohheythatfisher

Post more chicken scratch

>>3667732
>@ohheythatfisher
why has someone this good only got 92 followers

>>3668724

Could be the disgusting pedophilia, I guess.

>>3668729
wait,what, they are a pedo????

>>3668745
According to my sources he massacred 50 babbies in 1998

>>3668751
kek okay you got me there. good one anon

>>3659564
Every line has a thought behind and a purpose, this isn't chicken scratching at all... At most you can call it messy, but that's not bad at all.

>>3668745

Uhm yes.

>>3668729
spotted the fag

>>3668745
He draws a lot of trap/shota stuff with big dicks, among other things, all with comically large dicks

>>3668801
That’s disappointing

>>3668811
lambrey.tumblr.com judge for yourself

>>3659564
that's not chicken scratch
this is

the example in OP displays line confidence, which is just the opposite

>>3668817
i love this guy's work
thanks for the blog

>>3668729
>a bloo bloo bloo im DEEPLY HURT by cartoons waaaaah, buzzword buzzword, WAAAAAHH

>>3659564
That's the farthest thing from chicken scratch you could've picked.
I bet you my gains for next year that this dude's hand was firm and steady as fuck when drawing those sexy legs

>>3668840
wow you sure make a good point, surely you're not in the wrong here

>>3659564
i mean loose line work is obvious, it's like rubato in music

>>3659668
Artists rise up

>>3669529
woow

>>3659564
Hatching, line weight, composition.

>>3670084

wince We’re already on the subject I’m going to spam some good sketches from other artists once I get on my desktop

>>3671940
source of artist?

>>3659564
Nah, no chicken scratch there. But see, when inexperienced people try to emulate that style by legit scratching, it'll look like shit.
Same thing happens with Shinkawa's work, pic related. There's confidence in those lines, and chicken scratch is the result of lack of confidence.

>>3671940

>>3671940
>>3672100
>>3672104
>>3672106
give names you motherfucker

>>3666419
It's not true ffs. Laymen still have the eyes to appreciate the process, it isn't that complicated. Most of you are laymen anyway so perhaps you can't see it either.

>>3672184

No they really don't. "Laymen" will always be more impressed of a tight pencil drawing of a photo over a skilled sketch. They like simple and cartoony stuff though because it's easily digestable and makes for great social media shares though.

>>3672184
it is and isn't

why are you here if you think everyones talking out their ass? unless you like thinking that. :)

>>3672184
i don't know that they appreciate the process, but lay people can certainly appreciate a good sketch. sketches are in some ways the easiest drawings to appreciate as they're more spontaneous and preformative

>>3672184
I would say that no, laymen do not appreciate the process as much. They can see that there is skill behind something perhaps, but they usually pin it down to "talent". Most people who like art but have no real working knowledge of its creation just think a skilled artist has the spark. They don't know the process, they don't know construction, perspective, form, value, how could they possibly appreciate it? Not being mean to these people, this is just my experience of when I knew nothing about it, and from other people I've spoken to.

>>3659564
IM THE SCRATCHMAN
https://youtu.be/Hy8kmNEo1i8

>>3671950
https://twitter.com/H939/media

>>3659564
Reminder that Rembrandt used scratches and it still looks amazing

>>3666276
very much true, I have a normalfag whom I often talk about drawings to, he never likes drawings that I think look good and always prefer rendered/polished-looking goodies even if they're soulless as fuck

>>3673724
Why was he so good bros? Who was Rembrandt’s Loomis?

i like scratchin tbphwyf

>>3675565
He was an apprentice of Pieter Lastman, but he quickly developed his own, unique style

>>3673724
It's more hatching than scratching, to me.
Rembrandt was also a printmaker, where hatching was a necessity at the time, so he developped a style that matched the print needs

>>3672184
The only kind of sketches "laymen" will appreciate are preparatory sketches for finished, rendered works they can compare it to. They can't appreciate a research or composition sketch by itself as much as an artist do.

>>3675581
Looks like shit though, your monk did too. At least you enjoy it.

>>3675581
This looks repulsive, stop posting it everywhere

>>3659587
>Illusion of texture
Wot

>>3676014
I like it. Probably better than u tbphwyf
>>3676038
I like it. Probably better than u tbphwyf

>>3676107
yeah it's better than me, but then, i think my stuff looks like shit to, so it's hardly saying much. i can do better if i spend a good few hours on the piece though.

>>3676107
Nah, i actually try to make my stuff pleasant to look at.

>>3659564
>Why is it so aesthetic?
Is it? not to me.

remove the grid and the picture will be far less dynamic, because the guy didn't actually follow the foreshortening and grid very much.
the chicken scratch supposedto define the fingers of the monster, the physique of the knight etc isn't exactly effective and pretty sketchy as it is.
the chest of the monster is just carelessly hatched to make it darker. the lines don't really help define the body effectively.

the alloer composition is quite boring to me. knight standing in front of giant monster, which of course has a very unconveniently teethed mouth that would seem to make its life a living hell.

so yeah, not a huge fan. on top of that, i prefer analogue sketches with pencils over this digital, cleaned up look by far.

>>3673724
That's not scratching, you absolute mong.

8/10 Got me to reply

>>3678409
still drawing only front views my guy

>>3678409
Different Anon. It really looks nice.

I'd appreciate if you didn't restate the contour of the hand so much and kept it like the one on the right holding the feather.

>>3659564
Because those aren’t chicken scratches.

>>3668834
this

>>3675581
IT really just looks bad. You're tricking yourself into thinking these scratches are detail, they look like nonsense that was just guessed. Lacks foundation, and that's the difference between bad chicken scratch and the original pic.

>>3659564
I always think it's because your brain fills in the gaps.

>>3659564
everything is in perspective. perspective is the key ingredient to aesthetic visual.

>>3659564
>Chicken scratch
You niggers will never learn what that term actually means, will you?

>>3684061
>IT really just looks bad.
IT looks ok
>You're tricking yourself into thinking these scratches are detail,
more texture than detail
>they look like nonsense that was just guessed.
it's just impulsive strokez to fill in areas and stuff. Not really "guessed" or calculated. It just is.
>Lacks foundation,
explain this?

>>3659564
>People compliment me on my loose "style"
>only draw that way because I'm lazy and never finish anything