/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3411551]

Let's talk Stålenhag. I'm curious what you think.
I've taken a liking to his use of storytelling and subtle texturing. However there's also something that about it that doesn't feel right.
I've been trying to deconstruct his work and use of layered textures (two of which are used consistently throughout the his works) yet I just can't seem to find the right 'thing' I just can't put my finger on it. Am I just looking at his work wrong?

[Anonymous No.3411563]

>>3411551

I don't understand what your question is

[Anonymous No.3411567]

>>3411563

About texture, keep in mind that he paints on big canvases. http://www.nereusprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Oceans-back-from-the-Brink.jpg

[Anonymous No.3411575]

>this guy’s work is good but I kinda don’t like it anyway

Okay. Why do you feel like you need to get a classics degree to have an opinion?

[Anonymous No.3411597]

>>3411551
>I've been trying to deconstruct his work and use of layered textures (two of which are used consistently throughout the his works)
>two of which
Lost me there, pal. Two of what?
Also, I highly doubt we'll be able to discuss anything here until you try to articulate what exactly "doesn't feel right" to you first.

[Anonymous No.3411617]

>>3411551
since he relies heavily on photo ref for the landscapes, you can kinda go from there. i think he uses like 2 brushes max for painting everything. he then adds the sci fi stuff to the environment, making sure the right level of atmospheric perspective is added, and the appropriate colors and lighting are used to make the objects seem natural in the environment.
idk what his relationship is to 3d or all that stuff, but whatever 'cheats' he uses, he always paints it over so it doesnt clash with the rest of the piece, im guessing

[Anonymous No.3411621]

>>3411617
He uses pictures as a base then paints over it to get the look and feel he wants
http://abduzeedo.com/interview-simon-st%C3%A2lenhag

[Anonymous No.3411636]

>>3411621
Well that fucking sucks...

[Anonymous No.3411638]

>>3411636
lol

[Anonymous No.3411646]

>>3411617
the terrain in op gives the appearance of paintover of low poly geometry with low res textures on top.

[Anonymous No.3411679]

>>3411636
How does that suck?

[Anonymous No.3411685]

>>3411636
welcome to the industry

[Anonymous No.3411854]

>>3411621
That simplification is a little bit dishonest, don't you think? When people hear "he paints over photos" it usually implies that the main elements of a painting were from a photo and then painted on top of. In the example on that site however, it's more like he uses the picture as a starting color palette than anything else.

[Anonymous No.3412013]

Op here

>>3411567
Did not realise how big the canvases were

>>3411575
Not sure what you mean. And not "need to get" but, already have (contemp art degree)

>>3411597
Two recurring textures he uses, a canvas print one and a brush stroke one, they're the exact same in almost every painting
>>3411617
I had NO idea he used 3D in his work, Maybe this si the disjointed "thing" that I cant put my finger on thats a bit weird
>>3411621
>>3411854
I see

[Anonymous No.3412026]

>>3412013
idk if he uses 3d or not. what i wrote was an educated guess

[Anonymous No.3412049]

>>3412013
my art contemp degree OP, please use more words to describe what it is that feels disjointed or weird because not everyone is gonna see Stålenhag's work like you do .

To me his stuff is pleasant, pretty safe, moody, atmospheric and sort of 'heavy-like'. He prefers sci-fi with a mix of Peleng mood. The disconnect of mechs and normal everyday setting is pleasing to look at.

[Anonymous No.3412281]

>>3411551
it's cool i guess. but it's not really art to me. he just does the same trick all the time. draw imaginitive future tech into a normal landscape. always overuse of atmospheric haze to depict scale and distance. like the first couple of pieces I saw were interesting, and then I see it a hundred times and like, that's all he has to give the world.

[Anonymous No.3412299]

>>3411551
I find all his work super boring and soul less in a sens, really don't understand the hype about him.
It's always the same thing, boring swedish landscape + generic designed mech or spaceship and sometimes a kid or person in the foreground or basically a stick salesman.
Please explain what makes this hack a genius.

[Anonymous No.3412340]

>>3411551
He's an SJW

[Anonymous No.3412647]

>>3411854
My b, it was late when I sent that and couldn't find the right way to word it. You're definitely right

[Anonymous No.3412658]

the crustacean meter is off the charts itt

[Anonymous No.3412853]

>>3411551
It is immediately noticeable to me this is a digital overlay akin to amateur matte painting by using irl landscape photos underneath as a "foundation." That may be the thing that sets it apart, appearing too "real" or 3d for the low amount of detail in it.
>The forms are too deep/built up for such a style, so it looks off-kilter
>Kind of janky to the eye, as eyes want visual stimuli to be one (2d, stylistic) or the other (3d, realistic), or at least be a smooth transition or fluid combination

[Anonymous No.3412858]

>>3412853
I am glad I don't know you irl

[Anonymous No.3413229]

>>3412340
Proof? Or is it just because he's a Swede?

[Anonymous No.3413308]

>>3412299
I actually really like his works. I grew up in similar environment (without the dinosaurs and robots). So it hits a very strong chord of nostalgia with me, the atmosphere and landscapes were pretty much my childhood.
But I think it all comes down to personal preference, some people like it some people don't, simple as that.

[Anonymous No.3413726]

>>3412858
Lmao why don't you like him?

[Anonymous No.3413770]

>>3412853
i think that the use of real life pics as models for backgrounds is completely intencional.
that's what gives his illustrations that awkward sense of things not entirely in place in a "so real" environment, inserting those fantastic buildings and machines in a completely familiar landscape.
if all the landscape were done as an illustration, the fantastic structures would not be so disruptive.

that said´i usually hate when people paint (digital or not) copying directly from a photo.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZ9QoiineYB/?utm_source=ig_embed

[Anonymous No.3413817]

>>3412299
>Please explain what makes this hack a genius.

The fact that you called him a hack means you will never understand.

[Anonymous No.3413825]

>>3412853

The absolute state of this board.

[Anonymous No.3413912]

>>3413825
"this successful artist uses photos to paint, he's nothing but a hack!"

Like the other user mentioned earlier, he mostly uses pictures for mood and framing, he doesn't just autistically trace it

[Anonymous No.3414193]

>>3413817
>The fact that you called him a hack means you will never understand
So this artist has no redeeming factors other than "look reddit cool arts i finded!!" ?

[Anonymous No.3414371]

>>3414193

[Anonymous No.3414400]

>>3413770
Holy shit those comments, on that instagram, I guess those people there are clinically retarded.

[Anonymous No.3414402]

>>3413912
It simply proves that he isn't as good as people claim. A very good artist doesn't need photos to get fitting colors for a painting.

[Anonymous No.3414561]

>>3411621
He hardly even uses the base picture. Everything is painted by hand and even the color palette is vastly improved.

If you want to see an artist that heavily relies on photos look at the backgrounds made by Makoto Shinkai, which by the way is one of the most successful animation directors in the world so you can call him a hack all you want.

[Anonymous No.3414570]

>>3414561
he is a hack

[Anonymous No.3414606]

>>3413308
the ol' rip off ralph mcquarrie move, i like it, classic hackwork

[Anonymous No.3414720]

>>3412281
It's what he's good at, and that's how his work is quite famous. You might notice a lot of successful artists like him, such as Syd Mead, have a consistent style and direction that they rarely stray away from. No use being a jack of all trades but a master of none.

[Anonymous No.3414825]

>>3411551
Looks pretty neat

[Anonymous No.3414833]

>>3414402
Using a picture for color reference is completely okay, the dude takes his own pictures and everything.

[Anonymous No.3415194]

>>3414402

The dummies infesting this board need to learn the difference between
>doesn't need
and
>shouldn't use

He could make a painting from scratch without using a photo, but if he's found a method that works from him, why criticize?

I'll tell you why; it's to make themselves feel better.

Guess you guys think Gurney is a hack too because he uses maquettes to get his model and lighting down.

[Anonymous No.3415579]

>>3415194
You'd be able to find people on this board who think using reference is something only beginners do. People just like crippling themselves

[Anonymous No.3415633]

>>3411636
so innocent, so pure

how long you been drawing? couple weeks?

[Anonymous No.3415704]

>>3415633
im really glad this board is coming around to this sort of thing

[Anonymous No.3416019]

>>3415579
For some people, if you can't paint everything out of your head with nothing more than a burnt stick and printer paper, you're not a real artist.

It's ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.3416029]

ITT: hacks and lack of skills justifying their cheat

[Anonymous No.3416095]

>>3416029
ngmi

[Anonymous No.3416151]

>>3416095
>said some hack and lack

[Anonymous No.3416371]

Isn't most concept art made by using a bunch of photos and blending them together to make a believable environment?

[Anonymous No.3416424]

>>3416371

Stålenhag is not making concept art.

[Anonymous No.3416680]

>>3416151
>t. never gonna make it

[Anonymous No.3416699]

>>3416371
Yes, most concept art is also absolute trash.
To be fair though, it isn't designed to be really good, just to be usable. Its there to be a reference to the 3d people or the set designers, etc.

[Anonymous No.3416705]

>>3416029
It's not cheating if you admit you're doing it.
People who blatantly trace but pretend they don't like that one drawthread faggot are hacks.