Unpopular Opinions about Art - movements, individuals, styles, and more

Red Shirt Number 74

where do i go when i bite the bullet?
kiwifarms.net
I will piggy back off OP's post a little, Abstract art such as a line of blue down a canvas or such always make me disinterested. Its so generic and overdone. I'm in art school, and I have to see that shit and literal paint splatters + melty bullshit.

Another thing, I'm kinda over a lot of the older artist. But Thomas Benjamin Kennington's art is amazing, and James Jacques Joseph's work is so nice. It actually inspires me to do watercolor work and attempt oil.
damn those are amazing

personally i think art classes/schools, starting from elementary up should teach stuff like observational drawing. obviously for lil kiddos super easy stuff like "hey draw this cartoon fish the best you can" and moving on to portraits etc. as they move up

then they'd have knowledge of anatomy but could still go and develop their own style without some dye-job bitch off the street going "no anime bad i give u f"

instead we get "EVERYONE SUCK PICASSO'S DICK RN" without actually explaining why he was important other than "he drew squares lol"
 

Sluggs

*kills a cow* He ceased to beef
kiwifarms.net
damn those are amazing

personally i think art classes/schools, starting from elementary up should teach stuff like observational drawing. obviously for lil kiddos super easy stuff like "hey draw this cartoon fish the best you can" and moving on to portraits etc. as they move up

then they'd have knowledge of anatomy but could still go and develop their own style without some dye-job bitch off the street going "no anime bad i give u f"

instead we get "EVERYONE SUCK PICASSO'S DICK RN" without actually explaining why he was important other than "he drew squares lol"
EXACTLY

Observational drawings are the building bl0cks of art, which sadly isn't taught as much as it should (Even I am victim of this, learning it later on is rough).
Developing art styles should be something later on in life, but definitely shouldn't be discouraged, but should be something you keep experimenting with. But the "mUH PAINTERS!!!!" always have to be the fuckheads who don't want to see something other than that.

IMO: My professor told me how specific it is to be an actual mangaka, due to no imports of American Manga. Its very Niche for illustration, meaning you're gonna have to learn the customs, and you have to legit move to Asia to ever really put your foot in the door.
 

Red Shirt Number 74

where do i go when i bite the bullet?
kiwifarms.net
EXACTLY

Observational drawings are the building bl0cks of art, which sadly isn't taught as much as it should (Even I am victim of this, learning it later on is rough).
Developing art styles should be something later on in life, but definitely shouldn't be discouraged, but should be something you keep experimenting with. But the "mUH PAINTERS!!!!" always have to be the fuckheads who don't want to see something other than that.

IMO: My professor told me how specific it is to be an actual mangaka, due to no imports of American Manga. Its very Niche for illustration, meaning you're gonna have to learn the customs, and you have to legit move to Asia to ever really put your foot in the door.
everyone says you gotta learn the rules before you break them yknow

smol tangent but most of my influences in art are anime, and we had to draw portraits and naturally mine looked a bit more anime-esque. my art teacher tried to fail me even though i met all the requirements. i just made the guidelines a lil differently. (also the kid who liked marvel made his look more comic book-y, the disney-loving girl had hers more disney-esque, etc etc. teacher tried to fail them all too)

goes to show how little tolerance so many of them have towards different styles...yet they never actually teach the realism they want so :v
 

Sluggs

*kills a cow* He ceased to beef
kiwifarms.net
everyone says you gotta learn the rules before you break them yknow

smol tangent but most of my influences in art are anime, and we had to draw portraits and naturally mine looked a bit more anime-esque. my art teacher tried to fail me even though i met all the requirements. i just made the guidelines a lil differently. (also the kid who liked marvel made his look more comic book-y, the disney-loving girl had hers more disney-esque, etc etc. teacher tried to fail them all too)

goes to show how little tolerance so many of them have towards different styles...yet they never actually teach the realism they want so :v
I understand that completely. Its like... they'd have to actually teach... art.. instead of color wheel pt.6
 

liliput

thonking
kiwifarms.net
I'm just gonna say it.


Leyendecker is better than Rockwell.

Sure, Rockwell rendered superb, realistic forms, but Leyendecker's mastery of style with angular, graphic forms + realistic anatomy trumphs Rockwell's work. Probably the greatest illustrator of the 20th century tbh. Rockwell's inspo/man crush WAS Leyendecker, btw. I will say that Rockwell has a bit more "humanity" in his work, while Leyendecker's can sometimes feel impersonal or stiff.

Faves:

HBLIYLAKMvfU7-MxwZvlcg.jpg




 

Red Shirt Number 74

where do i go when i bite the bullet?
kiwifarms.net
I understand that completely. Its like... they'd have to actually teach... art.. instead of color wheel pt.6
or it's like

"hey meet these requirements"

*meets requirements*

"hm you met them but it doesnt look exactly like my ugly-ass example 0/100"

too many mfs in the classroom not realizing that everyone's is naturally gonna turn out different

"hey ms teacher how do i get the arm length right"
"draw picasso in complimentary colors"
"but how do i-"
"draw picasso in complimentary colors"
 

Cait Sith

kiwifarms.net
damn those are amazing

personally i think art classes/schools, starting from elementary up should teach stuff like observational drawing. obviously for lil kiddos super easy stuff like "hey draw this cartoon fish the best you can" and moving on to portraits etc. as they move up

then they'd have knowledge of anatomy but could still go and develop their own style without some dye-job bitch off the street going "no anime bad i give u f"

instead we get "EVERYONE SUCK PICASSO'S DICK RN" without actually explaining why he was important other than "he drew squares lol"
Yes, there needs to be a good balance of studying from life and learning general techniques alongside experimenting. In my experience there wasn't any real focus on how artists got to the place they did regardless of whether the work was realism or something stylised like cubism - so much of art education in school was based around simply copying artists, without being given a reasoning for the teacher's logic that copying Picasso is better than copying a manga artist.

Studying significant art movements and specific artists is important, but that approach often seems to lead to a lack of fundamentals to go alongside it and actually bring all of the understanding together.
 

Red Shirt Number 74

where do i go when i bite the bullet?
kiwifarms.net
Yes, there needs to be a good balance of studying from life and learning general techniques alongside experimenting. In my experience there wasn't any real focus on how artists got to the place they did regardless of whether the work was realism or something stylised like cubism - so much of art education in school was based around simply copying artists, without being given a reasoning for the teacher's logic that copying Picasso is better than copying a manga artist.

Studying significant art movements and specific artists is important, but that approach often seems to lead to a lack of fundamentals to go alongside it and actually bring all of the understanding together.
or if you're going to hammer a class with a specific artist because they were involved in ______ movement, maybe explain why the movement was actually important and how it changed the view on art

but yeah by most art teachers' logic i could just as easily copy toriyama or giger instead of picasso the square man

it's less actual art clas and more "let me nut over some random guy for 70 minutes and not explain anything"
 

Fagnacious D

and The Dick of Destiny
kiwifarms.net
I'm just gonna say it.


Leyendecker is better than Rockwell.

Sure, Rockwell rendered superb, realistic forms, but Leyendecker's mastery of style with angular, graphic forms + realistic anatomy trumphs Rockwell's work. Probably the greatest illustrator of the 20th century tbh. Rockwell's inspo/man crush WAS Leyendecker, btw. I will say that Rockwell has a bit more "humanity" in his work, while Leyendecker's can sometimes feel impersonal or stiff.

Faves:

I Like both illustrators but, have no strong opinion on which of the two was better.
However, Rockwell's paintings, while incredibly good paled in comparison to his commercial work. The work he did for the Saturday Evening Post was more impressive than most of the (other) stuff he did that ended up in galleries.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: liliput

Tanti-Fanti

kiwifarms.net
I think it should be a balance when it comes to the art world. I do understand the trend for how we got so many abstract art. At the time so many artists were already pushing out realistic/semi-realistic works. It's going to get overstaturated eventually. So when people started putting out these more abstract works, they gained more attention for how much they broke the conventions at the time. I guarantee you we'll see another shift after the art world gets even more saturated with abstract art.

My unpopular opinion?

It's okay for a drawing not to have meaning. I've seen it so many times in art school that people are literally pressured into having "meaning" to drawings despite the fact you know they made what was assigned to pass the class. It's ridiculous. Not everything needs a deep meaning. People give meaning to what they want to give it. Art can just exist. You don't need to over analyze everything. The scrap of paper in the corner placed by an artist is not compelling when 20 other people did the same thing.
 

RumblyTumbly

kiwifarms.net
I've been to the Guggenheim museum in New York.

In there, I saw some Abstract Art that was downright stupid, and I saw Abstract Art that was really good.

My rule of thumb is that if I, myself, with no skill whatsoever, can recreate the art work with minimal effort, then it isn't high art and doesn't belong in a museum.

One example of what I saw that made me chuckle was a red canvas with a tied rope glued to the center of it. It felt like a silly attempt at trying to seem deep when really, it just looks like something a bored 5 year old would come up with. That and the infamous red spirals that went for a shit ton of money are things that just make me look at the art world with one eyebrow raised and question their sanity. How high do you have to be on your own farts to think that is something special and worthy of praise? And gee, the "artists" have got a pretty sweet gig, don't they? Just make up random crap, act pretentious about it, and their work sells for 7 figures. Its a pretty sweet deal for them, isn't it?

An example of some I liked were these abstract images that used a lot of dark reds, blacks, and browns and clashed them all together and it actually put images in my head of violence and gore without really being anything. How it made me feel while looking at it was animals hunting and killing each other in the woods. That most likely isn't what the artist intended, but the image looked interesting, caught my eye, and put images in my head with the colors and techniques that were used, so there has to be some value to it.
 

Chewy Suarez

kids eat free on monday!
kiwifarms.net
I hate this current Instagram trend of teenage girls who shit out hyperrealistic colored pencil Billie Eilish/James Charles/the Riverdale cast/whatever portraits only to be bombarded with thousands of likes and followers for each piece. It’s like the realistic Walter White drawing phase everyone went through in 2012 all over again.

Nothing they draw is original in the fucking slightest. For example, if you draw Billie in one pose and post it, expect everyone else to draw the same fucking thing. It’s also worth noting they only draw up to the face and neck and straight up trace it sometimes so any practice of anatomy is thrown out the window so they can churn out as much as possible just because “it looks pretty” is better than actually understanding the fundamentals.

You could say “Well, than wouldn’t you have a problem with Alex Ross because he does the same thing?” but the thing is, you can tell what he drew or not. If I pulled up three drawings of James Charles made by these girls, you couldn’t even pick who was who because they all lack variety in style and just look the same.
 

howyadoin

cool cat from a bland show
kiwifarms.net
It's okay for a drawing not to have meaning. I've seen it so many times in art school that people are literally pressured into having "meaning" to drawings despite the fact you know they made what was assigned to pass the class. It's ridiculous. Not everything needs a deep meaning. People give meaning to what they want to give it. Art can just exist. You don't need to over analyze everything. The scrap of paper in the corner placed by an artist is not compelling when 20 other people did the same thing.
I agree that not everyone has to create art with a specific meaning, but artists have been trying to justify their art since the Renaissance in order for their craft to be taken as seriously as other fields like science and linguistics. Whether a work has a deeper meaning or not and whether said meaning is aligned with the art's visuals would be a factor on its acceptability by art institutions.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BroccoliBrain

Tanti-Fanti

kiwifarms.net
I agree that not everyone has to create art with a specific meaning, but artists have been trying to justify their art since the Renaissance in order for their craft to be taken as seriously as other fields like science and linguistics. Whether a work has a deeper meaning or not and whether said meaning is aligned with the art's visuals would be a factor on its acceptability by art institutions.
I understand that. I'm fully aware why artists have/had to justify their art to be taken seriously(am one), but when it comes to different types of art (personal, etc) you don't always have to say it has a deeper meaning. I've seen a bunch of younger artists get really upset when they can't find meaning with their art despite having other issues to think about (anatomy, color theory, etc.). So, I think in some cases it's okay to take it easy and draw what you like (in a non-professional setting of course).

Some person drawing a cute chibi probably isn't looking for their work to be compared to Picasso or any heavily religious themes. To clarify this even more, what I'm referring to specifically is when you see some slap-dashed art in museum that clearly was poorly planned and rushed, but it's all supposed to be a part of "the bigger picture". Like, no. You can make poorly done art look intentional, but it still has to look like you gave a damn. I find it hard to buy the meaning behind some poorly drawn female body because every other nu-age artist has done that. And it's been done better.

What I'm trying to say is that once you've seen one badly made piece of art trying to be contemporary and justified with a "deeper meaning", you've seen it all and it gets exhausting. It's all about fertility, vanity, avarice, lust of the human body, and etc. You'd be amazed how much you see this in art school.

Not trying to say art can never have meaning, but I hope this clarifies some things. I'm just sick and tired of seeing the same repeated meaning over and over again with no type of change whatsoever.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: howyadoin

Tanti-Fanti

kiwifarms.net
Picasso's Blue and Rose periods are far more aesthetically appealing than his later works. His abstract stuff is really ugly and I don't know how they ever became so famous.
I'm making this tl;dr and people can add onto this, but the reason why that work was so renowned at the time was because it was breaking social and artist convention of the time. A lot of artists usually drew from Still-Life and did a lot of observational drawings. You can see this in Picasso's earlier work as well. When political tensions began to arise (WWI), there was more of a change in the art world than before and thus some of the more abstract works began to take notice. Believe it or not, but combining certain elements such as wood grain, newspaper, etc, were considered revolutionary of the time. And of course these works were panned, but eventually they gained more attraction long after their time.

You also have some other movements that come from the early 20th century as well such as the Dadist and Surrealist movement. Picasso basically gained popularity when things were starting to change at the time. I do think people play up his more cubist works too much, but I do give him credit for the amount of time and skill that went into creating the layering effects. I'm a huge fan of those types of things. Especially if done only with pencil.

I guess another unpopular opinion is that I think most famous artist's works are the least interesting in retrospect. I find other more hidden works to be way more interesting.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: madethistocomment

madethistocomment

welcome to god's mosh pit
kiwifarms.net
I'm making this tl;dr and people can add onto this, but the reason why that work was so renowned at the time was because it was breaking social and artist convention of the time. A lot of artists usually drew from Still-Life and did a lot of observational drawings. You can see this in Picasso's earlier work as well. When political tensions began to arise (WWI), there was more of a change in the art world than before and thus some of the more abstract works began to take notice. Believe it or not, but combining certain elements such as wood grain, newspaper, etc, were considered revolutionary of the time. And of course these works were panned, but eventually they gained more attraction long after their time.

You also have some other movements that come from the early 20th century as well such as the Dadist and Surrealist movement. Picasso basically gained popularity when things were starting to change at the time. I do think people play up his more cubist works too much, but I do give him credit for the amount of time and skill that went into creating the layering effects. I'm a huge fan of those types of things. Especially if done only with pencil.

I guess another unpopular opinion is that I think most famous artist's works are the least interesting in retrospect. I find other more hidden works to be way more interesting.
This doesn't really change my thoughts on his art, but as a history sperg I have to thank you for this cool new info! I'll have to read up more on art in that time period.

(Also, I totally agree with your opinion. Hidden/not as famous works tend to be the most underrated.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tanti-Fanti

John Titor

Pronouns: time/temporal/tempself
kiwifarms.net
damn those are amazing

personally i think art classes/schools, starting from elementary up should teach stuff like observational drawing. obviously for lil kiddos super easy stuff like "hey draw this cartoon fish the best you can" and moving on to portraits etc. as they move up

then they'd have knowledge of anatomy but could still go and develop their own style without some dye-job bitch off the street going "no anime bad i give u f"

instead we get "EVERYONE SUCK PICASSO'S DICK RN" without actually explaining why he was important other than "he drew squares lol"
I find Picasso to be overrated even knowing the context of his work. It's like he's the only person normies know involved with advant-garde movements.
 

Firefilly1996@DA

Firefly Goddess of the Ice
kiwifarms.net
Hi there everyone! I was featured in this comment thread a few years back about my "painterly lineless mess". I meant to comment ages ago, but that piece was an abstract. I was going for a sort of "stary night" smudginess with maybe just a tiny bit too much blur on the end result. But I'd like to share with you guys the newer versions of my style. This style, in general, was also meant to be "semi-realistic" and was a learning process piece

Here is an example of my work now in a physical painting style, much like the original post of the same horse:


735411
735410


I am still learning traditional painting, but you can clearly see that it shouldn't really matter the style. The first is from 2017
https://www.deviantart.com/firefilly1996/art/Portrait-of-a-friend-pre-finish-729313462

https://www.deviantart.com/firefilly1996/art/Element-of-healing-Read-below-688532183

Here is another example of said "Lineless mess" that turned out fairly decent on both the original and the remake
735414
https://www.deviantart.com/firefilly1996/art/Draw-this-again-Winter-sun-774303457

My later pieces that had this style took around 2 wks to finish, whereas my newer style or "Popular" style is easier and uses cell shading. I feel too many people use cell shading and it the lazy way out. It can work in some instances, but should not be a go-to
each time.

735417
https://www.deviantart.com/firefilly1996/art/Heart-of-Stone-791974561


That being said I hope you all understand my point in posting all this. Don't judge a style until you understand the artist meaning. Just look at the piece "the scream". To some, it looks like a 5-year-old drew it, but it others it highlights a timepiece and understanding behind the place and time as well as the emotion behind it.

If you have any doubts, feel free to check out my DA page where you will find many different learning curves and styles as well as animation:
https://www.deviantart.com/firefilly1996

This user assumes a creative commons licence and does not allow the reproduction or use of any materials.

License
Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: cactus

Libtard Baby

The Codex of Ultimate Wisdom???
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Hi there everyone! I was featured in this comment thread a few years back about my "painterly lineless mess". I meant to comment ages ago, but that piece was an abstract. I was going for a sort of "stary night" smudginess with maybe just a tiny bit too much blur on the end result. But I'd like to share with you guys the newer versions of my style. This style, in general, was also meant to be "semi-realistic" and was a learning process piece

Here is an example of my work now in a physical painting style, much like the original post of the same horse:


View attachment 735411View attachment 735410

I am still learning traditional painting, but you can clearly see that it shouldn't really matter the style. The first is from 2017
https://www.deviantart.com/firefilly1996/art/Portrait-of-a-friend-pre-finish-729313462

https://www.deviantart.com/firefilly1996/art/Element-of-healing-Read-below-688532183

Here is another example of said "Lineless mess" that turned out fairly decent on both the original and the remake
View attachment 735414https://www.deviantart.com/firefilly1996/art/Draw-this-again-Winter-sun-774303457

My later pieces that had this style took around 2 wks to finish, whereas my newer style or "Popular" style is easier and uses cell shading. I feel too many people use cell shading and it the lazy way out. It can work in some instances, but should not be a go-to
each time.

View attachment 735417https://www.deviantart.com/firefilly1996/art/Heart-of-Stone-791974561


That being said I hope you all understand my point in posting all this. Don't judge a style until you understand the artist meaning. Just look at the piece "the scream". To some, it looks like a 5-year-old drew it, but it others it highlights a timepiece and understanding behind the place and time as well as the emotion behind it.

If you have any doubts, feel free to check out my DA page where you will find many different learning curves and styles as well as animation:
https://www.deviantart.com/firefilly1996

This user assumes a creative commons licence and does not allow the reproduction or use of any materials.

License
Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
You are ugly?
 

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino