Original Post
[Art] Painting discussion #1
This thread is for discussing the elements of a canvas painting. This week: Scott Avett's "Underdog"
I personally love the contrast of the blue sky on the gray clouds. I like the perspective as well. It's as if the second guy is asking some one for payment on their hit. It's also a self portrait, scott is holding the head. What are your thoughts?
I personally love the contrast of the blue sky on the gray clouds. I like the perspective as well. It's as if the second guy is asking some one for payment on their hit. It's also a self portrait, scott is holding the head. What are your thoughts?
I like how he paints the people portrayed in the picture, ive never been good at drawing people my knowledge is mostly stick figures lol. wweeelll anyway im also a fan of the little details like how the head hes carrying the eyes you cant see the pupils yet you can obviously tell that they're just rolled back yeah I like this picture 8/10
<Swyne> <3 Fleip
<3 SWYIE
<3 SWYIE
Originally Posted by BenDover
are we looking at the same piece?
what contrast? the blue is dull, almost grey, it blends more than it contrasts...
which is what its supposed to do, backgrounds in classical paintings are dull and unfocussed.
as a background, its ok, doesnt detract from the focal point, and doesnt detract from the quality of the painting.
Alright, Sorry. I started this thread to learn more about art and so other people can learn from critic's opinions.
what perspective? the dunes in the background? hardly amazing perspective... i can barely see enough to warrant noticing the perspective at all. the guy behind him? he's more likely a short person standing next to him, look where his waist line is, if you draw the perspective lines in, it sorta gets confused if you take it as him standing behind him.
and in all likelyhood, he didnt think about perspective when setting out.
in which case there is no real persepctive.
im also struggling to see how perspective is specifically relevant to canvas painting.
perspective relates to all art.
Canvas painting = art. You must talk about all elements of art, not just a specific genre of artwork.
Im indifferent about the cel shaded look.
i dont like his use of colour, too much red, his use of black to create shadows is annoyinh. theyr random, it just stands out like "BAM" on his left pec.
I don't think he uses enough red on the neck of the dismembered head. He likes to exaggerate his shadows, it's better than not having enough shadows.
self portraits are never accurate, theyr either horribly honest, where you can see every flaw he sees in himself, or horribly dishonest, where he corrects everything without thinking.
finding an accurate self portrait is rare.
but otherwise he seems as good as any other classically styled professional artist.
nothing special about it, nothing groundbreaking, nothing that makes me think he's better than any other classically styled professional artist.
realistic and boring, the dead head is the most interesting part of the painting.
if i gave a crap about who Scott Avett was, then i might find his choice of context for a self portrait interesting, but ive never heard of him, so i dont.
The dead head should be the most interesting part, It's the only thing that doesn't make it just a painting of two guys standing there. I don't fully understand the title, though.
@jessebean: if your post doesnt cover a few more points in the next one, im closing it.
your post was short, the image link didnt work for me and your analysis covered virtually no points relative to canvas painting.
read some reviews on the piece, pick some points that you find relevant, what you appreciate and blablabla
Im fine with it in art
and please, no classical pieces, we cover enough classical renaissance styled stuff during school...
something interesting, Francoise nielly or something that wont put me to sleep.
Got it.