/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6880758
his early work that was actually good had
>perspective
>composition
>value
>proportion

>>6569135
> GEEE NIGGER I WONDER WHYYY A PROFIT DRIVEN INSTITUTION WOULD SUDDENLY STOP TRAINING PEOPLE IN THE WAY THAT CLEARLY WORKED FOR GENERATIONS AND SUDDENLY DO A 180° INTO DEGENERATE ANTIMORAL SOCIETY DESTROYING HORSESHIT???
Mostly because they didn’t lol. Getting into a prestigious art school now actually is much more difficult in terms of what is actually expected from you to already be proficient at as a teenager than pretty much any time before. It’s been an endlessly progression of increasing standards year after year.

The only reason you think the did a 180 or whatever retarded bullshit is because you aren’t educated. You have no frame of reference to any actual real world programs and you’re basing everything off the emotional reactionary feelings that have been fed to you by your propaganda.

May be hard for irrational ESL bozos like you to comprehend but most of the people making the “shitty art” that you’re conditioned to be upset about we’re better at traditional painting and drawing when they were teenagers than you will ever be. So do you think maybe there’s an intellectual aspect to all this art history shit that you refuse to comprehend for retarded political reasons?

The guy was 16 (!!) when he made this. I bet he got bored with high art and just wanted to sense some sensation.

>>5236366
He was at the top when only being a teen (see pic) Got bored and wanted to find other visual languages to explore.

The guy was cocky, had charisma and utterly loved woman. Dick driven motivations are rock solid.

Picasso used to draw like that.
It's not really comparable to your modern artist who compensate his lack of skill and talent with "abstraction"
He knew what he was doing.