Thread 7785622

Why have Loomis, Rockwell, and similar artists aged so badly?

>>7785622 (OP)
Gimmicks always age badly. It was basically ai slop of their times.
It takes a while for normies to start to recognize the formula, but once they do its over.

>>7785622 (OP)
if they are popular enough, illustrators become cliche
illustrations are a product of their time. the idealized figures Loomis drew don't really hold up to modern standards.
this rockwell painting is a meme now

They didn't draw lolis getting raped by ugly bastards.

>>7785622 (OP)
i know this is a bait thread, but they are the pinnacle of realistic styles. beautiful work

>>7785668
fuck ive still got that stupid name on

>>7785622 (OP)
None of these aged badly.

>>7785622 (OP)
Which one of these aged badly? They all look like clean realistic portraits.

>>7785668
For me it's Repin.

>>7785661
>if they are popular enough, illustrators become cliche
True, I'd say the same for styles as well; Think of the 60's/70's psychedelic style, or the corporate memphis style now.
Though there is a discussion to be had as to why one is so beloved, and another so loathed.

... Do you think corporate memphis is how the 10's or 20's will be remembered visually?... Gross.

>>7785622 (OP)
They aged badly because there are now millions of chinese people who can draw photographs at the same skill level. Most atelier students can do what he does so its not unique anymore. He was just the first to profit off of his lackluster cartoons so hes hailed as an american icon. Americans like it cheap and fast - think mcdonalds.

>>7785661
>this rockwell painting is a meme now
all culture is memetic, what you mean to say that it's being used as a joke, the painting itself isnt the joke, rather emboldening the joke by having a serious artpiece being coupled with a silly posting. you and OP are both retards that have no idea what theyre saying, you're just bored and shitpost instead of using your time for something worthwhile, like edifying yourself

>>7785680
>He was just the first to profit off of his lackluster cartoons so hes hailed as an american icon.
Who? Loomis or Rockwell? Neither are known for their cartoons.
Rockwell, as far as I know, drew none.
Loomis' cartooning was very hit or miss, as you can see from fwap.
Both are entirely known for their realistic drawings.

>>7785690
>Both are entirely known for their realistic drawings
Im implying their realistic work is equal to that of a cartoon.the relevance fleeting. Most people that arent inept can draw like both loomis and rockwell, nothing special. Oh, i forgot im on a board full of begs

>>7785690
anon is probably a chinese ESL

>>7785622 (OP)
I don’t think they’ve aged badly necessarily, but they do show their age. There’s still a place for this type of art, especially the way Loomis draws heads. It’s a good foundation to have for head drawing, more so than artists like Bridgman for example

>>7785710
Show us your own work that is a match for Loomis and Rockwell. BTW, Rockwell is known for his paintings, not drawings. Loomis was also a painter and his drawings are only known today because of his instructional books.

>>7785710
>Most people that arent inept can draw like both loomis and rockwell
Rockwell is one of the most celebrated artist and illustrators, not just of his time, but of all time, and you say that he's work is easy to replicate and derogatorily is akin to a cartoon? I've never posted it before, but you have to pyw when posting this shit..

>>7785710
You can open any social media right now and see that this isn’t true at all. Loomis and Rockwell have a very particular style that isn’t in any way easy to duplicate especially because it was a product of its time. Very few people nowadays draw like Loomis, even after studying him.

>>7785668
>pinnacle of realistic styles
not even an actual boomer would believe that, even just within the context of US painters

>>7785796
>Rockwell is one of the most celebrated artist and illustrators, not just of his time, but of all time
Hardly, Rockwell made virtually no impact, are you confusing him with Leyendecker?

>>7785875
>Leyendecker
Who? Has he had any shows at the Norman Rockwell museum?

>>7785887
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH OH NONONONO

>>7785900
Leyendecker's museum must be huge for you to be acting like that.

>>7785900
>most celebrated illustrat(...).jpg
We wuz greeek and shiiieeet!

>>7785924
Correct, he's exhibited in real buildings made of brick and concrete instead of being relegated to a cuckshed

>>7785622 (OP)
the only thing that has aged poorly is your existence

>>7786277
damn son, reddit did you dirty with that zinger

>>7785924
God Leyendecker is underrated.

>>7785622 (OP)
lol you did not just equate Loomis and Rockwell. Come one bruh

>>7785676
patron saint of unemployed Painters

>erm why are these quick sketches from photos done with 50s aesthetics in graphite and minimal white hightening not as good as these older 8 hour drawings done from life using stumping?
Why indeed dumbfuck

>>7786270
>cuckshed
It's a pretty nice cuckshed.
Anyway, give the address of Layendeckers museum, the real building (that totally exists) made of brick and concrete, I'd love to see his work!

>>7786434
>literally nobody looking at the paintings
>boomer more interested in a jacket
lol
rockwell more like rock bottom LMOA

>>7786436
Kek

>>7786434
>literally nobody looking at the paintings
5 of the 7 people photographed are clearly looking at the paintings, ya silly billy.
And why wouldn't that old man be looking at the jacket, it Rockwell's Jacket, THE Rocking Rockwell's Rocking Jacket.

Anyway, so where's Layendecker's museum? I looked up the lists of single artist museums, but I couldn't see him there, surely he has one, right?

Rockwell's best piece is this one. Maybe if he did more like this, he would be remembered more fondly.

>>7785622 (OP)
Neither are interested in drawing what they see in front of them, just getting the most saleable product.

>>7786459
That's like the exact opposite of what people's usual criticism of them is.

>>7786461
No it isn't, Loomis is frequently criticized for not painting actual humans and instead a product. Vilppu literally laughs at the loomis head at one point in the NMA course

>>7786472
No, you're wrong.
People's complaints always stem from their work being dull for staying too close to the model and being too based on reference.
Using a method to teach how to draw heads and faces as a means of critiquing their work is extremely retarded, btw.

And speaking of over-rated artists; what the fuck has vilppu ever done?
Leave the failed artist to teaching.

>>7786477
I didn't say construction, you dumb nigger, I said the loomis head as in the anatomically retarded archetypal male head he paints
stupid fucking nigger

>>7786480
>Just repeats himself
>Can't prove Vindaloo was any good
Ha.

>Can't prove Chicken Vindaloo was any good
>Runs away and vague posts
>Also a massive faggot

>>7786501
don't sign your posts

>>7786525
Nice joke, an original?
That was a rhetorical question, because it's an overdone cliche here already.

>>7786529
more like gaytorical queerstion lmoa gottem

>>7786565
That's better.