>>3043457i've just never seen anything of his that wasn't rudimentary anatomy and shapes but rendered excessively.
If I was being generous I'd say that what he's doing is no different than how Picasso treated the human figure: Vague guidelines taken to stylistic extremes. The problem is it's been done before. He doesn't examine the differences in things, he recreates the same things over and over again. There's nothing peculiar about his work. There's no eye for what makes his subjects interesting, it's simply "In this one I'll draw a head" "In this one I'll draw a dragon" "In this one I'll draw a castle"
There's isn't a thoughtfulness to the strokes, there isn't an interest in each different image he creates, it all just blends together.
Same problem I have with KJG to a degree, and to the same extent John Singer Sargent and Leyendecker. It's a performance. They're more someone to be awed at because they are so weirdly obsessive and detached from their work, but they are certainly not artists. They just happen to make art.
These are all the artists /ic/ gravitates towards though because they are impressive while being inoffensive. It's "godlike" because they have dumped so much time and effort into otherwise lazy and simple artwork.
To me an artist, as it should be to everyone here, is Michelangelo. Someone who challenges themselves to see the big picture. Where a cube or a cylinder doesn't become the entirety of the pictures, but is just one of a million parts of a greater image.
I wish more /ic/ artists pushed themselves like that. Of course when you challenge yourself you will make a lot of bad art, but you will be more respected for it, and more fulfilled later if you push yourself out of your comfort zone and really attempt to see the world in it's entirety.
