Drawn

his work is indeed simply fabulous, I’m absolutely blown away.. thx for the link!

his work is indeed simply fabulous, I’m absolutely blown away.. thx for the link!

I very much like a lot of those illustrations. A bit Steadman-esque? Whatever, I like it. Especially this one: … oh wait, I can’t link to any page in particular because his whole site is FLASH.

I very much like a lot of those illustrations. A bit Steadman-esque? Whatever, I like it. Especially this one: … oh wait, I can’t link to any page in particular because his whole site is FLASH.

But Steadman is a good draftsman. I really don’t find any of these to be exceptional as drawings. He seems to try to make up for poor draftsmanship with tons of overwrought texture. The image up top is actually a notable exception–the drawing is actually pretty good, but most of the other stuff on his site isn’t symbol-oriented enough to be good cartooning, or descriptive enough to be good drawing, and it doesn’t have enough of a foundation in the fundamentals of drawing and painting to be good expressionism. And the site is just way too noisy. I think this guy missed his calling—he should be designing websites and CD jacket sleeves for rockstars. And I mean that—he’d probably be good at it. As an illustrator or painter though I don’t see much of an afinity.

But Steadman is a good draftsman. I really don’t find any of these to be exceptional as drawings. He seems to try to make up for poor draftsmanship with tons of overwrought texture. The image up top is actually a notable exception–the drawing is actually pretty good, but most of the other stuff on his site isn’t symbol-oriented enough to be good cartooning, or descriptive enough to be good drawing, and it doesn’t have enough of a foundation in the fundamentals of drawing and painting to be good expressionism. And the site is just way too noisy. I think this guy missed his calling—he should be designing websites and CD jacket sleeves for rockstars. And I mean that—he’d probably be good at it. As an illustrator or painter though I don’t see much of an afinity.

amazing website . really gud work and i love ur style and painting

keep it up

http://www.thehairyimaje.co.uk

amazing website . really gud work and i love ur style and painting

keep it up

http://www.thehairyimaje.co.uk

I can’t stomach the thought that someone at this day and age could write a comment like “the stuff on his site isn’t…descriptive enough to be good drawing” without meaning to sound tongue in cheek. like there’s a certain level of descriptiveness a drawing should have to become *good*…sigh

as for Trozo, he has some fantastic portrait work that can lead to publications with a more contemporary edge like Rolling Stone. I see Egon Scheille meets Photoshop, and that can’t be a bad thing.

I can’t stomach the thought that someone at this day and age could write a comment like “the stuff on his site isn’t…descriptive enough to be good drawing” without meaning to sound tongue in cheek. like there’s a certain level of descriptiveness a drawing should have to become *good*…sigh

as for Trozo, he has some fantastic portrait work that can lead to publications with a more contemporary edge like Rolling Stone. I see Egon Scheille meets Photoshop, and that can’t be a bad thing.

More like: observant enough to be good drafsmanship. That was poorly expressed. You mention Scheille–again, a serious foundation in observation. Now you’re right, that doesn’t mean that’s what all good drawing is about, and “good drawing” is very subjective, so it’s almost an impossible point to argue. But I think you bring up a good point when you mention Scheile because Scheile had a great understanding of anatomy and form that I don’t see in these drawings. Again–is that the objective here? If not, it’s symbol making, and whether it’s good symbol making or bad symbol making is also pretty subjective.

But yes, what I said before wasn’t entirely clear.

Here’s another instance where I wish I could edit a past comment—the rockstar business also sounds lame and catty and like something I wrote at three in the morning. As for the rest of it: I still stand by the essence of whatI said.

More like: observant enough to be good drafsmanship. That was poorly expressed. You mention Scheille–again, a serious foundation in observation. Now you’re right, that doesn’t mean that’s what all good drawing is about, and “good drawing” is very subjective, so it’s almost an impossible point to argue. But I think you bring up a good point when you mention Scheile because Scheile had a great understanding of anatomy and form that I don’t see in these drawings. Again–is that the objective here? If not, it’s symbol making, and whether it’s good symbol making or bad symbol making is also pretty subjective.

But yes, what I said before wasn’t entirely clear.

Here’s another instance where I wish I could edit a past comment—the rockstar business also sounds lame and catty and like something I wrote at three in the morning. As for the rest of it: I still stand by the essence of whatI said.

I actually think it was quite clear if a bit misguided.

I suggest letting go of the collage level theorizing.
art doesn’t happen there. the most interesting and important experiences that art provides can’t be outlined in bullet points.

in other words, it’s rarely purely observational or purely symbolic. most good illustration happens *between* these edges. Trozo’s work certainly does.

I actually think it was quite clear if a bit misguided.

I suggest letting go of the collage level theorizing.
art doesn’t happen there. the most interesting and important experiences that art provides can’t be outlined in bullet points.

in other words, it’s rarely purely observational or purely symbolic. most good illustration happens *between* these edges. Trozo’s work certainly does.

Ok, how about: drawings of uneven quality, buried in way too much texture as if to make up for something they’re lacking? How’s that for misguided? I don’t know. And you can agree or disagree, and then it’s pretty much a personal taste thing.

Ok, how about: drawings of uneven quality, buried in way too much texture as if to make up for something they’re lacking? How’s that for misguided? I don’t know. And you can agree or disagree, and then it’s pretty much a personal taste thing.

Tiene una hermosa combinación de textura,color y luz,
Eduardo Valdivieso’s Trozo, Felicitaciones ¡¡¡¡¡

Tiene una hermosa combinación de textura,color y luz,
Eduardo Valdivieso’s Trozo, Felicitaciones ¡¡¡¡¡

I just noticed that Jed wasn’t getting any love here, so I thought I’d throw my two cents in. I agree with basically everything he said. There were a half dozen guys at my school who drew and rendered just like this. There’s nothing wrong with intentional distortion, stylization, and so forth–I like Schiele as much as the next person. But what I personally see here are a lot of honest but largely failed attempts at solid portraiture, distractingly rendered in an attempt to salvage the drawing. I agree with the idea that drawing and rendering “incorrectly” is fine as long as it’s done boldy and with intent. But if I can’t tell if your drawing is full of style or just unintentional errors, then you’ve failed one person, at any rate.
Anyway, I like his web design a lot more than his illustration.

I just noticed that Jed wasn’t getting any love here, so I thought I’d throw my two cents in. I agree with basically everything he said. There were a half dozen guys at my school who drew and rendered just like this. There’s nothing wrong with intentional distortion, stylization, and so forth–I like Schiele as much as the next person. But what I personally see here are a lot of honest but largely failed attempts at solid portraiture, distractingly rendered in an attempt to salvage the drawing. I agree with the idea that drawing and rendering “incorrectly” is fine as long as it’s done boldy and with intent. But if I can’t tell if your drawing is full of style or just unintentional errors, then you’ve failed one person, at any rate.
Anyway, I like his web design a lot more than his illustration.

By the way, it’s not “college-level theorizing” just because you don’t agree with it, nor is someone “[outlining] in bullet-points” just because they tried to explain their distaste. If Jed or anyone else had simply said, “I don’t like it, he doesn’t draw well,” you’d probably be insisting he explain himself.

By the way, it’s not “college-level theorizing” just because you don’t agree with it, nor is someone “[outlining] in bullet-points” just because they tried to explain their distaste. If Jed or anyone else had simply said, “I don’t like it, he doesn’t draw well,” you’d probably be insisting he explain himself.

gorgeous…..i love the style

gorgeous…..i love the style