JC Richard - Art of, Discussion, Releases and Appreciation.

General art-related discussion.
pugsly
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:24 pm

Mon Mar 10, 2014 3:44 pm

Brian2013 wrote:Lol I love JC Richards art style, He is one of my favorites. You are under the impression I have a problem with his art style I don't, I had a problem with this particular print due too the character image quality on their face and body. He has done other prints that have rendered much more clearly even with the gritty paint theme. That was my only point. I love the look and background theme, the ship in the moon, and the back city feel. Yes I can remember clearly this print, I've been to the gallery twice already and have spent quite a bit of time observing this piece. This was particularly one of the first prints I looked at when I went into the gallery opening night. You trying to find some type of fault in my personal opinion on this print is ridiculous when I am just stating what I examined up close with my face 12 inches from the print. Pretty sure this thread states discussion in the thread. Or am I mistaken and opinions don't matter as long as they don't agree with yours?
Again- Im staring at my Pan and it's not pixelated, not distorted. That's not opinion, those are specific (negative) descriptions of this print that just aren't accurate. I can confirm it with my own eyes. You've used "pixelated" when what you really mean is a deliberate noise/dissolve effect. Many artists will use noise for shading instead of halftoning stuff. It's not random or a mistake as you keep trying to suggest, sorry.
User avatar
Brian2013
Art Expert
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:59 am

Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:00 pm

pugsly wrote:
Brian2013 wrote:Lol I love JC Richards art style, He is one of my favorites. You are under the impression I have a problem with his art style I don't, I had a problem with this particular print due too the character image quality on their face and body. He has done other prints that have rendered much more clearly even with the gritty paint theme. That was my only point. I love the look and background theme, the ship in the moon, and the back city feel. Yes I can remember clearly this print, I've been to the gallery twice already and have spent quite a bit of time observing this piece. This was particularly one of the first prints I looked at when I went into the gallery opening night. You trying to find some type of fault in my personal opinion on this print is ridiculous when I am just stating what I examined up close with my face 12 inches from the print. Pretty sure this thread states discussion in the thread. Or am I mistaken and opinions don't matter as long as they don't agree with yours?
Again- Im staring at my Pan and it's not pixelated, not distorted. That's not opinion, those are specific (negative) descriptions of this print that just aren't accurate. I can confirm it with my own eyes. You've used "pixelated" when what you really mean is a deliberate noise/dissolve effect. Many artists will use noise for shading instead of halftoning stuff. It's not random or a mistake as you keep trying to suggest, sorry.
Your accuracy and my accuracy are different then. I find looking at the characters up close are very pixelated, you can call it noise or dissolve. The detail on the boys especially drew me away from this print. Peter pan is ok, Wendy gets bad and her face starts losing detail, and then the boys get even more distorted up close.


Image

Image
by Codeblue

But he LOVES the show Big Brother, and premixed margaritas in foil packs.
pugsly
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:24 pm

Mon Mar 10, 2014 9:18 pm

Brian2013 wrote:
pugsly wrote:
Brian2013 wrote:Lol I love JC Richards art style, He is one of my favorites. You are under the impression I have a problem with his art style I don't, I had a problem with this particular print due too the character image quality on their face and body. He has done other prints that have rendered much more clearly even with the gritty paint theme. That was my only point. I love the look and background theme, the ship in the moon, and the back city feel. Yes I can remember clearly this print, I've been to the gallery twice already and have spent quite a bit of time observing this piece. This was particularly one of the first prints I looked at when I went into the gallery opening night. You trying to find some type of fault in my personal opinion on this print is ridiculous when I am just stating what I examined up close with my face 12 inches from the print. Pretty sure this thread states discussion in the thread. Or am I mistaken and opinions don't matter as long as they don't agree with yours?
Again- Im staring at my Pan and it's not pixelated, not distorted. That's not opinion, those are specific (negative) descriptions of this print that just aren't accurate. I can confirm it with my own eyes. You've used "pixelated" when what you really mean is a deliberate noise/dissolve effect. Many artists will use noise for shading instead of halftoning stuff. It's not random or a mistake as you keep trying to suggest, sorry.
Your accuracy and my accuracy are different then. I find looking at the characters up close are very pixelated, you can call it noise or dissolve. The detail on the boys especially drew me away from this print. Peter pan is ok, Wendy gets bad and her face starts losing detail, and then the boys get even more distorted up close.

Image
Are you kidding me? Well now I think you're trolling, because you just proved my point not yours. Michael's face is literally HALF A CENTIMETER, which you've blown up to ridiculous proportions! It's amazing the facial details hold up as well as they do being so minuscule Any roughness you see at that magnification is a result of his style and the limitations of screenprinting, which I'm just now realizing you don't know much about. Again, for the umpteenth time, looks fine... even when you blow up tiny details to appear as they never would in real life.

And since you've started to annoy me by repeating negative BS over and over, I'll post this again: Why you keep harping on something you obviously don't care personally for is beyond me. Seems so much healthier to move on to what you DO like, and let people enjoy what they like- cheers. :roll:
User avatar
student42
Art Expert
Posts: 1361
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:02 am

Mon Mar 10, 2014 9:47 pm

.
.
I totally get what you are saying. The pixelation (pointillism) clearly makes it crappy art that most people would not want.
For instance, someone was once duped into buying this POS, which from a reasonable distance looks like this:

Image

But when up close, it looks like this!
I bet they felt like quite the fools when they brought it home and realized that the face was pixelated making the art terrible and worthless.

Image
ImageI like pie!
vortec42
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:56 am

Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:02 pm

Hey guys. Take a look at how horrible the quality of this magazine cover is. I can't believe people even think this is a real photograph.

Image
User avatar
Timbrh2001
Art Expert
Posts: 8416
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: 'Merica

Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:06 pm

Dude has a lot of Richard on his ISO list. He's gonna be pissed when he actually acquires some of them and gets to look at them up close...
User avatar
jrsheppa
Art Expert
Posts: 5421
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:23 pm
Location: The South

Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:19 pm

Timbrh2001 wrote:Dude has a lot of Richard on his ISO list. He's gonna be pissed when he actually acquires some of them and gets to look at them up close...
drymount JC Richard and the beautiful images he produces. Needs a lesson in screenprinting from Chris Morkaut....
User avatar
Brian2013
Art Expert
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:59 am

Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:05 am

pugsly wrote:
Brian2013 wrote:
pugsly wrote:
Brian2013 wrote:Lol I love JC Richards art style, He is one of my favorites. You are under the impression I have a problem with his art style I don't, I had a problem with this particular print due too the character image quality on their face and body. He has done other prints that have rendered much more clearly even with the gritty paint theme. That was my only point. I love the look and background theme, the ship in the moon, and the back city feel. Yes I can remember clearly this print, I've been to the gallery twice already and have spent quite a bit of time observing this piece. This was particularly one of the first prints I looked at when I went into the gallery opening night. You trying to find some type of fault in my personal opinion on this print is ridiculous when I am just stating what I examined up close with my face 12 inches from the print. Pretty sure this thread states discussion in the thread. Or am I mistaken and opinions don't matter as long as they don't agree with yours?
Again- Im staring at my Pan and it's not pixelated, not distorted. That's not opinion, those are specific (negative) descriptions of this print that just aren't accurate. I can confirm it with my own eyes. You've used "pixelated" when what you really mean is a deliberate noise/dissolve effect. Many artists will use noise for shading instead of halftoning stuff. It's not random or a mistake as you keep trying to suggest, sorry.
Your accuracy and my accuracy are different then. I find looking at the characters up close are very pixelated, you can call it noise or dissolve. The detail on the boys especially drew me away from this print. Peter pan is ok, Wendy gets bad and her face starts losing detail, and then the boys get even more distorted up close.

Image
Are you kidding me? Well now I think you're trolling, because you just proved my point not yours. Michael's face is literally HALF A CENTIMETER, which you've blown up to ridiculous proportions! It's amazing the facial details hold up as well as they do being so minuscule Any roughness you see at that magnification is a result of his style and the limitations of screenprinting, which I'm just now realizing you don't know much about. Again, for the umpteenth time, looks fine... even when you blow up tiny details to appear as they never would in real life.

And since you've started to annoy me by repeating negative BS over and over, I'll post this again: Why you keep harping on something you obviously don't care personally for is beyond me. Seems so much healthier to move on to what you DO like, and let people enjoy what they like- cheers. :roll:
QQ all you want, it still looks horrible and it was more than I who was complaining about it at the gallery. Some people like pixelated prints I guess:)
by Codeblue

But he LOVES the show Big Brother, and premixed margaritas in foil packs.
User avatar
Timbrh2001
Art Expert
Posts: 8416
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: 'Merica

Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:07 am

Brian2013 wrote:
QQ all you want, it still looks horrible and it was more than I who was complaining about it at the gallery. Some people like pixelated prints I guess:)
That's like going into a Chicago Bulls thread and saying "Some people like Michael Jordan I guess?". Well yeah, duh.
pugsly
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:24 pm

Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:26 am

Timbrh2001 wrote:
Brian2013 wrote:
QQ all you want, it still looks horrible and it was more than I who was complaining about it at the gallery. Some people like pixelated prints I guess:)
That's like going into a Chicago Bulls thread and saying "Some people like Michael Jordan I guess?". Well yeah, duh.
Yup. He should hit the Whalen thread and repeatedly post that things look cartoonish, then move into the Moss thread and start harping on how minimalism is boring.
User avatar
Timbrh2001
Art Expert
Posts: 8416
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: 'Merica

Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:29 am

pugsly wrote:
Timbrh2001 wrote:
Brian2013 wrote:
QQ all you want, it still looks horrible and it was more than I who was complaining about it at the gallery. Some people like pixelated prints I guess:)
That's like going into a Chicago Bulls thread and saying "Some people like Michael Jordan I guess?". Well yeah, duh.
Yup. He should hit the Whalen thread and repeatedly post that things look too cartoonish, then move into the Moss thread and start harping on how minimalism is boring.
If I were him, I'd consider myself lucky that I discovered this little tidbit before actually tracking down the first Richard on my ISO list.
pugsly
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:24 pm

Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:50 am

student42 wrote:.
.
I totally get what you are saying. The pixelation (pointillism) clearly makes it crappy art that most people would not want.
For instance, someone was once duped into buying this POS, which from a reasonable distance looks like this:

Image

But when up close, it looks like this!
I bet they felt like quite the fools when they brought it home and realized that the face was pixelated making the art terrible and worthless.

Image
Well put sir. .wish I could have explained my point in such cleverly sarcastic terms.
User avatar
dylansdad
Art Expert
Posts: 7043
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 11:21 am

Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:56 am

I've been happier with the Richard prints I've owned than with the Durieux prints. Those things are so prone to registration errors that it's not even funny. White popping out all over the place. So I understand when someone says that they are turned off by certain prints in person. I get that. I just haven't felt that way about Richard prints. (I miss having Walden on the wall.)
User avatar
RambosRemodeler
Art Freak
Posts: 18127
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:35 pm

Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:56 am

drymount art and drymount all of you posterkillers .......
Last edited by RambosRemodeler on Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
choke wrote:I won't give up a flip that I can get myself to someone who is convinced they need it. None of us need any of this fudge. It's art. It's not medicine.
User avatar
DidYouSeeMeEscaping
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 4:09 pm

Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:58 am

I was in the gallery today and was trying to take the exact same photo Brian showed above, but to illustrate the exact opposite point. That in a screenprinted face that's smaller than a fricking dime(Michaels) you get the definition of his pupils looking below and a clear line on his nose that mustve been a 1/4 of a millimeter. Damn impressive for a screenprint and especially one of JCs considering how he likes to bring the noise
Post Reply