5 Painting Secrets You'll Be Embarrassed You Didn’t Know

[@jenniperkins4260]

I choose you as my oil painting teacher. I’m a self taught acrylic painter for 4 yrs and I’ve been collecting oil pharaohenila for months and I’ve been scared to begin. But my acrylic painting has become a nightmare. Trying to paint large canvas background so fast before it dries. I’ve gone through dozens of brushes for one day and packages of paper towels in weeks - it’s been a nightmare I listened to too many different artists teaching diff things. I’m only going to listen to you from now on. Your accent is really beautiful you don’t need to try to sound more American. Stay true to you. You’re def brilliant I’ve listened to 2 of your vids and made my decision. Thank you 🌸 merci bouquet

[@99Wombats]

I do like your comments about very large portraits. That sort of thing is ok for posters.

[@NOISREVIEW]

hmmm.. thanks for this video, it really shows how art is very subjective. there are a couple of points in this video that you mentioned that made me go "I don't see anything wrong with that" or " why follow a rule? why not break the rule" or "why should we still follow old masters work and get stuck with something that's been done a million times before hundred of years ago?". I guess that's the beauty of art, no one way is the right way of doing things, it's more like "its the right way of doing it because it works for me" kind of thing.

[@andrewom679]

Modern art is designed to be ugly and destroy culture. That never has been, nor will it be, a good thing.

[@pavloshevchuk2454]

I was going to write about the same thing. I decided to see if anyone else shared my opinion. I also did not like the portraits of King Charles and Barack Obama either. But I also don't think it's wrong either. Everything in art is subjective. People experiment and create new things. In music, after baroque, there was classicism. Now we have a hard rock. People listen to what they like.

[@bipl8989]

Yes, art is subjective, but it does not mean that there can't be good rules and bad practices. King Charles is a floating talking head. Obama in leaves, simply ridiculous. Has no meaning. Just about every painting I've seen are better than those psintings, so I give him those points.

[@princevesperal]

There is a reason why things have been done a million times over the centuries: *they work!* When you try to reinvent the wheel, your bet may pay off and produce something novel and extraordinary... but most likely, you'll just create something sub-par. And before you can even think of breaking the rules, you need to know and master them.

[@SamanthaMC196]

Un grand merci ! Your videos are so informative. You are brilliant! You deal with technical aspects in a very clear and understandable way.

[@Lacaracola2301]

Thanks a lot, this was one of the best videos about composition in paintings that I've seen, I love the way you explain every detail, greetings from Colombia!

[@smithjohn383]

You are absolutely right about the size of the head. More than natural size is really uncomfortable. And you demonstrated it very well, even if it was unintentional. I watched this video on full screen mode ( as all art videos, obviously ), and several times your head appeared on screen larger than life. Made me jump back every time.

[@janepage3608]

Yes, I had the same reaction. It might have been intended to give the lecture liveliness but it was just uncomfortable every time it happened. Good lecture but a bit dogmatic.

[@SierraNovemberKilo]

Indeed. When King Charles unveiled the portrait he jumped back. He was clearly disturbed by it but managed to control himself. King Charles is an artist himself. He must have seen the errors too yet was very graceful in his speech about it.

[@Itsme-qo2le]

Brilliant video! Eye opening more than once. Thank you, genuinely :)

[@vitus.verdegast]

The narrator has good taste in art. Compositional "rules" are not just arbitrary opinions or whims, they become traditional over the generations because the work, they look good and they please the viewer's eye. People who don't understand composition justify their ignorance by pretending they are being "edgy," or "disturbing" or inventing something new and different, when they are just making the same mistakes that students have always made before they gain insight.

[@elleeo1495]

Great points, Florent! Love my new art term! Thank you

[@toddaulner5393]

I am working on a cubism painting right now. My first try and I am super happy with it!

[@kayden7911]

Hi! I love your videos. I'm a (more than) fairly good artist. Now I'm stuggling to learn oil painting. I know a good painting when I see one, and I know a failed painting when I see one. I caught a good deal of flack when the painting of King Charles was revealed, because I instantly HATED it. The composition, the aggressive colors, the fact that the king looks like he's melting, mired in a pool of bl--d...it's just ugly, frankly. I wasn't sure if it was me, if maybe I had no taste, then I watched your video. I feel better now! Everything you said makes perfect sense. I'd rather see a stately, serene portrait of Charles seated in a chair/throne with his mother's corgis at his feet. Btw, you are a brilliant artist. Thanks! 😊

[@laurfincher8137]

I hate that painting of Chuck too! MANY people hate it and MANY people have seen demons in the background. The title of that painting should be Blood Bath... yuck!

[@citadelofwinds1564]

That painting is ugly. It's bad enough to make the subject so large, but the different reds are constantly clashing with each other, and the effect is overwhelming and unpleasant. WTF was that artist thinking? Trying to be "cool" by throwing all these overheated reds at the viewer? The whole thing feels ugly, disturbing and wrong wrong wrong.

[@laowaistudieschina7470]

It is one disturbing portrait, that's for sure. Glad it's not just me who doesn't like it.

[@florrytsukino2014]

It isn't a bad painting when you consider what monarchy stands for and represents these days. As a balatant mockery of what monarchy is it is perfect as it conveys ugly, disturbing, disgusting, unpleasant and overwhelming feeling. It's stained with blood and some say you can see demons in the background. The butterfly looks like a kitschy pitiful attempt to pull away attention of the viewer from all the atrocities and morally wrong actions. To me personally this painting looks like what would an artist do when asked by the king to paint him but at the same time isn't a huge fan of a said king and also can't express this opinion too openly (I am not saying this is exactly what has happened there). Yes, the painting is ugly with its aggressive colour palette and melting subject but doesn't mean it's failed or not good. It's just not what monarchists would like to see.

[@debbie4941]

The kings painting had me wondering if it were painted in blood. As it happened, I cut myself while trimming flax bush back and decided to see if my blood would look similar if I painted with it. And yes, it looked identical. Some people have mirror imaged kings painting and joined both images to discover several demonic looking creatures in the background also.

[@willizollig9176]

hi florent, I welcome your strong opinion but I don't share it. I'm probably wrong, but for me the choice and use of stylistic devices(Stilmittel) are not limited to the classic ones. It was precisely through the expansion of conceptual art that it became legitimate to convey feelings in a more multidimensional way. Like a festaiolo, a larger-than-life object can serve as a vehicle to reinforce an impression, contrast, etc. I agree with you about the metaphor of the window. However, I would like to point out that it is exactly one and the more windows a room has, the more light falls in. tyvm for all your great work.

[@dancharlesc]

the "half hand/full hand = head size" blew my mind, never thought of it that way. i'll be more conscious about it.

[@hedonismbot3274]

I don't care about it at all and also don't get a "in your face" feel. Also "in your face" can be good. A huge portrait can be very impressive.

[@andrewom679]

​@@hedonismbot3274Or, it can be a huge piece of crap.

[@monikat2327]

I immediately ran to measure the portraits I had painted

[@dancharlesc]

@@monikat2327 haha, im trying this out with my new drawings. it messes me up if i draw a face in a whole page on a notebook. maybe that's why. it's an unnatural look or it takes me too close to the subject.

[@revoktorment440]

Mec, le tableau du roi Charles à un look démoniaque...

[@revoktorment440]

@@herrweiss2580 oops oui merci....

[@BaroqueViolin]

Very interesting! Thank you!

[@ritawilbur6128]

I had no idea those Vermeer paintings are so tiny! They are such beautiful paintings. And I would love to see those giant Monets!

[@debbie4941]

This was brilliant. Thank you Florent.

[@lubaroshchyna8920]

Love your videos! Thank you for sharing your knowledge and time!

[@SierraNovemberKilo]

Good points well made with excellent choice of paintings. Good reminder about use of the mannequin and Loomis too. Thanks.

[@Herr_Vorragender]

Maybe a giant head can create an effect within the viewer. If I'd enter a room and a giant face were looking right at me, I'd may feel timid. Depending on the interior design of the room, the same giant head will of course either feel super awkward, crushing or maybe even small, fragile and humble. Besides, isn't usually "larger than life" a common technique used in comic books, where the evil villain with godly powers is drawn not only larger than life, but also in a foreshortened perspective making the giant villain looking down onto the viewer?

[@isabeedemski3635]

Charkes looks like a vampire villan in the portrait.

[@edwardgyu7990]

I completely totally agree with your take on the size of modern portrait paintings, they have to make it so so so big, I remember going to museum and see Kehinde Wiley paintings, they are huge, and almost cover the whole wall of the museum. It's almost like the museum is too small and need to rebuild. It's like you're lacking techniques and innovation but make it up with size. I know it's hard to over achieve what the old masters have done in the portrait painting side of things. But if someone archive the same level of a old master is already a painting worth in the museum!

[@liv0003]

not all art has to be "beautiful" and "pleasant to view" to be great art. With your reasoning we should therefore eliminate almost 90% of the greatest painters and artists of modern and contemporary art. Pleasant to view ≠ great art .

[@KidHuevotes00]

Great video, amazing information as always . Learning a lot from you. Thanks for your time

[@colleenmartin812]

I think the artist wanted you feel like the king is a monster.

[@bonjovi1354]

Lol 😂 no.. King wanted controversy.. Look at his other paintings they r booring.. But this time it's much more controversial.. Controversy makes them relevant

[@Midgy21747]

What ridiculous statement.

[@chompers11]

@@Midgy21747 bro the king, and the monarchy, are absolutely monsters what are you on about

[@whytchywooo]

​@@chompers11Both points of view are relevant to the subject of the painting. 😆

[@janthiessen300]

I hope you realize that you're one of three people on KZbin who knows what he's talking about.

[@feliciawhite2922]

Nice, Florent. Might have learned a new word, might have forgotten it already, but the concept remains....never considered that before. Love the old masters painting of the two women looking out a window. One of my favs. Never remember the name of the artist...hmm, might be a pattern here.

[@cydelegs]

Yes, I have never used geometry to compose yet the finished work usually has sound composition. Also thank you for your words on the importance of size and subject, I find all large face portraits psychologically wrong and have declined commissions that request them.

[@cynthiamarston2208]

I got a really good likeness pre draw which is too big face for size canvas. I remember when I had painted one like that and quit it because looked like very wrong and kinda cartoonish ….not artful but my solution was to make this nice likeness almost totally dark and leave just a few visible parts maintain likeness so yeah…that face filling the canvas is a problem until you change something in order to make it work better.

[@Artful-Advisor]

I love it! “Geometry puzzle “! ❤

[@fmc291]

I need some advice, any tips would be appreciated. Many times when I paint the wood frame from behind the canvas and it leaves an impression line on the piece and I have to paint layer after their layer to cover it up. Is there a way to prevent this or is there a brand that doesn’t have those back support beams on the back of a canvas. Thank you.

[@lauriecook3015]

Large canvases need those extra support bars to hold the outer frame square so that the painting fits firmly into a frame. Try slipping some heavy cardboard between the canvas and the supports while you are painting, The cardboard will give you a supported backing so that the wood bars are cushioned away from the canvas.

[@fmc291]

@@lauriecook3015 that’s brilliant. Thank you so much for the tip.

[@elvismusolola]

Thank you for a wonderful lecture

[@andreasofner581]

Florent, did you notice how Caravaggio messed up the forshortening of the more distant hand of the person on the right? David Hockney talks about this painting and these “errors” due to the excessive use of lenses in Caravaggios time in his book called Old Masters lost secrets (something like that). A very good read this book.

[@liv0003]

the use of lenses by the great masters of the past are only assumptions that Hockey makes, his assumptions in fact are not supported by concrete evidence and many art critics all around the world completely disagree with him regarding his theories

[@vinsensiusguwanda8509]

About the size, I think it's depend where the painting will be hang. If You have a big room or hall, then it will be fine 🙏🏽

[@Divertedflight]

Unless it's on a ceiling or the outside of a building, I agree with you on the figure size. It always looks wrong even if it's actual one to one scale.

[@MilesBellas]

The King Charles portrait looks like the M and Y passes from a CMYK file !

[@zappasmoustache23]

I love your take on geometric grids, I think a basic rule of thirds grid is helpful as a guide but anything more complicated is pointless and in my opinion shows a lack of skill and understanding. Completely different style of art but look at how frank frazetta paintings were composed. Simple shapes that direct the eye and create dynamic scenes.

[@KB-ty2gc]

You have a festaiolo in the painting you are working on right now :D, I get it now!

[@fairouzfares3881]

I kinda agree it looked like a huge bloody mess when I first saw that painting

[@LovinLnCottage]

The artist and the King had a specific message and I am surprised that so many people completely missed it. First remember that the Royal dress uniforms are scarlet and are traditionally worn for paintings if the Royal served in the UK military. Charles wants to be known as a real human being and not just a role which he has had to endure his whole life. By making the background and the uniform so close in hue and the hands and face realistic, it focuses the attention on his humanity. The Monarch Butterfly on his shoulder is tongue-in-cheek reference ( pun) to his title. It refers also to his sense of humor for which he is well known. He also loves gardening and is active in environmental issues. Monarchs (butterflies) are important pollinators. Hands symbolize actively participating in life. All art is metaphorical and the best art speaks to the viewer about more than what an object looks like to most people. This portrait of the King is masterful in execution and emotion and made me re-evaluate a man that I don’t particularly like. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. After hearing yours, I felt compelled to share mine.

[@getuptogetdown918]

When I saw the piece I instantly thought of Francis bacon and Alberto Giacomettis work. I think it’s outstanding.

[@DeidreL9]

I agree with you.

[@1Thedairy]

Personally I don’t share your viewpoint. I’m an artist and to me it breaks all the rules in order to produce a successful painting. The background is the problem for me. Red is a very powerful colour which on this scale overpowers the subject completely. It just dominates and distracts from the subject which is a shame because the face is wonderful but it feels so disjointed that the hands appear from nowhere. As for representing the environment I don’t see it at all apart from the butterfly. Red doesn’t represent his personality either and to me that’s an important aspect when painting a portrait.

[@crypton_8l87]

Oh please.. if it needs reams and reams of explanations, then it's not art. Art needs to appeal to the viewer. That's it.

[@vermillion6704]

As a portrait painter, I see nothing from what you are stating, and I think this video summarized everything I felt. The composition is so off, and it looks like the subject is floating in blood. The portrait itself is well done (the face part) and I’m sure the artist is capable to do much better, but this one in my opinion was a failure in so many level

[@paul329869]

So let me get this straight. A “festaiolo” is a background subject “breaking the fourth wall” by looking at us. Am I right? Thanks for the loveliest video!

[@uniqdzign2]

As a retired graphic artist, now going back to painting, composition for me in design was about 'tension'. A classic example of this is Russian propaganda posters, where angular structures almost fall off the page, giving a sense of menacing uncertainty. Also applied to North Korean posters as well.

[@rachelpieters784]

All wonderful points, and I DID learn a new word. A concept I knew, but a word I did not. I thank you for that. Just one point of contention though, you went after Kehinde Wiley, an incredible artist. I appreciate you sharing your point of view, but I did not agree with your assessment of his beautiful work.

[@Sadin15]

I found Obama's portrait cartoonish and unappealing. It invokes nothing when I look at it. I do however like Charles portrait --- it's stunning.

[@jpf338]

What an awesome channel

[@commonwunder]

8:01 Fragonard's painting is beloved... but when you realise the head is far too small, for the body that sits underneath it. That it is perched weirdly 'high' and could never belong, to its owner. You can't really see it the same way ever again.

[@vinicius2uiciniv]

oh man, you ruined the painting for me 😂😥

[@simpletown323]

Lmaooo 30 seconds in and I feel attacked 😂 mans coming after my grids and lines

[@SherryHill-k5y]

I understand the principle of art such as a focal point, etc. but unless you're commissioned to paint an artwork art is what comes out of a person. Case in point: Picasso! He painted old school art inhis early teens but when he switched to cubism, he set the art world ablaze. We wouldn't even know his name unless he painted the way he wanted. I've studied art, painted, copied some famous past artworks ( to learn different techniques,) and learned that emotion is important. All art is subject to criticism!

[@Midgy21747]

I love the picture of King Charles, so expressive and really captures him. Beautiful piece of work.

[@RobertJonesWightpaint]

I think, on the other hand, that it's a failure - but there we go. Each to their own.

[@lindacooper355]

I suspect you're in the minority. It's god awful. But art is subjective, right?

[@Midgy21747]

@@lindacooper355 I don’t really care to follow what others think it’s what I like and get from an image. So yes art is subjective

[@marcopolo1264]

@@Midgy21747 Oh yes, you do care...if not, you won't be posting or even answering to your replies...

[@Midgy21747]

@@marcopolo1264 Have a lovely day!

[@Lynn-og8yv]

From 5:00 on, so glad to hear another's thoughts about too many contemporary portraits. I think a lot has been influenced by the glut of modern images, from films to big screen TVs, to posters blow up to giant proportions. The true sense of an image as accurate is deeply ingrained in our evolution, and perspective changes with how near or far we are from a subject; in real life, we can't see a whole face from inches away, and it feels distorted to expand it many times larger than life. Some artistic effects can take advantage of this intentionally, but Portraits, to me, must be about the subject, foremost, not the Artist, or their statement or style or gimmicks. Monarch, obvious pun, I get it - but the rather cadaverous skin against the strong magenta draws attention away from the person depicted, in the same ways Kehinde Wiley's formulaic flowers or vegetation wrapping his images feels distracting. Get over yourselves, I want to shout. LOL, wrote all this before watching to 9:45. Wiley is a darling of the moment, but he constrains his talents with his trademark gimmicks, perhaps afraid to really take more artistic risks and elevate beyond sophisticated kitsch. Sargent was among the greatest portraitists, because even his charcoals present an immediate sense of a personality, with little artifice or decorative flourishes. Personal elements might enhance, but never override the main focus on the character. The inordinate attention on the Celebrity Artist obscures the ability to dispassionately evaluate the value of their actual works. If honest integrity and faithful application to one's craft is not paramount, nothing of lasting importance will come, regardless of where the artist is measured in contemporary hierarchies. The fashionable bias towards flattening the pictorial space, along with the sometimes intentional distortion or rendering more crudely, through the 20th Century, has left a dent in respectable representational art. The intellectualizing against "mere representational" works was philosophically and politically adversarial, but ultimately without justification. Artists yearning to work in such a style feel obligated to concoct gimmicks or tricks, almost to deflect criticisms coming from critics 80 years ago. The fact is that generic art can be realistic or abstract. The style itself is neither great or venal, repetitive and formulaic, or fresh and immediate. Freeing oneself from cliches is a gift of creativity.

[@bipl8989]

Use of geometry and lines capturers the viewer's eye and leads one through the story of the painting without getting bored, just like a good novel. The painting of Obama lacks any such development. King Charles is completely disconnected. Wait. Maybe that was the desired effect?

[@Ozarktrains]

Thank you for your insight. I have often felt that way about modern portraits. Especially the Obama paintings were not good in my opinion. They give no relevance to the importance of the subjects in fact they distract from the importance and greatness of the subject.

[@rap36case]

How about design 101 elements and principles?

[@nerdnam]

Florent is pretty conservative. It’s a viewpoint but not the only one.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

A swirling background more akin to those from romanticism with a less awkward/softer view from Charles' face would have been better

[@shuvoDhar.5537]

❤❤❤❤

[@boudica3356]

I love King Charles portrait.

[@marauderad]

Its art, some of us like larger than life. Larger than life is the reason the pyramid exists, its the reason we have mount rushmore or Michelangelo's sistine chapel or the statue of david. I dont understand artists with all these rules which goes against the very nature of art. Art is autonomy, art is subjective, art is fluid and exists on a spectrum. The most important thing is what emotion does it evoke? good, bad, both, undescribable and the depth of said emotion Everything else is just your bias.

[@bipl8989]

If head size is wrong, the observer does not feel comfortable to begin to interact with the subject. When you converse with someone, do you do it from 50 meters away, or nose to nose. No, of course not. You need a distance that is comfortable for communication.

[@liv0003]

very often art is deliberately uncomfortable, if art were only a search for "beauty" we would have to eliminate more or less 90% of the greatest artists of the 20th century from modern art to contemporary art. "Pleasant to look at" ≠ great art

[@bipl8989]

@@liv0003 Obviously. Art has been the favourite mode of expression of many types of "antiestablishment" figures throughout history. Art does not have to be beautiful either. In fact many ugly (as in uncomfortable) subjects have been ongoing themes. But you seem to imply that ugly art doesnt have to follow "the rules". To be good art, even ugly Art should probably follow at least a few basic rules. Otherwise it's more likely to be just ugly, bad, junk. Nobody's going to look at it and your work is just waste to everyone, maybe even to yourself. If that's your objective, it seems rather useless, but have at it. I produce the occasional work that I don't like myself. Not the effect I wanted, or whatever. A fail. Not good Art. I toss it in the trash and try to make it better, Note. Not necessarily more beautiful. Simply not to make waste of my time.

[@user-oy1hd6tt9t]

Thank you for you video. I think it’s great to have other opinions on art structure. As for King Charles portrait, feels evil and lurking. And the Obama painting feels forced calmness without the peace. Weird.

[@jimharrison748]

I can't agree with you more. I'm a poor amateur but still allowed thoughts. Those portraits by those who'd like to be trendy have fallen down a hole. The results are less than admirable considering these artists estimate themselves as great. For me though the real examples of inspirational art are numerous and classical. I'm not moved by something looking like a kids project on photoshop, but standing before a real work is breathtaking!

[@cynthiaoliver8566]

I don’t mind the large scale and the busy backgrounds. It’s so busy for Obama that it becomes wallpaper in support of the figure. The red King painting though…so much pinkish red and he is lost. The subject is lost in a sea of red. could simply darken the background. No?

[@ronaldalbertansley579]

Look like King Charles III love red that’s it !

[@SpicusMojificus]

I'm glad to hear someone else speak critically of Obama's portrait. It's so ugly and lifeless but Obama had to choose some trendy artist.

[@mahmoudelhennawy5505]

🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉❤

[@Mario-zo1uj]

they didn't even paint the mona lisa could i too?

[@seanfaherty]

That painting of King Chuck is great. I don’t care what you say

[@Midgy21747]

Totally agree

[@hdub8093]

To compose a painting by instinct one should've learned about the geometrical process of composition first, in order to see things in a more fluid manner... grids and such are used for a reason The use of geometry and lines is just to have a STARTING POINT for a composition, after which one can overlay abstract shapes.. As per the Charles portrait? it all comes to personal taste, I like some things, but not others.. I do like the fact that it's not painted in the same old boring way (luxury and regalia) like the rest I think that with the Charles and Obama portraits not being painted as a "window" the artists are breaking away from tradition, not all portraits should be painted in a classical Vermeer-esque way, how boring would that be?, they might as well hang it in the boardroom of some company, portraiture should be more than classical techniques

[@vince-1337]

Exactly, the composition grid are starting point. It also helps me a lot of time for proportions.

[@socratesthecabdriver]

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@jimjimgl3]

A subjective view of what makes a good painting. Yes. If someone wanted to paint like you then the Jonathan Yeo and Kehinde Wiley are failures. But these are just a different style of painting than your classic take on art. And if sales price is a measure of an artists success--again just subjective, one of Wiley's painting sold for $850K in auction.

[@heneedsloveoooh]

BOTTICELLI EXAMPLE YIPPEE

[@hdub8093]

The prespective on the dead Christ painting 11:07 is way off.. feet should be larger than the head

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Kehinde Wiley is a quite bad astroturfed artist

[@bodawei425]

Is it only me or at 11:36 into the video, Caravaggio's foreshortening seems totally wrong? The man on the right, opening his arms has his right hand at the back as big or even bigger than his left hand supposed to be much closer to the viewer ; his right hand is also much bigger than the hand of the other character at the center of the painting, despite his/her hand is closer to us.

[@Hikarusoul]

half the info is literally L takes: "I don't like it so that means it is wrong and you should not do that" bruuuuh

[@andrewom679]

No, normal people can easily see that it is simply ugly. You have bad taste.

[@jonathonmckay]

Ignoring Andrew’s silly little comment about you having bad taste 😂, I completely agree. I don’t think the portrait of King Charles is very successful, and the weird compressed background is strange, but I don’t think that is the only reason it is unsuccessful. There are plenty of abstractions that deal with a flattened surface that are engaging and moving. There are also plenty of portraits with large heads that are very successful (I personally think the Obama portraits are pretty gorgeous and innovative… Kill me.)

[@bipl8989]

Maybe you should.

[@misaelsilvera4595]

😬

[@rickythedrawer]

Trash is trash, Friend-O.

[@kkiinngg.ddrree]

I disagree with many of these. The Obama and Charles paintings are absolute masterpieces and I'm surprised by your narrow minded points. There is much more than the size of the head, perspective and background color. You built the rigid limits for yourself and afraid to go beyond them. No offense.

[@scottdevon3840]

King Charles is a King and if you think he should be tiny that's possibly you projecting. Yeo"s painting is memorable and will stand the test of time. Obama's painting, I agree with your critique the background is bothersome.

[@W_L_W.]

A tampax king with no achievements and overinflated ego, covered in blood.

[@717379]

King Charles' portrait is disturbing, for sure, but worse than that, I feel it is a bad portrait because it doesn't convey anything of the essence of the sitter. It might simply a self obsessed portrait of the artist.

[@dont-want-no-wrench]

it is a pretty horrible portrait, isnt it.

[@pigspigs76]

Interesting title, there is no difference between ai art and human hand art. Artists participate in technology trends such that the mind is filtering the symbols like ai does with token | layer dynamics - ai assembles a visual from from the symbolic representations finessed by the mind

[@pigspigs76]

I also think it’s ironic that I was banned from the discord, all is well zzz my art is controversial anyhow

[@andrewom679]

​@@pigspigs76Being banned from discord is the mark of a cultured man. Good day to you, sir!

[@pigspigs76]

@@andrewom679 I know how to move along, it’s all in good fun of course

[@Elfhelm]

AI „art”, hilarious as ever; you are as much of an artist as person going to restaurant, ordering food and calling themselves a „chef” for that

[@pigspigs76]

@@Elfhelm art is just a creative activity, I am not the gatekeeper of this .. but eh if you know more than I