Here we go again.

Just when I'm getting more confident with my own level of artistry, I get given a ridiculous project that only serves to knock me down, leaving me feeling completely crushed.

'Find a master's painting, one that inspires you and then paint it.' I had seen the second years doing theirs over the past week or so and thought how good they looked, encouraged by the fact that I had one year until I had to do it; enough time to get at least a bit better with painting.
 No.
When he told us that we'd have this week (and only a week) to do this, it was one of those 'life before eyes' things- blood went to my head and I zoned out. How could he do this? To first years?! Sure, there are several among us who are talented, exceptionally so, but me? No, god no.
So, going from a years time to present was a pretty shit move. I'm sure 'it's fine' and he's not expecting DaVinci's reincarnation, that it's just to help you understand blah, blah etc.
Yeah, ok, I understand that and I beleive in it. Was it his intention to make me feel completely inadequate as an artist? Perspective?
'Copy a master.' - as if it's so fucking easy. Just copy him, noob!

That's what I wanted to do. Why? Because it's an inspirational piece of art. Ambitious? Waaaaay too much. What else could I chose? He tells us to copy a master, that's a master. Someone that inspires you. Titian inspires me. They wouldn't be a master if they wern't incredible painters. The only master artists that inspire me are ones generally from the renaissance. Which used Oils and I only have Acrylics. (Can't use oils due to accomadation damage and the cost/lack of knowledge)
I don;t really know the point of this post is, if only for me to vent some frustration. Deadline is tommorrow and I have something I've been working on for hours only to keep painting over areas to redo them over and over and over again. I make a mistake, whoops, looks like that's 2 hours down the drain. Oh well, best pick up the ol' brush and do it AGAIN. Because you don't learn as much from digital as you do from traditional so I can't just undo or revert to save to not waste another 2 hours only for it to fuck up again.. I understand this, it makes sense, I agree etc. I want to be a better traditional artist.
So, looks like just as I have gotten on schedule I'm now behind again because of this retarded project. Just cus I'm in uni doesn't mean I'm the bees fucking knees at art. WOULDN'T BE HERE OTHERWISE! Amazing that?

Even though I stated earlier that he's not expecting a masterpiece there's just no way I could put a wank piece of art into my presentation - which is what this is heading to. My presentation is meant to show what I can do, not what I can't.

A year til I had to do this project was sound, I looked forward to it, because I HAD a year to get better... So, do I continue attempting this? Or do I lie and say a worse artist with easier marks to mimic inspires me, just so I pass?
Drop out or sell out?

Thanks for this hole in the head.

Deadliest Artist: Daryl Clewlow vs. Simon Ible – Fight!

Daryl Clewlow and Simon Ible, both Senior Artists working for Blitz Games, went head to head in a battle of what inspired them to do art and their history of what led them to being game artists.

This was a magnificent idea, I hope to see more of it from other companies. Not only was it entertaining but it was also so informative and gave me a new perspective on the difference between being a game artist and games in general.

For me, I wanted to be a concept artist because from about the age of fourteen I knew I wanted a job in games. This started out with wanting to make the stuff in levels as I thought that was what it was all about. Then at fifteen I realised there was an art side to it as well and after doing a year of ICT I couldn't be happier that there was another way into the games industry.

So my inspiration were games themselves. However with Daryl Clewlow and Simon Ible, neither of them were inspired to be game artists because of games. In fact, they weren't inspired to be game artists at all. Both have had several jobs ranging from magazines to the film industry going from 2D to sculpting and now work on games. I bet neither of them are avid gamers as well. They create art because they love it. That to me is a powerful statement. One I hope to say some day. Not because they love hacking and slashing, or racing around a track; they do it because they fucking love to draw/paint/sculpt and it doesn't matter what job they have, so long as they're being creative.

When I first heard a game artist state he didn't play games, or that he didn't really like them or for even fellow students to say they don't really play games it just amazed me. What led them to this choice of career if not for games? It's simple, what other course allows you to create random shit and then passes you for it? These people just love art. Simple. They want to work on games not because they love games but because that particular industry is where their style and interests best lie.

Same could be said for me however I love games with a passion some might even describe as psychotic.

Getting back on track. These two artists came in and shared their inspirations with us, this was equally amazing. None of them were inspired by artists like Frazetta or Howe, the 'greats' of fantasy art. Instead, they were inspired by artists like Franz Messerschmidt, Kristo, Don McCullin, Ron Muek and Ryan Woodward. As well as a couple painters of which I can't recal, which is because out of the artists I did remember, none of them are famous for painting. They're either a sculptor, animator or photographer. This opened my eyes as I've only been looking at paintings and paid no mind to sculptures or photography because I'm gona be a 2D artist, right?

Right. Nevertheless I should broaden my view of art and try to think like not just a painter, but a sculptor and photographer. I need to be able to capture a scene in one frame for drawings, and have an understanding of how to generate something in 3D for, well, 3D.

I be stumped.