Alright, I feel sufficiently guilty, AD. I'm sorry I haven't posted anything in forever. Here are two speedies. 15 for the b/w and 25 for the color, I want to experiment more with the depth of field thing I see artists like Peleng using. I think while it could easily become a gimmick, it seems like a powerful tool because it adds a sense of depth and a photographic/cinematic quality to works that are more gestural. 

I'm kind of sick of all the photo-realism that I see, though I can understand it's purpose and how it's really helpful to modelers and texture people, but at the same time I think good concept art no matter what style it's done in will give enough information for others to build off of it with. What do you guys think?



  1. I agree, photo realism doesn't inspire me nearly as much as a somewhat rendered out painting chock full with energy. And these look top notch! especially that mask and the B/W torso. For 15 minutes you got a roughed background and a character, thats pretty legit. I think the composition or pose could be a little more interesting, but honestly im not one to talk. :D
    hmmmmm....also the more I look at that face the more i kinda like it. its got character potential.

    Also, no worries, I understand everyones pretty busy right now :D

  2. I tend to think, (mostly because i am a lazy artist) that any detail or texturing that doesnt give any "real" information is just wasting time and energy, with the exception of studies just learning how to pack in detail. Ryan and I were just talking about this the other day, about how concept artist have to trust the modelers quite a bit when it comes to realizing their creations because you just cant describe everything in a 2d medium. The overall feel of the piece, and economy of the way you describe it is much more important. I get bored with paintings really fast when they just seem to be rendering things because the enjoy rendering. I think the best route is to leave a little bit un-described so the viewer actually has a chance to fill in the gaps with their imagination. Suggestion is a much more powerful tool than over-description I say.

    1. I think you're absolutely right and it seems like if a character artist is good, they'll have no problem modelling from something even if it is only suggestive. I think texture could be important if it's integral to the design or helps sell a particular aspect of the character but the strength in concept art is that it is a suggestive, open-ended idea, not a completely realized form. Thanks for the works Fluke.

  3. Yes the depth of field character concept/environment is somewhat of a gimmick. But I must say I'm a sucker for it every time. It's an extremely powerful tool (almost crutch status) for setting the mood for a character. I think this type of character concept/illustration is all about selling your idea. The efficiency and elegance of the design can still be seen by those that know the problems your are addressing but the finished quality of the piece sells it to those with no knowledge of the project. SO its good for portfolios and spec work where you are fighting against other artist for the same project. I think when put in a concept portfolio it would be wise to have a character ortho accompanying it.

    There is an artist that comes to mind that i really dig - Mateja Petkovic


    1. Thanks for the feedback on this one Dustin and the artist recommendation. Those are some wise words and I think I'd do well to start considering a lot of the pieces we put up here in the context of a portfolio. I tend to think of everything as an independent piece and not so much as filling a supporting role to larger body of work.