I'm by no means a gloomy person with a dark personality or taste, yet something in the art of this phenomenal Ukrainian-born artist moves me in ways I neither can nor want to describe. It's so visceral, so threatening, so...bizarre. I've come across very few artists that strike the same nerve in me, and the only one whose name I can think of from the top of my head is the legendary polish artist Zdzisław Beksiński, but his work deserves a thread on its own.

I know some people might find Vlad's art too dark and unpleasant to look at, but I find some inexplicable beauty in the way it emphasizes on the inseparability of death from life, that inevitable end to which we all eventually get, and which I find just as natural as life itself. The obscurity of his work is fascinating.

I think he said he finds so much more inspiration to create these uncompromising visions since the war in Ukraine started, which I find heartbreaking.

Here are some of his paintings, you can find more on his instagram page.

Intriguing, thanks, very intense!
What's in a name: Cadaver-sky

Indeed, there is a sense of this threatening mystery in his work, quite intense to look at, but beautiful nonetheless.

The art all looks very MidJourney AI generated to me.

Considering the capabilities of those ML algorithms, any piece of art that has ever existed can nowadays be confused with ML-generated art.

In any case, you can be sure this particular artist's work is not digitally made.

What evidence is there to support the claim that Cadaver-sky's work is not digitally made or AI made? A brief viewing of dozens of his images and I am seeing rip offs of van Gogh and Escher and others.

Has AI learnt to hold a paintbrush? Wow...

His work may not be to your liking, but it is traditional for sure.

I take my hat off to anyone who can press through wartime and turn their trauma into art.

His own bio states: combining both traditional paintings and digital media. Many artists print images from digital media onto canvas and then brush oil paint on top of the printed canvas. From some of his videos that is what it looks like to me.

We're left in the dark how much 'aid' there was, if any.
I'm trying to avoid the AI controverse, maybe artists could inform how much/what exactly aid they used, then again the liars of trade do what they want in the end.

Eh, what do I know. But there's nothing wrong with digital art. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that they're not AI generated. Beyond that, who cares whether he used a paintbrush or a Wacom stylist. Painting is painting.

Exactly. "Digital" can mean a lot of things, AI being only a very small portion of that.