Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I like to draw scenes in permanent marker on public structures. Usually idyllic scenes, experiment a lot with negative space and stuff. It's not hurting anybody, and I like to think it makes the view prettier.

Have this wall that's kind of hidden from public view that I add to every few days. It's getting pretty big, and for something done usually around 3am it looks okay.

Also when I was in elementary I was duped into breaking into an abandoned house by some assholes who then proceeded to rat me out, but that's a situation long dealt with. I may have done some other stuff, but I can't remember any of it.

I don't.... care. All that much. Guy, girl, tall, short, black, white, ugly, David Bowie. Don't care. It's less about what I do go for, and more what I don't.

No fatties: hambeasts disgust me. Not going there.

No traditional "relationships". No marriage, no children, no monogamy (listen, if you don't want me fucking other people, just say so. I don't care), no sitting on the couch, whispering to each other, watching rom-coms on the television. I can't do that. Intimacy is preferably kept at arm's length. Don't try to get too close. I've never changed and I don't intend to.

I realise how much of a turn off this is. Just as I realise my lisp, my complete and utter forgetfulness and my perpetual state of "broke", are turn offs too. I'm not entitled to anyone's attractions, it's okay. I'm okay. Everything is okay.

At 2/6/13 02:34 AM, Stereocrisis wrote: I actually don't even know what you're talking about. I could have sworn I ripped the "I foresee problems!" thing off of The WKUK.

I was being endearingly witty in finding a new and exciting way of say "You're being aggravating under the guise of a logical dissection". Considering this thread is centered around sweeping generalizations from the get-go, it somewhat redundant if you're fighting one kind of fallacy with another.

Outside of provoking a response, there's no real reason to do that.

At 2/6/13 02:21 AM, Stereocrisis wrote:

At 2/6/13 01:31 AM, SpankyG wrote: I hate my school so much.

I foresee problems!

Why did you bother with a sentence by sentence deconstruction if you were just trying out Dairy's new line of 101 Rainbow Chocopop Insult flavors?

You've failed "recognizing when you're projecting your desires onto others" 101.
Turn your paper in at the end of the class, and we'll see if we can get you some extra credit over the summer vacation.

People have always been followers. This generation just idolizes really shitty, boring people. But they'll emulate anyone cooler who they know more locally.

Lead the change if you want it so bad. Do what you want and do it incredibly stylishly. They'll cheer from the sidelines and copy you in safer doses.They always do.

$10

Look at me. Look at me. In the eyes, right up here.
Are you looking? Good.

This is me not giving a fuck.

Livin' up to the tagline.

Newgrounds: Everything, by Everyone.

Statistically speaking, somewhere in between 25% and 70% of austitic people meet the criteria for mental retardation

1. Hahahahahahaaaahahagaahahahahaaaa
2. Yes its just like how the agents speak on the matrix.
3. Dude, I have my rights to defend myself. I dont like how this guy treats me so I am just protecting myself.

case in point.

At 2/5/13 04:26 AM, Mohabot wrote: Quit this bullshit, I am tired of your 100th monkey play. I dislike monkeys.

Just as well because the effect was discredited some time ago.

And I would love to hear how a thread centered around miscellenaneous discourse being used for just that is "bullshit".

At 2/5/13 04:22 AM, J-qb wrote:

At 2/5/13 03:50 AM, lovingthedark wrote: About 10% of autistic people have savant syndrome

Quoting wikipedia on this, I guess that was your source too:
"There is no agreement about how many people have savant skills. The estimates range from "exceedingly rare"[11] to one in ten people with autism having savant skills in varying degrees"
I'm more of the former group, but this really depends a whole lot on your definitions of autism and savantism

I checked the citations, they've either been misquoted or whoever edited the article didn't bother reading all of [11], because that short essay listed savants as being around 1 in 10 Autistic people, too.

At 2/5/13 03:50 AM, lovingthedark wrote: About 10% of autistic people have savant syndrome and about half of all savants are autistic, but it doesn't always end up being useful skills.

I really should start looking up words before I use them with definitions gleaned from context.

Never met a savant but none of the citations listed when such abilities manifest themselves. All the Austitic people I've met have been in their early childhood to mid-teens, so it's possibly that the drooling moron in the corner stacking cups will be the Next Big Thing.

One of the examples used in Dave Hile's short explanation only had his abilities manifest at 40.

At 2/5/13 03:27 AM, DelRio1991 wrote: If you're open to the concept, allow me to educate you, just becasue something is popular and makes money, doesn't mean it's necessarily, worthwhile, at all.

For example, those "magnetic health bands" that were all over TV a few months ago, people claimed that wearing these things would increase balance, help you lose weight, ect. People believed this and started saying that the claims were true, these products made money, but actually did nothing to do any of these things (several studies confirmed this).

Now, on the topic at hand, while some pieces of commercial "art" may be very successful , that does not make it necessarily good, or even art by definition.

If we judge something creative by how well it fares in the market, we've now put crap on a pedestal and said that it's the next big thing.

Consider this, if person A just scribble on a block of wood and try to sell it and it does well, that is considered very well done art, by your logic.
Now, if person B uses all their effort to make something worthwhile and fantastic, but makes no monetary gain or gets no fanbase, then it's not even worth your time.

So, have fun looking at overrated shit, because it's made money.

You've put a lot of words in my mouth and ignored a large portion of my arguments in favour of trying to "win" the debate. Please refrain from commenting without at least proofreading.

You didn't define what was "worthwhile". In this case I'm assuming it means spending money on a product you're not sure you enjoy. In which case I never said that people outside an artist's audience would enjoy his works. It's a bit of a given that since you're not already part of their audience, it's not completely adamant as to whether or not you'd enjoy their craftmanship. This doesn't make sense, and doesn't address the argument, which was whether or not a piece of art that achieved its goals as a piece of art was Good, not whether or not one that performed well on the market.

Magnetic bands weren't marketed as art, they were a health product. A faulty one. Why did you include this?

It's good to the people who deem it good, which is precisely what I said. I never said you had to like it. Also, art's definition.

According to the audience that experienced the product (we're now talking about consumer goods and capitalism compared to whether or not people liking something means it deserves to be liked?) it is indeed the next big thing.

I never said that. I said that if the people who looked at the block of wood and thought it great, then it was indeed a success at appealing to its target, and in achieving its goals was Good. I never accounted for commercial success. Why did you bring that into this.

What a confusing response. Let me restate my point so you can attempt to address it;

If people like your art for whatever reason you were trying to convey, then it is Good. I never said anything about commercial success. I never said anything about popularity. And I never said about the people who don't like it having to like it.

I've yet to accomplish anything of note. Day to day survival isn't any more an accomplishment then tripping over your own feet is a life-threatening situation.

At 2/5/13 03:06 AM, Jenou wrote: So do you reckon I should have reflected light from the hair on the wings, and perhaps some light coming through the feathers? I havent added the sun yet, but it will be behind her, out of view.

If you think it would work, sure. Like I said, it was more confusing then anything else. It sounds like a good way to address it though.

At 2/5/13 02:49 AM, Lucky wrote:

At 2/5/13 02:42 AM, Lintire wrote:

At 2/5/13 02:34 AM, Lucky wrote: Welp I'm done
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=440942749311278
This kid's better than 90% of the new art threads

It'll be interesting to see if he maintains his interest for art as he grows older.

Considering the amount of children who dabble in drawing at a young age (read; all of them) it's a wonder there aren't more child prodigies circling Facebook.

he may just be autistic, like this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8YXZTlwTAU

Eidetic memory and Autism are entirely divorced from each other. Savants like Stephen Wilkshire are in an incredibly tiny portion of Austitics. The kid *might* be autistic, and judging from his sociable demeanor he almost certainly isn't, but it would have nothing to do with his skill.

The misconception that austistic people are talented or smart is incredibly inaccurate. Statistically speaking, somewhere in between 25% and 70% of austitic people meet the criteria for mental retardation, and anecdotally speaking, the unfortunately vast amount of autistic people I've met (through the absolute fucking pleasure of having an autistic brother who's in half a dozen different support groups) have been completely fucking idiots.

Give your average austitic person a pencilcase and they'll organise the contents to be parrallel to the desk before slamming their faces in the middle of it.

It shouldn't annoy me as much as it does, but every time I see some autistic character who's secretly a genius all I can think about is how it's a wonder they're not biting their hand and throwing a screaming fit whenever somebody doesn't start walking with their left foot.

The more you know. Or the more I rant about my pet peeves, whatever.

The background is reflecting a light source from the complete opposite direction to the figure in the foreground. The wings seem to be ignoring both sources. Her hair seems to be generating a light source of its own.

A bit of utter confusion there. Also some incongruity between the action-orientated pose and the static background, would advise trying to make the background a lot more "dramatic", compared to the idyllic scenery it is now. Good luck, man.

At 2/5/13 02:34 AM, Lucky wrote: Welp I'm done
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=440942749311278
This kid's better than 90% of the new art threads

It'll be interesting to see if he maintains his interest for art as he grows older.

Considering the amount of children who dabble in drawing at a young age (read; all of them) it's a wonder there aren't more child prodigies circling Facebook.

At 2/5/13 02:29 AM, brainface wrote: What would happen if every girl on earth started cycling on the SAME DAY?

Sub-economies would spring up around the fact that males typically seek solace from women during their periods. Other then that, most girls don't use their periods as justification for being pissy at total strangers, being rational human beings, so nothing would change.

At 2/5/13 02:06 AM, DelRio1991 wrote: That has to be the most lame-ass excuse I've ever heard.

But since their audiences deem them superior, then for all intents and purposes thats what they are.

Excuse me while I go laugh at how stupid that sounds.

Care to actually offer supporting points for either of those statements? I'm being reasonable here.

Typing out responses on an iPad is a convoluted affair and having to continually copy paste the entire post while searching for evidence, as well as not being able to resize the comparatively small typing area leads to a major headache and confused statements. I was asking for a small consideration, not having them bend over backwards to suit some arbitrary demands.

As for how "lame-ass" (doesn't really make sense as for as ad hominem attacks go), I'm always open to the concept that I'm wrong. Want to explain why or are you just incapable of articulating a response that actually addresses any points?

At 2/5/13 12:33 AM, benjadaninja wrote: Now I get the metaphor of this, anger is self destructive, but it got me thinking that I really don't get how it logically makes sense.

Intepreting metaphors literally inevitably leads to confusion, regardless of source.

At 2/5/13 01:39 AM, eonhite wrote: I see, thanks.
Is there a way to upload more than image in a post?

No. However some artists like to shop together thumbnails to several pictures, then post the links to each picture in the same post.

It's a major pain in the ass but an approach like that works.

It's not that I'm ignoring the rest of your argument, but since I'm tapping out this debate (it is quite interesting, by the way) on an iPad, it's infeasible to do a more traditional "point-by-point" deconstruction I would appreciate if you kept to more easily quoted prose.

At 2/5/13 01:42 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: So popularity calculates quality ? Keep your calculative rationality out of arts will you ?

Not directly. If the audience an artist has does consider his pieces to be superior in craftsmanship or whatever goal the pieces seek, then yes they are considered to be "Good". However, as always, if they don't conform to your ideals, or if you consider other artists to be superior, then you can easily say there are talented failures just as there are talentless successes. Remembering that your tastes are your own and that an artist being popular doesn't mean you are obligated to like that.

But since their audiences deem them superior, then for all intents and purposes thats what they are.

Yeah, calculating rationality is my approach to everything. If your point is that's an approach you don't agree with, then I can respect that and we can amicably end this right now.

You can do whatever the fuck you want.

If you need to ask others as to what a simple act's societal consequences are, you've got major insecurities. Do you value your masculinity? Do you think your masculinity would be "lessened" by sobbing like a little bitch? Do you think other's perceptions of your masculinity would drop if they witness you mewling like a teenage whore? Do you value their perceptions?

All the answers to these questions are local and indigenous to your context. Conduct some experiments, or rather don't because bawling like an infant whose fucktard spawners rightfully fled from, doesn't solve shit.

At 2/5/13 01:13 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Meaning art would be broken down to a kind of metaphysical democratic opinion ?

Always has been.

For example, on Newgrounds consensus is measured via votes, and the audience heavily favors sexual art. Therefore, on Newgrounds, an animu anthropomorphic pony is considered Good Art. If said art piece was submitted to an audience like cghub, it would be considered less then that.

Bias changes with audience, audience changes with location. What is considered "Good" is heavily fluid. But it still exists, and relies on collective opinion.

At 2/5/13 01:04 AM, DelRio1991 wrote: I like interpreting abstract shapes, it's what makes visiting the museum fun, but, really, do we excuse someone just putting a circle in the middle of a white space art?

You obviously thought it was too simplistic to interpret meaningfully.

Therefore it failed in its goal and you don't consider it good. And if everyone (using that loosely) thought it kind of sucked, then it's bad art.

Time spent doesn't factor into the equation. You are not obligated to like something just because the artist spent 4000 hours on it, just as you are not obligated to dislike something because they spent 4 minutes on it. You don't owe anyone shit.

Debating whether or not something is "art" is a waste of fucking time. Just... don't bother.

Hating Modern Art isn't a new stance, either, even at the time of pop art's conception there was quite a vocal outcry that it looked dumb and classical art looked way better. Just that, after the media stopped telling everyone that pop/modern art was good and whatever, everyone reverted back to preferring aesthetics in their art.

Nothing wrong with that, and in fact brings up a solid question; how do you measure modern art if not in aesthetics?

You can cry that art is subjective, but it really isn't. We measure more traditional art using a consensus on what looks good, apply that to existing pieces. We change those ideals over time as public opinion shifts. 250 years ago anime wouldn't be considered as looking good, but now it does. Which is the purpose of traditional art. The purpose of modern art to be interpreted. Make you think, and wonder.

Does it achieve that? No. People actively hate it for looking dumb. They don't see the throes of communism and the death of self in a consumerist environment, they see a bunch of shapes someone crapped on a canvas. It fails from the outset. By its own goals it is shitty art.

If you want to interpret abstract shapes, go look at some clouds. Point out how one kind of looks like a boot. The layman doesn't like modern art for a good reason.

At 2/4/13 06:01 PM, Sockembop wrote: POST YOUR MOTHERFUCKING PREFERRED COMICS YOU QUEEF-WHIFFING LOSERS

GOD DAMN MOTHERFUCKING RIGHT I WILL

OGLAF I MEAN HOLY SHIT FOR ONCE A PORN ARTIST WHO ACTUALLY KNOWS HOW TO CRACK A MOTHERFUCKING JOKE SOME BITCHES BEST BE TAKING NOTES FROM THIS RADICAL WRAPPED UP WONDER. AND BY SOME BITCHES I MEAN YOU THIS IS A ONE WAY ROAD TO COMEDY AND THE VERY FACT THAT YOU'RE NOT TAKING IT LEAVES ME TO WONDER HOW MANY DICKS YOU'VE SUCKED FOR CRACK MONEY.

PARA FUCKING NATURAL BECAUSE WITH A STUPID FUCKING NAME LIKE THAT IT'S GOT TO BE GOOD RIGHT. WRONG MOTHERFUCKER THIS IS THE BEST TAKE ON SHITTY ANIMU CLICHES SINCE JOCKS TOOK TO BEATING DOWN THEIR DORK ASSES. TURNS OUT THERE ARE PEOPLE INTO STUPID SCHOOL BASED WONDER FUCKS WHO CAN WRITE I MEAN THAT'S TIGHTER THEN YOUR DRUNK FUCKING SISTER.

HOLY SHIT WHOMP PEOPLE BEING FAT AND PATHETIC ARE INTRINSICALLY HILARIOUS BUT THIS PATHETIC SON OF A BITCH MANAGES TO TAKE IT TO NEW HEIGHTS. TURNS OUT THAT THE MOON, NATURAL SATELLITE TO THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY AN ANIME FAN. GO MOTHERFUCKING FIGURE AND THEN READ THIS FUCKING MANUSCRIPT FROM THE HEAVENS YOU SCRUBBY FUCK.

suck my dick

At 2/3/13 08:55 AM, Luwano wrote: What struck me additionally is the title Style vs. accuracy. If it is your style, then it's still accurate, even if it's not realistic.

There are 5 kinds of people in the world who nitpick semantics, and all of them suck.

At 2/3/13 09:11 AM, Luwano wrote: Also, if you are going to stick with TinyChat, I will purchase the iOS app.

Fairly sure the tinychat app has the same parameters as the Stickam one did; that is, rooms are local to the iOS and can't interract with rooms established on the host site.

An alternative, the one I use, is the Puffin flash browser application, which is buttfuck useless for anything that isn't a chatroom but works pretty well in that context.