So basically test-object is saying that we shouldn't try to enforce strict fundamentals on art since each and every of us have a unique way of making it. Makes sense. I very much agree with test-object on this matter, but there are some things that bother me a bit. Does this apply to those who keep repeating the same mistake over and over again? You know, people who keep their flawed style and don't improve. Well I guess it doesn't really matter since it's their own grave they're digging.

At 1/1/13 10:04 PM, big-jonny-13 wrote:

Also, something about that idioteque guy rubs me the wrong way

I'm not really sure if he's a troll or what, but he isn't really that much of a detriment to the forum. On the contrary, he offers useful advice from time to time.

HUMANS, I'm tired so this'll be brief.

Work in progress: http://www.newgrounds.com/dump/item/84787607ede18500cc166b46 18dee782

Reference courtesy of Me in my place: http://meinmyplace.com/post/39404148486/i-have-had-bangs-sin ce-age-14-and-never-looked

Critique please.

PS:
Fluttershy.

Nice references. I'll just casually bookmark that..

At 1/2/13 02:21 AM, M-Maher wrote: Reference courtesy of Me in my place: http://meinmyplace.com/post/39404148486/i-have-had-bangs-sin ce-age-14-and-never-looked

At 1/2/13 02:21 AM, M-Maher wrote: Critique please.

Why are you posting this here? You have your own thread.....

At 1/1/13 10:37 PM, Fifty-50 wrote: So basically test-object is saying that we shouldn't try to enforce strict fundamentals on art since each and every of us have a unique way of making it. Makes sense. I very much agree with test-object on this matter, but there are some things that bother me a bit. Does this apply to those who keep repeating the same mistake over and over again? You know, people who keep their flawed style and don't improve. Well I guess it doesn't really matter since it's their own grave they're digging.

I whole heartily agree with test, i like to give everyone a chance and its clear to see this guy is trying to improve.

Now there's a bunch of artists out there who have their own styles, who don't have realist shapes and sizes... just take this for example.

The wrists are thicker then the hands, and the features are over animated and different, but it works because everything is constant and looks in place. of course this is this persons unique style (and very hard to replicate I found). But new artists need to understand that others normally find misshaped or misaligned forms wrong and detracts from the picture UNLESS the whole image is like that, in that case the picture makes sense as its MENT to be like that, so it doesn't look wrong.

At 1/1/13 10:37 PM, Fifty-50 wrote: but there are some things that bother me a bit. Does this apply to those who keep repeating the same mistake over and over again? You know, people who keep their flawed style and don't improve. Well I guess it doesn't really matter since it's their own grave they're digging.

I did explain, but Newgrounds fucked my text up quite bad, so let me repost that bit without any apostrophes or weird shit.

Im trying to not make this sound like Im excusing the quote on quote my style-buggery. I dont. These people simply dont want to change anything, no matter if its technically good or not and are stupid. That's where we step in again. We tell them its not different anymore, not eyecatching, not cute, special or odd and they needs to try a different approach.

We as "artists" just need to stop and think to ourselves whether we follow our own advice or that we're just telling stuff that's been repeated a dozen times already. After all, this is supposed to be a place of having fun and open choice, not a school. Maybe we could try and point out the things that we like about pictures instead of pointing out the big 'flaws' that may or may not be flaws in hindsight.

I like to recommend the fundamentals to everyone who hasn't studied them before- working the other way around, even for the sake of an interesting piece, is like putting the cart before the horse learning wise. An awful lot of beginning artists choose stylization because it's easier, not for any true affection for the form, so it's good to give tips that make realism easier along with general advice.

Furthermore, knowing how to build up masses from basic shapes is a good skill for any artist, not just the realists. It's not right for every piece, sure, but I'd say it's right for every artist.

At 1/2/13 10:02 AM, lovingthedark wrote: Furthermore, knowing how to build up masses from basic shapes is a good skill for any artist, not just the realists. It's not right for every piece, sure, but I'd say it's right for every artist.

You're fine in doing so, I'm not going in against realism. I'm rallying for a bigger variation in advice. We've got a bunch of people with various styles, I wanna hear what they like about a drawing or explain their drawing habits to newcomers. Breathe some life into it.

Guys, I don't really understand why some people think this kind of painting is actually good. I even heard someone say that "it displays a good sense of anatomy and technicality." I'm sorry but I genuinely think this is horrible actually. Actually it's worse than horrible. I don't know. What do you guys think?

At 1/2/13 01:49 PM, Fifty-50 wrote: Guys, I don't really understand why some people think this kind of painting is actually good. I even heard someone say that "it displays a good sense of anatomy and technicality." I'm sorry but I genuinely think this is horrible actually. Actually it's worse than horrible. I don't know. What do you guys think?

First you tell us what your problem with it is, so we actually know what the issue is.

At 1/2/13 02:00 PM, test-object wrote:

At 1/2/13 01:49 PM, Fifty-50 wrote: Guys, I don't really understand why some people think this kind of painting is actually good. I even heard someone say that "it displays a good sense of anatomy and technicality." I'm sorry but I genuinely think this is horrible actually. Actually it's worse than horrible. I don't know. What do you guys think?

First you tell us what your problem with it is, so we actually know what the issue is.

Well firstly, it looks like something a kid would finger paint actually. To be exact it looks lazy. Like he said "fuck it." and just went apeshit on the canvas. It's like he isn't even trying. That's what I think.

At 1/2/13 02:03 PM, Fifty-50 wrote:

At 1/2/13 02:00 PM, test-object wrote: First you tell us what your problem with it is, so we actually know what the issue is.

Well firstly, it looks like something a kid would finger paint actually. To be exact it looks lazy. Like he said "fuck it." and just went apeshit on the canvas. It's like he isn't even trying. That's what I think.

It also doesn't help that paintings of similar quality gets millions in revenue.

This guy does about the same thing (although in more detail). What an asshole.

At 1/2/13 01:49 PM, Fifty-50 wrote: Guys, I don't really understand why some people think this kind of painting is actually good. I even heard someone say that "it displays a good sense of anatomy and technicality." I'm sorry but I genuinely think this is horrible actually. Actually it's worse than horrible. I don't know. What do you guys think?

I like this painting quite a lot. It has a lot to read in to it and the colours make me feel things. It's taste, of course, and understanding for the history of art.

There is essentially two types of art; Art which imitates nature and life, and then there is art which 're-creates it', giving a controlled environment that the artist could not achieve by making it wholly realistic.

This is quite a good casual read on it

What i would say is this...

If ANYONE can pick up a brush/pen what ever and replicate the picture / drawing... then its not good.

if its going to be hard to replicate because there alot of skill involved in the picture. then i would say it is good.

however im not saying simple paintings are bad, im saying as long as skill and effort has gone into them then i generally like them.. the more skill and effort, the more i like them *most of the time*

At 1/2/13 02:15 PM, LegolaSS wrote: What i would say is this...

If ANYONE can pick up a brush/pen what ever and replicate the picture / drawing... then its not good.

if its going to be hard to replicate because there alot of skill involved in the picture. then i would say it is good.

however im not saying simple paintings are bad, im saying as long as skill and effort has gone into them then i generally like them.. the more skill and effort, the more i like them *most of the time*

Does replication matter if they were incapable of making it in the first place? Look at David Shrigley, on his mad brain could come up with most of that stuff

as for the picture 50/50 posted... i had to work out what everything was...

i think its a girl whos drunk too much and has collapsed next to a toliet and tissue paper is everywhere...

and if someone said this shows good anatomy then what the hell are they looking at!?...

HOW MANY HANDS HAVE YOU SEEN HAVE 3 FINGERS!... and she doesn't even have a shoulder...

i dont like it... its a mess of a picture and if i have to WORK OUT what it is im looking at... sorry but its not that good.

and i bet is some "famous" art work by some "professional" artists getting tones of money... bah!

At 1/2/13 02:19 PM, AnotherOtto wrote: Does replication matter if they were incapable of making it in the first place? Look at David Shrigley, on his mad brain could come up with most of that stuff

a guy in a bed?... a cat shaking hands with a mouse?... a face?.... are these really things that no one else has done before?...

but seriously this is childish artwork. maybe someone out there likes this. but this is not for me.

i would say dali's artwork is the work of a mad genius brain.

At 1/2/13 02:12 PM, test-object wrote: This guy does about the same thing (although in more detail). What an asshole.

Haha. I can see what you did there. Although I may come off as a douchebag by saying that the other painting of a woman(?) is terrible, I really think it is. Van Gogh is a different case still, since in my opinion, you can still see that he at least didn't make the whole painting half-assed. I mean if someone posted art like that in our forum how would you respond? If he was a nobody?

At 1/2/13 02:20 PM, LegolaSS wrote: and if someone said this shows good anatomy then what the hell are they looking at!?...
HOW MANY HANDS HAVE YOU SEEN HAVE 3 FINGERS!... and she doesn't even have a shoulder...

That's the fault of the critic, not the artist.

At 1/2/13 02:24 PM, LegolaSS wrote:

At 1/2/13 02:19 PM, AnotherOtto wrote: Does replication matter if they were incapable of making it in the first place? Look at David Shrigley, on his mad brain could come up with most of that stuff

a guy in a bed?... a cat shaking hands with a mouse?... a face?.... are these really things that no one else has done before?...

but seriously this is childish artwork. maybe someone out there likes this. but this is not for me.

i would say dali's artwork is the work of a mad genius brain.

I like David Shrigley plenty but I won't act like I'm saying he's better than Dali, that's not what I was trying to say at all. I want to reiterate my point which is just because something is replicatable easily does not mean anybody could have come up with it. Not to make this about Shrigley, we can move on from him now, but there is only one David Shrigley from Scotland who does all sorts of strange creations in reaction to the world around him.

Any art that is a conscious response is worth a look and think about, I think

I think is safe to always say people will allways agree to disagree what is "art"

everyone has their own views about what makes a piece of artwork good and i dont think there will ever be a point in time where art is defined, because basically everything can be classed as art...

i myself personally loves quality and detail.. yet at the same time i love simplistic drawings with a really deep style.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm thinking the painting is shit but it doesn't necessarily make the artist shitty. Maybe he's like Picasso. He started with realistic traditional paintings and shifted to confusing abstract art.

At 1/2/13 02:37 PM, Fifty-50 wrote: Don't get me wrong though. I'm thinking the painting is shit but it doesn't necessarily make the artist shitty. Maybe he's like Picasso. He started with realistic traditional paintings and shifted to confusing abstract art.

You have very conflicting ideas of what makes 'good' art, Flowers. First someone HAS to draw according to real-life to get the permission to draw differently? That seems incredibly unfair.

At 1/2/13 02:47 PM, test-object wrote:

At 1/2/13 02:37 PM, Fifty-50 wrote:

Flowers

[points and laughs]

At 1/2/13 02:48 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:

At 1/2/13 02:47 PM, test-object wrote:

At 1/2/13 02:37 PM, Fifty-50 wrote:

Flowers

[points and laughs]

[shameful tears hide my face]

At 1/2/13 02:47 PM, test-object wrote:

At 1/2/13 02:37 PM, Fifty-50 wrote: Don't get me wrong though. I'm thinking the painting is shit but it doesn't necessarily make the artist shitty. Maybe he's like Picasso. He started with realistic traditional paintings and shifted to confusing abstract art.

You have very conflicting ideas of what makes 'good' art, Flowers. First someone HAS to draw according to real-life to get the permission to draw differently? That seems incredibly unfair.

I just think that good art should be something that was done with effort and skill not something sloppy that you can put together in 20 minutes.

At 1/2/13 02:52 PM, Fifty-50 wrote: I just think that good art should be something that was done with effort and skill not something sloppy that you can put together in 20 minutes.

Don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be. It's got a neat way of directing your eyes to the action by increasing the brush strokes, it has a fingerprint, there's an idea of composition and the technique adds to the subject.

I don't particularly like it, but I don't think you can call it 'worse than horrible'.

At 1/2/13 03:04 PM, test-object wrote:

At 1/2/13 02:52 PM, Fifty-50 wrote: I just think that good art should be something that was done with effort and skill not something sloppy that you can put together in 20 minutes.

Don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be. It's got a neat way of directing your eyes to the action by increasing the brush strokes, it has a fingerprint, there's an idea of composition and the technique adds to the subject.

I don't particularly like it, but I don't think you can call it 'worse than horrible'.

Yeah that was uncalled for I know. I have to be honest though, I still can't see how beautiful it is. Maybe I'm not artistic enough. lol