Don't you hate it when artists say things like...

[Camel]

I wasn't clear when I said that an artstyle needs to be "pleasing" to the eye. Let me explain it better. Let's say someone draws a picture and the first thing the audience notices is the hand. The hand has not only too long of fingers, but the thumb is in a completely different place from where it's supposed to be (meaning, way too close to the pointing finger) the audience is going to immediately point that out and the "trance" of the art has on it's audience will be broken. The believability of the character will be lost. I'm not saying that Phineas and Ferb's artstyle is bad. In fact, it's one of the better ones, because most of the body parts are not "broken". I can tell what the hands and feet are, and I can point out what the character is doing. That single frame that Red Spy picked out was actually never meant to be seen for more than a second, because its being used as an "in-between" (a frame in between key frames). The artists made sure that the side of the characters are the parts that the audience sees. Some of you may ask,"Why do they still look goofy and weird?" Well, it fits with the overall tone of the show, and that they are a recognizable image, and that they're much easier to draw but still keeps a sort of "uniqueness" to their designs, etc. An artstyle is a tool, but if that tool is broken and can't do what it's supposed to do, then it should not be used.

i think what you're saying is well and good, but your language is too broad. Words like "style" and "drawing" encompass what you're talking about, but they also encompass a lot of stuff that doesn't follow the rules.

Art is not governed by anything. Anything a human creates that comes from their mind is art. However, Disney's Bambi is definitely governed by rules, rules in which they've followed from the traditions and guidelines from their teachers, which have been proven to create pleasant, good art in that medium.
But those rules do not govern This Francis Bacon piece

I know i'm arguing semantics but i believe semantics is where i take issue

[Ad Bot]

[IkeTheGeneric]

Some of my favorite art is jarring and unpleasant to look at. I like pieces that are stark or ugly because it invokes more feeling to me personally.

[hootaloo]

every starfish that draws or own s a camera thinks they are an artist.

because they are : )
maybe not good artists yet, but they are artists, wheter you like it or not

i have friends that dont do it profesionnaly and are way better than me, but i literally study it in college, soon university, and simultaniously in the work field.......  are they not artists? x)

[Camel]

Some of my favorite art is jarring and unpleasant to look at. I like pieces that are stark or ugly because it invokes more feeling to me personally.

Definitely, sometimes it's just indescribable. for instance, i unironically enjoy this Merzbow track Hummingbird. Something about it conjures up real intense feelings of anxiety and dread, and it's not just cus it's noise and unpredictable - i've listened to a lot of Noise, nothing stirs me quite like this piece.

it definitely ain't following any set rules. And to be frank, if someone listens to this and says "your taste is garbage, this isn't music", i'd only disagree with the latter, lol. that's just how it goes.

[cblock360]

I have used pleasant in a wrong sense, and you are right, sometimes art is unpleasant to look at. But here's the thing. The art being shown is meant to look unpleasant, and people have to feel uneasy and somewhat mortified, and the artist has succeeded in conveying that pleasantness. Bad art will try to convey the same thing, but come off as "hilariously bad", which is not what the original artist would have in mind. Do you get what I am saying?

[hootaloo]

Bad art will try to convey the same thing, but come off as "hilariously bad"

this is completely subjective btw

[Trogtor]

[cblock360]

this is completely subjective btw

Let me add "or any other way other than the reaction you want from the audience".

[Camel]

I have used pleasant in a wrong sense, and you are right, sometimes art is unpleasant to look at. But here's the thing. The art being shown is meant to look unpleasant, and people have to feel uneasy and somewhat mortified, and the artist has succeeded in conveying that pleasantness. Bad art will try to convey the same thing, but come off as "hilariously bad", which is not what the original artist would have in mind. Do you get what I am saying?

personally i don't think i know enough about that piece or Francis Bacon to say if he meant it to look unpleasant.

let me just focus in on what i take issue of so my points don't go too off track, this thesis you've said:

That's how a drawing should be. If a normal person cannot comprehend or understand what he or she is looking at, or is being given the wrong message that the character is trying to convey with their audience, then that drawing is a failure.

this set of rules applies only to a specific medium. I'll give a couple layers of abstraction - it applies to Bambi, thus it applies to Disney animation, thus is applies to mass-appeal, popular animation.

But these rules you've said to not apply to all art. If someone can't tell where the thumb is on a drawing, the drawing is not a failure, and especially, if someone's art does not follow these rules you've laid out, that doesn't mean it's invalid, IE "that's how a drawing should be".

This ties back to what i was saying earlier - if someone's picture is not anatomically correct and they say "it's just my style", being so invested in that statement is pointless. Give criticism to those who warrant it. If they're not receptive, don't pay attention, instead, find the art you enjoy and share it to the world. From what you've laid out, your idea of good art - there's tons of it out there, and there's no need to be so concerned with what you don't think is good.

[hootaloo]

shoutout to camel for writing this better than anyone can at like 4 in the morning

[Pompmaker2]

my art teacher rejected the whole "it's my style" excuse so imma just repeat what he said

when you make a unique style that looks good, it's about subverting the basics of art in interesting ways. but to subvert the basics of art, you must first know the basics of art. it's like how if you try to draw fantasy monsters, they only look good if they're extrapolated from real animals/humans

if you claim to have made a style without having learnt the basics, you haven't really learnt anything at all.

[cblock360]

If you're doing it for fun and not as a profession, that is fine, but those who draw as a career, I suggest that improving that style is important. The clients that search for the art they want drawn are more likely to look at the better art.  Design companies, animation studios, advertisement agencies are all looking for the best artists that they can find. I can't force someone to improve their work. What they do is entirely up to them. But if they want to survive just by making art, they're going to have to satisfy the majority.

[gr8dayseth]

to add on to that i mean it rly is the artist's choice on how to make their own art (unless they're doing it for other people obviously) and unless they would like criticism about how to make it better they probably don't wanna listen to someone's stuff just cus they don't like how they like to make their art. they might just like it how it is already and may not want to overcomplicate it which is understandable imo

this still applies btw. keep in mind though i'm mainly talking about the people who like to make art for fun and to share with others like i do occasionally (which is what i'm assuming ur talking about with the whole "hilariously bad" thing), not necessarily professionally or anything

If you're doing it for fun and not as a profession, that is fine, but those who draw as a career, I suggest that improving that style is important. The clients that search for the art they want drawn are more likely to look at the better art.  Design companies, animation studios, advertisement agencies are all looking for the best artists that they can find. I can't force someone to improve their work. What they do is entirely up to them. But if they want to survive just by making art, they're going to have to satisfy the majority.

ah damn it i just typed this up :(
well i mean ya obviously those artists who want to get serious with art professionally will want to do this kinda thing but i still assume that's not the kinda artist ur really talking about with this thread

[Camel]

If you're doing it for fun and not as a profession, that is fine, but those who draw as a career, I suggest that improving that style is important. The clients that search for the art they want drawn are more likely to look at the better art.  Design companies, animation studios, advertisement agencies are all looking for the best artists that they can find. I can't force someone to improve their work. What they do is entirely up to them. But if they want to survive just by making art, they're going to have to satisfy the majority.

and i do indeed follow your rules, for the most part - i do still life studies, i do anatomy studies, and i am trying to improve in ways that are established. I'm just speaking on behalf of all art

personally i never want the niche to die. satisfying the majority is good for the paycheck, but i dunno if i want to live in a world where every artist has to feel like they need to make art that satisfies the majority otherwise it's not worth it. And luckily it hasn't gotten that bad.

[cblock360]

and i do indeed follow your rules, for the most part - i do still life studies, i do anatomy studies, and i am trying to improve in ways that are established. I'm just speaking on behalf of all art

personally i never want the niche to die. satisfying the majority is good for the paycheck, but i dunno if i want to live in a world where every artist has to feel like they need to make art that satisfies the majority otherwise it's not worth it. And luckily it hasn't gotten that bad.

Thankfully (and unfortunately) humans tend to explore new ways to present and express themselves in many ways. Terrible corporations take what's trendy and feed off the sheep who wander into their trap. New ideas are more loved if the execution is done right.