Author Topic: Don't you hate it when artists say things like...  (Read 8370 times)


you arnt stuff unless you are making an income from it. skill and quality means nothing beyond that.
i disagree with this, there's loads of very talented artists who are unable to make money off of their art. Making money requires a completely different set of skills from being good at art, it's not guaranteed that you'll have a steady income even if you are a master at what it is you do.

I do agree with everything else though

anyone who considers themselves an artist but doesn't actually do it professionally or earn any money off of it is an idiot

Ah jeez its almost like art inherently has nothing to do with business

you arnt stuff unless you are making an income from it. skill and quality means nothing beyond that.
Herman Melville ain't stuff? Van Gogh ain't stuff?

anyone who considers themselves an artist but doesn't actually do it professionally or earn any money off of it is an idiot
why shouldn't someone who likes to direct little indie movies call themselves a director, are they not directing? Everyone sucks in the beginning, and if no one had the confidence to consider themselves artists, there'd be no art, which would be a bummer.

tbh i never rly got that whole argument against "it's just my art style" like u know art doesn't have to perfectly portray things realistically right? it's fine to have it be stylized
i guess i get if it's due to laziness but like... that's still their style if that's how they do it lol
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 12:42:45 AM by gr8dayseth »

Van Gogh ain't stuff?
van gogh AINT stuff. he was a pwussy

It disappoints me when people don't take the time to actually draw real people or things, even if it looks bad. To understand the structure of everything is key to creating great art, and cartoons. Some of the greatest artists use references such as Da Vinci and Bob Ross. At one point, Bob Ross had criticized his painting instructors for their interests in abstract art, stating, "They’d tell you what makes a tree, but they wouldn’t tell you how to paint a tree." Even Disney animations, with all of their cartoons and cartoonish designs, are still built on references from what they have observed, and they constantly go back to observing the same thing over and over again, because they know that their memories are not enough to create life on a silver screen.



This animator has set up a mirror to capture the expressions of a cartoon character. He is using his face as a basis for expression and emotion.

If that isn't enough, during the filming of Bambi, they brought in a live deer to study from!



These guys were dedicated to capturing the most realistic and most believable characters as possible, and that doesn't mean that they were creating a photorealistic cartoon. It's quite the opposite. They needed characters that could jump around and express feelings in the loudest way possible, without drawing freakin' noodle arms. But despite this, all of their work have been based on reality. Before they even begin to create an art style, they drew realistic figures not to make it the most realistic drawing ever created, but to capture the flow and movement and the anatomy and the proportions of the figure. And when that art style is created, people can point out what the eye is, where the hands are, what the character is doing and what he feels. 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.

^ forget all that haha anime tiddie

van gogh AINT stuff. he was a pwussy
u take that back or i'll forgetin do somethin so wild and cooky

tbh i never rly got that whole argument against "it's just my art style" like u know art doesn't have to perfectly portray things realistically right? it's fine to have it be stylized
well also, i find it odd when people get angry about an artist using that defense- If no one likes someone's style, no one's gonna pay attention to their art or buy it. "This person is so annoying, i said their character's legs were weird and they told me it's just their style!" Well then click off their tumblr/twitter/deviantart because their success lives and dies by the tolerance of other people.

A lot of people don't like the style of south park. If i tell trey parker, "i don't like how jagged the animation is in south park", he may respond with "that's just the style". But regardless of how i angry i get or not, it doesn't change the fact that a ton of people do like that style, and i should just let it go.

tbh i never rly got that whole argument against "it's just my art style" like u know art doesn't have to perfectly portray things realistically right? it's fine to have it be stylized
i guess i get if it's due to laziness but like... that's still their style if that's how they do it lol

"it's my art style"

vs
"it's my art style"


"it's my art style"


I like to point out that this frame doesn't stick around for long since the animators knew it would look bad. Hence why is Phineas is always seen with his head sideways. If you wanna talk about really bad artstyles, take a look at Assigned Male. An artstyle needs to be pleasing to the eye, or must at least meet a person's "standards". Ugly artstyles usually have some of the following. Unappealing designs, ugly anatomy of people that are being portrayed as "cute", or artstyles that are "cute", but put in situations that seem out of place. There's a bunch of cringey art on deviantart that pits cute characters in horrendous situations such as abuse, rape, or death. It just comes across as stupid and hilarious rather than heartbreaking or sad. As I said before,
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 01:21:52 AM by cblock360 »


i definitely understand that using references does tend to lead to better art but that's not a requirement and it doesn't mean it's always bad art if someone doesn't use real-life references
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.
it would only rly be a failure if the artist's one goal with making the art was to do so
An artstyle needs to be pleasing to the eye, or must at least meet a person's "standards".
it rly doesn't
"it's my art style"
vs"it's my art style"
yes exactly, they're different styles
well also, i find it odd when people get angry about an artist using that defense- If no one likes someone's style, no one's gonna pay attention to their art or buy it. "This person is so annoying, i said their character's legs were weird and they told me it's just their style!" Well then click off their tumblr/twitter/deviantart because their success lives and dies by the tolerance of other people.

A lot of people don't like the style of south park. If i tell trey parker, "i don't like how jagged the animation is in south park", he may respond with "that's just the style". But regardless of how i angry i get or not, it doesn't change the fact that a ton of people do like that style, and i should just let it go.
ya this
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

If you're getting bent out of shape about art, consider not being a dumbass. That's all that really needs to be said.

Art is subjective, if you don't like something, congratulations. Move on if it makes you angry.

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.