turtles
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Author Topic: Nvm guys.  (Read 3628 times)

Oxinide

  • Topic Author
Nvm guys.
«: July 20, 2009, 05:37:58 AM»
Nvm.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 10:14:02 PM by Oxinide »

 
        

Offline Morgan

Re: Price me? C:
«Reply #1: July 20, 2009, 06:07:53 AM»
$0, i will wait for matter to come in and explain exactly why which she is bound to do

Oxinide

  • Topic Author
Re: Price me? C:
«Reply #2: July 20, 2009, 06:09:16 AM»
$0, i will wait for matter to come in and explain exactly why which she is bound to do

:O? I'm sorry if i did anything wrong! D:

Offline Spooki

Re: Price me? C:
«Reply #3: July 20, 2009, 06:10:57 AM»
I think these're cute, but I really wouldn't pay anything for them, maybe a trade at most, but then again I'm not a fan of the giant anime eyes.
~~ Putting the square block in the round hole since 1985 ~~

I can be reached on Furc as Spooki

Oxinide

  • Topic Author
Re: Price me? C:
«Reply #4: July 20, 2009, 07:18:12 AM»
I think these're cute, but I really wouldn't pay anything for them, maybe a trade at most, but then again I'm not a fan of the giant anime eyes.


I hope this is better O:

IPGD

  • Topic Author
Re: New added :|? price if its good.
«Reply #5: July 20, 2009, 07:58:51 AM»
I want you to read my signature and pay very close attention to the words in it.

Offline Cornelius

Re: New added :|? price if its good.
«Reply #6: July 20, 2009, 02:52:25 PM»
0$ it looks awkward and also looks like you used dodge/burn on the clothes.

Sesruc

  • Topic Author
Re: New added :|? price if its good.
«Reply #7: July 20, 2009, 04:16:35 PM»
$0, it's 80% blank canvas and the muzzle looks like it's sagging

Offline Sedde

Re: New added :|? price if its good.
«Reply #8: July 20, 2009, 04:35:02 PM»
0$ it looks awkward and also looks like you used dodge/burn on the clothes.

Offline Narnia

Re: New added :|? price if its good.
«Reply #9: July 20, 2009, 05:28:06 PM»
0$ it looks awkward and also looks like you used dodge/burn on the clothes.
"The views expressed in this message are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Furcadia Art Zone, Dragon's Eye Production, or Furcadia."

Offline Tate

Re: New added :|? price if its good.
«Reply #10: July 20, 2009, 05:29:44 PM»
I don't think you're ready to take commissions at all. :x I wouldn't pay anything.

Offline Sebbi

Re: New added :|? price if its good.
«Reply #11: July 20, 2009, 06:46:08 PM»
You know, as a four minute quick sketch this really isn't that horrible. It kind of reminds me of some storybook art and I know certain styles are very popular!

I'm curious to see something you spend a little more time on. Would you be willing to make something that might take you your usual amount of time? I'd feel more comfortable giving constructive criticism on that rather than something that not a lot of time was spent on. :)

Also, what sort of art are you hoping to lean toward? Not everyone wants to be a militant, one-way style, so I'm more interested in helping someone achieve a certain style they like rather than what I want.

Oxinide

  • Topic Author
Re: New added :|? price if its good.
«Reply #12: July 20, 2009, 10:10:53 PM»
You know, as a four minute quick sketch this really isn't that horrible. It kind of reminds me of some storybook art and I know certain styles are very popular!

I'm curious to see something you spend a little more time on. Would you be willing to make something that might take you your usual amount of time? I'd feel more comfortable giving constructive criticism on that rather than something that not a lot of time was spent on. :)

Also, what sort of art are you hoping to lean toward? Not everyone wants to be a militant, one-way style, so I'm more interested in helping someone achieve a certain style they like rather than what I want.
Thank you~ I only ever knew of the story book one's not new day one's :|

Well, I'm sorry guy's. I don't do many furre's And my style? Well, i work in a tattoo studio and I only do realistic Art. http://i25.tinypic.com/2uysith.png  http://i28.tinypic.com/53s8dg.png Sorry for bothering you all. I may as well leave this site before I give anyone else sore eye's :/

IPGD

  • Topic Author
Re: New added :|? price if its good.
«Reply #13: July 20, 2009, 10:43:34 PM»
Quote
Also, what sort of art are you hoping to lean toward? Not everyone wants to be a militant, one-way style, so I'm more interested in helping someone achieve a certain style they like rather than what I want.
You missed the entire point. It's not about what I want, it's about what is necessary for tangible improvement and progression. I like [some] anime, I do not believe that no one should draw realism and nothing else ever. I've never said anything like this. I frequently and repeatedly contradict it every time it's brought up. This is explained so plainly and clearly in my signature that I really do not understand how people keep inferring this nonsense from it -- I say in the third sentence that "you can go back to it later once you've learned the basics"; I put heavy emphasis on the idea that realism is not a style, but a foundation upon which all other art is based; I say over and over again that everything is derived from life, no matter what "style" you use, and an understanding of it is equally and crucially important to your progress in every artistic area; nowhere do I say that you should only ever draw in one style your entire artistic career, yet this seems to be the only thing you and hundreds of other people take away from it.

Would you please explain to me where you get this idea? This happens so often that there has to be a reason for it. Is there actually an error of communication at the fault of my writing, or are you just incapable of reading the words as they literally are? Seriously, if it is the former, tell me what I am not communicating so I can correct it to prevent these repeated misunderstandings. This is the most basic and important concept I can possibly convey to any artist. If I cannot successfully do that, I cannot teach anyone anything, so help me out.

Quote
Well, I'm sorry guy's. I don't do many furre's And my style? Well, i work in a tattoo studio and I only do realistic Art. http://i25.tinypic.com/2uysith.png  http://i28.tinypic.com/53s8dg.png Sorry for bothering you all. I may as well leave this site before I give anyone else sore eye's :/
That isn't realistic. If you showed this to me in the original post I would have told you to read my signature all the same. You lack fundamental foundation and it shows, no matter what style you attempt to mask it with. If you want to get better (i.e., get paid for your work), I suggest you build yourself one.

Oxinide

  • Topic Author
Re: New added :|? price if its good.
«Reply #14: July 20, 2009, 10:55:36 PM»
Quote
Also, what sort of art are you hoping to lean toward? Not everyone wants to be a militant, one-way style, so I'm more interested in helping someone achieve a certain style they like rather than what I want.
You missed the entire point. It's not about what I want, it's about what is necessary for tangible improvement and progression. I like [some] anime, I do not believe that no one should draw realism and nothing else ever. I've never said anything like this. I frequently and repeatedly contradict it every time it's brought up. This is explained so plainly and clearly in my signature that I really do not understand how people keep inferring this nonsense from it -- I say in the third sentence that "you can go back to it later once you've learned the basics"; I put heavy emphasis on the idea that realism is not a style, but a foundation upon which all other art is based; I say over and over again that everything is derived from life, no matter what "style" you use, and an understanding of it is equally and crucially important to your progress in every artistic area; nowhere do I say that you should only ever draw in one style your entire artistic career, yet this seems to be the only thing you and hundreds of other people take away from it.

Would you please explain to me where you get this idea? This happens so often that there has to be a reason for it. Is there actually an error of communication at the fault of my writing, or are you just incapable of reading the words as they literally are? Seriously, if it is the former, tell me what I am not communicating so I can correct it to prevent these repeated misunderstandings. This is the most basic and important concept I can possibly convey to any artist. If I cannot successfully do that, I cannot teach anyone anything, so help me out.

Quote
Well, I'm sorry guy's. I don't do many furre's And my style? Well, i work in a tattoo studio and I only do realistic Art. http://i25.tinypic.com/2uysith.png  http://i28.tinypic.com/53s8dg.png Sorry for bothering you all. I may as well leave this site before I give anyone else sore eye's :/
That isn't realistic. If you showed this to me in the original post I would have told you to read my signature all the same. You lack fundamental foundation and it shows, no matter what style you attempt to mask it with. If you want to get better (i.e., get paid for your work), I suggest you build yourself one.


Thanks alot. I guess i will just up and quit my job now?

Offline Sebbi

Re: Nvm guys.
«Reply #15: July 20, 2009, 11:55:33 PM»
Quote
I like [some] anime, I do not believe that no one should draw realism and nothing else ever. I've never said anything like this.

1) Was I talking to you?

2) Where did I ever say you said this? Where did I ever say anything to you about anything you said? Quote me.

Quote
I frequently and repeatedly contradict it every time it's brought up. This is explained so plainly and clearly in my signature that I really do not understand how people keep inferring this nonsense from it -- I say in the third sentence that "you can go back to it later once you've learned the basics"

I think it's pretty neat that you pretend people say things to you, then get all offended and demand explanations. Is this some kind of performance art?

Quote
I put heavy emphasis on the idea that realism is not a style, but a foundation upon which all other art is based;

Upon what do you base this assertion? Realism is most definitely a style.   

Quote
I say over and over again that everything is derived from life, no matter what "style" you use, and an understanding of it is equally and crucially important to your progress in every artistic area; nowhere do I say that you should only ever draw in one style your entire artistic career, yet this seems to be the only thing you and hundreds of other people take away from it.

The notion that realism is not a style, combined with the notion that realism is an absolute prerequisite for the undertaking of all other art forms, is totally arbitrary crap that amounts to nothing more than insanely greedy reductionism, most likely rooted in some kind of weird fetish you have for that particular style.

I am also interested in what you base the bolded assertion on.

Quote
Would you please explain to me where you get this idea? This happens so often that there has to be a reason for it. Is there actually an error of communication at the fault of my writing, or are you just incapable of reading the words as they literally are? Seriously, if it is the former, tell me what I am not communicating so I can correct it to prevent these repeated misunderstandings. This is the most basic and important concept I can possibly convey to any artist. If I cannot successfully do that, I cannot teach anyone anything, so help me out.

You made up a bunch of crap and pretended I said it, then demanded explanations for it. Then, for some strange reason, you declared one particular style of art is not a style, while at the same time claiming that particular style is the prerequisite for participation in ALL other styles.

« Last Edit: July 21, 2009, 12:04:55 AM by Sebbi »

IPGD

  • Topic Author
Re: Nvm guys.
«Reply #16: July 21, 2009, 09:35:45 AM»
1) Was I talking to you?
... Yes, you were obviously talking about me, if not directly to me. Who else could even possibly fit the statement you made?

Quote
2) Where did I ever say you said this? Where did I ever say anything to you about anything you said? Quote me.
Quote
Not everyone wants to be a militant, one-way style, so I'm more interested in helping someone achieve a certain style they like rather than what I want.
Posting this right after I've made my obligatory styuhl post pretty heavily implies that you think I am suggesting that she use a "militant, one way style" and it's all about "what I want [in a style]".

Quote
I think it's pretty neat that you pretend people say things to you, then get all offended and demand explanations. Is this some kind of performance art?
I am not offended. Even if you are not directly quoting someone, indirect passive aggression is pretty easily readable, and just from that, I can obviously tell you've misunderstood what I've said in my copypasta. I'm asking you to tell me what I've said wrong so I can correct it for clarity. If you think I was trying to be condescending or facetious, I'm not, I seriously want you to tell me where this misunderstanding is coming from so I can avoid it in the future, because this does happen very often.

Quote
Upon what do you base this assertion? Realism is most definitely a style.   
Realism is as much of a style as atheism is a religion. Style is the deliberate distortion of life. Someone who draws realistically does not make any attempt to distort life. Realistic art may be a "genre" of art, but it is not a style.

Quote
The notion that realism is not a style, combined with the notion that realism is an absolute prerequisite for the undertaking of all other art forms, is totally arbitrary crap that amounts to nothing more than insanely greedy reductionism, most likely rooted in some kind of weird fetish you have for that particular style.
Can you articulate to me why you think it's arbitrary rather than simply saying it is?

I have no fetish for realism. I have no desire to draw still lifes or photorealistic reproductions of The Last Supper my entire career. My favorite artists are all either manga artists or ones with obvious eastern influence. What all of these artists have that 13 year old girls on deviantart do not is a solid foundation in the basics of art; in every one of their pieces their understanding of anatomy and composition is clearly demonstrated, despite their use of style. Anime does not completely invalidate your learnings, but never learning anything will never even gives you a chance to go anywhere.

I've been drawing for eight and half years. I drew anime for six of them. I don't draw what I say out of some sort of twisted hate for anime, I speak out of personal experience. I was total and utter shit until I stopped drawing anime. 85% of all of the progress I have made with my art has been in the past two and a half years. Want to see some of my art from when I drew anime? I'm not sure exactly when these are from, but they're a pretty accurate depiction of my artwork even up to the very point where I decided to try to go back to the basics:




If I'm not a perfect example for what life study can do for you -- I'm still shit, but compared to that, Jesus Christ -- I don't know what is.

An even better example than me is one of the guys I just linked, actually. We go to the same critique board, so I know he follows the same basic "philosophy" that I do (as far as the notion that "life study is good for you" is concerned, anyway). See how he was totally shit when he did nothing but animu? See how he sort of took a massive jump up in quality the moment he started to study life? He still draws anime now, but it's a legion's worth better than it used to be when he did nothing but animu.
Quote
I am also interested in what you base the bolded assertion on.
It's basic logic. Where is anything derived from? If you put a pencil and a piece of paper in front of someone who had been blind his entire life up to this point and never seen anything except this pencil and piece of paper, and you tell him to draw a person without letting him look at one first, what would it look like? Nothing like an actual person, that's for sure. And this extends even to things that's don't exist in the whole in real life -- an eight-legged slime monster with a billion eyes certainly doesn't exist in any world I know of, but its basic components are derived from things that do exist in life. Without the ability to observe life, where would the concept of a limb come from, or eyes, or the texture of slime? Anything you can ever think of can be observed in life and you should take advantage of it in your studies.

Stylization is tied to life in its very definition. If style is a distortion of life, what are you distorting? Isn't it a plainly evident fact that if you want to better your distortions of life, you should understand how life actually is first? Drawing symbols from glance memory is no substitute for an intuitive and involved understanding of the 3D form and function of the body, or any other object you choose to depict. Practice and trial and error is not sufficient to produce tangible improvement; you need study and observation or you'll have nothing to practice but your own mistakes.

Quote
You made up a bunch of crap and pretended I said it, then demanded explanations for it. Then, for some strange reason, you declared one particular style of art is not a style, while at the same time claiming that particular style is the prerequisite for participation in ALL other styles.
You misunderstand me. Life study is a prerequisite; if, by some chance, you were able to absorb all of that life study without ever practicing it, sure, you could go straight to animu if you wanted. It has nothing to do with application and everything to do with knowledge.

But, of course, you don't have to do life study if you are really, really adverse to the idea (don't know why you would be -- improving is a lot of fun). You'll just never actually be good if you don't, and your hopes are going to be utterly crushed down the line if you're banking on that happening.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2009, 10:07:46 AM by Matter »

Offline Suzy

Re: Nvm guys.
«Reply #17: July 21, 2009, 12:29:49 PM»
Just because I like giving my two cents, I'm going to agree with Matter and point out that this argument doesn't have too much to do with the topic. (Not that I'm not guilty of that 99.9% of the time.)

By the way. Takeshi Obata is my freaking hero. Good example. :3

Offline Sebbi

Re: Nvm guys.
«Reply #18: July 21, 2009, 01:06:50 PM»
Quote
Quote
2) Where did I ever say you said this? Where did I ever say anything to you about anything you said? Quote me.
Quote
Not everyone wants to be a militant, one-way style, so I'm more interested in helping someone achieve a certain style they like rather than what I want.
Posting this right after I've made my obligatory styuhl post pretty heavily implies that you think I am suggesting that she use a "militant, one way style" and it's all about "what I want [in a style]".

Go ahead and bold the part where I am referring to you. Looks to me like I'm referring to me. I bolded the relevant parts for you. Ponder for a moment the possibility that my post coming after yours was a coincidence. I would have quoted you if I was responding to you. See: all posts where I've responded to you.

Quote
I am not offended. Even if you are not directly quoting someone, indirect passive aggression is pretty easily readable, and just from that, I can obviously tell you've misunderstood what I've said in my copypasta. I'm asking you to tell me what I've said wrong so I can correct it for clarity. If you think I was trying to be condescending or facetious, I'm not, I seriously want you to tell me where this misunderstanding is coming from so I can avoid it in the future, because this does happen very often.

Since you apparently did not understand it the first time, here it is again:

I WAS NOT TALKING TO YOU OR ABOUT YOU

I was talking to HER about ME.

Quote
Quote
Upon what do you base this assertion? Realism is most definitely a style.   
Realism is as much of a style as atheism is a religion. Style is the deliberate distortion of life. Someone who draws realistically does not make any attempt to distort life. Realistic art may be a "genre" of art, but it is not a style.

......upon what do you base this assertion? Saying it again doesn't do anything.

Hot tip coming up, are you ready for it?

Style: a particular kind, sort, or type, as with reference to form, appearance, or character

Genre: a class or category of artistic endeavor having a particular form, content, technique, or the like; genus; kind; sort; style

ROFL

Quote
Can you articulate to me why you think it's arbitrary rather than simply saying it is?

Can you tell me how realism is not a style, and how all art is derived from realism? Until you can provide objective grounds for these assertions, they're totally arbitrary. All you've provided so far is repetitive insistence that this is mega true. Pull out a source or something.

Quote
I have no fetish for realism. I have no desire to draw still lifes or photorealistic reproductions of The Last Supper my entire career. My favorite artists are all either manga artists or ones with obvious eastern influence. What all of these artists have that 13 year old girls on deviantart do not is a solid foundation in the basics of art; in every one of their pieces their understanding of anatomy and composition is clearly demonstrated, despite their use of style. Anime does not completely invalidate your learnings, but never learning anything will never even gives you a chance to go anywhere.

Here you go just saying stuff and pretending its real again. Upon what are you basing all these assertions? Where are you getting all this crap? Your fetish for realism is grounded in your assertion that all art is derived from a specific style, in this case realism. That's all.

Quote
I've been drawing for eight and half years. I drew anime for six of them. I don't draw what I say out of some sort of twisted hate for anime, I speak out of personal experience.


There it is!

Translation: I just make crap up and pass it off as absolute universal truth about the fundamental nature of art!

Quote
It's basic logic. Where is anything derived from? If you put a pencil and a piece of paper in front of someone who had been blind his entire life up to this point and never seen anything except this pencil and piece of paper, and you tell him to draw a person without letting him look at one first, what would it look like? Nothing like an actual person, that's for sure. And this extends even to things that's don't exist in the whole in real life -- an eight-legged slime monster with a billion eyes certainly doesn't exist in any world I know of, but its basic components are derived from things that do exist in life. Without the ability to observe life, where would the concept of a limb come from, or eyes, or the texture of slime? Anything you can ever think of can be observed in life and you should take advantage of it in your studies.

Again you've repeated yourself and shown off your penchant for weird misguided reductionism. I strongly suspect this is another situation where you're passing off your meager life experience as absolute universal truth.

Quote
Stylization is tied to life in its very definition. If style is a distortion of life, what are you distorting? Isn't it a plainly evident fact that if you want to better your distortions of life, you should understand how life actually is first? Drawing symbols from glance memory is no substitute for an intuitive and involved understanding of the 3D form and function of the body, or any other object you choose to depict. Practice and trial and error is not sufficient to produce tangible improvement; you need study and observation or you'll have nothing to practice but your own mistakes.

Hot tip: It's not a mistake if it's integral to or even just vaguely a part of the style. This is why I asked what style she was going for.

Quote
You misunderstand me. Life study is a prerequisite; if, by some chance, you were able to absorb all of that life study without ever practicing it, sure, you could go straight to animu if you wanted. It has nothing to do with application and everything to do with knowledge.

When I ask you 'on what do you base this assertion' it means you should provide sources and reasoning outlining the objective basis for the assertions you appear to be passing off as the ultimate supertruth. It does not mean 'repeat yourself'. If you did just make it all up that's fine, but I wouldn't go around preaching it as universal truth regarding the nature of art. You are not the god of art.

Quote
But, of course, you don't have to do life study if you are really, really adverse to the idea (don't know why you would be -- improving is a lot of fun). You'll just never actually be good if you don't, and your hopes are going to be utterly crushed down the line if you're banking on that happening.

See this?

It makes no sense at all to use realism as the basis for the critique of this art if the art in question is not realist. If you were to critique Mr. Pollock's art using realism as a departure point, you would be laughed at. This is why I asked chick (read: NOT YOU) what style she was going for, and suggested that I critique it accordingly.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2009, 01:09:30 PM by Sebbi »

Offline Narnia

Re: Nvm guys.
«Reply #19: July 21, 2009, 01:41:30 PM»
As soon as you attack the poster instead of the topic being discussed, you lose the argument.

I take no sides in this disagreement, but I'll continue to let it go since the main purpose of this thread was abandoned. However, from an outside perspective Matter is more convincing because his posts don't contain a whole string of name calling and finger pointing. Instead he gives a logical basis for his critiques and provides the basis for his posts. While on the opposing side, the only thing that sticks out to me are the number of times that Matter's posts have been called crap.
"The views expressed in this message are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Furcadia Art Zone, Dragon's Eye Production, or Furcadia."

Offline Suzy

Re: Nvm guys.
«Reply #20: July 21, 2009, 02:38:52 PM»
While we're still off topic...

Just a note, but even abstract takes some knowledge of how things work realistically. For example, in order to create good abstract art, you must have an understanding of color theory and what combinations and patterns are aesthetically pleasing or convey your message/emotion/etc. That's a part of the behavior of humans, which is part of the study of how life works; realism.

Kay. I'll be quiet now since I am not an expert in any of this. As you've probably noticed, I like to talk- er, type.

IPGD

  • Topic Author
Re: Nvm guys.
«Reply #21: July 21, 2009, 02:53:07 PM»
Go ahead and bold the part where I am referring to you. Looks to me like I'm referring to me. I bolded the relevant parts for you. Ponder for a moment the possibility that my post coming after yours was a coincidence. I would have quoted you if I was responding to you. See: all posts where I've responded to you.
I highly doubt that was a coincidence, considering there were about 12 hours between our first posts, you had plenty of time to read it, and I'm sure you've read my numerous posts on these forums before where I've very vocally expressed the same opinions. Even if it was, and your post isn't directed at me in particular, it was in reference to a viewpoint I happen to hold and I am attempting to defend and explain that viewpoint to you because you have misunderstood it.

Quote
......upon what do you base this assertion? Saying it again doesn't do anything.
Uh, basic logic? It's a postulate. If everything isn't based in real life, where does it come from? (I don't mean this as a rhetorical question; if you think it's based on something other than life, please tell me so I can understand your argument better.) I really do not understand why you can't comprehend this concept. I don't know how to explain it any better than I have because it's incredibly simple and self-evident. I am not mad, worked up, nor do I have any intention of attacking you -- could you please calmly and clearly tell me what you do not understand about what I am saying so I can clarify it for you?

Quote
Hot tip coming up, are you ready for it?

Style: a particular kind, sort, or type, as with reference to form, appearance, or character

Genre: a class or category of artistic endeavor having a particular form, content, technique, or the like; genus; kind; sort; style

ROFL
I don't want to get into a squabble about semantics. Realism is a "style" in the sense that it is a type of art (what I mean by genre), yes, but it is not a stylization. This isn't about whether or not realism fits into the broad dictionary definition of style, which does have multiple definitions, just the one definition I have specified: that a stylization is a distortion of the "true" image. Anime is a stylization because it deliberately departs from the immediately apparent image; realism is not stylized because it depicts an object exactly as it is, without stylization. When I talk about stylization, this is what I mean -- the kind of style that affects an image, not the kind of style an image fits in to; if this is not what stylization means to you, what does it mean?

Quote
Can you tell me how realism is not a style, and how all art is derived from realism? Until you can provide objective grounds for these assertions, they're totally arbitrary. All you've provided so far is repetitive insistence that this is mega true. Pull out a source or something.
I'm trying to explain it to you the best I can, but you're making it very difficult. I've given the best examples I can think of; my source is sight (you can verify this on your own). It's so simple I don't know how to go any further in depth than I have, because there is no more depth.

Quote
Here you go just saying stuff and pretending its real again. Upon what are you basing all these assertions? Where are you getting all this crap? Your fetish for realism is grounded in your assertion that all art is derived from a specific style, in this case realism. That's all.
Again, no, not everything is derived from the "genre" definition of realism, but everything is derived from life (which is "realistic"; the blank, unstylized, slate). I've given examples and as thorough explanations as possible so I don't know what else you expect from me!
Quote
There it is!

Translation: I just make crap up and pass it off as absolute universal truth about the fundamental nature of art!
So the fact I've improved more quickly in the past 2 years than I have in the past 8 is totally made up crap? I've given visible, tangible evidence to prove it. I gave another example of a person who improved even faster than I did following the same general method of life study.

I did not make these ideas up by myself. They were taught to me by professional artists; most would readily agree with me, at the very least on the importance of life study. My personal experience is not where I get my information from, but it is why I agree with it and attempt to convince other people to see my way.
Quote
Again you've repeated yourself and shown off your penchant for weird misguided reductionism. I strongly suspect this is another situation where you're passing off your meager life experience as absolute universal truth.
What? Where does my life experience even factor in to anything I said in that paragraph? All I've gleaned from your argument is that you don't like me very much, so I have no real way to respond to you without delving into a shit flinging contest. I'd like to avoid that and go back to logical discussion.

Quote
Hot tip: It's not a mistake if it's integral to or even just vaguely a part of the style. This is why I asked what style she was going for.
You're right, it's not a mistake if it's a deliberate stylization. What is a mistake, however, are mistakes; mistakes don't stop being mistakes when the artist excuses it with style. There is a large difference between the two and it's very easy to see.

Quote
When I ask you 'on what do you base this assertion' it means you should provide sources and reasoning outlining the objective basis for the assertions you appear to be passing off as the ultimate supertruth. It does not mean 'repeat yourself'. If you did just make it all up that's fine, but I wouldn't go around preaching it as universal truth regarding the nature of art. You are not the god of art.
I gave examples. Do you expect some sort of mathematical formula? I really don't know what else you expect me to do to prove it. There are no involved scientific papers for me to cite on the link between drawing and life because it's plainly self-evident. If you can use your eyes, you should be able to understand the concept through your own objective observations, though I've given plenty of my own. Until you tell me what you don't understand, instead of simply insinuating I am an idiot and sexually aroused by realism (totally am btw, pretty hot shit bra), you aren't giving me anything to do but repeat myself (which you've done plenty of times yourself; I still don't think you've said anything to me that amounts to more than "you're full of shit" with no evidence to back it up). Please help me create a meaningful dialogue instead of this shitfest.

Quote
See this?

It makes no sense at all to use realism as the basis for the critique of this art if the art in question is not realist. If you were to critique Mr. Pollock's art using realism as a departure point, you would be laughed at. This is why I asked chick (read: NOT YOU) what style she was going for, and suggested that I critique it accordingly.
Sure it does. Abstract art like Pollock's is further removed from life than other forms of art, but it does have very basic ties to it, such as composition and color theory. Those are the main two things someone would mention if they were to critique this piece's technical aspect; the viewer's personal interpretation of the piece is obviously something very different and subjective. I would never suggest that there's one right message to put in a piece, but this is more about learning and honing technical ability than emotional movement (which abstract art is far more focused on than any other aspect).
« Last Edit: July 21, 2009, 02:57:29 PM by Matter »

Offline Sebbi

Re: Nvm guys.
«Reply #22: July 21, 2009, 03:49:25 PM»
As soon as you attack the poster instead of the topic being discussed, you lose the argument.

I was accused of fabricating a whole bunch of stuff in addition to lacking reading comprehension before I even knew there was an argument going on.

Quote
However, from an outside perspective Matter is more convincing because his posts don't contain a whole string of name calling and finger pointing.

This is from the first response to me, which is in its entirety a completely unprovoked attack regarding a response I made to someone else about that someone else and myself. See where all these fingers are pointed and it's implied I am incapable of understanding a sig I did not read and was not talking about?

Quote
You missed the entire point.

Quote
This is explained so plainly and clearly in my signature that I really do not understand how people keep inferring this nonsense from it

Quote
are you just incapable of reading the words as they literally are?

This is from the respone to my reply to that unprovoked attack, wherein I specifically state that I was not talking to him or about him, and ask for the reasoning behind the claims "realism is not a style" and "realism is the foundation from which all art is derived". See where I am called a liar? And where I am told that pretty much no matter what I say that my tiny post directed at someone else was directed at him, and that my post was in fact a long and involved critique of their sig despite no mention of any sig being made at all?

Quote
you were obviously talking about me, if not directly to me.


Quote
you think I am suggesting that she use a "militant, one way style" and it's all about "what I want [in a style]".

Quote
indirect passive aggression is pretty easily readable, and just from that, I can obviously tell you've misunderstood what I've said in my copypasta.

It's all right there.

Quote from: You
Instead he gives a logical basis for his critiques and provides the basis for his posts.


What he did was fabricate a paragraph of attack out of two sentences directed to someone else that was about someone else and myself. Despite me saying this was not the case, and pointing out exactly how this was not the case, he insists that it is passive aggression and that I intentionally implied all this crap.

Quote
While on the opposing side, the only thing that sticks out to me are the number of times that Matter's posts have been called crap.

Regarding the subject of me saying all this crazy crap I'm being accused of saying, I stand by the claim that it is crap. I didn't say any of that crap. I can quote me.

Quote from: Me
You know, as a four minute quick sketch this really isn't that horrible. It kind of reminds me of some storybook art and I know certain styles are very popular!

I'm curious to see something you spend a little more time on. Would you be willing to make something that might take you your usual amount of time? I'd feel more comfortable giving constructive criticism on that rather than something that not a lot of time was spent on. :)

Also, what sort of art are you hoping to lean toward? Not everyone wants to be a militant, one-way style, so I'm more interested in helping someone achieve a certain style they like rather than what I want.

Regarding the assertion that realism is not a style, it most certainly is by every reasonable definition of the both the words. It's the proper name of a style that got started in the 19th century, and it reflects a philosophy based on the subjective value judgment that verisimilitude is an intrinsically desirable trait in artistic endeavors. This is a matter of pure preference, and style, which is why I asked what style she was going for. Realism is a style of art that subjectively values verisimilitude. Anime, not so much. Cubism, barely at all.. etc and so on.

The assertion that all art is derived from realism completely ignores the universal presence of abstract/non-representational art throughout the entire known history of art, in addition to the fact that numerous abstract/non-representational artforms predate ALL the earliest known attempts at realism. All the very earliest known art is purely symbolic/decorative. Simple geometry and pretty patterns, crafts and things like that.

Sorry for getting defensive, but it sure looked to me like I was being accused of a whole bunch of stuff I didn't do, in addition to being called a liar and not being able to read. Then there was a bunch of stuff about realism and style that didn't make any sense given my understanding of the terms.

Offline Morgan

Re: Nvm guys.
«Reply #23: July 21, 2009, 04:25:57 PM»

Offline Sebbi

Re: Nvm guys.
«Reply #24: July 21, 2009, 04:55:23 PM»
Quote from: Matter
snip

None of this has anything to do with any other posts you've made before the ones where you made wild accusations. If I was going to say something about you or your sig, I would say it to you and be rather specific about it. I posted something to someone else and you accused me of all kinds of stuff that I simply did not do. I specifically denied all of it. I point out where I specify instances of NOT you. It was not about you; period.

If you wanna keep debating realism and style we can without all this hanging over it.

« Last Edit: July 21, 2009, 04:58:20 PM by Sebbi »