trying to find common ground reworking
started some reworking after some critiques from multiple sites, this will take some time though as the consensus is on small things.
a word of warning: in my 20+ years of illustration i have found two types of 'critiquers'
the first is the one you want, the one that helps. they point out things you missed and present it in such a way that make you want to take their advice. these people are easy to spot because you will want to listen to them.
the second is the 'trap': this can be broken into two basic types. the "blow hard", someone who says a lot but knows nothing about what they are talking about, and they do it in a 'i am superior to you' way. simply by taking critiques from multiple unrelated sources can clear out the 'legitimacy' of the blow hard, especially if those other sources are from much better artist and directly contradict the "blow hard"
lastly is the Saboteur. this is the most dangerous person to your growth as an illustrator. they are usually and 'established' artist of moderate success but very insecure with their position (or just bullies for bullying sake). they start with a critique that may be 'correct' but they do it in a bullying condescending way. basically they use language that would get them punched by multiple people if they were not safe behind their computer. the first critique is to get control over you, everything after that is to put you down the wrong path and make sure it is hard for you to recover. if you try to ignore them without blocking them entirely they get their friends to come after you.
so in conclusion don't just listen to what they say but how they say it because intent is part of the critique.
a word of warning: in my 20+ years of illustration i have found two types of 'critiquers'
the first is the one you want, the one that helps. they point out things you missed and present it in such a way that make you want to take their advice. these people are easy to spot because you will want to listen to them.
the second is the 'trap': this can be broken into two basic types. the "blow hard", someone who says a lot but knows nothing about what they are talking about, and they do it in a 'i am superior to you' way. simply by taking critiques from multiple unrelated sources can clear out the 'legitimacy' of the blow hard, especially if those other sources are from much better artist and directly contradict the "blow hard"
lastly is the Saboteur. this is the most dangerous person to your growth as an illustrator. they are usually and 'established' artist of moderate success but very insecure with their position (or just bullies for bullying sake). they start with a critique that may be 'correct' but they do it in a bullying condescending way. basically they use language that would get them punched by multiple people if they were not safe behind their computer. the first critique is to get control over you, everything after that is to put you down the wrong path and make sure it is hard for you to recover. if you try to ignore them without blocking them entirely they get their friends to come after you.
so in conclusion don't just listen to what they say but how they say it because intent is part of the critique.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1000 x 750px
File Size 494.6 kB
That's actually a trap excuse people use to get out of trying to improve. Style comes from the artist's understanding of fundamentals and a conglomoration of their influences and symbol recognition.
For an artist that's happy being stagnant and drawing the same mistakes and/or subjectmatter over and over, saying "That's just my style" is fine.
But for any artist that actually wants to improve, style is the last thing they should give a damn about.
For an artist that's happy being stagnant and drawing the same mistakes and/or subjectmatter over and over, saying "That's just my style" is fine.
But for any artist that actually wants to improve, style is the last thing they should give a damn about.
oh my i seem to not be explaining myself properly. i was never trying to discuss style, i was talking structure. image weight (where does the eye go), color theory, anatomy, proportions, perspective, the rule of third, golden spiral, rule of 75/25 (contrast) light and shadow structure.
allow me to use this image to better illustrate my point
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/13458038/ here is the image before the above changes
here are the GOOD critiques (paraphrased)
add more yellow into her overall pallet because the natural light has that yellowish tint (color theory)
the tree looked flat and did not unify with the characters (perspective and proportions)
intensify the shadows (contrast and light)
and the BAD
the hands are wrong and his skin is 'dead' (but said with words that speak "you are an inferior human being") the reason i know this to be wrong is because i took the same image to several anatomical 'masters' and they completely contradicted the previous statement, thus labeling this bad critique as 'Blow Hard'
allow me to use this image to better illustrate my point
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/13458038/ here is the image before the above changes
here are the GOOD critiques (paraphrased)
add more yellow into her overall pallet because the natural light has that yellowish tint (color theory)
the tree looked flat and did not unify with the characters (perspective and proportions)
intensify the shadows (contrast and light)
and the BAD
the hands are wrong and his skin is 'dead' (but said with words that speak "you are an inferior human being") the reason i know this to be wrong is because i took the same image to several anatomical 'masters' and they completely contradicted the previous statement, thus labeling this bad critique as 'Blow Hard'
oh my i seem to not be explaining myself properly. i was never trying to discuss style, i was talking structure. image weight (where does the eye go), color theory, anatomy, proportions, perspective, the rule of third, golden spiral, rule of 75/25 (contrast) light and shadow structure.
allow me to use this image to better illustrate my point
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/13458038/ here is the image before the above changes
here are the GOOD critiques (paraphrased)
add more yellow into her overall pallet because the natural light has that yellowish tint (color theory)
the tree looked flat and did not unify with the characters (perspective and proportions)
intensify the shadows (contrast and light)
and the BAD
the hands are wrong and his skin is 'dead' (but said with words that speak "you are an inferior human being") the reason i know this to be wrong is because i took the same image to several anatomical 'masters' and they completely contradicted the previous statement, thus labeling this bad critique as 'Blow Hard'
allow me to use this image to better illustrate my point
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/13458038/ here is the image before the above changes
here are the GOOD critiques (paraphrased)
add more yellow into her overall pallet because the natural light has that yellowish tint (color theory)
the tree looked flat and did not unify with the characters (perspective and proportions)
intensify the shadows (contrast and light)
and the BAD
the hands are wrong and his skin is 'dead' (but said with words that speak "you are an inferior human being") the reason i know this to be wrong is because i took the same image to several anatomical 'masters' and they completely contradicted the previous statement, thus labeling this bad critique as 'Blow Hard'
Your explanation was fine and I pretty much agree with all of it. The blowhards are probably the most frustrating and possibly damaging, especially in cases where they get other ignorant people believing them.
I was responding to DigitalDomain123 because what he said tends to come up in many art communities any time the word "critique" is mentioned. Sometimes it's even the artists that pull the "That's just my style" excuse to avoid improvement. Those are usually artists that draw as a means of fishing for asspats rather than a genuine love of the craft though.
I was responding to DigitalDomain123 because what he said tends to come up in many art communities any time the word "critique" is mentioned. Sometimes it's even the artists that pull the "That's just my style" excuse to avoid improvement. Those are usually artists that draw as a means of fishing for asspats rather than a genuine love of the craft though.
I didn't specify which 6 dead languages. Each cube is sold with a different set.
Changing subject, I honestly think this version of the picture is perfect! The bodies are well defined, good colours (and I love the foliage!) The only thing is her tail, which seems a bit less defined than the rest, in particular on comparison to his body. Like vaguely blurred? I'd make the edges a bit sharper (like his hands, maybe).
Changing subject, I honestly think this version of the picture is perfect! The bodies are well defined, good colours (and I love the foliage!) The only thing is her tail, which seems a bit less defined than the rest, in particular on comparison to his body. Like vaguely blurred? I'd make the edges a bit sharper (like his hands, maybe).
no problem, a good rule set to go by
1: it's your opinion regardless of how realistic, popular, successful etc you are
2: something that works, balanced with something that needs improvement
3: negative language like 'hate' 'mediocre' and 'crap' are no go (the only exception to this is when you and the artist know each other well enough that they are assured you have their best interest in mind)
1: it's your opinion regardless of how realistic, popular, successful etc you are
2: something that works, balanced with something that needs improvement
3: negative language like 'hate' 'mediocre' and 'crap' are no go (the only exception to this is when you and the artist know each other well enough that they are assured you have their best interest in mind)
FA+

Comments