Yeah, that one's a bad example. This one is where I can get what she's going for, but man is it ugly. She follows their directives too well. I bet she's a major major prissy who loves following all the rules.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
they should probably just stick to non-humandesigns
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
What stands out to me first is that the necks are way too long
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
She's clearly aping Steven Universe, which managed to make the neck thing not feel weird. There's a few of these that aren't misses, but other than that it's just so bland.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Bruh, is that Oktobriana?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
LMAO the one of the top right looks like the female version of Brutux from Mutant Busters.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
its for animation, anatomy is forget for shape language
There are things this subhuman understands, like dynamic posing, and things she clearly doesn't, like what makes a character look good, how human necks work, how to draw a head that isn't in 3/4ths perspective, human expressions, when to stylize and when not to.
I remember someone posted her student film and it was painfully obvious that Rory picked up some surface level ideas about simplification and stylization and strong character silhouettes and never actually tried to learn anything beyond that. So everything she draws is triangles and squares. Big blocky shapes that are supposed to look distinct, but they just look dumb.
I can't imagine any of these designs or this kind of art style being used for anything. This is someone copying what she assumed to be what industry artists are supposed to do; prove you can draw big eye-catching character designs. Show you can draw poses and hands. And that's it. There's no storytelling. There's no dynamism. There's no interesting hook or greater artistic vision. No concept art. It's just "I'm a homosexual who can sorta draw. Here's some drag queens and some lizards or whatever. Give me a job."
There's something uncanny in Rory's art that I can't fully pinpoint. You can see she follows certain cues from a bunch of 2010s popular cartoons, but mashes them into something that's neither visually attractive or consistent. You can see the bits she takes from She-Ra, Steven Universe and other cartoons; but they really don't work well together.
The gators however, look decent and I can easily see them as villainous characters in some older cartoon.
>Couldn’t take criticism from art teachers >She thought she was best artist in her age group >Shit on anyone who disagreed with her ideology >atheist who hates Christianity >kind of awkward, stuttered alot but at the same time was mean as frick >Most couldn’t tell she was a boy or girl
She had issues, but she still had moments of being nice. Which is why still had a bunch of friends despite being a huge butthole.
Come on, tell us more. What did she do when confronted? What are some weird things she said about her schizo belief of her own superiority? This is the kind of thing everybody wants to know, because even if they don't know the chick they know the art.
I won’t give out anymore. While yes, she had serious issues, she still could be a forgiving and nice person. Just a misguided teen who wasn’t raised properly. She regrets everything that happened and moved on.
>"Guys I knew the artist IRL." >"OMG GIVE US SOME DIRT." >gives a list of very generic shit you could apply to any artist and isn't interesting >"Okay give us some more." >"Sorry but no."
Another Cinemaphile LARPer I guess.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
It isn’t sadly. She was actually like this. Giving out too much might expose my identity. I’m being very careful here.
’t take criticism from art teachers
This is the most interesting thing in the post really. People make it out as if CalArts teachers are forcing these people to draw this way, when it's more like the place is a honey trap for people who are already pretentious.
Both are good. The artist clearly prioritized form and readability over tryhard zine aesthetics that take too long and don't actually impress that many people. Besides, being a twitter artist trying to get noticed means being able to do lots of immediately appealing art that catches the eye in a shorter amount of time. Scratching out pics in the style on the left takes too long and no one cares. Quickly dooling in the style on the right gets instant gratification.
People need to stop pretending they care so much about artists while being totally unwilling to reward them for anything but coomer art. Pretentious snobs don't tip. Coomers will fork over their life savings for a "thicc" fursona pic.
>People need to stop pretending they care so much about artists while being totally unwilling to reward them for anything but coomer art.
Absolutely agree. Social media and AI have made people's attention spans even shorter. I had an unintelligible commission request on DA years ago about "reality warping" or some depraved shit that me get out of the game.
t. failed webcomic guy turned coomer artist who mostly stopped posting WIPs on Twitter/Insta and just does ongoing projects at home. No one will see anything finished until it's basically ready to publish
You're right about the reasons artists switch to pornbait but to act as if the left is somehow worse because it isn't instantly gratifying is moronic.
We're seeing the actual real life decline in people's mental states because more and more kids as young as 5 are being gifted iPads with unlimited internet access while being boarded in their houses because mommy thinks everyone will get her kid.
>but to act as if the left is somehow worse because it isn't instantly gratifying is moronic.
First sentence. >Both are good.
No one said it's worse, just that it's more effort and no one actually appreciates it as much as they pretend they do. When it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, or even just rewarding or encouraging the artstyle that they insist looks better, they do jack shit and instead sit in the corner and seethe about ipad babies and furgays ruining things. Saying you like the smoother, quicker coomer art is seen as a moral failing, because it's seen as uncultured or tasteless to say you like something that's made to be appealing accoring to people who don't even like the artist or what they draw in the first place.
Drawing more sketchy art isn't going to make ipad babies stop being moronic and it's not going and more high effort fursona art isn't going to undo cultural decay, so stop pretending like you have anything resembling a coherent point.
>We're seeing the actual real life decline in people's mental states because more and more kids as young as 5 are being gifted iPads with unlimited internet access while being boarded in their houses because mommy thinks everyone will get her kid.
This is literally modern day equivalent of that whole "TV/Video games rots your brains!" spiel helicopter boomers used to spout ages ago.
>"TV/Video games rots your brains!" spiel helicopter boomers used to spout ages ago.
It did. You can tell by just how stupid the average movie has gotten. You don't see thrillers or dramas for adults the way you used to.
>This is literally modern day equivalent of that whole "TV/Video games rots your brains!" spiel helicopter boomers used to spout ages ago.
The fact that there are still people in this day and age shitting and pissing their pants over that claim when the idea of being terminally online is increasingly being associated with mental illness makes me think the boomers were right.
It actually is bad, having access online as a kid is a whole different beast than tv.
I feel that boomers complaining about it rotting kid's brains tended to be the types to leave their kids in front of the TV and then complain about a self made problem, same with games and complaining when their kid doesn't want do anything else.
There are numerous studies that have concluded that excessive screen time is harmful to children's mental health. Here's a meta-analysis of 50 of them.
https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-023-01166-7
This is a good analysis. In a way it reminds me of what Jack Kirby said about taking a painting class and quitting it because he didn't want to preen over a masterpiece for weeks, he wanted to get work done.
Do they have a Patreon or something like that because I guarantee that's a big reason why. I've said it in regards to other things in that while on its face the Patreon type of model seems good it winds up fricking with artists or writers or whoever because they're forced to shit things out quickly so the income doesn't dry up and change things to appeal to a growing audience which leads to an overall deterioration in quality since it's not important, merely getting stuff out is.
I don't think Puppychan had a Patreon. She was a mentally ill kid on twitter who got immensely popular and suffered severe developmental consequences from that. It's a whole rabbit hole.
>art regression
I don't feel this is really regression, because the same fundamentals are present in each, arguably better in the second one. It's just a bad style choice, and I'd bet the artist could redraw picture 1 in the original style and have it still look better. Real regression is when an artist seemingly forgets how to draw, where drawings go from solid to flat and lifeless.
John K didn't even come up with this usage of the term moron, quit commenting like this to prepare your industry career (while people are too busy paying attention to Indies)
>He tries to apologize when Seinfeld was on Letterman. >The audience couldn't take him seriously and kept laughing.
I've never seen anything straddle the line between sad and hilarious that close.
He just went full gooner. I've seen plenty of artists that drew normally shift into grotesque aberrations because instead of lightly dusting their art with their awful fetishes they decided to go full into it.
It's not just the education, it's the culture. Artists create this insane cult-like culture where a lot of the programming that keeps us decent is undone. It's like a devolution into some kind of child-like state of pretend and overimagination.
Both feed into each other. Artists in the West always flock to the "left" side because they feel "stifled" by the rules of civilization. On the one hand, you'll get nice works of art. On the other hand, you'll get mounds of shit that will be pushed by the "culture" as art.
A consultation company that big game companies pay to tell them how to appeal to minority markets. Recently people have decided they're somehow responsible for every single thing that Cinemaphile doesn't like about videogames because distilling things to moronic, simplistic conspiracies is fun
Some idiots who didn't like that people didn't want to buy the games they had a hand in making, so they started a campaign to try and get them banned from steam, which just lead to people digging up dirt on them, and they ended up looking like even bigger clowns.
No no no, there's a very intentional design philosophy that led to her art, her art was just an embarrassment to that philosophy. You can't escape every bad outcome by calling names like a child
I wish I had the image but an animator talked about how art school (and really Western education in general) for the last couple of decades has let people who put the least amount of effort in succeed despite there poor skills. Most artists who come out of art school really don't know how to draw. Frick, most of them can barely draw a cartoon character (and I mean one that doesn't have big eyes and a stick body.) like shit back in the day most boomers thought the loony tunes and old Disney cartoons weren't art, and now they all look classical compared to the shit you see today.
>and really Western education in general
Eastern education probably isn't much better considering how much CGI is used for things the older generations had little-no issue drawing by hand, like mechs and cars.
I swear look at any anime movie that came out from 1980 too 2000, then compare those films to an anime movie that came out from 2010 too now. Its night and day. The modern anime artsyle is also just much worse then it was 20 years ago. Every anime manga and animation has the same anime art style. The big overly shiny glossy eyes, with the same face molds, with the same faces in general really. It's the eastern version of the cal arts style.
Well yeah I know it's a bit silly to say all of it is samie, but unfortunately, majority of the most popular works of anime and manga are from samie cookie cutter molded genres that don't really branch out and stick too there tropes. Infact, I'm gonna say this right now. If you have watched one shonen, congrats, you have watched them all.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>but unfortunately, majority of the most popular works of anime and manga are from samie cookie cutter molded genres that don't really branch out and stick too there tropes
Yes, this is how genre fiction works. Also old anime suffered from it a lot as well, with most action ovas being indistinguishable from one to another. >Infact, I'm gonna say this right now. If you have watched one shonen, congrats, you have watched them all.
I've finished a shounen recently, Souboutei Kowasubeshi , that had a pretty interesting approach regarding its themes, mainly art and the relation between art and the artist so I disagree, even if I agree that battle shounen is maybe the most stale anime/manga genre.
Just like there's still plenty of "unique stuff" in modern western animation. It's just that trying to find those few standouts are like trying to find real diamond nuggets in a huge river of sewage, and very few have the patience to actually do that. Those people, I find worthy of praise.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Just like there's still plenty of "unique stuff" in modern western animation
I don't want unique in western animation at this point, at least not as a priority. I still appreciate it very much, but solving basic execution problems should come first. There's not enough skill, polish, or ability to translate stuff onto screen. The most wonderful story idea in the world doesn't matter when one has a 50-word vocabulary. That's where I see western animation at right now.
For me, the entire CalArts-style debate isn't really about style or design. It's an entire decade and a half of poorly crafted animation, during which time this aesthetic happens to be in vogue. Are the two things related? Sure. But then I see Japanese or French animators doing really wonderful and sophisticated things with the same designs. We should at least have that.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I still appreciate it very much, but solving basic execution problems should come first. There's not enough skill, polish, or ability to translate stuff onto screen. The most wonderful story idea in the world doesn't matter when one has a 50-word vocabulary.
That is accurate of the animation industry in general right now, not just the western half of things. So much good ideas, but not enough skill or polish to bring them to their fullest potential.
>but unfortunately, majority of the most popular works of anime and manga are from samie cookie cutter molded genres that don't really branch out and stick too there tropes
Yes, this is how genre fiction works. Also old anime suffered from it a lot as well, with most action ovas being indistinguishable from one to another. >Infact, I'm gonna say this right now. If you have watched one shonen, congrats, you have watched them all.
I've finished a shounen recently, Souboutei Kowasubeshi , that had a pretty interesting approach regarding its themes, mainly art and the relation between art and the artist so I disagree, even if I agree that battle shounen is maybe the most stale anime/manga genre.
>Also old anime suffered from it a lot as well, with most action ovas being indistinguishable from one to another.
Sure, though the thing is there were just as many works that covered a wide variety of subjects in different styles to help balance things out a bit. Like, as much as there's a similarity with things like M.D. Geist and say, Battle Royal High School in terms of style and edge, there's also stark difference between other works like California Crisis and Noel's Fantastic Trip.
This is because those tools are available, a lot of manga artists would just use straight up black and white photos of cars in manga. If it was viable for animators in the 70's-90's to just trace CGI models they would have.
>considering how much CGI is used for things the older generations had little-no issue drawing by hand, like mechs and cars.
But...that's also true in the west.
No. Even in the old pre-CGI days the west had huge issues trying to draw mechs n' stuff without it looking awkward (see: Gobots and He-Man), so we had to rotoscope cardboard models in order for it to actually look half decent, and even then that was pretty much a relative LUXURY the film studios had access to. The fact the Japs managed to draw/animate that shit all by hand, and make it look decent (at least 90% of the time) truly made it the one aspect they really served our asses to us on a silver platter at.
This is the terminal stage of universities being run like businesses with a customer service mentality. Can't be too hard or else you'll turn off the rich kids and their prospective donor parents from paying. Idea guys are welcome and get an ego hand job so long as they keep the cash flowing. That line about decorating themselves as living works of art really captures the lazy narcissism of people who are in love with the idea of being an artist but don't care for, if not outright hate, the process.
This is an unfortunate reality that majority of millennials and gen Z are quite frankly, talentless, unimaginative, unambitious, selfish children disguised as adults. I think at this point, we can all accept that these two generations have infantilized themselves so much that they act like children. Yet despite all of that, they hold these lofty dramas of becoming (vaguely, with no actual specifics)an "artist". Not because they really want to tell stories, too create something beautiful that will outlive them, or to simply make something that people will enjoy, they only want too become an artist because they think it will be easy. Because they have zero to none grit or will too do anything else in life that takes effort. So when they realize they need to actually try too become a good artist, they fold, because they are simply too weak and childish too put real energy into anything. Because of that, art schools pump out talentless hacks that don't make anything interesting, good, or even funny bad. They just make slop. They'll splash some paint on a white wall, write words on a toilet, paint a bunch of lines and shapes, and have the gull to label it art. Even if they do make something "good", it's really only because it's taking "inspiration" from other, much better pieces of media/art.
You think European universities are turning out skilled artists, then? No, they aren't, because the problem is also highly ideological, as the text plainly says. Classic skills became unfashionable, which is a process that started after WWI with the rise of modern art. This is also where art became politically skewed, as the big names in the rising modern art scene were overwhelmingly communist. one of Pablo Picasso's less known pieces is literally North Korean propaganda. These universities also attract a specific type of person. I used to work next to one, and I'd often be able to tell if someone walking the same way was going to the university just by looks.
This is an unfortunate reality that majority of millennials and gen Z are quite frankly, talentless, unimaginative, unambitious, selfish children disguised as adults. I think at this point, we can all accept that these two generations have infantilized themselves so much that they act like children. Yet despite all of that, they hold these lofty dramas of becoming (vaguely, with no actual specifics)an "artist". Not because they really want to tell stories, too create something beautiful that will outlive them, or to simply make something that people will enjoy, they only want too become an artist because they think it will be easy. Because they have zero to none grit or will too do anything else in life that takes effort. So when they realize they need to actually try too become a good artist, they fold, because they are simply too weak and childish too put real energy into anything. Because of that, art schools pump out talentless hacks that don't make anything interesting, good, or even funny bad. They just make slop. They'll splash some paint on a white wall, write words on a toilet, paint a bunch of lines and shapes, and have the gull to label it art. Even if they do make something "good", it's really only because it's taking "inspiration" from other, much better pieces of media/art.
Same goes for you. You're just b***hing about millennials like a boomer, but the whole splashing paint onto something goes back to the 40's with Jackson Pollock.
This is the terminal stage of universities being ran by subversives and leftists who actively despise beauty and want to deconstruct all forms of creation that predate them. Modern art has been a plague since the end of the first world war, it was a major schism in the art world between the people who wanted to continue the romantic and realist movements of the Victorian and Edwardian, and the people who wanted to move in the abstract direction. homosexuals like Salvador Dali and Hugo Ball won out and now nobody wants to learn how to paint anymore and they think Van Gogh is the pinnacle of artistic merit.
Take your moaning about the "evils of profitseeking" back to
I'm generally against capitalism, but you're right, the other guy can't blame "Zoomers" or "Capitalism" for destruction of traditional art practice, it's surprisingly one of the few times that a movement no matter how moronic went through and ended up fricking shit up.
I mean you look at Futurism and Italian Fascist art and Soviet Realism, and I wouldn't call "modern art" (inherently) leftist, but it certainly is subversive and was clearly angry at classical art if you look at art history, the first wave like Manet hated their academic art teachers, and photos just mindbroke what little sanity was left among the generations of artists--
And ironically we're back to square one, even before ai you could make "abstract art" in Photoshop in 20 minutes that would take some goober 4-20 hours to make on oil on canvas.
All that "textural" work, putting in glass into paint, making large Ricther machines that spread paint in "creative ways" (whatever that meant), t'was all for nothing because every time painting made a new image then photo artists rapidly managed to copy them with ease.
I'm sure someone will come in and say "Tax evasion" and sure, but in general capitalism contributed less to this shit heap, it's more to do with artists in general being unable to cope with how to move on in the face of new technologies without completely discarding old forms of painting and (now) animation since everything is done digitally, even Richard Williams probably had to get help and learn to edit his drawings through a digital editing program.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
i never could understad this mentality from artists, this attitude that "oh no technologies have made the process of generating and copying imagestrivial and instantaneous, thus the value of art has been diminished and we must now explore new radicals ways of making art"
it puts far too much value on uniqueness and effort, which to me is missing the point, my two main drivers for creating art is that i enjoy the process itself, i like the work of it, and because i think the end result is pretty (or engaging or stimulating or interesting to look at or what have you). and with this i can spend days drawing a silly little animation frame by frame even though there are technologies that would allow me to do it in minutes and even if its something ive seen a thousand times before i still like looking at it because it looks nice, much like the 500th chocolate cookie i ate still tastes as good as the first
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
i will say though a part of me does understand artists who go into animation and their style "devolves" into very blocky simple geometric shapes, when doing animation you dont want hazbin-tier overcluttered complex designs you want something simple, clear, with a strong silouette that you can decompose into shapes for ease of animation
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>overcluttered complex designs you want something simple
Not commenting on Hazbin specifically, but "complex" and "simple" are subjective standards that vary with the ability of the artists.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
i mean, sure if you are a veteran who is highly talented you can probably animate whatever the frick you want but those are hard to come by, if you are starting and you want your project to be financed (which means you have to sell it as something that wont cost a lot to do) you do kind of have to simplify a bit. obviously the examples we are making fun of here are too far or just not aesthetically appealing but the point stands
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
This is cute. ^_^
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
thanks! <3
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
God damn. Hot.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>tfw there's no monster sharp tooth gf that will tear into my flesh, thus eating me alive and then regenerate me back to perfect health so she can keep me around not only as a source of semen, but also sustenance.
Why even live?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>but those are hard to come by
That's the result of the industry not valuing veterans and expertise, incentivizing bloat rather than capability, and the imbalance in budgeting that favors writers, actors, and producers far above animators. I don't disagree with you that it's tough, but this is all a consequence of the industry's own actions and policies, and you cannot justify this by saying "this is just where the standards are now." You, as in western animators collectively, are being out-competed. You're losing market share and mind share. Your point doesn't stand. It shouldn't stand. The market is saying "we want character designs like Hazbin" by making it the success that it is. You should be meeting the market demands, not asking the market to dumb down to what you're comfortable with.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
when i say "hard to come by>" i dont mean "takes time and money to train" i mean "genuine irreproducible genius that comes three or four times in a generation.
i agree that its due to industry incentives but i think even those incentives being well aligned could only do so much. most artists are going to fall on the bell curve of "sort of mediocre" to "competent enough".
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I feel you're making a ridiculous assertion. First, the majority of animators are not geniuses, and they don't need to be. Second, the talent pool hasn't shrunk. What has shrunk is the *trained* talent pool, which is a direct result of industry priorities.
That neatly dovetails back to the subject of the thread. It is the job of educational institutions like CalArts to properly train the next generation and arm them with technical skills. To be polite about it, they've been lacking.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
We need three times the number of training schools we have, and at least twice the teachers. Nobody's willing to put money into the next generation, though.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>We need three times the number of training schools we have
We do not. We definitely do not need more of CatArt's ilk, or teachers with no real world experience. What we need is vocational training at the studios (which was the original purpose of CalArts), plus free market wages that allows pay to scale up and down as needed. This is the only way to get jobs back, which means companies would be incentivized to keep experienced people on to train incoming animators.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
well no, all im saying is that you need really nice, detailed, character designs that arent easily breakable into geometric shapes done fast (and thus cheaper) you need a level of talent that, by pure statistics and sturgeons law you are not going to get very often.
and dont get me wrong, i would love it if most if not all animations were lavishly animated like the thief and the cobbler or roger rabbit but not every car can be gilded in gold.
im not saying this is an excuse for shitty art like we see very often either. im just saying i understand how the system ends up where we are at right now
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well it wasn't just that, it was a combination of the following factors >Lack of portraiture opportunities after the cameras creation >Need to hop on trends driven by the market >Resentment towards the Academy.
The Academy in France the birthplace of art, for what it's worth, did kind of have sticks up their asses, they were not wrong, I mean Cabanel got rejected from the Paris Salon, the guy who made the angel painting zoomers love, but that isn't why Manet and the rest after him chose to go against them, we KNOW that his teacher and him didn't get along.
At that point it was less about making subtle subliminal messages with hidden "Frick you"'s in the background to the "man" (be it the church or the academy) but now it was more about open burning down of the past and it began because one guy couldn't cope with his own artistic inability.
That said after that with the camera and everything that came after and he was the most recent antagonizer, then everyone chose to follow modern art.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
No, modern art is inherently leftist because most of the big names in it were. There's always been a stark difference between Soviet communists and the Western communists who thought Soviet communists were their buddies. Western communists who moved to the Soviet Union even ended up in gulags in droves during Stalinism, where they were discriminated for being dirty foreigners. The fact that it was subversive is why the Soviets were more than happy to endorse someone like Picasso, while banning anything similar in their own country. WWI itself was also a massive boost for the entire thing, as many of the artists involved felt incredibly disillusioned with the world because of it. And those that were communists during WWI were no doubt also disillusioned that the revolution didn't go global. Ironically, it's not like capitalism gets off the hook, though. One reason these artists proliferated is the fact that many of them had wealthy supporters. Picasso came from wealth himself (illegitimate child of a wealthy dude).
As for photography, perhaps it was a big blow, but I don't understand why none of them looked back at previous artists and realized that many of them never depicted reality in the first place. Well, maybe Dali did.
>look at the site of Slade now >exactly as described >there's one "piece" that's just a picture of a Henry vacuum, but with the artist's name on it >another that's just a picture of the residence permit of the "artist" (with an apparently important number blocked off, can't take risks for art after all) >be absolutely flabbergasted that there are actually two normal, skilled works of art
Just imagine being the person doing a pain-staking oil on wood painting in a class where taking a picture of a random thing from your wallet is considered to be on an equal level.
>Think of all the Renaissance artists. Who painted some of the most grand, haunting, biblical, and larger then life works of art that still captivate everyone who sees there wonders.... >Frick those guys, I can just paint one straight line across a white canvas and I'm just as good as them.
>Think of some of the great animators who worked on fantasia, who brilliantly brought classical music to life with some of the most stunning works of animation of all time..... >Frick you, my character design has big bug eyes, that same smile you saw (and still see) in every 2010s cartoon, and also I gave them big thighs so other shitty artists can make porn of them.
I went to the Kröller-Müller museum in the Netherlands last December. It's got the second largest collection of van Gogh paintings in the world, and as you can imagine there's a lot of beautiful paintings from both van Gogh as well as other impressionist and post-impressionist painters from the same era. Those works, with their striking colors and serene landscapes, were genuinely moving. I had to fight to stop myself from crying. Then I got to the modern art section and it was literally just a bunch of dirt piles on the ground. Not real dirt, plastic molds of dirt piles. It just looked like a kid's messy room.
I can not even fathom the arrogance you must have to place that in the same building as one of the world's most recognizable and celebrated artists and think "yeah, this belongs to be in the same museum". It's genuinely baffling to me.
>But with focus on hyperrealism
What a shame that just like how everyone posted that page, and cut off the rest at "Neither do we." It seems no one else listened to what Richard had to say regarding this part.
Too bad, enjoy your hyperrealism that an ai filter can do for free and the average person will be too stupid to appreciate.
It's not calarts this time, we've seen reports from Rory's classmates and even they say their art was weird and the fetishization of blacks and trans was off putting.
Shane's style works for what he's doing. It's not for everyone but it's both functional and memorable. I do wish he would post more of his doodles though. It's interesting to see the difference between them and his colored work.
It's not even calarts, it was just literally oversimplification of the said subject to make less time consuming on one piece. It doesn't work because Rory literally couldn't fathom that they weren't really that woke enough. It was hollow. Because the moment when you make a black character into a fricking fish, I don't care whatever your beliefs are. That's pretty fricking racist.
I don't think the OP artist is like this because she draws everyone as an inhuman freak, but the idea that some people have gotten so brainwashed by both diversity for its own sake and destroying conventional beauty standards that they're incapable of drawing an attractive minority is just fricking hysterical
The "I'm not racist when I'm horny" meme can't apply to inhuman lump creatures
I think the accusations of racism are overblown, and a typical example of the far left always looking for shit to accuse people of. They were right about the trans fetishization, don't get me wrong. But she drew all those characters the same, and that infamous Kylo Ren piece is practically identical to Finn. Beady eyes, vacuous expression, huge jaw and lips. Her intent clearly wasn't racism, and it's just her terrible style. It's the style that was always the problem, and the fact that Tumblr and Twitter went off on her because of everything but the style highlights the problem right there.
Shortstack Puerto Rican Tony Stark is not a style complaint, it's this moron's insistence on representation as the central aspect of design that continues through today people object to
Before CA they had an interesting, even appealing style but schizophrenia has taken over
its more that, you have to come to terms with black people can only be depicted as boring as possible or else it can come off racist to actual allies, or opposition who likes to point out "hypocrisy"
where white people can have all the fun caricatures, when you draw black people you're under a microscope
>Why put so much effort into something when consumers are just as receptive to shitty content.,
Close, it's not JUST AS receptive. It's MORE receptive, the metagame for being a successful online artist rewards garbage because the people who actually spend money and share art have garbage taste. You can make the most cultured high quality art and it doesn't mean shit if the people praising it don't sub to your patreon or buy your prints or share your work.
If people want art to improve they need to start actually rewarding 'good' art and cease rewarding 'bad' art. As it stands the people complaining need to either put up or shut up.
Exactly. Once we stop paying artist for shitty content, they'll either improve there craft too meet higher standards, or they'll give up. Leaving room for new artist too take there place.
Is there some sort of calarts to inflation fetishist pipeline I'm unaware of? Or do they need to make all their characters look like chubby sausage people
as the leading school for the industry people will naturally source trends in the industry to them
the problem with this it discounts forces outside the control of artists
for one, executives always want to copy what's popular
I just think of CalArts as shorthand for any overused, low-effort, derivative trends in design. Which means that for every era of animation, there will always be "CalArts" shows, regardless of what that collection of traits may be. It just needs to be endemic.
>People shit on CalArts because they produced Pen Ward, Alex Hirsch and Matt Braly while forgetting that Genndy, McCracken and Steve Hillenburg were also CalArts alumni
That picture must be 10 years old by now, get new material
When it stops being true, it'll stop being posted gay
>I will keep posting the same bait/image because it what I base my personality on
t. artist in the pic
If it’s true why haven’t you found more examples
>When it stops being true, i
the artist in question isn't even on the internet anymore
She's so infamous that she operates under a pseudonym and different last name.
/thread
OP just wants a quick way to fit in, many such cases
What does the artist's stuff look like now?
Same, but the artist devolved into pure fetish shit. So the images on the right are what turn her on.
It's worse than I thought. You can never trust people who want to frick lizards.
that looks really good
Yeah, that one's a bad example. This one is where I can get what she's going for, but man is it ugly. She follows their directives too well. I bet she's a major major prissy who loves following all the rules.
they should probably just stick to non-humandesigns
What stands out to me first is that the necks are way too long
She's clearly aping Steven Universe, which managed to make the neck thing not feel weird. There's a few of these that aren't misses, but other than that it's just so bland.
Bruh, is that Oktobriana?
LMAO the one of the top right looks like the female version of Brutux from Mutant Busters.
its for animation, anatomy is forget for shape language
https://www.roryrr.com/character-design
There are things this subhuman understands, like dynamic posing, and things she clearly doesn't, like what makes a character look good, how human necks work, how to draw a head that isn't in 3/4ths perspective, human expressions, when to stylize and when not to.
I remember someone posted her student film and it was painfully obvious that Rory picked up some surface level ideas about simplification and stylization and strong character silhouettes and never actually tried to learn anything beyond that. So everything she draws is triangles and squares. Big blocky shapes that are supposed to look distinct, but they just look dumb.
a lot better, in the op left is kind of a bland face, right is pushing things WAY to far, but their current portfolio is a nice balance
no draws seem to have this weird misunderstanding that they think an artist's style is something they can't control
I can't imagine any of these designs or this kind of art style being used for anything. This is someone copying what she assumed to be what industry artists are supposed to do; prove you can draw big eye-catching character designs. Show you can draw poses and hands. And that's it. There's no storytelling. There's no dynamism. There's no interesting hook or greater artistic vision. No concept art. It's just "I'm a homosexual who can sorta draw. Here's some drag queens and some lizards or whatever. Give me a job."
not all art related jobs are there to be a designer, especially animation
Name one thing you think you imagine this art style would work for.
Just boarder work, like I mentioned. Nothing else.
Kinda like Kyle Carrozza.
>like Kyle Carozza
You mean posting shit online and not working in the industry at all? That does seem to match her skill level.
That’s an unfortunate last name
Yeah, having to pick between Cummings and Dise is rough. But she's a WASP, so.
Cumming inside??
Looks adequately functional enough for boarder work
those gators/crocs are cute.
>reel/films and figure drawing pages are password protected
gay i wanna look at their animation.
Maybe a nice hacker-anon could get it for us
What a terrible day to have eyes
anyone got that meme where it shows male characters having multiple body types but females having virtually one?
this is why
This is a combination of 'too much' and 'not enough'
The level of detail get spontaneously upped to a specific part of the character and that specific part isn't consistent across any of them
nah, its just that no one likes looking at ugly women
even if they're exaggerated women
From left to right: Marilyn Transon, Wapsi Square, Miss Piggy, Coco Y'all
I cannot believe Rory is a biological female if all >she draws are trannies
There's something uncanny in Rory's art that I can't fully pinpoint. You can see she follows certain cues from a bunch of 2010s popular cartoons, but mashes them into something that's neither visually attractive or consistent. You can see the bits she takes from She-Ra, Steven Universe and other cartoons; but they really don't work well together.
The gators however, look decent and I can easily see them as villainous characters in some older cartoon.
They should stick to drawing nonhumans they're really cute and good at it
Tumblr artists have no taste whatsoever
Never let homosexuals forget how shitty this trend was
>get new material
we will when calarts starts teaching a different artstyle
I personally knew Rdcart. Oh how the mighty has fallen.
Dish some special stories, man.
>Couldn’t take criticism from art teachers
>She thought she was best artist in her age group
>Shit on anyone who disagreed with her ideology
>atheist who hates Christianity
>kind of awkward, stuttered alot but at the same time was mean as frick
>Most couldn’t tell she was a boy or girl
She had issues, but she still had moments of being nice. Which is why still had a bunch of friends despite being a huge butthole.
white or black.
Asking the real questions.
Come on, tell us more. What did she do when confronted? What are some weird things she said about her schizo belief of her own superiority? This is the kind of thing everybody wants to know, because even if they don't know the chick they know the art.
I won’t give out anymore. While yes, she had serious issues, she still could be a forgiving and nice person. Just a misguided teen who wasn’t raised properly. She regrets everything that happened and moved on.
Kinda surprised she didn't do a 180 and go full MAGA.
That would be the exact opposite. That would be her going saner. Left is loony-town.
>"Guys I knew the artist IRL."
>"OMG GIVE US SOME DIRT."
>gives a list of very generic shit you could apply to any artist and isn't interesting
>"Okay give us some more."
>"Sorry but no."
Another Cinemaphile LARPer I guess.
It isn’t sadly. She was actually like this. Giving out too much might expose my identity. I’m being very careful here.
Do you have a picture with him or something?
Sounds like severe mental illness, for sure.
’t take criticism from art teachers
This is the most interesting thing in the post really. People make it out as if CalArts teachers are forcing these people to draw this way, when it's more like the place is a honey trap for people who are already pretentious.
all very generic. probable larp.
spill the tea anon. was he as arrogant as the comments seemed?
I can't imagine going into massive debt to learn how to be shit at art
As a black guy both artstyles are fricking ugly and racist.
What's wrong with left? Asking seriously, I want to know your perspective on it.
big nose
But black people have big noses?
Black person noses are more flat than big.
I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to be Finn from Star Wars. It’s accurate
As another black guy, the left looks fine. I don't know what you're on about.
As another another black guy, I concur.
She is so cute
did this person ever actually land an industry job though?
Completely vanished from the art world.
This is an upgrade.
The original is on the left
Yes.
Right looks more like coomer art than left.
Maybe the porn addiction took over their brain. Sad, many such cases.
>left: actually interesting character/concept
>right: coomer bait
Both are good. The artist clearly prioritized form and readability over tryhard zine aesthetics that take too long and don't actually impress that many people. Besides, being a twitter artist trying to get noticed means being able to do lots of immediately appealing art that catches the eye in a shorter amount of time. Scratching out pics in the style on the left takes too long and no one cares. Quickly dooling in the style on the right gets instant gratification.
People need to stop pretending they care so much about artists while being totally unwilling to reward them for anything but coomer art. Pretentious snobs don't tip. Coomers will fork over their life savings for a "thicc" fursona pic.
quints of truth
moron
moron
moron.
moronic subhuman
moron
yes you are 🙂
All me btw
>People need to stop pretending they care so much about artists while being totally unwilling to reward them for anything but coomer art.
Absolutely agree. Social media and AI have made people's attention spans even shorter. I had an unintelligible commission request on DA years ago about "reality warping" or some depraved shit that me get out of the game.
t. failed webcomic guy turned coomer artist who mostly stopped posting WIPs on Twitter/Insta and just does ongoing projects at home. No one will see anything finished until it's basically ready to publish
*that made me get out of the game
The fact he immediately recognized the picture
i recognize that knot
>bust a nut to furshit drawn by a black supremacist
>shoot up a grocery store full of black people
what did he mean by this
Probably that he wants black people to draw furry porn for him in their own countries.
Despite the internet's collective obsession with lunatics, I dont think its worth trying to understand the mind of an insane person.
Hey, I recognise that style.
You're a /wcg/ poster, aren't you?
>spoiler
Yes, I am the one called troonguy
I didn't think my style was recognizable
You're right about the reasons artists switch to pornbait but to act as if the left is somehow worse because it isn't instantly gratifying is moronic.
We're seeing the actual real life decline in people's mental states because more and more kids as young as 5 are being gifted iPads with unlimited internet access while being boarded in their houses because mommy thinks everyone will get her kid.
>but to act as if the left is somehow worse because it isn't instantly gratifying is moronic.
First sentence.
>Both are good.
No one said it's worse, just that it's more effort and no one actually appreciates it as much as they pretend they do. When it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, or even just rewarding or encouraging the artstyle that they insist looks better, they do jack shit and instead sit in the corner and seethe about ipad babies and furgays ruining things. Saying you like the smoother, quicker coomer art is seen as a moral failing, because it's seen as uncultured or tasteless to say you like something that's made to be appealing accoring to people who don't even like the artist or what they draw in the first place.
Drawing more sketchy art isn't going to make ipad babies stop being moronic and it's not going and more high effort fursona art isn't going to undo cultural decay, so stop pretending like you have anything resembling a coherent point.
>We're seeing the actual real life decline in people's mental states because more and more kids as young as 5 are being gifted iPads with unlimited internet access while being boarded in their houses because mommy thinks everyone will get her kid.
This is literally modern day equivalent of that whole "TV/Video games rots your brains!" spiel helicopter boomers used to spout ages ago.
>"TV/Video games rots your brains!" spiel helicopter boomers used to spout ages ago.
It did. You can tell by just how stupid the average movie has gotten. You don't see thrillers or dramas for adults the way you used to.
>This is literally modern day equivalent of that whole "TV/Video games rots your brains!" spiel helicopter boomers used to spout ages ago.
The fact that there are still people in this day and age shitting and pissing their pants over that claim when the idea of being terminally online is increasingly being associated with mental illness makes me think the boomers were right.
Crazy people act crazy when they're online because they are crazy, not because they are online, Doctor Boomer.
It actually is bad, having access online as a kid is a whole different beast than tv.
I feel that boomers complaining about it rotting kid's brains tended to be the types to leave their kids in front of the TV and then complain about a self made problem, same with games and complaining when their kid doesn't want do anything else.
There are numerous studies that have concluded that excessive screen time is harmful to children's mental health. Here's a meta-analysis of 50 of them.
https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-023-01166-7
This is a good analysis. In a way it reminds me of what Jack Kirby said about taking a painting class and quitting it because he didn't want to preen over a masterpiece for weeks, he wanted to get work done.
they both look like shit
frick you
Quibts wasted. Both designs are god fricking awful and the antithesis of what you described.
>Puppychan’s Art morphed into coomerbait
I’m honestly not surprised, it happens to every single fricking furry artist
Do they have a Patreon or something like that because I guarantee that's a big reason why. I've said it in regards to other things in that while on its face the Patreon type of model seems good it winds up fricking with artists or writers or whoever because they're forced to shit things out quickly so the income doesn't dry up and change things to appeal to a growing audience which leads to an overall deterioration in quality since it's not important, merely getting stuff out is.
I don't think Puppychan had a Patreon. She was a mentally ill kid on twitter who got immensely popular and suffered severe developmental consequences from that. It's a whole rabbit hole.
Thicc.
Bike on the left looks awful and the heads on the right do too.
Cramming as many overwhelming details in everything equals good and don't question it
>the artistic equivalent of buck breaking
Hpw about this, post the white man version of this. What is the equivalent?
What difference would it make it'll still look like shit
>post the white man version of this
k
It's sad this is all gay people have for reprentation.
>Stars an FTM troony
Frick you.
I agree. They deserve better.
like mtf, the IDEA's only good for the tf shit, and even then that depends
Written by a "straight" white male with a pretty egregious fetish for FtM trannies.
Wouldn't even mind that if he didn't make his characters look so fugly.
>a "straight" white male
I've heard he's gay.
I've heard he's a pooner.
He 100% has a troony and aids fetish though.
At least they purged that fricking AIDs and overt trans stuff in the cartoon.
Oh right the top actually has HIV.
>art regression
I don't feel this is really regression, because the same fundamentals are present in each, arguably better in the second one. It's just a bad style choice, and I'd bet the artist could redraw picture 1 in the original style and have it still look better. Real regression is when an artist seemingly forgets how to draw, where drawings go from solid to flat and lifeless.
>the second one isnt lifeless
>because the same fundamentals are present in each, arguably better in the second one.
Objectively untrue.
It doesn't look like her art style worsened, her characters have just devolved back to monkeys
Cal-Arts style isn’t real and John K’s still a pedophile.
John K didn't even come up with this usage of the term moron, quit commenting like this to prepare your industry career (while people are too busy paying attention to Indies)
>He tries to apologize when Seinfeld was on Letterman.
>The audience couldn't take him seriously and kept laughing.
I've never seen anything straddle the line between sad and hilarious that close.
>literally turning into a gayfish
yes
>CIA is sponsoring the meticulous dismantling of black masculinity and the cultural humilitation of black males
Wtf I love the CIA now???
This looks like the cover page of an animorphs book, its just missing a horse on the far right
Sometimes I'm glad I never took an interest in art.
As someone with stretch marks as a reminder to never, ever get fat again
Stretch marks are ugly and I don't like seeing them and people shouldn't be drawing them like they're not ugly
They're permanent anon. The sooner you accept them as a part of you, the better.
I always thought they looked pretty cool, like you fought off a tiger and won or something
It also does not translate well in 2d because of how ugly and distracting it is in a medium designed to simplify visual information.
the right was probably made as a joke
You wish.
No, trans is just their fetish
Left is gay, right is homosexualry.
He just went full gooner. I've seen plenty of artists that drew normally shift into grotesque aberrations because instead of lightly dusting their art with their awful fetishes they decided to go full into it.
It's not just the education, it's the culture. Artists create this insane cult-like culture where a lot of the programming that keeps us decent is undone. It's like a devolution into some kind of child-like state of pretend and overimagination.
Not an artist thing, just a liberal thing
Both feed into each other. Artists in the West always flock to the "left" side because they feel "stifled" by the rules of civilization. On the one hand, you'll get nice works of art. On the other hand, you'll get mounds of shit that will be pushed by the "culture" as art.
No it's just because the "right" side calls art homosexual shit and not a real job.
Jesus these buzzwords people invent to encompass everything they don't like about [medium] are tiresome
Do you have a bone to pick with cartoons? Cal Arts did this
Do you have a bone to pick with videogames? Sweet Baby did this
The second one is true though.
developers aren't obligated to do everything consultants tell them to do. they're consultants, not commissars
They literally threaten them into doing what they want. Something they themselves have openly admitted to doing.
Their CEO said the quiet part out loud in the GDC last year. Blatantly so. You'd have to be willfully ignorant to not notice it.
Well, that cements my feeling of western devs sucking nuts.
Let's be honest, so do most eastern devs. Indie is pretty much the way to go nowadays.
Indie devs suck too. Devs suck in general.
>implying I disagree
atp I'd rather play something made by one Randy McFrickface than any dev team.
I guess your right. At least McFrick Faces game has more personality in it.
Who is Sweet Baby?
A consultation company that big game companies pay to tell them how to appeal to minority markets. Recently people have decided they're somehow responsible for every single thing that Cinemaphile doesn't like about videogames because distilling things to moronic, simplistic conspiracies is fun
Some idiots who didn't like that people didn't want to buy the games they had a hand in making, so they started a campaign to try and get them banned from steam, which just lead to people digging up dirt on them, and they ended up looking like even bigger clowns.
>blaming calarts for someone’s schozophrenia
No no no, there's a very intentional design philosophy that led to her art, her art was just an embarrassment to that philosophy. You can't escape every bad outcome by calling names like a child
Damn, did the artist have a stroke?
the art school experience is a stroke
the left is kind of bland while the right is them trying to stylize their art, pushing things WAAAY to far.
art school is perpetually populated by homosexuals. So yeah it will never end
I wish I had the image but an animator talked about how art school (and really Western education in general) for the last couple of decades has let people who put the least amount of effort in succeed despite there poor skills. Most artists who come out of art school really don't know how to draw. Frick, most of them can barely draw a cartoon character (and I mean one that doesn't have big eyes and a stick body.) like shit back in the day most boomers thought the loony tunes and old Disney cartoons weren't art, and now they all look classical compared to the shit you see today.
>and really Western education in general
Eastern education probably isn't much better considering how much CGI is used for things the older generations had little-no issue drawing by hand, like mechs and cars.
I swear look at any anime movie that came out from 1980 too 2000, then compare those films to an anime movie that came out from 2010 too now. Its night and day. The modern anime artsyle is also just much worse then it was 20 years ago. Every anime manga and animation has the same anime art style. The big overly shiny glossy eyes, with the same face molds, with the same faces in general really. It's the eastern version of the cal arts style.
>Every anime manga and animation has the same anime art style.
This is false. There is plenty of unique stuff.
Well yeah I know it's a bit silly to say all of it is samie, but unfortunately, majority of the most popular works of anime and manga are from samie cookie cutter molded genres that don't really branch out and stick too there tropes. Infact, I'm gonna say this right now. If you have watched one shonen, congrats, you have watched them all.
>but unfortunately, majority of the most popular works of anime and manga are from samie cookie cutter molded genres that don't really branch out and stick too there tropes
Yes, this is how genre fiction works. Also old anime suffered from it a lot as well, with most action ovas being indistinguishable from one to another.
>Infact, I'm gonna say this right now. If you have watched one shonen, congrats, you have watched them all.
I've finished a shounen recently, Souboutei Kowasubeshi , that had a pretty interesting approach regarding its themes, mainly art and the relation between art and the artist so I disagree, even if I agree that battle shounen is maybe the most stale anime/manga genre.
Just like there's still plenty of "unique stuff" in modern western animation. It's just that trying to find those few standouts are like trying to find real diamond nuggets in a huge river of sewage, and very few have the patience to actually do that. Those people, I find worthy of praise.
>Just like there's still plenty of "unique stuff" in modern western animation
I don't want unique in western animation at this point, at least not as a priority. I still appreciate it very much, but solving basic execution problems should come first. There's not enough skill, polish, or ability to translate stuff onto screen. The most wonderful story idea in the world doesn't matter when one has a 50-word vocabulary. That's where I see western animation at right now.
For me, the entire CalArts-style debate isn't really about style or design. It's an entire decade and a half of poorly crafted animation, during which time this aesthetic happens to be in vogue. Are the two things related? Sure. But then I see Japanese or French animators doing really wonderful and sophisticated things with the same designs. We should at least have that.
>I still appreciate it very much, but solving basic execution problems should come first. There's not enough skill, polish, or ability to translate stuff onto screen. The most wonderful story idea in the world doesn't matter when one has a 50-word vocabulary.
That is accurate of the animation industry in general right now, not just the western half of things. So much good ideas, but not enough skill or polish to bring them to their fullest potential.
>Also old anime suffered from it a lot as well, with most action ovas being indistinguishable from one to another.
Sure, though the thing is there were just as many works that covered a wide variety of subjects in different styles to help balance things out a bit. Like, as much as there's a similarity with things like M.D. Geist and say, Battle Royal High School in terms of style and edge, there's also stark difference between other works like California Crisis and Noel's Fantastic Trip.
This is because those tools are available, a lot of manga artists would just use straight up black and white photos of cars in manga. If it was viable for animators in the 70's-90's to just trace CGI models they would have.
>considering how much CGI is used for things the older generations had little-no issue drawing by hand, like mechs and cars.
But...that's also true in the west.
No. Even in the old pre-CGI days the west had huge issues trying to draw mechs n' stuff without it looking awkward (see: Gobots and He-Man), so we had to rotoscope cardboard models in order for it to actually look half decent, and even then that was pretty much a relative LUXURY the film studios had access to. The fact the Japs managed to draw/animate that shit all by hand, and make it look decent (at least 90% of the time) truly made it the one aspect they really served our asses to us on a silver platter at.
Might just be me but that image is pixelated as frick.
This is the terminal stage of universities being run like businesses with a customer service mentality. Can't be too hard or else you'll turn off the rich kids and their prospective donor parents from paying. Idea guys are welcome and get an ego hand job so long as they keep the cash flowing. That line about decorating themselves as living works of art really captures the lazy narcissism of people who are in love with the idea of being an artist but don't care for, if not outright hate, the process.
This is an unfortunate reality that majority of millennials and gen Z are quite frankly, talentless, unimaginative, unambitious, selfish children disguised as adults. I think at this point, we can all accept that these two generations have infantilized themselves so much that they act like children. Yet despite all of that, they hold these lofty dramas of becoming (vaguely, with no actual specifics)an "artist". Not because they really want to tell stories, too create something beautiful that will outlive them, or to simply make something that people will enjoy, they only want too become an artist because they think it will be easy. Because they have zero to none grit or will too do anything else in life that takes effort. So when they realize they need to actually try too become a good artist, they fold, because they are simply too weak and childish too put real energy into anything. Because of that, art schools pump out talentless hacks that don't make anything interesting, good, or even funny bad. They just make slop. They'll splash some paint on a white wall, write words on a toilet, paint a bunch of lines and shapes, and have the gull to label it art. Even if they do make something "good", it's really only because it's taking "inspiration" from other, much better pieces of media/art.
You think European universities are turning out skilled artists, then? No, they aren't, because the problem is also highly ideological, as the text plainly says. Classic skills became unfashionable, which is a process that started after WWI with the rise of modern art. This is also where art became politically skewed, as the big names in the rising modern art scene were overwhelmingly communist. one of Pablo Picasso's less known pieces is literally North Korean propaganda. These universities also attract a specific type of person. I used to work next to one, and I'd often be able to tell if someone walking the same way was going to the university just by looks.
Same goes for you. You're just b***hing about millennials like a boomer, but the whole splashing paint onto something goes back to the 40's with Jackson Pollock.
Wasn't any better in the 40s. And I am b***hing about millennials. Thanks for noticing. I was also talking about gen Z as well ya know?
This is the terminal stage of universities being ran by subversives and leftists who actively despise beauty and want to deconstruct all forms of creation that predate them. Modern art has been a plague since the end of the first world war, it was a major schism in the art world between the people who wanted to continue the romantic and realist movements of the Victorian and Edwardian, and the people who wanted to move in the abstract direction. homosexuals like Salvador Dali and Hugo Ball won out and now nobody wants to learn how to paint anymore and they think Van Gogh is the pinnacle of artistic merit.
Take your moaning about the "evils of profitseeking" back to
I'm generally against capitalism, but you're right, the other guy can't blame "Zoomers" or "Capitalism" for destruction of traditional art practice, it's surprisingly one of the few times that a movement no matter how moronic went through and ended up fricking shit up.
I mean you look at Futurism and Italian Fascist art and Soviet Realism, and I wouldn't call "modern art" (inherently) leftist, but it certainly is subversive and was clearly angry at classical art if you look at art history, the first wave like Manet hated their academic art teachers, and photos just mindbroke what little sanity was left among the generations of artists--
And ironically we're back to square one, even before ai you could make "abstract art" in Photoshop in 20 minutes that would take some goober 4-20 hours to make on oil on canvas.
All that "textural" work, putting in glass into paint, making large Ricther machines that spread paint in "creative ways" (whatever that meant), t'was all for nothing because every time painting made a new image then photo artists rapidly managed to copy them with ease.
I'm sure someone will come in and say "Tax evasion" and sure, but in general capitalism contributed less to this shit heap, it's more to do with artists in general being unable to cope with how to move on in the face of new technologies without completely discarding old forms of painting and (now) animation since everything is done digitally, even Richard Williams probably had to get help and learn to edit his drawings through a digital editing program.
i never could understad this mentality from artists, this attitude that "oh no technologies have made the process of generating and copying imagestrivial and instantaneous, thus the value of art has been diminished and we must now explore new radicals ways of making art"
it puts far too much value on uniqueness and effort, which to me is missing the point, my two main drivers for creating art is that i enjoy the process itself, i like the work of it, and because i think the end result is pretty (or engaging or stimulating or interesting to look at or what have you). and with this i can spend days drawing a silly little animation frame by frame even though there are technologies that would allow me to do it in minutes and even if its something ive seen a thousand times before i still like looking at it because it looks nice, much like the 500th chocolate cookie i ate still tastes as good as the first
i will say though a part of me does understand artists who go into animation and their style "devolves" into very blocky simple geometric shapes, when doing animation you dont want hazbin-tier overcluttered complex designs you want something simple, clear, with a strong silouette that you can decompose into shapes for ease of animation
>overcluttered complex designs you want something simple
Not commenting on Hazbin specifically, but "complex" and "simple" are subjective standards that vary with the ability of the artists.
i mean, sure if you are a veteran who is highly talented you can probably animate whatever the frick you want but those are hard to come by, if you are starting and you want your project to be financed (which means you have to sell it as something that wont cost a lot to do) you do kind of have to simplify a bit. obviously the examples we are making fun of here are too far or just not aesthetically appealing but the point stands
This is cute. ^_^
thanks! <3
God damn. Hot.
>tfw there's no monster sharp tooth gf that will tear into my flesh, thus eating me alive and then regenerate me back to perfect health so she can keep me around not only as a source of semen, but also sustenance.
Why even live?
>but those are hard to come by
That's the result of the industry not valuing veterans and expertise, incentivizing bloat rather than capability, and the imbalance in budgeting that favors writers, actors, and producers far above animators. I don't disagree with you that it's tough, but this is all a consequence of the industry's own actions and policies, and you cannot justify this by saying "this is just where the standards are now." You, as in western animators collectively, are being out-competed. You're losing market share and mind share. Your point doesn't stand. It shouldn't stand. The market is saying "we want character designs like Hazbin" by making it the success that it is. You should be meeting the market demands, not asking the market to dumb down to what you're comfortable with.
when i say "hard to come by>" i dont mean "takes time and money to train" i mean "genuine irreproducible genius that comes three or four times in a generation.
i agree that its due to industry incentives but i think even those incentives being well aligned could only do so much. most artists are going to fall on the bell curve of "sort of mediocre" to "competent enough".
I feel you're making a ridiculous assertion. First, the majority of animators are not geniuses, and they don't need to be. Second, the talent pool hasn't shrunk. What has shrunk is the *trained* talent pool, which is a direct result of industry priorities.
That neatly dovetails back to the subject of the thread. It is the job of educational institutions like CalArts to properly train the next generation and arm them with technical skills. To be polite about it, they've been lacking.
We need three times the number of training schools we have, and at least twice the teachers. Nobody's willing to put money into the next generation, though.
>We need three times the number of training schools we have
We do not. We definitely do not need more of CatArt's ilk, or teachers with no real world experience. What we need is vocational training at the studios (which was the original purpose of CalArts), plus free market wages that allows pay to scale up and down as needed. This is the only way to get jobs back, which means companies would be incentivized to keep experienced people on to train incoming animators.
well no, all im saying is that you need really nice, detailed, character designs that arent easily breakable into geometric shapes done fast (and thus cheaper) you need a level of talent that, by pure statistics and sturgeons law you are not going to get very often.
and dont get me wrong, i would love it if most if not all animations were lavishly animated like the thief and the cobbler or roger rabbit but not every car can be gilded in gold.
im not saying this is an excuse for shitty art like we see very often either. im just saying i understand how the system ends up where we are at right now
Well it wasn't just that, it was a combination of the following factors
>Lack of portraiture opportunities after the cameras creation
>Need to hop on trends driven by the market
>Resentment towards the Academy.
The Academy in France the birthplace of art, for what it's worth, did kind of have sticks up their asses, they were not wrong, I mean Cabanel got rejected from the Paris Salon, the guy who made the angel painting zoomers love, but that isn't why Manet and the rest after him chose to go against them, we KNOW that his teacher and him didn't get along.
At that point it was less about making subtle subliminal messages with hidden "Frick you"'s in the background to the "man" (be it the church or the academy) but now it was more about open burning down of the past and it began because one guy couldn't cope with his own artistic inability.
That said after that with the camera and everything that came after and he was the most recent antagonizer, then everyone chose to follow modern art.
No, modern art is inherently leftist because most of the big names in it were. There's always been a stark difference between Soviet communists and the Western communists who thought Soviet communists were their buddies. Western communists who moved to the Soviet Union even ended up in gulags in droves during Stalinism, where they were discriminated for being dirty foreigners. The fact that it was subversive is why the Soviets were more than happy to endorse someone like Picasso, while banning anything similar in their own country. WWI itself was also a massive boost for the entire thing, as many of the artists involved felt incredibly disillusioned with the world because of it. And those that were communists during WWI were no doubt also disillusioned that the revolution didn't go global. Ironically, it's not like capitalism gets off the hook, though. One reason these artists proliferated is the fact that many of them had wealthy supporters. Picasso came from wealth himself (illegitimate child of a wealthy dude).
As for photography, perhaps it was a big blow, but I don't understand why none of them looked back at previous artists and realized that many of them never depicted reality in the first place. Well, maybe Dali did.
>look at the site of Slade now
>exactly as described
>there's one "piece" that's just a picture of a Henry vacuum, but with the artist's name on it
>another that's just a picture of the residence permit of the "artist" (with an apparently important number blocked off, can't take risks for art after all)
>be absolutely flabbergasted that there are actually two normal, skilled works of art
Just imagine being the person doing a pain-staking oil on wood painting in a class where taking a picture of a random thing from your wallet is considered to be on an equal level.
>Think of all the Renaissance artists. Who painted some of the most grand, haunting, biblical, and larger then life works of art that still captivate everyone who sees there wonders....
>Frick those guys, I can just paint one straight line across a white canvas and I'm just as good as them.
>Think of some of the great animators who worked on fantasia, who brilliantly brought classical music to life with some of the most stunning works of animation of all time.....
>Frick you, my character design has big bug eyes, that same smile you saw (and still see) in every 2010s cartoon, and also I gave them big thighs so other shitty artists can make porn of them.
And they have a YouTube channel, This is art, people!
God please tell me this is some over the top satire?? Please...
I refuse to believe this is genuine.
I went to the Kröller-Müller museum in the Netherlands last December. It's got the second largest collection of van Gogh paintings in the world, and as you can imagine there's a lot of beautiful paintings from both van Gogh as well as other impressionist and post-impressionist painters from the same era. Those works, with their striking colors and serene landscapes, were genuinely moving. I had to fight to stop myself from crying. Then I got to the modern art section and it was literally just a bunch of dirt piles on the ground. Not real dirt, plastic molds of dirt piles. It just looked like a kid's messy room.
I can not even fathom the arrogance you must have to place that in the same building as one of the world's most recognizable and celebrated artists and think "yeah, this belongs to be in the same museum". It's genuinely baffling to me.
Post the rest, homosexual
>But with focus on hyperrealism
What a shame that just like how everyone posted that page, and cut off the rest at "Neither do we." It seems no one else listened to what Richard had to say regarding this part.
Too bad, enjoy your hyperrealism that an ai filter can do for free and the average person will be too stupid to appreciate.
It's not calarts this time, we've seen reports from Rory's classmates and even they say their art was weird and the fetishization of blacks and trans was off putting.
>meanwhile there's shane frost who has had the exact same style for nearly 20 years and somehow made it work through sheer force of will.
Shane's style works for what he's doing. It's not for everyone but it's both functional and memorable. I do wish he would post more of his doodles though. It's interesting to see the difference between them and his colored work.
>Shane frost
That April Fools comic was funny
It's not even calarts, it was just literally oversimplification of the said subject to make less time consuming on one piece. It doesn't work because Rory literally couldn't fathom that they weren't really that woke enough. It was hollow. Because the moment when you make a black character into a fricking fish, I don't care whatever your beliefs are. That's pretty fricking racist.
Horseshoe theory at its finest
I don't think the OP artist is like this because she draws everyone as an inhuman freak, but the idea that some people have gotten so brainwashed by both diversity for its own sake and destroying conventional beauty standards that they're incapable of drawing an attractive minority is just fricking hysterical
The "I'm not racist when I'm horny" meme can't apply to inhuman lump creatures
I think the accusations of racism are overblown, and a typical example of the far left always looking for shit to accuse people of. They were right about the trans fetishization, don't get me wrong. But she drew all those characters the same, and that infamous Kylo Ren piece is practically identical to Finn. Beady eyes, vacuous expression, huge jaw and lips. Her intent clearly wasn't racism, and it's just her terrible style. It's the style that was always the problem, and the fact that Tumblr and Twitter went off on her because of everything but the style highlights the problem right there.
Shortstack Puerto Rican Tony Stark is not a style complaint, it's this moron's insistence on representation as the central aspect of design that continues through today people object to
Before CA they had an interesting, even appealing style but schizophrenia has taken over
Accidental racism is still racism
>It's not about intention it's a litmus test
have a nice day
its more that, you have to come to terms with black people can only be depicted as boring as possible or else it can come off racist to actual allies, or opposition who likes to point out "hypocrisy"
where white people can have all the fun caricatures, when you draw black people you're under a microscope
you don't even know what the words you're saying mean at this point
touch grass pleasse I'm begging you
>touch grass pleasse I'm begging you
Haha, yeah, he should totally do that. And maybe some trees and a log cabin, too. You fricking moron
>Why put so much effort into something when consumers are just as receptive to shitty content.,
Close, it's not JUST AS receptive. It's MORE receptive, the metagame for being a successful online artist rewards garbage because the people who actually spend money and share art have garbage taste. You can make the most cultured high quality art and it doesn't mean shit if the people praising it don't sub to your patreon or buy your prints or share your work.
If people want art to improve they need to start actually rewarding 'good' art and cease rewarding 'bad' art. As it stands the people complaining need to either put up or shut up.
Exactly. Once we stop paying artist for shitty content, they'll either improve there craft too meet higher standards, or they'll give up. Leaving room for new artist too take there place.
Cry more, moron
Is there some sort of calarts to inflation fetishist pipeline I'm unaware of? Or do they need to make all their characters look like chubby sausage people
just doing a youtube search for "Calartst accepted sketchbook" doesn't really give you a clue on what homosexualry they'd produced if they graduate
When did CalArts style come to mean beanmouth and not knockoff Disney like it used to be known as
as the leading school for the industry people will naturally source trends in the industry to them
the problem with this it discounts forces outside the control of artists
for one, executives always want to copy what's popular
I just think of CalArts as shorthand for any overused, low-effort, derivative trends in design. Which means that for every era of animation, there will always be "CalArts" shows, regardless of what that collection of traits may be. It just needs to be endemic.
>People shit on CalArts because they produced Pen Ward, Alex Hirsch and Matt Braly while forgetting that Genndy, McCracken and Steve Hillenburg were also CalArts alumni
Why is taking less time to draw supposed to be an important factor if all the animation is done by Korean sweatshops or flash puppetry?
because the more time it takes the more hours you have to pay your animators, even if your animators are korean sweatshops