Objective beauty exists
Whenever an Artist starts whining about a "lack" of "wacky/cartoony/diverse female character designs", they invariably just mean a lack of:
A. Fat chicks.
B. Ugly chicks.
C. Furry shit.
All you need to do is look at what they praise to see that I'm right.
Objective beauty exists
Anon, we all saw you post this exact comment with that obnoxious Twitter screenshot
We know it's you
Now I'd love to actually talk about beauty or art in cartoons for once, but we all know YOU don't wanna do that, you just wanna winge about moan about internet drama
So kindly suck my dick and leave
I'd love to talk about the concept of beauty actually. People in general need to understand that "character design" is not just a matter of mashing shapes together in ways that look "weird" or "cool".
I agree, but I also think a good character DESIGN is not necessarily a conventionally attractive person, a character can look great without looking fuckable and this is something most people on Cinemaphile don't even get
And yes it does seem like most artists nowadays who go to school just sit through the first "SHAPE THEORY IMPORTANT!" primer course without hearing out the rest and attempt to speedrun good character design by just doodling different shapes, but never understanding what any of it means or how to best utilize it
Also objective beauty exists insofar as 'objectively' itself is inherently subjective, and I think it's inhuman to strive against beauty
That's not to say you cant have a taste for beauty that is unconventional, simply care about form or function more, or are intentionally using aspects that evoke a lack of beauty for some kinda purpose, those are all valid practices. But if you, as a person, seeks uglyness in all walks of life and actively reject beauty like a witch from water, there might actually be something wrong with you
A "buck-toothed geek" can be depicted in many ways without making her fat and/or ugly. She can be cute. Her body can otherwise possess ideal form. She can have a nice shade of red hair.
But if she needs to be ugly, why not depict her as ugly? If the intent is that she's *not* ideal, why make her so, when a design can otherwise be so much more interesting?
I agree that this notion that a character can't be attractive *and* have an interesting design is retarded, but so is the notion that eeeevery character needs to be conventionally attractive
Also, again, you're conflating attractive design with an attractive person
>Also objective beauty exists insofar as 'objectively' itself is inherently subjective
no it is very much objective, beauty standards exist for a reason
But objectivity itself isn't universal
Beauty standards are "objective" in that most of the world, objectively, finds certain things that we evolved to find appealing, appealing- typically things associated with health, fertility or happiness
But at the same time, objectivity itself is just subjectivity with more weight to it, nothing is ever 100% objective because the notion that something, is, is in and of itself and opinion. And likewise believing in an opinion, is holding the notion that something is objective.
again
Beauty standards exist for a reason.
Recognize that a lot of the people complaining about "beauty standards" tend to fall outside them for one reason or another, hence things like the "fat acceptance movement".
meant to reply to
as well
But I'm not saying they don't exist, or that they exist for no reason, you little mong of a man!
See, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually wanna discuss cartoon art, but no I guess people ITT were right, you do just wanna bitch about social identity crap from Twatter
Goddamit
how am I bitching about social identity crap
all I'm saying is what "works" for a male character design does not necessarily "work" for a female character design.
Well no, not within specific traits, it'll look weird if you put a beard on a woman or tits on a man unless the character requires it for whatever archetype they're fullfilling
But generally speaking yes, men and women can both have unattractive traits if those traits still make a good character design, an attractive design doesn't make an attractive person and vice versa, just like how a good character doesn't make a good person and vice versa
I guess it's because, generally speaking, people are willing to tolerate not-conventionally-attractive "lead" females (including the ways they can be not-conventionally-attractive) significantly less than not-conventionally-attractive "lead" males, at least when talking about characters that have humanoid body structures.
If by design you mean "Art style" then I'd just like to add that "muh style" is a meme (skill is what's more important).
Anon, I'm starting to think you don't draw
Wtf do you mean "muh style" do you think it's possible to NOT have a style? You do know that artstyle doesn't just mean "do you draw in calarts or do you draw in animes?" right? It applies to everything from color to form to even how you animate and most of it is imperceivable and hard to control
What the hell do you mean by "style is a meme" fucking articulate yourself you monkey
“Style” has always been a substitute for skill. as bob camp put it in his tips for cartoonists, a good artist is like a session musician who can draw any “style” rather than using “oh that’s just my art style” as an excuse for not being able to draw well
is it too much to ask that instead of “Calarts style” or “tumblr style” or “newgrounds style” people could just learn to draw cartoons that don’t rape your eyeballs
The truest artist never draws in any style at all. He simply faithfully recreates reality.
Yeah, but that type of art belongs in a museum, not in cartoons. If anything, faithfully recreating reality in anywhere other than backgrounds restricts creativity and makes everything seem somewhat redundant.
After all, why see a style-less cartoon that looks realistic when you can just watch a live-action show with real people and get the same type of enjoyment?
>After all, why see a style-less cartoon that looks realistic when you can just watch a live-action show with real people and get the same type of enjoyment?
If it's realistic art style i prefer the ones with fairy tale adaptations
you don't understand what they're sayng at all
Anon... What the hell do you think a cartoon without "style" looks like? Do you also think it's possible to speak without an accent, or type without a font?
I've already explained what I mean in several posts above yours
So you mean people who pretend like the flaws in their art are stylistic choices? I guess fair enough, but you could've articulated it less like an idiot
Yes of course that's the problem, but it's a problem common in beginner artists more
The issue with most cartoons with ugly styles like say, pic rel, isn't that it's one individual coping, it's an intentional approach to what many morons think people 'want'
They're not hiding a lack of skill, they're hiding a lack of care
oh trust me its a lack of skill as well, do you think those artists could draw something like Spumco era Ren & Stimpy?
continued...
when you develop your own "style" it's all the difference in the world between creating your own personal style based around your LIMITATIONS vs. CHOOSING the aspects of your own personal style because you KNOW how to do more than one thing as an artist / cartoonist!
but just to reiterate
When you see enough Golden Age animation you can't deny the level in skill / ability that's been lost today & isn't merely ascribable to "full" vs. "limited" animation, or budgets - They just knew how to draw & animate better, regardless of changes in "art style" or "designs"
John K. recognized this as well
this
Why did you claim to agree with my post while praising John K, who has an obvious and distinctive style and does not faithfully recreate reality at all? You're just another Cinemaphileomer after all. Pathetic.
Post your work, anon, I'd love to take a look at your attempts at beauty 😀
We get it anon, you're a born basic bitch destined to be the target audience of AI generators. No need to write an essay about it ffs
OP’s mom is objectively ugly
I hate the disdain for beauty going on
Not every female character has to be a model, but when absolutely none of them are, I get pretty suspicious
I wish female designs were judged just like male, it's always ether;
>neck beard: "REEE THIS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE FUCKABLE"
>femcel: "REEE THIS CHARACTER IS DEAFENING ME HY BEING SEXY
Agreed. This has deeply annoyed me since I was a teenager. I hate feminist "Disney always uses the same face" complaints and I hate their repackaging on Cinemaphile as anti-CalArts shit. It looks fucking cute. We get it. You hate cute girls and you hate that men like them. Get over yourself and stop trying to make art worse.
10 bucks says OP isn't an artist nor active in any art scene outside of the Twitter """""art community""""" and is basically arguing against retarded shit he vaguely heard 15 year old girls say using halfbaked and poorly informed arguments
Anon you're arguing with a midwit about why designing female characters to be anything other then porn-bait is bad, while said midwit is showing his hand in just how culture war fueled his opinions are
Hop off this thread bro there's no constructive discussions to be had
You're right man, it's late and I should be in bed, but man I really wanted to have a discussion about art and for once I thought someone on this board wanted the same
Still, it's kinda fun listening to this person fumble over themselves trying to convince me of shit they themselves don't understand
Still, you're right, this is my sign to hop off
I bid you and your stupidity adieu, my good retard
May you find your missing chromosome
Anon, I mean this with good intentions...
You're an absolute fucking retard if you thought that anything remotely good can come from a thread with a John k drawn as it's op image lmaooooo
Hey man I don't follow John K much but I thought it was a very good drawing
I don't know how the man makes Cinemaphile REEEEE so hard, I like his art and I think a lot of his opinions are good and correct, but he struggles to implement them himself and a lot of what he made doesn't appeal to me
I don't know why most of the board has some kinda derangement towards him where they either support him unconditionally or shit their pants an go insane whenever he's mentioned although I'm guessing it doesn't ACUALLY have anything to do with John himself, but rather some kinda culture war "us vs them" bullshit
It's mainly his Cinemaphile fanbase is well known for being a bunch of annoying autistic worshipers who act like ten and stimpy is the second coming of Christ
I genuinely don't know what is it about that guy that attracts so much cancerous vile
Ren and stimpy is a really bizarre choice for this whole "objective beauty" exists thing too...
Not OP, but it's actually a good example of a show that tried being ugly but did it well, proving it was a stylistic choice to be ugly rather than a mistake, and that sorta thing does make all the difference in the world
I agree but I'm saying its a weird choice with how the OP in the thread tries to equate ugliness with attractiveness at certain points. I guess the girls in Ren and Stimpy are hot but I don't get how that's a rule that can't be broken to him.
(me)
like... I don't think John K was against drawing ugly female characters or considered it bad design, he just happened to use them to contrast with his ugly male ones most of the time.
Yeah I think OP just saw too many retarded chicks on Twitter drawing fugly girls and getting mad at beauty, so he, like the underage he is expiriencing his first online argumeng, adopted the complete opposite opinion out of spite and now believes female characters should all be sexy and fuckable
One day he might learn that the correct response to idiots and their opinions isn't to oppose them as hard as possible, its not to jump of a cliff if they tell you not to, but rather just disregard them, keep believing what you organically believe in and if they tell you not to jump off a cliff just say "cool, wasn't going to anyway" and continued to ignore em
That's generally a good practice for any advice coming from kids, feminists and government officials
in what way am I jumping off a cliff? I am holding onto my beliefs as well
Anon how old are you? Be honest I won't tell the jan*niez
statistically it's probable that I'm older than you
You type a lot like my ex, who was in fact older than me but also an ESL.
Not OP, but while I don't think all female characters should be sexy and fuckable, I think that the social movement that gets mad at beauty (especially in art/cartooning/etc) is sufficiently powerful that it deserves serious pushback, and it's a mistake to dismiss it as "[a bunch of] retarded chicks on Twitter" when it's a dominant ideology exerting considerable censorious impact on all media production.
this
when was the last time there was a new cartoon with an attractive female character who wasn't black or "plus sized"?
Okay, maybe exaggerating a little there.
You're right, it's a serious industry movement, but in this specific case OP IS from Twitter and I DO think that he, specifically, is just getting angry about Twitter people
I'm not minimizing what's very much a real issue, I'm just insulting Op who I know doesn't see that issue beyond the front porch that is his online front page
I personally don't care for John K girls. I'm all about waifuing Cinemaphile properties, and there are plenty of things about John K as an artist that I respect, but personally I find his girls somewhat unpleasant to look at. He's clearly trying to make them look attractive, which is good, but he's trying too hard, or in the wrong way, or something. It makes me feel like I'm John K's government-assigned psychologist analyzing how his mind works. Like, there's too much John K about John K girls, you know? Ironically, despite people in this thread trying to pose John K as opposed to this phenomenon, I think John K girls look ugly because John K is desperately and pridefully trying to impose his style on them. They look like, you know, beach-style caricatures. Because he's desperate to make everything look exaggeratedly ugly even when he's specifically trying to convey that it's something he'd fuck.
Ironically I actually find Rick And Morty's art style for attractive women quite appealing, even though I could easily imagine someone making similar complaints about it. Oh well! Life's complicated.
I think what's so charming about John K girls IS how extreme and cartoony their designs are
You're right that they look like beachside caricatures but I think it's his intent and he does it well, like every girl is the frumpy girl next door or some bimbo off the beach, but they're all sexy just by virtue or existing
It's a style I'm quite fond of
why are the john k simps like this?
If you are an online cartoonist, there is tremendous pressure to maintain a "style" that will help you stand out from the 1000s of others - but this is a TRAP; the more you try to draw "like yourself" the LESS you will LEARN - & it's a uniquely MODERN trap, because Before social media, u could spend years developing skills & EXPERIMENTING w/ different styles before putting yourself out in public arena w/ comic strip or w/e, where ppl do expect a consistent style - But even then as now Having a good portfolio for animation (and other cartoonist work) still means showing you can do a variety of styles. Let's say you only care about building online following, tho? consider Bill Watterson, would Calvin & Hobbes be so magical if he could've only drawn 1 "style"
This is actually true, you see a lot of young creators now attempt to "find a style" which usually just amounts to them picking one way to draw and never letting go, and again, it's this limited understanding of what a style is, as a series of stock items, a particular way to draw noses or hands or mouths, like it's some kinda dollbuilder game, as opposed to something more general and subconscious and all encompassing
you bitch about culture war stuff but its obvious you yourself are totally hypnotized by them
What? How?
“Art style is a trap”- spumdonor
>Using John K to lecture on how to draw women.
You can't make this shit up.
what's wrong with how John drew women?
Wait....
Is this Guy?
I don't wanna be the 'every weirdo on Cinemaphile is Guy' guy, but I'm starting to observe similarities, and no, it's not just his fixation on John K
looks like spumdonor actually
Who? I don't pay attention to new boardfags
https://twitter.com/spumdonor
Huh, I never knew about this guy but scrolling through his page it's actually kinda funny, and he says a lotta things right but tbf so does Guy, being correct and being a lunatic aren't mutually exclusive, if anything I find they often come together
Are we sure that's Op? How weird
They're not friends sadly
I think they'd make good friends, they should be
I genuinely do feel bad for Guy because he clearly knows what he's passionate about and obviously held very informed opinions before his accident, it's a shame he literally went insane as a result of brain damage and I hope he can become motivated for greater things than just bitching on Cinemaphile all day
what accident? I always assumed he was just always crazy
He had some kinda brain blast and suffered a stroke
He used to draw kinda good. He had a basic understanding of drawing. But he went schizo after the "Incident"
The incident i know he broke his hand when did that happen again maybe last year or two...
he straight up just does AI art and brags about his prooompting abilities now. Have you seen his most recent webcomic updates?
That sucks. He has all this knowledge to draw like the old guys and meanwhile I'm here trying to learn like a fucking caveman.
>Have you seen his most recent webcomic updates?
Yep I have front row seat notifications and all.
Well then you'd know it's just a bunch of AI shit, and just when it seemed like he was starting to remember how to draw again. Sad!
Spumdonor blocked guy makes me sad I like spumdonor. He needs to teach guy a lesson since spumdonor has an actual family
does spumdonor draw?
he's right on pretty much everything including AI.
I don't know his stance on AI that's a new one
Does he thing its passionless and creatively bankrupt shite made to appeal to mindless consumerist retards, NPCs and lazy CEOs? Cause if not then he's not right
He views it as soulless but recognizes most twitter art and modern industrycucks are worse and therefore its a good thing that it'll make them lose their jerbs
Oh
Well I would never describe it as good but it IS kinds the next step in soulless art, I always said that what we had before might as well be called "AI art" since it's made by people who think and operate like machines anyway, so this is just the future they invited
This also post some images because it's not a literature board thread!
shut up namefag you gave Cinemaphile money
I have no money
Same.
Shit.
>objective beauty exists
Yeah? What are its units?
Yknow for an OP this inflammatory I'm amazed at how coherent and pleasent this thread is
I guess implying you wanna discuss art still filters most of Cinemaphile since most of them don't give a rats ass about anything that isn't drama, politics or coom
Still, can we go back to art discussion and stop going on about local board weirdos? This has become basically a gossip thread
Honestly, a lot of the discussion, civil as it was, was still just about politics with art as a proxy
Not really, the start of the thread and a solid 60% of it consisted of a midwit armchair art critique, with his main point being "I wanna fuck this = good female design" all the while outing himself as a culture war fagot
A civil anon tried to talk some sense into him but ended up wasting his time and the fucked off, after that it's just devolved to shitting on John k's weird cultish fans and their autism
Overall it's just an averagely bad Cinemaphile thread where the op just wanted to have a culture war seeth fest instead of actually talking about cartoons, art, animation etc
Why does John K's dogshit art attract so many fucking nutcases
He's kinda weird
It's not that bad, I like his art
But I also don't think the people on Cinemaphile who talk about John k actually care about his art, love it or hate it, theyre just treating the man as their personal proxy for their social identity wars
It didnt have to be John, it could've been anything, they just chose him as the thing to determine whos "on their side" and who's "against them" and fixated on that
It's no different that numberfags who cry about the office box numbers for the latest shite Disney or Marvel film or whatever, they don't care, it's all a facade for something else
troon Twitter is 90% gender-resentful zoomers pretending the 2010s haven't happened yet & getting mad about it - as though it's 2009 & Cartoon Network Studios is still designing every other woman like Dexter's Mom
...did Cartoon Network EVER do that?
Oh yeah. Until like Adventure Time all of their cartoons featured a thicc mom character. I guess Chowder is an exception but you still had jokes about Truffles and Endive's huge asses.
"All of their cartoons featured a thicc mom character" =/= "designing every other woman [thicc]"
Well the latter is also true. There's a bunch of background baddies in PPG, Dexter, Johnny Bravo, Robotboy, Billy and Mandy, and even Cow and Chicken/I Am Weasel
That show is nice art
Shut up Augie.
We need more golden age art styles in. Cartoons