Hi, thanks! :D
Showing posts tagged art rant
Showing posts tagged art rant
Whaaaaat, you are never a bother. 8) (Thanks!)
It’s a difficult question to answer, and I’ve tried to before, but it wasn’t in full detail then (and might not be now D8 ). Part of that is because what I practice currently isn’t what you should be doing.
I can talk about how to go towards that, though (I can only tell you what I’ve taken most of my life to learn, hahaha oh god) →→→
I look at some of those hipster-y sketchbook pics where you include the pen(s) you used and when the cap’s off I’m like
Why do people leave the cap off of the pens?? Why is the pen even in the picture? Yes, by virtue of that drawing being in your sketchbook we assume it’s drawn by a pen or something. I don’t care about your pen, I want to see your picture, I like pictures. 8)
Don’t worry about silly questions. (And aww, thank you! I’ll work hard to live up to that. :D )
It’s funny, there’s a ton of snobbery still involved with art so much that we worry about this stuff (so much so that we have to differentiate between illustrators and fine artists, for example, lol don’t get me started). Some people use their hobby/practice as a way to elevate themselves above others, under some guise of advocacy for “improvement,” which is where we get a lot of bullying in amateur art communities/forums (a forum I frequented was full of this, all day long).
Are you “less” of an artist? Hell, if you talk to the right person I’m “less” of an artist because I’m not (interested in becoming) a fine artist. It’s a complicated answer, really, and I only have my own experience/education about this to answer everything but I’ll do my best and break it into parts:
Look, I’m a nobody. And that’s why attribution is important.
When you repost the artwork of a nobody, the least you can do is link back to their gallery. I can’t directly make money on my fanart, so at the very least an artist like me is really only able to collect a high five for my stuff, and an opportunity to gush with someone new about fandom.
It’s not like all artists post online for praise. While comments are useful to me for various reasons I’m not dying for them, I’m dying to be a fan with people. But if that’s what I wanted, I think it’s a fair exchange to show artwork and get a link back. For some people, it’s the first time they’ve ever seen somebody like a piece. To some artists (new ones, especially) it means the world to them.
Yet, somehow people are too fucking put out to link back or just respect an artists’s wishes or even fucking read them. It doesn’t cost you anything to link back, and yet people are such pieces of shit that they can’t even hit ctrl+c and ctrl+v. People spend more time tagging work for their own blogs, which takes WAY more time than a copy+paste URL in your description. If I just described you, yeah, at best I think you’re rude and at worst I think you’re a lazy piece of shit, incapable of creating anything of any value (which is why art gets stolen) because even your basic curation skills suck. I’m also sure words like that would roll off of a shitty person’s back because they have to; it’s a lot of work to commit to staying shitty. I get it.
I joined tumblr after a three-year hiatus in which I deleted everything of mine online (with a couple exceptions) and didn’t speak to people outside of one art forum, and this kind of crap was definitely a major factor in that decision. I started posting again as a way to show I wasn’t quitting art (which I considered), but to also participate in fandom. So let me fucking participate. Artists aren’t fucking media machines, and you may actually find that being considerate to them makes them want to share more work. But GJ being a parasite and killing the host. Whatever.
Starfire is very tanned because of her homeworld, and the best color to use with the rest of her color scheme to make her look tanned is orange. It does not mean that she actually has orange skin.
Raven is pale. The best color to make her look pale with the rest of her color…
Well, it’s not an opinion. And how do you figure it’s bad? I’m just pointing out that Starfire and Raven, the actual characters, not the characters as they are drawn, aren’t actually these colors. That’s just how they are drawn to show their extreme skin tones, and the only way to properly display them is for Starfire to be drawn with an orange tone and Raven with a grey one, but if they were to be pulled out of the television and deposited in the real world as flesh and blood, they wouldn’t actually be those colors. Just respectively very tan and very pale.
I get what you’re saying, OP, but this isn’t quite that simple, and you actually touched on its lack of simplicity in your original statement. The colors can be seen as representations of things. Which also allows for varied representations. As a result of this, there actually is no “only way to properly display them,” even when translating them to “reality,” because if they’re divorced from their fictional origins, they’re no longer Raven and Starfire.
Trying to wrap my head around the purpose of making that statement, and at best I would think that the purpose is because you’re seeing people represent them “wrong?” I don’t quite get how it’s wrong when representations of them are just as varied and fictional as the characters. It may have been a stronger argument to make during analogue cell shaded animation/comic days, because there was a limited range of colors available, but digital tech makes this obsolete. Color choice is very deliberate which means it’s valid to make deliberate in a “real-world” translation.
So orange and grey are valid interpretations that can be translated literally or just referenced in art and writing. Color design is what dictates the tone of the work, which is why we’re seeing those colors. (It’s also why we see the crazy flourescent palettes in TTG.) It’s valid to represent variants within the range of human skintone in cosplay (or gritty movie remakes), for example, which people have done, but other aspects complicate things, which is why I ignored this post until reading “the only way to properly display them is for Starfire to be drawn with an orange tone and Raven with a grey one.”
It’s sort of a valid statement to make if basing that on one interpretation, but it’s ultimately a false statement to make and here’s why:
- Certain palettes do better based on drawing style (as in, drawing conventions).
When one makes a statement about “proper” representation of a fictional character, I have to think it’s with this in mind, so… that’s not accurate. + That story tone thing I already mentioned.
- Starfire’s an alien. Raven’s half human.
If she’s from a fictional planet where the sky is magenta (or some variant of violet, either way), and her eyes are glowing green, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume her skin can actually be orange. Raven, being half demon, can be interpreted as gray-skinned (and since this differs from her comic counterpart, I tend to assume that representing her with gray skin implies that her character is based off of the TV universe). TV Raven’s gray skin could be a result of what happens when mixing Trigon with Arella in this universe, and in turn it’s perfectly reasonable to just call her skin gray.
- They’re made up.
All it takes is a new creator to interpret it differently and it’s changed forever— which is why we have gray-skinned Raven and orange Starfire.
- The merchandise varies.
On that new Kotobukiya figure Starfire’s got orange skin, for example, while Raven’s is more fleshy and pinkish, but the TV merch is true to the TV palette. These are physically tangible translations of 2D characters, so all are fair game.
- In TTG Cyborg has literally called Starfire that “orange girl.”
Sure, I could call people with bad fake tans “orange” which is not a normal human skintone, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s because their skin is actually orange. If Beast Boy can be green, then Raven can be gray and Starfire can be orange, and actually have these portrayed as real skin colors when translated to the “real” world. They don’t have to be, but they most certainly can be.
(I actually don’t care what creators say. Like I mentioned, all you need is one representation to seem legit and it’s valid, it’s accepted. That’s pretty much how art works— it ignores even Word of God reasoning. One could argue that if Wolfman or Perez spoke up about it there’s an argument to be made, but what works, in making art, is the ultimate authority IMO.)
- That’s not how actual painting works.
If the statement is made because there is a literal RGB/CMYK/etc color you feel people aren’t using, lemme stop you right there (I sorta doubt that’s what you mean, but I’m still gonna address it).
So again— I get it, but it’s not a complete or accurate statement, but it can’t be separated from the fiction and art aspects, especially with no stated purpose.
"Smug" is arbitrarily thinking that one entire genre of art is less than another.
"Smug" is anonymous back-handed compliments that insult an entire group of artists while trying to police what I choose to make.
"Smug" is thinking that you bestow merit to art and decide its value or contribution to society — or that it needs to do that to begin with.
"Smug" is believing that advertisements are something that automatically lessens art when some of the best painters and works throughout art history, from Leonardo to Caravaggio to Rockwell and Leyendecker have worked in advertising for clients (churches included).
"Smug" is looking at my portfolio of hundreds of paintings over 3 years that cover dozens of genres, styles, subject matters, clients, and sits everywhere from the internet, to billboards, album covers, magazine covers, galleries, newspapers, movie posters, bus-sides, books, homes of friends, strangers, and celebrities, and still choosing to think that I am one thing — a thing that is just as valuable to me as everything I’m paid for professionally.
"Smug" is being a smug dicklet and throwing in “I don’t intend to offend” to cushion the smug dickletishness of it all.
"Smug" is not seeing a simplistic connection between realism in painting and the golden rule that is genre-irrelevant, but again insulting an entire group of artists while commenting on something you haven’t bothered to understand.
But most of all, “Smug” is thinking that I, or any artist, owes you anything. We can make whatever we want, however we want to. I will keep making advertisements, I will keep making album covers, I will keep making posters for games and movies, I will keep making all that I’m hired to do and choose to take on, but I will also keep making fan art because despite the merit or value that you’ve decided it has — I want to — and that’s all the reason I need.
Take your soggy waffle compliments and fuck the fuck off. Viva la fan art.
(Sorry, I can’t answer quickly because weekdays are busy, and I wanted to think about this a little. I talked to some friends at art school so this is informed by what they said too)
I’m of two minds for this, and this is under the assumption that you wanna draw forever (because I’m simple-minded in that regard). On one hand, the masochistic forever-student that I think all artists are in me wants to say practical stuff, because if you want to draw well, you just HAVE to know stuff. So, here’s my ideas on that:
Ahhh thank you! I sometimes worry about what I’ve done to the Red X tag, lol.
(First- sorry, I can’t do visuals and have to be brief because I just can’t fit in an extended answer. I have three really demanding studio classes and am operating on 16 hours of sleep per week; am constantly in some deep shit D: )
Generally with figures I’m thinking beyond just construction, I’m thinking intent, too. Really quick my prep is:
1. What’s the point/feeling of the pic (the pose will mirror this)?
2. Where do I want people to look, and why?
3. (After figuring out action/camera angle/composition) Main figure’s line of action. I do the pose myself a lot.
4. Big, general masses, (rib cage and spine/pelvis position, NO DETAILS, just big masses first. Basic shapes.); the rest of the body follows with those things. I play with the ratio of hip to shoulders to change body types, and basic geometric shapes to change the type. (Rectangle for lithe, triangle for super buff, etc.)
5. Make sure figure is grounded on a plane! (Not toppling over/lopsided. Sorry, I don’t have a scientific way of doing this, it’s instinctual for me)
6. Draw; if it looks weird look in a mirror and do the pose to know how it feels.
Thing is, all of this stuff is informed with my basic anatomy studies. If you’re practicing it wouldn’t hurt to try and draw a skeleton under your figures, or even under photos, etc. Do reference warm ups before working on a piece, of things that look like what you wanna draw for your main pic. It really really helps if you do it right before starting on a new pic.
Argh, sorry, not being able to go into detail is frustrating but hopefully you can google some terms to find good blogs on stuff (line of action, look for john k’s blog). Ugh, gotta go, sorry, sorry. DX
how much is a loaf of bread? hm? $3? $5?
At my local grocery store, bread is about $4.50 for a decent size italian loaf. If I make $7.25 and hour, that means I’d have to work 37 and a half minutes for a Loaf of bread.
but hey, that’s not so bad right? Work two hours and you’ll have a sandwich, eh?
Oh hey, turns out I also need toilet paper, rice, chicken, some veggies, a can of soup, and some cereal. (to name a few basic groceries one might need on a budget) we’ll round those things down to $25 just to make the math easier.
at $7.25 an hour I’ll have to work about 3 and a half hours for basic groceries.
That doesn’t include bills or gas or all the other groceries I need, That’s ONE quick trip to the store and I already have to work half a day just for that.
You don’t understand Anon, my pages could take HOURS if not DAYS. Between the sketching, inking, colouring, lettering, and finishing it’s taken at least a full two day’s work if not longer for each page.
I have a job that pays me beans, I cannot afford to post more pages a week without compensation. I literally cannot afford to do that. Not to mention the idea that art is only worth minimum wage cheapens the amount of work and effort that goes into producing it. I should be making WELL ABOVE minimum wage for my art via page count and commissions but it’s this damn “deviant art” mindset that makes people feel like they’re being swindled for paying a livable wage to artists. It’s rude and childish and I ask that you please stop considering artists as less worthy of affording a normal life.
You can either pay me what I ask for what you want or stop complaining about what I already give you for free.
I honestly think $100 is a tiny bit much, but all the time being put into it probably makes it worth it. u n u
[ I’ve honestly never seen $100 for a page, but I’ve seen like.. $80? But if you can’t afford stuff that’s a pretty good deal]
Hey friend, I know$100 may seem like a lot but lemme break it down for you as it’s been explained to me by working professionals. Please don’t take this as calling you out, it’s just that this comment is popping up a bit and your’s happened to be phrased the nicest. ha ha
Pencils, inks, and colours are all three separate jobs which all take about a day to do. Each of those 3 jobs are paid between 45-80 bucks per page per job typically with a bonus upon a set page completion. (Each chapter, end of issue, end of book/series)
Going solely by $ per hour each page (pencils, inks, colours, lettering, and finishing) of my webcomic takes at least two full days of work to complete. Let’s estimate a solid 16hrs (usually more). Minimum wage is $7.25/hr so I would be paid a minimum of $116 for those completed pages.
But wait! I’ve spent 10 years learning how to draw and design and produce comics! Surely my experience is worth a few extra bucks! And hey, my computer and graphic tablet and Photoshop didn’t pay for themselves! So I’ll add another few bucks,
Charging $15/hr (which is generally agreed to be what minimum wage today should be) would net me $240 for the SAME amount of work. Over twice as much. Literally over twice as much for charging a standard set amount for the work I’m producing.
Someone in the comments asked me if I’m a professional artist, and to that I have to say; the only difference between a “artist” and an “professional artist” is whether or not they value their work enough to price it ethically.
these are such good posts
In my Illustration class, we were talking about how magazines pay about $600 per page. People trying to delude themselves if they think artists can live off of chump change.
These are awesome points. I just wanted to also highlight what was alluded to up there but not explicitly said:
It’s a good way to demonstrate to people who otherwise wouldn’t know, what it takes to make art (time and money), and that’s why it’s enlightening to break work into a hypothetical hourly rate.
However, breaking work down into an hourly rate is not the same as an artist actually charging an hourly rate. In fact, it’s often a bad idea to charge an hourly rate,as an artist. it causes clients to needlessly nickel and dime, and focus too much on how long it takes to do X and Y, when that’s not something clients need to decide or even worry about. Clients don’t have the right to screw up/dictate artist process. They should stay the hell away if they actually want quality work, in fact.
We are taught to have some standardized practices as working illustrators, (thumbnailing/sketching/revision for example), but a watercolor, digital, or oil piece can all be worth the same amount of money, but it takes different amount of time to complete work in these different mediums. It doesn’t mean the artist’s skill is any less, just because one medium is faster than another, but skill is certainly one thing a client is paying for.
Just wanted to throw that out there, since I’ve seen the hourly rate/materials cost argument a lot but nobody ever talks about this. SOLIDARITY, guys, keep fighting the good fight. :D
Oh, and btw? According to the Graphic Artists Guild Handbook (which cites industry standard prices and practices), a comic page, ON THE LOW END, costs $100 for a penciller. Just a penciller. That’s the lowest price for a colorist, too. A fully painted page (as in the entire process, compared to those aforementioned singular tasks) is $200 minimum. $100 isn’t asking too much.
Same exact forms; different treatment.
These are all so beautiful (they always are). Which is your favorite to draw? Define favorite however you wish—based on how much time it takes, whatever you have the motivation to do.
I think I’ve seen the left two the most often in your art; do you have any of the far right? That’s my favorite in comics and I don’t see it as much as I’d like.
Although I’d seriously read an entire TT book with the minimalist (?) style of the black, white and red—it look so cool the way you use that style with Starfire and Red X!
Oh crap, sorry, I meant to reply like ten million years ago! (Actually I’m not sure if I replied but don’t think so? SORRY, UGH.) Thank you~! Honestly my favorite (to work in) changes with moods, or I choose styles based on what’s realistic to finish reasonably/what I want to practice with what’s fitting with the image’s tone/message (yeeeah, the message on this blog, is mostly “UGH, SORRY NO TIME DX”). That far right style is mostly for pinup style pictures since it requires higher attention to craft. D8 I wish I were a badass like Alex Ross who paints his comics but I get too stuck in details; it’s a bad choice for me.
(I worry sometimes, because when I have to start thesis work in a year (12-14 pieces over the course of a semester), what the actual hell am I gonna do when it has to be actually good?? Hahaha. D8 )
What I love to see is really based on whatever the artist can do well, so that varies. I just like stuff that’s well-made. :D
Oh yeah, I’m with you— I friggin love black and white comics (+ accent color) and think they’re totally beautiful. For my TTX comic I do it because I want the color accent to highlight action, balance out the page composition, and keep the tone a little bit somber. There’s definitely a nod to the fact that red and green are opposite each other on the color wheel, too.
Looked at the art tutorial tag for the first time.
…Please, guys. Promise you won’t endeavor to “hide” bad forms with shading. 8| I can’t believe I just read that in a tut (which is why I think most are dumb).
Form is king.
I mean, it’s totally different if you do it on accident or are just done with this damn drawing and need to move on with your life, but don’t NOTICE IT, and be like, “hey man this drawing sucks let’s blast it with excessive modeling ‘cause that’ll totally work.” It won’t work. D8
Whew, okay, finally finished this up. Wow, I don’t know if there’ll be time to do this sort of stuff after break so it’s lucky you asked in this time period, haha!
Okay, Back to Front is a traditional practice that’s made for opaque mediums (like acrylic paint, oil paint, sometimes gouache). It’s the technique/concept that I use even digitally (which is why I’m more comfortable using one layer). I’m not as purist about it as I used to be, though, because I mix my techniques.
I used the technique in both of these images: