/3/ - 3DCG

>>647259
The problem with people who strive to only perfect anatomy tend to bash on even number 2 and 3, and 4 and above is "stylization meme, learn anatomy!" in the same way how traditional artists bash on technical artists for not being artists, classical musicians complaining about modern music, "serious" writers on light novelists and so on. People gotta stop measuring others by their own standards. Already highlighted this here >>647250
Adding to the conversation, I see stylization as exaggeration, and simplification. It's important to know fundamental rules if you want to break them, and developing your own style is making conscious decisions in what you want to do with your design e.g having your characters with much wider gap between their eyes should come from artists choice, and not from their inability to draw eyes with correct distance apart from each other.

>>647259
ironically 1 seems to be the weakest technically

>>647259
Depends on the job, to be honest. I don't care much for the style in general as long as it is coherent.

It's sort of ironic because majority of 3d artists who actually do work on characters in the industry work of other people designs.
Sure you can do two and more jobs, but in bigger studios you need to be able to make the model as it is presented to you in character sheet from character designer, and not take your own artistic freedoms, because your AD is not going to give you any.

If /3/ wants to worry so much about designing characters, than maybe you should be on /ic/ instead. I'm not trying to bash on people here, but just like how some people had to ask themselves if they want to make video games (programming jobs), or make assets for video games (/3/ jobs), some of you may need to ask themselves if you want to make characters, or design characters, because those are different jobs.

Just as I mentioned above, if you want to do multiple jobs, have a cake, and eat it too, you may need to become a sort of jack of all trades and work for an indie studio.


and if you are one of the people who do 3d porn, you gotta understand that it is easier to get an audience if your characters are close to the original designs. Just as how doing works of established characters, who are already popular are going to get you more views than your "shitty OC".

Ultimately there are pros, and cons to anything, and you should just do what makes you happy.

Good idea to keep the shitposting contained.

>>647236
I have a real job, thank you very much.
And it's probably because I'm good enough to land a real job and not having pigeon holed myself into a single discipline that I'm more sensitive to shitty porn makers trying to sell me the idea that they can both do everything themselves and deliver quality shit in time.
But from the point of view of the average basement dweller, I guess doing anything in addition to furiously masturbating all day is an achievement in and of itself. So that explains how those people can grow a following.
I guess it's the equivalent of youtubers, i.e. nobody mentally older than 12 would waste their time listening to some yapper talking about shit he doesn't understand, and that's exactly who makes up the youtuber's audience.

>>647250
>measure their happiness from simply financial point of view
Personally, I measure success based on the accomplishments, effort, skills and knowledge of people in their respective fields. And financial success must go hand in hand, with a reasonable error margin, relative to each field, and serves as and indicator of success.
I'm not naive enough to compare artists to stock brokers, but I find reasonable to compare artists to artists.
I'm not gonna bother too much if someone who is noticeably better than someone else faces slightly less success, but I will consider murdering people that enable faggots who don't even fucking bother learning fundamentals with piles of cash that challenge the salaries of top Silicon Valley developers.

>>647252
>10-20 persons on whole world
One would already be way too much. 10-20 means a physical purge is required.

> 0 concept what rich fucking means
Enlighten us then.

>>647325
>I have a real job, thank you very much. And it's probably because I'm good enough to land a real job
If that's the case, why the fuck can't you model a shitty Wakfu model?

>>647327
>why the fuck can't you model a shitty Wakfu model
I think you lost track somewhere on the way. I was shitting on the guy trying to do the Wakfu crap.

>>647331
Well then, I guess we're on the same team here. Carry on.

>>647325
If you posted your work you would be revealed as another dogshit artist paid to churn out trash, no better than the porn artists.
As cliche as it is, you're genuinely just frustrated at your own shitty life choices that led you to become a slave for people vastly less talented than you but able to actually raise money to get projects made, and you've decided that it's not fair that those filthy porn artists get to do what they love and have full creative input over everything they do.
You've decided that it'll make yourself feel better to call someone else's work shit when they're being judged by the most picky group of autistic weirdos there are; you're like one of those dumb faggots shouting "A billion flies eat shit every day!", well guess what if people are actually paying for something (something they're commissioning themselves no less) and keep on doing it so much so that someone can make a living, then perhaps it's actually good and your subjective sense of taste is just worthless trash just like the sum total of your life's """""work"""".

I hope you live forever because you'll never mature, you'll never grow, you'll always be a slave toiling grinding away your talent, tearing up your hands, ruining your tendons for the paymasters that own you.

>>647327
>>647332
You weren't any good when you started out either, and you still aren't.

>>647334
Way to absolutely botch basic reading comprehension. God, that's a fucking neatly crafted strawman with some serious projection sprinkled on top.

>perhaps it's actually good and your subjective sense of taste
There it is again.
"It's a stylistic choice"
"it's subjective"
"you can't judge art objectively"
How many fucking times did I hear this bullshit.
How many nobodies I've seen buying 3-bedroom villas in cash thanks to people who wouldn't know good art if it was shoved up their ass.
No, not even talking about modern art or anything. Just plain old tumblrites and twitterfags.

>those filthy porn artists get to do what they love
If they loved it, they wouldn't be so shit.
Because the average retard who got into doing porn is just some random who didn't know what to do with their life, not someone who knows his shit.
And yet, free money rains on them most of the time and almost never goes into their "project".
It's the equivalent of the state spending 70k to build wooden stairs worth $500, except in this case people are either not aware or willfully ignorant of the scam going on and are not only actively defending it, they're the ones that made it happen in the first place.
That's the issue. Not because "muh porn has no dignity". That may be true but it only makes the whole thing worse, it's not the cause of it.

>>647342
There are people willing to pay money for art you think is shit, deal with it.
You may say it's not worth the money, but it's not what those people paying and commissioning those porn artists think.

>>647325
You seem to be full of hate, it's self-destructive way of life. You may be angry at porn artists and people who are catered by them, but they think nothing of you. You waste time being angry, and they just do things they like. You are not going to change the world and how others think, you can only change how you react to those things. Best course of action is to accept it and move on, concentrate on works YOU want to make.

it all boils down to one question: does the piece of art effectively communicate the message its author intends? if so, then let it be.

heavily simplified toons are so successful because kids have vivid imaginations and associate those symbols accordingly. adults are no different. so ho crazy and make gnubz for feet. who really gives a shit as long as you like your art.

>>648007
>kids have vivid imaginations and associate those symbols accordingly. adults are no different.
In other words, people have shit taste and will defend their shit taste with tooth and nails if they have to.
Gotcha.
I wish I was that dumb though. Being an artist worthy of that title fucking sucks. Nobody really appreciates your effort except other artists and any wannabe can steal your spotlight simply because the people they cater to have a terrible eye and can't tell artwork apart as well as you do.

>>648116
>Nobody really appreciates your effort except other artists and any wannabe can steal your spotlight simply because the people they cater to have a terrible eye and can't tell artwork apart as well as you do.

The renaissance is dead; long live cartoons.

>>648139
Dude it's not even about cartoons.
It's about making cartoons to excuse your lack of skill.
Cartoons are even harder to make than realistic stuff, if you intend to do them properly.
But you can just botch them and say it's a stylistic choice and people will defend you if anyone points your flaws out and you have enough of a following.
And will give you money if you cater to them. Shittons of it.

They're the artistic equivalent of SJWs and feminism.

>>648007
That's not the issue here. It's fine if you want to take the commercialised view to it where you're just doing it to earn money, but what about your sense of pride as an artist? Shouldn't every artist's goal be to constantly improve?
If you're going to constantly cut corners here and there and disregard your fundamentals "because it's stylised", you're not respecting your craft. You tell the world that you're not putting any effort into your art and that you don't care and just want it out there.
I'm not saying that you have to be the next Michelangelo or whatever, since I know some anon's going to sperg out about "not everything has to be photorealistic fuckhead!!!". Stylisation is fine, not striving for realism is fine, cartoons and caricatures are still good.
But if you're just going to sit at the bottom of the skill pool, why even bother calling yourself an artist? You're not going to have a legacy. No one's going to remember you for being that one guy who made some obtrusively busty anime chick. All you've done is made a few bucks scamming some poor souls into falling for your poor practices.
And sure, I guess some people are fine living that way. It's just a matter of personal pride and whether or not you're happy with the standard of your art when you know you can easily improve and genuinely impress people.

>>648173
I fully agree anon, but let me go over a few points.

>You tell the world that you're not putting any effort into your art and that you don't care and just want it out there.
>But if you're just going to sit at the bottom of the skill pool, why even bother calling yourself an artist? You're not going to have a legacy. No one's going to remember you for being that one guy who made some obtrusively busty anime chick. All you've done is made a few bucks scamming some poor souls into falling for your poor practices.

See, herein lies the problem.
The people in the bottom 0.01% of the skill pool are consistently in the top 1% of earners (of the world as a whole), exactly because they made some obtrusively busty anime chick or a furry with a huge horsecock.
They don't scam "a few bucks", they scam literal hundreds of thousands, millions, even, to the point where it's pointless to even have a genuine motivation to improve. Even the highest paid real artists (excluding the money laundering modern art business) don't make as much. And they spent years practicing fundamentals.
And, the worst of all, is that if you rightfully point out that they lack fundamentals and their work is crap because of it, you will be swarmed by people telling you it's not and that you're jealous because you can't do better. No matter if you're just starting out or one of the top dogs in disguise.
These people are their legacy. And the mere existence of this whole mechanism is shitting on all the efforts artists everywhere put in improving their skills.
>Oh you spent years studying the female figure and now you're one of the best sculptors around?
>Yeah but how about this turd with tits, much sexier, you and the guys at Pixar wish they were this good, take all of my money and make more omg

Feel free to point out examples that prove me wrong.
Please, do so.

>>648173
Plenty of good thoughts in that post I especially like how fundamentals are important and people should strive to improve.

What I don't like is how biased that post is when it comes to "porn, rule34, smut, hentai artists" or whatever they are called. I'm not attacking, just want to rant about the stigma:


There is plenty of people that draw smut, because that's what they want to draw, and not because they want "easy money", or gain following. They strive for improving their art and don't want to sit at the bottom of the skill pool just like the other pure artist.
>No one's going to remember you for being that one guy who made some obtrusively busty anime chick.
That is simply not true. Any form of art can be just as impactful.

I hate it how people who don't do porn art take the morale high-ground above the deviants who want to make art, they just strongly feel about. I see it all the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td6MbJQavjs video related

>>648116
lol stay poor, bitter shitter

>>648174
And I'm well-aware of this and wearily lament it in the last line of my post. Money makes the world spin after all, and I can't say for myself that my mindset wouldn't be changed if all of a sudden I was pulling in way more than I deserved for making crude drawings on the internet.
I'll rescind the point on legacy though, because that was pretty far-fetched of me since I was thinking of on a historical scale, like how Leonardo's Mona Lisa still stands as a hallmark of art. As skilled as people can be today, I don't think we'll have some sort of Modern Michelangelo of our time that'll be remembered centuries into the future for their contributions to art.

>>648176
Yeah, I'll apologise here. Wasn't my intention to shame them, I definitely do have my share of favoured NSFW artists too. I just used that busty anime chick comparison as a quick and dirty example since it just so happens that _many_ porn artists happen to be what we're talking about here.
In fact, they just happen to illustrate my point best.
Let's go /d/ and talk about futanari artists, since one of the most notorious examples I know of falls in that category:
Lewdua. Makes big cash off patreon yet every single thing posted has hilariously glaring flaws in anatomy, especially with proportion. Legs are criminally short, arms are just wonky, etc. Zheng would be another example, popular artist with poor fundamentals (albeit not on the level of Lewdua).
On the skilled side, we have artists like Tarakanovich/WHY, Messy, Gesundheit. You can tell on first glance that they actually know their shit. Those artists I fully respect.
Obligatory >shadman. Not a personal fan of his work, but my props to him. He's really done something for the world of depraved twisted art and I gotta admire him for that.

>>648176
>What I don't like is how biased that post is when it comes to "porn, rule34, smut, hentai artists" or whatever they are called. I'm not attacking, just want to rant about the stigma
You are reading what isn't there M8.
The reason it feels biased is because porn is such a cheap and easy "motivation" to start doing art that any virgin basement dweller can pick up on it. It doesn't last though and it alone won't be enough to motivate you into improving your skills. As long as it gets your dick hard, it's good.
That's where the problem lies. Porn consumers on average have such shit fucking taste that they will accept the absolute bottom of the barrel. Anatomy and the human figure are hard concepts to master, and one would think they would be vital when the primary subject in porn is the naked human body. But that is not the case, apparently.
And sometimes, more often than not, people with laughable skills become stupidly rich because a bunch of virgins equate "it gets my dick hard" == "the guy has skills and his work is good"

>>648186
>He's really done something for the world of depraved twisted art and I gotta admire him for that.
Like... What?
All I see is yet another below average wannabe artist posting smut on Twitter that lucked out in gaining the attention of Gen Z aka YouTube generation.

>>648194
That's what you don't understand. I already said I don't like his artstyle, it's too cartoony and it's personally not my cup of tea, but it's how he sticks by his deplorable and sickening content. How he advocates to let people create what they want and that others shouldn't dictate what their art should be.
And Shadman's been around for a long, long time, dude. He's always had controversy surrounding him for the shit he posts. Zoomers? Maybe, considering their outbreak on the internet these days, but he's always been a fan favourite of the 30-year-old boomer when it comes to shock content on the internet. Do you really think the zoomers are the ones going
>shadman
all over 4chan?

>>648192
porn, or not there is more to art than just visuals. It's ideas and emotions. Shadman isn't known for his amazing anatomy and backgrounds, and he says that himself. I have never actually seen anyone saying that shadman is skilled, but he sure has fans. At the end of the day when you take out exposure and money out of the picture, he just draws what he likes.
I agree with you that people who only look at smut art as fap material have low standards, but there are many who feel stronger about art. Just like with food you have posh restaurants and fast food joints, you wouldn't think fast foods have people who feel strongly about them, yet they do exist after all.

>>648186
It's ok man, like I mentioned above in >>648176 I was not attacking you, I was just bothered by the wording, and wanted to write about the social stigma.
I cannot really comment on futanari artists you listed, and I don't really feel like checking them out, so I take your word for it. I myself see plenty bad artists and sometimes you may even got this "guilty fap", but it is the good artists that stick with you after the session, and those are the ones that win me over and make me check their blogs even when I don't feel like fapping simply because I really appreciate what they do.

>>648198
>there is more to art than just visuals. It's ideas and emotions.
M8, it's porn, ffs.
You can argue that the line between porn and "real" art is often blurred, but we aren't talking about those cases here. It's just about boobs and dicks here.
And you can't really schmooze your way around bad execution.
If it's bad, it's bad. And if unqualified people argue that it's not, then it doesn't make it not bad. We're not talking about striving for perfection here, we're talking about knowing the elements that add sex appeal to the human figure and knowing how to make them look believable, even when stylized.
Fuck, why is it so hard to understand? Why does it sound like such an outworldy concept to people? Why do I even need to point it out in the first place? It should be the first thing anyone would think about.
If not, then smut artists don't even have a reason to exist, because people could just take their old Nokias and type (. Y .) when they want a visual representation of boobies to fap to.

>I have never actually seen anyone saying that shadman is skilled
I did.

>there are many who feel stronger about art
Unfortunately, they're neither the most appreciated nor the most rewarded ones, even though they should. That's the argument here.
>it is the good artists that stick with you after the session
It may not be the case with you personally, but the numbers are clear.

>>648250
>M8, it's porn, ffs.
>It's just about boobs and dicks here.
Way to disregard anything that was said. There is just no further argument when one person says one thing, and the other goes "no, it is not".

>>648250
You're focusing on the wrong things. What matters in art is how it makes people feel, and anatomical accuracy has very little influence on that.

Shadman is skilled because he's really good at shocking and arousing people. That's what matters.

>>648270
>arguing that the average smut on Twitter is actually 2deep4u and not just boobs and dicks
Alright, sure.
You might wanna elaborate on that bold claim, instead of acting all pissy when you just throw it out there like that and then gets dismissed.

>>648284
You undervalue big part of art by wrongly stripping it down to crude visuals even thou you had multiple people in the thread telling you there is more to art than just technicality. It's not even just smut, same could be said about minimalism, stuckism, superflat.