/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4280253
soul isn't real. It's an inherent misunderstanding of the things that make an artwork good or bad.

The reason you think technically skilled but mainstream popular works are bad is a combination of the elitist contrarian mindset here, and also that universal appeal requires killing off some creativity to achieve. Like that person who paints same-face anime girls with decent rendering and adds filters who got immensely popular in the last few years.

As much as people here would like to believe otherwise, that person is a decent artist. They just choose to paint the same boring shit over and over for normie appeal, and it puts a sour taste in other artist's mouths.

Also, on the flip side, the reason you feel that shitty drawings sometimes have 'soul' while sometimes good drawings don't, is because sometimes a skilled painter/lineartist is uninspired, has no good ideas, and yet still puts out a technically good and skilled artwork that is bland and uninspired. Other end of the spectrum is sometimes a shitty artist has a good idea, or does some things right in a flawed drawing. You can understand character design while being a shit artist, and thus churn out a design that looks good despite being drawn poorly, etc.

There's no 'soul'. Only good or bad and everywhere inbetween art. Some of the good art is boring and some of the bad art is interesting. Now please let this meme die. My key piece of evidence that i'm right is that the retards going on about soul are usually also the shittiest artists on this board. Either beg or slightly above. Intangible concepts about art are bullshit 100% of the time.

>>3661895
>what steps...
None really, life is too tiring and busy, I can't find the time to look into it. When I was younger I used to go around with a portfolio but it's dated now, and i've only drawn one finished piece in the past year.
>Have you done anything to connect yourself..?
Yes, I have a few people who come to me for small commissions once in a rare while. Beyond that, no.
>Type
Things i occasionally get commissioned for : logo/symbol designs, vector art. I'd like to just have a steady job to do with illustration.
>do you have a lot of polished work
No, i haven't been producing anything of value in a long time. I used to, it didn't get me anything more than a few commissions though.
>Portfolio website
no.

>>3568750
>how often do you make pieces instead of just doing studies?

I never do studies. Never have. Probably harmful but I do what I enjoy doing, which is not studies.
>How long had you been drawing before making your first piece.

I dunno.. define piece? If you're talking about a freehand drawing that I called finished, probably the first drawing I ever did where I put in actual effort.

>Should one wait a certain amount of time before doing actual pieces?
Do what you want. Trying to finish things is a good way to gauge your skill at any given time. Studies are not a good way to gauge your skill, they're a way to gauge your ability to mimic, and a lot of people find that after years of studies they can replicate amazing pictures no problem, but can't create one from their own mind without heavy use of reference.

Seems like you're asking these because you feel like a certain skill level should be achieved before your finished works become 'legitimate'. I'll tell you a secret, most good artists never feel like they reach that spot. There's always potential for improvement, and if you wait until you're happy with your skill level to attempt finished pieces, you may never get a finished piece.

Despite what a lot of people on here say, there's no list of perfect steps to take to become a skilled artist. It happens in different ways for different people. Stop worrying about what everyone else is doing and when it is or isn't alright to produce a piece. Just do what you want so long as it results in improvement.