/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6716091
I honestly hate "design" autism, people who think there is such a thing as "good design," because it usually means specific hairstyles or otherwise hyperunique clothing or aspects of physical appearance. For all the complaining about Vivziepop's sparkledog being a literal sparkledog, I can't help but feel the critics themselves are actually demanding for even worse sparkledog-like ideals of character design. They criticize her, and other people, for making designs that are "all the same." But I look at humans and at animal species and see sameness. They change their clothes and hairstyles and so forth. I don't know why in my mind as an artist I'm like this, but I intentionally feel a drive to rebel against this weird obsession with hyper """"uniqueness"""" that so many artists praise. I know people also have critiqued the Vivziepop Beelzebub design because it's a dog rather than a bee or fly but I don't really think anyone would care as much if it wasn't the issue of her making another furry sparkledog creature. That's another thing I hate about design purists: they think things have to meet stereotypes and tropes tightly associated with a concept for it to be "good," and then throw eye-catchy flourishes. And then on the flipside you have people complaining about "boring" sexualization or artists who draw similar faces or whatever. The obsession with variance in body type, face type, etc just repels me. It just doesn't feel as natural to my mind as it seems to the puritsts. It feels simultaneously restrictively conservative, and hyper individualistic, which feels stupid to me. I don't care about "design," I just care about a piece of art successfully communicating an aesthetic feeling like beauty, cuteness, weirdness, stylized coolness, emotions, eros, whatever, it just has to do one right. Every other requirement feels like arbitrary bullshit rules to help critics posture over artists, most critics aren't even artists and can't make shit themselves.