/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

This is like the talent discussion. Some people have it, some people don't. But it can all be learned with practice and repetition, so who cares?

>>3009271
its because women are more stupid than men. Really simple. They have smaller brains. They live to serve men and give us ours offsprings, though they are really trying to overcome theirs limitations through time.

>>3009271
Basically what >>3009283 said.

The biggest issue I see with women artists isn't that they're not capable, it's that they're lazy/unwilling. Women, as a whole, tend to stay in the 'averages' grey area instead of busting ass to do something all the way. They can also coast on their looks/causes to get attention, so its easier for them to stay average at art and still make it, especially now with this fourth-wave feminism BS.
Before the Internet, it was partly an issue of plain old under-representation. I don't recall ever learning about one female artist all throughout school, despite the fact there have been some with a good amount of skill all the way from to the medieval to contemporary.

Saying they're weaker at drawing in 3D because their spatial intelligence isn't as developed is the same as saying men are weaker at colour theory because they don't see as many colours. It's a moot point, because it's a skill that has to be developed and both are capable of reaching a basic level of understanding in it.

>>3009271

>What do you think?

I think you should post your art.

>>3009271
a lot of my favorite artists are female, and theres lot of really amazing imaginary artists that are women (in porn especially).
Basically stop looking for validation with all this idiotic shit and get back to work you bitch

>>3009271
Either it's not true, and you just look like a crazy person with a pathological contempt for vagina, or it is true and it's less competition.

Either way, this isn't a conversation that needs to happen or is going to end well.

>>3009271
can you stop being retarded? Women are worse than men at everything. Men are just a genetic gamble so we are better than women at everything but we also have the biggest tards.

>>3009330
True. Men get shit done and rule the world, women sing songs about how strong they are

>>3009324

Yes this. OP is clearly looking for some way of feeling superior to somebody, anybody, and in his desperation he tries to relate an intelligence factor that mostly applies to navigation to art.

If he had asked if this was why (stereo-typically) male art is often focused on 3-dimensional design, and female art is focused on colors and patterns, he still would've been on shaky psychological ground, but at least he wouldn't have been a little bitch.

Instead he asks questions like:

>Why do women tend to be weaker at art in your opinion?

as if we all agree with his moronic opinion.

Listen, OP, I'm going to lay it out for you. The reason that most "great" artists have been men, is because for most of history, women didn't get the chance to be professional artists. They were either not permitted to become professionals, or they were too busy raising children and managing households.

I doubt you have either of those excuses, OP. So get the hell back to work.

>>3009333
>we also have the biggest tards
That was your cue apparently.

Women are average. Men are great as well as terrible. The only reason women have a shitty attitude is because of the way they're raised.

Theres a ton of women above a ton of men.
Men just happen to dominate the top tiers of everything.

>>3009271
I understand that skill is important, but isn't the only thing necessary in this industry. Because I can think in a few female artists that are less skilled than the wannabe concept art dude and still makes good amount of money. Just one example: sakimichan. Draw mostly rendered anime stuff and is making more than the average freelance artist man. Also, pic related.

That said, some female asian artists beat most western artists I know in skill. But asians are asians.

>>3009335
>Listen, OP, I'm going to lay it out for you. The reason that most "great" artists have been men, is because for most of history, women didn't get the chance to be professional artists. They were either not permitted to become professionals, or they were too busy raising children and managing households.

that's fucking inaccurate too though, women are the majority of hobbyists as well as seem to be better across the board at art without extensive practice (better color perception as well as calligraphy+).

They just have a bigger social penchant which inhibits growth. It's also socially unacceptable to absolutely crush a girls feelings and by extension her work.

Guys are also more likely to be [diagnosed] with autism, which im sure helps spend tens of hundreds of hours into repetitive practice.

>>3009336
>Men just happen to dominate the top tiers of everything.
Coincidence?

>>3009342

>women are the majority of hobbyists

What do hobbyists have to do with anything? Have you seen the level of work of a typical "hobbyist"? It's utterly inapplicable to a professional context. I wouldn't even classify it as the same KIND of thing as professional art.

>seem to be better across the board at art without extensive practice

I have not seen this to be the case even once. You may have, but I know how little objectivity you display.

>It's also socially unacceptable to absolutely crush a girls feelings and by extension her work.

Yeah I know you think that's a useful way of dispensing advice. Mad that you can't get away with it with chicks? Since when did you follow social norms, anyway?

>>3009341

>But asians are asians.

The eternal refrain of the weak and lazy, looking for an excuse for their mediocrity.

>>3009355
>The eternal refrain of the weak and lazy, looking for an excuse for their mediocrity.

why do asians have better scores than whites at iq tests?

>Since when did you follow social norms, anyway?

I'm honest either way as a courtesy, ive had someone tell me "how dare you draw over my art?" unironically. But im still willing to butt heads. I'm talking about all the poor girls who haven't had the pleasure of meeting me yet.

>You may have
isnt it a meme that girls are better at art because its a feminine thing?

>What do hobbyists have to do with anything?

Eh, good point, but i don't see an obvious metric for transition into seriousness gone right/wrong

Is nosebro a girl then? Is that why she is so bad at art?

>>3009358

>why do asians have better scores than whites at iq tests?

They try too hard. They also waste huge amounts of time trying impress their bosses while engaging in futile tasks that accomplish nothing. That's not what I call intelligence.

>isnt it a meme that girls are better at art because its a feminine thing?

Memes are for the weak.

>I'm talking about all the poor girls who haven't had the pleasure of meeting me yet.

Those poor, poor souls.

>i don't see an obvious metric for transition into seriousness gone right/wrong

Professional is as professional does. If you exhibit a professional attitude, you will not stay a hobbyist forever. You will drift into professional work, regardless of whatever failings your art may have. If you wait to be perfect, you'll never go nowhere. Some people flower early, and some people later, but it's more important to be competent and reliable, than perfect. I speak from experience.

>>3009271
why are women generally better at art then? like i don't know if you've had much contact with actual art communities, but there's usually more chicks then dudes, and usually the chicks are better

>>3009358
>why do asians have better scores than whites at iq tests?
Because their squinty fucking eyes cut out their peripheral vision and force them to focus on singular tasks instead of seeing the big picture.
Same reason they're terrible drivers.

Pic related, slant horse.

>>3009389
Forgot my equestrian gook.

>>3009388
It's the IQ bellcurve. Women tend to have less complete idiots but also less genius type people. They have a more steady average. Whereis men have more extremes on both sides. Art communities are usually filled with artists who haven't quite made it yet, so you see next to none of the top tier extreme, but you see lots of the shit tier extreme and the mediocre average. Which gives off the illusion that women, in comparison, are better.

For god's sake go back to /r9k/ you frustated faggots. Of course women have tendentially another traits than men. Of course they are tendentially either better or worse than men, considerating many activities. Of course there's always exeptions for every rule.
But sadly discussing it with your biased opinions is no better than discussing it with tumblers, haes or feminists. You are all the same immature shit.

Go have sex and real experience with women first, than maybe you won't care anymore if she is better than you or not.
Just stop infesting every board with your insecurities, faggets.

>>3009388
There are more women because drawing nowadays is considered a feminine hobby, so more women are attracted to art than men. However, the absolute best are almost always men. This applies to other fields as well, the best mathematicians are men, the best physicists are men. Women tend to be competent, but not at the top, even in fields where they're "supposed" to dominate like art and cooking. In the case of STEM, it may just be environmental factors more than some inherent fault, but in art, I do believe it's because of lesser spatial intelligence.

There's a reason why we have a Kim Jung Gi, but not a [feminine Korean name].

>>3009324
I never said women were incapable of being good at drawing from imagination, but they can't really reach the level of the guys at the top.

>>3009283
There is a skill ceiling. At a certain point, you simply can't account for the lack of spatial intelligence. You could train to improve it, but the equally talented male artist will ultimately have a higher peak spatial intelligence than you if he trains equally hard.

>>3009335
>Listen, OP, I'm going to lay it out for you. The reason that most "great" artists have been men, is because for most of history, women didn't get the chance to be professional artists. They were either not permitted to become professionals, or they were too busy raising children and managing households.
Upper class women in the past were often hobbyist artists. It seems like every woman of every class in the past was not allowed to do anything at all, because I hear this excuse for every single field where men have always dominated, at least at the very top, even in fields like art where women were quite common.

>male art is often focused on 3-dimensional design, and female art is focused on colors and patterns
Thank you for helping me prove my point. A lot of female art I see is "abstract" stuff like colours thrown on some half-finished face. Male art is often cars, cities, buildings, etc.

>>3009342
Nosebro, shut up and get laid.
No one cares what you have to say.

>>3009369
Doubt a girl would argue men are best st everything.

This entire thread is insecure microdick mommy-didn't-love-me retardation

>biological differences thread
time for offended people to jump to attention with their insults and logical fallacies.

>>3009271
Women have better sense of aesthetics than men, desu.

>>3009484
Holy fuck the level of scientific literacy on this board is pathetic. If women are less spatially intelligent than men in average, that doesn't mean there's an imaginary ceiling no woman can get past. Just like how blacks score lower on IQ tests on average, (and whites lower than asians), but it doesn't mean INDIVIDUAL blacks or whites aren't capable of being the smartest motherfuckers in the planet.

Certainly there are women working today just as talented as their male counterparts, and easily more talented than 100% of /ic/

>>3009484
>but they can't really reach the level of the guys at the top.
top is arguable though, i said i have a lot of female artists among my favorites, which is the top for me.
there's so much more that goes into drawing than just spatial intelligence that its pretty irrelevant, since anyone can become really good at perspective (enough to make perfectly competent drawings) that having a small edge wont change much.
Design and aesthetics are just as (if not more) important to making good pictures, and these are the elements i find women usually do better than men, but even then generalizing is still stupid cause there will always be exceptions.

just stop being so insecure and start working, because there are already women that are better than you'll ever be, and speculating on "what if scenarios or saying "yeah but if i worked hard i'd be better xd" won't change anything, and it wont make you any less pathetic

>>3009518
The problem is retards can't interpret scientific data, just like the racists who think they're smarter than every black on the planet because they heard an excerpt from the Bell Curve they couldn't comprehend.

>>3009526
>there are no tendencies only absolutes
nice argument

>>3009527
Speaking of poor comprehension

>>3009528
>intentionally misinterpreting the meaning of my post, then pretending it didnt make sense
poor show

>>3009530
Is this meant to be ironic?
>greentext summary of argument I never made
>gets mad when he's called out on it
>pretends it was there other way around

>>3009523
it's tribalism. they want to feel better about themselves by showing how their "team" is superior, even though they themselves are in no position whatsoever to say something like that.
it's always the least intelligent bottom feeders that make points like these.

>>3009527
this post is so ironic it's not even funny.
is this the power of modern education?

>>3009484
>There is a skill ceiling. At a certain point, you simply can't account for the lack of spatial intelligence. You could train to improve it, but the equally talented male artist will ultimately have a higher peak spatial intelligence than you if he trains equally hard.
So basically you're saying all female artists have a Spatial Intelligence stat cap of 70, and all men have a Spatial Intelligence stat cap of 99?

An interesting way to look at things, but that's not how real life works.

>>3009271
Women are worse in general because there's less high level female artists, that's all.

They're not trying hard enough...

Women just don't have comparable focus or ambition. Maybe they're taught wrong, maybe it's natural, I don't know. Men seem more susceptible to throwing away everything, going to the extremes, over their interests.

testosterone

Is this thread a joke?

gasp Wait a minute! This Bait has:
8 Beautiful Sides
8 Awesome Angles
8 Interesting Sides
8 Terrific Angles

This Bait’s an Octagon!

>>3009445
t.woman

>Starts off with basic understanding of women and clear discussion on the issue
>declines to feminist and white knights autisic screeching
Thread

>>3009581
>>3009586
>hurr women just aren't ambitious, never mind there are tons of talented pros and I'm just a shitposter

>>3009610
Yes we've really gone off track from such high minded discourse as "women suck cuz they're stupider than men" from the beginning of the thread.

I mean it makes sense, but I don't think such a thing has ever stopped someone from getting good, sure we can say that all the great masters are male, but they are 1 in thousands and thousands of artists, the fact that women can't see 3D space as well as men in theory doesn't stop them from getting good like 99% of the males.

Conversations like these always have people spouting out simplifications of complicated issues. There's a social aspect to these things and possibly a slight biological bias but it isn't as simple as people make it out to be.

Mostly people just want to see their own group represented as "better" than another so they can have a feeling of superiority.

Conversations like these also never lead to anything fruitful because most of us aren't able to take into account all the aspects that go into this stuff. People just shout out their subjective, empiric observations as "proof" for what they all ready want to believe.

Tl;dr: This thread if isn't going to lead to anything useful because none of us know anything about this stuff. I'm gonna be the first to admit that I don't.

>>3009271
Art isn't 'imagination drawing' though. There were barely any great non-spatial artists in the modern period either.

Anyway this may help you understand:
http://www.artnews.com/2015/05/30/why-have-there-been-no-great-women-artists/

>>3009484
>Upper class women in the past were often hobbyist artists.

Hobbyist artists are not the same calibre as academic. You don't know the names of any male amateurs either.

>>3009610
I bet you're so angry it took you five times to get that post right

>>3009634
Because those male amateurs became male professionals.

>>3009271
Then why are some of the better artists on this board women?
I mean, even Jace turned out to be a biological female

>>3009641
If they did they didn't become 'greats'

>>3009271
I disagree. Many female artists are exceptional but they're very easily overlooked. Women are generally more balanced, which produces better and more precise images with fewer obsessions. We love art mainly for its mistakes or its peculiarities so men receive more attention.

It's difficult to articulate Matisse's objectivity. It has something to do with his sense of composition, the Form a painting takes. The Content, or the execution, is not what we love about Matisse.

>>3009731
>>3009736
what the fuck am i looking at

>>3009737
A canvas worth more than your house.

Sure, you can say what you want Anon but I'm still better at drawing than you.

>>3009738
art was a mistake

Fairly sexy, right? Look at this libertine.

>>3009613
Mea culpa (first poster you reply to), I should have insisted on the Quantity of women trying harder...There are very talented women (look at Loish for instance), but how many women vs men want to grind thousands of hours after seeing Ruan Jia? There is the question.

>>3009635
lol what

>>3009772
why would more women than men get inspired by a male artist

>>3009485
>Nosebro, shut up and get laid.
lmao what am i gay?

>>3009517
Girls aren't lesser, they just have less volatility in skill across all disciplines.

>>3009613
>>3009635
Being this buthurt about the truth

Why posts like these are fucking useless boils down to a couple of problems I've seen in internet conversation in general:

- Over simplification of complicated social/political issues. Not trying to understand the underlying problems that are causing these issues.

- Over saturation of extreme ideas -> Nobody's even trying to find common ground with anyone. Everybody's an expert.

- Tribal mentality. Wanting your group to win even though putting people into arbitrary groups is outdated in our society.

- Reliance on subjective/empiric observations to validate arguments.

- Denying issues. Just as an example the idea that racism/radical Islam/misogyny aren't issues if we just claim that they don't exist in modern society any more.

- People entering internet conversations with the mentality of "I need to win this". It shouldn't be a competition.

- Trolls

Somebody could do a whole 5 year study on the subject of "why are there less woman painters". It's not going to boil down to something as simple as "Wimminz is stupid XD".

People also seem to have problems understanding statistics. If there were like, I dunno, a 5% difference between the spatial awareness skills between men and women this would still be arbitrary when comparing individuals. Same goes for talking about intelligence between genders/races/hairstyles.

>>3009849
Shut up faget

>>3009852

Thanks for proving my point. BTW don't you have an algebra test tomorrow?

>>3009862
I let men cum in my ass because I'm lower than men but not to the point of being lower than women

>>3009849
That's not necessarily true to sum threads and issues like these up there are the mass majority which it pertains to as true, and then there are the outliers who these principals have no merit on.The real problem is that the mass majority convince themselves that they are the outliers, while never actually thinking, doing or practicing the same traits they're suppose to have in common with. Such is the case in this thread many women whether they want to admit or not do show they tendencies, which comes off sexist or stereotypical, yet they seem to still keep doing it. Then you have the ones that don't fit the norm and either get praised, shitted on, copied, or confused for being on equal level with said normie, because they are both of the same gender or race w/e. Instead of considering how that individual has lived their life, where and how they were brought up, past experiences, beliefs and own individual mindsets, get thrown out the window many times. People have gravitated towards an idea of if you say this it must mean you are this, instead of just viewing the situation for what it is. Sure sometimes things can be more complicated than they appear to be, but most of the time thats because people insist on making things more complicated than they have to be.

>>3009873
herpa derpa pertains as true outlers principals have no merit
nice wall of text you fucking fatass

>>3009884
I'm actually in great shape, whats up your ass faggot?

>>3009886
>I'm actually in great shape, whats up your ass faggot?

>>3009873

>>3009873

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. My bad probably.

>>3009873
everyone on quadrachin is an outlier though, especially someone who comes here.

>>3009891
>>3009905
Ok take for instance a woman like the former co chair of sony picture Amy Pascal, I remember her salary being $3 million a year same as the ceo of the time, I believe. You know when everyone was going on about how woman don't make as much as men in business. This was a clearly not the case, she wasn't only making as much as the head of that department for the company, but more than her male counterparts. She worked her ass off to get to that position and in the world of corporate business played hardball and was a cut throat shark to get to stay there, at least until the hack happened. She would have to have given the same qualities most men in that industry showed and most likely double to prove her ability. Yet somehow, you've got women constantly basing everything off a generalized study of non equal pay in the work force. That woman was an outlier, yet you have a mass majority that believes they have the same qualifications if they met a woman similar to her. These same women seem to always believe and agree on the idea that just because that person has done this so can they, without actual having any of the right attributes or making the same sacrifices that factors into getting them on her level. There are many examples aside from this, I'm just trying to make it clear I think this anon kinda got what i was trying to say best>>3009523
Its about the individual in many cases, but the individual needs to stop being confused for the majority.

>>3009271

They didn't have any rights back then. They often used male names or males to do artwork so that they wouldn't be in trouble.

>>3009523
I'm probably more scientifically literate than you are.

Let me explain something very simple to you, if women on average are less spatially intelligent than men, then the number of women who are top-tier artists is going to be less than the number of men who are top-tier artists. No one's saying it's impossible for all women to be top-tier, but there are going to be more top-tier men than top-tier women, assuming equal number of male and female artists. This is basic statistics. Okay, I may have been somewhat inaccurate in saying that there's a ceiling for every single female, that doesn't apply for every woman, only most of them. I apologize for that. The ceiling does exist for many women though, the ones that aren't blessed with spatial intelligence similar to or greater than the innate spatial intelligence of top-tier male artists. A 120 IQ individual simply can't match a 150 IQ person cognitively, but he or she certainly can achieve great things with enough effort despite their natural disadvantage compared to the 150 IQ person, perhaps enough to surpass the 150 IQ person if the latter does not work hard as well (of course, the 150 IQ person will naturally have to put in less effort than the 120 IQ person, but not significantly less). A similar analogy can be made for male and female artists.

Similarly, in a group of a 100 blacks vs 100 whites, both groups will have people with very high IQs (say, 140), but whites will have more 140 IQ people overall than blacks. Assuming that blacks really do have lower IQs than whites, I don't really want to discuss that and I have no opinion on that topic because it's not settled yet, compared to the spatial intelligence difference between men and women, something that many, many studies have supported and is generally accepted in the scientific community, compared to the IQ difference between races, a very hot topic that is best ignored in this thread.

>>3009849
I understand what you're trying to say; I agree.

>>3009998
>if women on average are less spatially intelligent than men, then the number of women who are top-tier artists is going to be less than the number of men who are top-tier artists
unless the more spatially-intelligent women tended toward art, whereas those with less spatial intelligence would not. Just because all women on the planet have an average spatial intelligence lower than all men, doesn't imply that the most spatially-intelligent people on the planet must be men. There are just way too many assumptions in your "scientifically literate" post.

>>3010059
also I love how this whole thread is about "(some) boys have more spatial intelligence than (some) girls", and the fact that women tend to see colors better than men is apparently completely irrelevant.

>>3010064
Also the fact that women tend to have better fine motor skills than men, which I think is pretty important for drawing

>>3010064
>"(some) boys have more spatial intelligence than (some) girls"
If you're going to disregard OP based on that, then why even bring up the color thing?
>"(some) girls see colors better than (some) men".

>>3010064
>>3010071
i mentioned both of those but was ignored :(

>>3009484

>Kim Jung Gi

I wish everyone here would shut up about him. He has an extraordinary talent, no doubt. But there are many artists out there who lack his abilities, which I would still regard as superior artists. Why is he the gold standard for you people? Because he makes it look easy?

>Upper class women in the past were often hobbyist artists. It seems like every woman of every class in the past was not allowed to do anything at all, because I hear this excuse for every single field where men have always dominated

You are a temporal parochialist. You have no comprehension of how different society and culture was, not that long ago. None whatsoever. Are you going to ask why there are so few famous black artists from the 19th century next?

>Thank you for helping me prove my point. A lot of female art I see is "abstract" stuff like colours thrown on some half-finished face. Male art is often cars, cities, buildings, etc.

This is only a problem with your narrow-minded appreciation of art. You think complexity equals quality. You are impressed by effort, not skill. Also, you're starting to drift into outright insults towards art you don't appreciate.

>>3009998

Look, in your case it doesn't matter because there are hundreds of thousands of female artists better than you will ever be, so don't worry about it.

Also, stop posting pictures of actual scientists with every post. It only goes to show what a vapid twit you are, wielding images of your secular saints like an Orthodox icon. You're one step up from posting NDT memes on Reddit.

>>3009586
this, especially that last part.

>>3009271
Citation please

>>3009324
>(in porn especially)
You can draw a couple of lines with some circles and still find people willing to fap to it. It doesn't take much to please a bunch of perverts.

>>3010072
Because the entire point is you can't boil success at art down to gene #976534883. There are lots of elements that go into successful art. If someone is stupid enough to think a (potential) genetic predisposition toward one cognitive task related to art is the basis of any serious argument, then why would the same not be true in the opposite direction? The point of mentioning it is to highlight the flaw of the argument.

>>3009271
I think the real question is why have British and Russian men been the best at art?

>>3010121
You misspelled Greeks and Romans

>>3010133
Italians and Dutchmen*

>>3009271
Can't we all just agree to one thing that niggers are always the worst artist

>>3010133
>muh sculptures
>>3010138
>muh stiff staged old shit

>>3010144
LeSean Thomas is pretty dope and he's a nigger.

>>3010144
Nigger culture is the only culture America has.

>>3010144
no can do

>>3009998

It's weird how you say you agree with me when none of the shit you've written on this thread doesn't seem like it... You're doing a lot of the stuff I wrote in my post like:

>Over simplification of complicated social/political issues.
>Denying issues.
>You need to win this (why?)
>Tribal mentality
>Not even trying to understand why people aren't agreeing with you

It's also funny how you post images of guys like Richard Feynman on your posts assuming that they would agree with your opinions. What's that about? I don't need to post a picture of Martin Luther King when I'm talking about racial equality. It doesn't add to anything I'm saying so why do it?

I also don't get what people like the OP are trying to achieve with threads like these... Validating their own mediocrity? A sense of false pride? Bringing down somebody else? Who was this thread made for? What's the fucking point?!?


>>3010085

I agree with this ~99%.

>>3010144

I sincerely hope you're joking/really good/12 years old

>>3010144
nigga plz

>>3010085
t, rambling feminist

I've found that nowadays women who stand out the most (or are given the most spotlight intentionally) are the ones who do performance art related with feminism and all that stuff that's been about the same thing since 50 years ago or so

This doesn't mean that all women do this or care about this

>>3010308

Not even a little bit. I just hate OP so much.

>>3009271
Women are more content with art as a hobby. They do not like competition, hence why the professional art world is dominated by men and why all the greatest artists in history are men.

>>3010085

I love the way you write and I want to be friends with you. Your insults are fucking eloquent. Seriously, do you want to be friends or something? You seem cool and smart.

>>3009313
You seem real well adjusted

>>3010144

I hate to sound antagonistic, but white nationalists are worse. They either symbol draw, have anatomy/proportion mistakes, or trace art from Nazi Germany like National Vanguard.