/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3741250
Backwards day was yesterday

>>3741250
she's cute

>>3741250
No, we do know the formal definition, but that’s just not really what people follow here, due to convenience and practicality. Because let’s be honest, which one would be more helpful, pointing out the good parts or the bad parts? Identifying strengths would be more of a confidence boost than anything.
>but it tells people they should keep doing x
well unless told otherwise, people usually don’t randomly change what they’re doing. If you don’t get called out on something then you can assume that something is halfway decent. Regardless of what others say is “good” about your work, you should keep striving to improve in every possible aspect.

>>3741250
>A critique is not only looking at the shit parts, but also identifying the artwork's strengths too.
no thats what the comment part of C&C is. you dont have to talk about the strengths.

>>3741250
this is /ic/ Anon we ahve our own style of criticism it is called "telling the person his art is shit and he himself is shit" that might motivate him to get better but probably not but damn it feels good to tell someone that he is shit regardless of art skills.

>>3741250
Ok. Here is my critique of this thread: it's shit.

>>3741250

you sound like a Fool who will Never make good art

>>3741274

oh look at this little guy! it's my favorite little man! he just keeps making the dumbest little criticism as if, his words mean anything! haha ;0)

>>3741261
Playing devils advocate here, but critiquing art by only pointing out errors, more so technical errors like anatomy or perspective, is like the cinemasins way of critiquing movies. It breeds a comunity that loses sight of what makes the art form actually enjoyable.
One could say that such an style of critique could lead to a comunity of begginers that obsses over not having technical flaws but that never actually engage on things like style, color or narrative, leading to a bunch of technical sketches but never a finished illustration.

>>3741284
Then you've missed the point of the board cause if someone comes here for critique then they are looking for technical improvement and should be given advice accordingly because things like style or a piece's meaning are subjective and can be decided by the artist. You said yourself that critiquing is about giving truly helpful advice and in most cases the genuinely helpful advice is to just tell them the things they need to fix and move on because they're already on the right track for the things they did good on and patting them on the head and saying "good boy" is only going to inflate their ego giving them a false confidence and stunting their growth. As a side note things like color and narrative have set rules and technical requirements that are important to be proficient in before you can start throwing out the rule book and stylizing.

>>3741314
I'm not OP, that's what "playing devil's advocate" means dumb dumb.
And by saying that style and meaning are subjective and that therefore they can't be critiqued you just proved my point, you are a brainlet that doesn't know how to think critically about the most important aspects of art because you were conditioned to only pay atention to technicalities like perspective and anatomy. You actually think that the most important parts of art cannot be criticized on a technical level.

As an advice, stop being so condescending if you are this ignorant about theory and crtique.

>>3741284
We have inspiration threads and such, only someone that visits /beg/ and only /beg/ will have that problem. There are plenty of compliments in /alt/ and usually the drawthreads too. My taste in art has improved drastically since I found this board.

>>3741331
Yikes! i just figured that you were "playing devils advocate" as op to save your ass when shit backfired on you my bad. And if i was condescending it wasn't my intention.
So to start, insults are meaningless rebuttals. You can call me a brainlet and say your point is right all you want but it means nothing when you haven't backed it up with any substantial evidence. You spit out words that at first glance look like a stable argument but all you've really done is say:
>no im right
>you've proven me right by being a brainlet
>also your critically inept
Now that aint a very good argument for your position. You see when looking at a piece of art your interpretation of its meaning is going to vary person to person. And you cant critique something that's based solely on you're own understanding and feelings without it being inherently subjective. Trying to otherwise is going to inevitable insert you're own ideas and feelings of what's good which is the problem with trying to critique subjective things. Style is another thing based on taste and will change depending on who you ask. It's more appropriate to value a piece of art on its overall technical prowess. The execution of the style which can be broken into its parts like line work, color, form, ect. "You can criticize the craftsmanship of the house but not its design". It's the technical skill and passion of the artist that gives work value to me, along with whatever meaning i ascribe to it. You probably feel the same way and are just misidentifying your critique on "style" as a critique on technique.

>>3741396
>just misidentifying your critique on "style" as a critique on technique
mixed those around, should be
>just misidentifying your critique on technique as a critique on "style"
man i really am a brainlet

The problem is that most people on this board have no idea how to draw so you can't exactly trust whether their criticism is legitimate or if they're just fucking retarded.

>>3741419
If someone is giving me critique it should make some semblance of sense or fit into knowledge i already have on the subject and if it doesn't it's most likely bogus. And even in the off chance i cant immediately tell if its bad advice, i can just go test it by drawing or researching more detail.

>>3741426
You can never tell if something's good advice at first until you try it yourself.

>>3741250
Gimme artist i need it for studying purposes

>>3741340
This. I’m a better artist for coming here, and it’s really broadened my view and made me appreciate styles of art I used to hate. Plus, I need to be taken down a notch whenever I start feeling too confident and this is the only place I can really get that

>>3741261
Yeah honestly silence on 4chan is practically praise anyway. If you don't get roasted that's an epic wi for your art.

>>3741284
Uh that is exactly what /ic/ is now damn
People shitting the bed over Loomis and anatomy but have no personality, style, or originality.
(General statement that's not always true of course)

>>3741250
Reminder OP is a faggot and should go back to your shithole >>>/p/lebb*t

>>3741573
Seems more like your art would be too boring to even shit on

>>3741250
IM SO LONELY I WANT A SOFT TITTY GF WHO WILL LOVE ME FOR WHO I AM WAAHHHHHH WAHHHHHHH AAAWWWAWWAWAWAWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHGHGHHGHHHHHHH PLEASE GOD WHY WHY WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

>>3741279
>haha ;0)
He mad

>>3741797
hey lonely poster, why don't you go outside and have conversations with people. or get a sex doll

>>3741797
how can you expect other people to love you if you havn't transformed yourself into somebody you can love?

>>3741793
Probably.

>>3741250
This board isn't even for critique, anyone without a perfectly smooth brain should be able to criticize themselves and identify what's shit in their art. Once you get past a certain point you don't need this board's help anymore. What it is for, though, is snapping beginners out of their delusion that their art is any good and wake them up to the fact that it sucks and they need to learn the fundamentals that make up a strong piece. Also Loomis, Hampton, Bridgman and all those other instruction books are memed here way too much, if you look at a lot of art across different styles and observe forms of people IRL then compare your memory/visual library to your art you should be able to pick up fundamentals by identifying what is missing from your art.

>>3741522
Can instantly tell it's ataruman.
His rendering is great, but he takes weeks to complete a single work. He streams as well.