/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4833153
You can tell a food is shit without even knowing how to cook

>>4833153
Your eyes can easily improve faster than your ability to execute.

you’re a deluded dunning kruger who overcompensates for his shit art by convincing himself that great art is actually shit

>>4833154
>>4833159
100% correct.

>>4833160
Retarded /beg/ with 0 self awareness.

>>4833159
Adding to this:
This is actually a good thing, as it means you can still improve. If your eyes aren't better than your skill, then you'll have an extremely hard time improving and likely stagnate.

>>4833167
pyw

>>4833153
they might not be the best draftman in the world, but people who understand the terminology and the principals in which they derives are rarely begs,

>>4833160
This. Almost all begs think after some time they are great because they spot "mistakes". Despite the artist who drew that often knowing about them anyway and keeping them on purpose or because they dont matter for the overall artwork. Can begs please stay in their own shitty general?

>>4833153
If you think the pic you posted is shit or has flaws, then that’s just your Dunning Kruger acting up.

>>4833154
Actually, wrong. When I was a /beg/ I used to really admire Sakimichan and Kron because I was really impressed by all the things they could do that I couldn’t, that it would overshadow all their flaws. Now that I can render and paint as good as they can,I don’t consider either one to be particularly great at anything outside of marketing themselves. All the techniques they use are stuff I know how to use as well now, and unlike them, I don’t fuck up anatomy or blatantly trace.

>inb4 pyw

>>4833192
Pyw

>>4833173
Moron.

>>4833255
t. /beg/

>>4833192
Same
It seems that taste does improve according to your knowledge in the field

>>4833154
I hate this fucking food analogy reddit argument so much, its just used by ignorant retards to bolster their "fact-pinions"
No anon, with no knowledge of cooking, you will only be able to tell us that you don't like it.
you won't be able to explain why its bad or what the cook did to make it bad, only that it's bad in your opinion, and no one cares about your opinion.

>>4833363
Same, especially since every time it’s used, it’s still blatantly fucking wrong. It’s irritating too cause the idiot using it probably thinks they’re being really clever, but it puts you in a position where you can’t even begin to explain to them why they’re an utter moron.

People who use that analogy tend to be talentless pretentious asshats.

>>4833363
Ok loser lmao
>Rates your restaurant 1 star

>>4833265
t. /beg/

>>4833376
>n-no u
lmao back to to your containment thread

>>4833363
Good job completely missing the point. No one is suggesting that you can provide a valuable critique without knowledge, they are saying you can provide a valuable critique without SKILL.

>>4833364
>you can’t even begin to explain to them why they’re an utter moron.
You can't explain it because you lack the mental faculties necessary to develop a point of view and express it coherently.

>>4833396
I called you a /beg/ first, genius.

>>4833396
>to to

>>4833363
Based

>>4833405
you didn’t, retard
lrn24chinz

>>4833403
T. Dunning kruger

>>4833153
Because you are a hypocrite

>>4833153
I can tell you a toilets broken but that doesn't mean I can fix a toilet.

>>4833403
>You can't explain it because you lack the mental faculties necessary to develop a point of view and express it coherently.
No, I CAN, but it’d just take you way longer to understand as there’s so many prerequisite things you don’t know, that it’s simply not worth the effort.

Arguing with idiots is only ever a waste of time.

>>4833458
how you imagine the analogy works
>look at toilet
>this toilet is broken
>everybody claps and sucks your dick
how it actually works
>look at toilet
>lol, this toilet is broken
>how is it broken?
>you say something retarded that isn’t even remotely how toilets function

>>4833507
This, fucking non-artist on social medias like twatter would always confuse lighting/shading with skin tone and think a person with the slightest tan is black face.

>>4833516
more like everyone looks at the shit water flowing every where into the floor and realizes something is wrong

>>4833363
Based

>>4833516
I quite like the way you phrased it. It's too bad I have a hard time spotting mistakes in the first place. Wish there actually was a good redline general so I could improve upon my flaws by looking at proper corrections.

>>4833435
Read the reply chain, dumbfuck.

>>4833439
Dumb parrot.

>>4833507
Like fuck you can. You only think your thoughts would hold up under scrutiny because you've never put them to the test. Rest assured, if you tried to make an argument about this topic, I could point out precisely how you were being a moron.

>>4833153
Because you're a Dunning fucking Kruger that's so far the next man's ass that you're actively looking for reasons to label their drawings "objectively" shit instead of actual caring about your own fucking scribbles.

Learn some new words, /ic/.

>>4833153
Because life and human consciousness are shit. And for some reason it takes fucking YEARSSS to get good at ANYTHING, and that's only if you're either born with the ability and understanding of how to progress and draw well
in the first place.

>>4833403
You develop useful, insightful knowledge through gaining skill, mushbrained retard.

>>4833365
kek

>>4833718
Ok /beg/

>>4833776
No, you CAN gain knowledge through developing skill. You can also gain knowledge through developing knowledge, which can then lead to developing skill. This isn't complicated, and it it is baffling that you can't wrap your head around this.

>>4833786
Nice argument.

Why is it that whenever I draw it looks ok/meh at first then like garbage 3 days later when I go back to it and then I fix it?

>>4833799
Glad you realized you had no chance.

>>4833833
I knew from the beginning that there was no chance you would be able to argue your point.
I even said as much.

>>4833853
Exactly, you made no points whatsoever, so there was no argument to be had in the first place.

>>4833875
You are not very clever, are you?

>>4833796
I don't have to be a master debater to know your ideas are shit anon.

>>4833881
So now you believe you don't need knowledge to provide insightful critique?

>>4833890
nice try nigger

>>4833893
You said it yourself, retard.

>>4833897
go fuck your own strawman doll faget

>>4833906
It isn't a strawman. You claimed that you did not have to be good at debate to be able to know that an argument is wrong. Which would mean that you think you do not need to be knowledgeable in a topic to provide insightful critique.

>I don't have to be a master debater to know your ideas are shit

You said this, not me.

>>4833912
NOPE. Fuck you and eat a dick.

>>4833915
Don't be mad at me just because you didn't think things through.
I didn't make you stupid, I'm just showing you that you are.

>>4833192
>When I was /beg/
>When

Ok Dunning Kruger.

>>4833796
>You can also gain knowledge through developing knowledge,

what does that entail, exactly? how do you "developing knowledge" in practice? what does those word mean to you?

>>4833796
Sure, reading only books makes you ready to preform surgery, kek.

>>4834102
What does gaining knowledge on a topic before the skill to execute that topic entail? I can expand, but isn't that self evident?
Let me give you an example: if you read about how to draw, you may read and commit to memory that it is beneficial to draw from the elbow or shoulder instead of just the wrist. But just because you understand the concept, does not mean you automatically have the muscle memory to execute it. When applied to the topic of critique, someone who just read about the benefits of drawing from the shoulder can look at short, petted lines and have enough knowledge to recommend the artist try drawing from the shoulder, despite not being proficient at making clean lines.
Reading, listening, and looking can all be used to gain knowledge separate from developing practical skill.


>>4834110
I never implied anything of the sort, try again.

>>4834127
That's phrase differently. You said you gain knowledge by studying up on the subject. The argument was phrased as "you gain A by 'developing' A".

>>4834140
You have to look at the statement in context. The conversation is about the dichotomy between skill and knowledge; how the two are linked, but separate.
Sure, if you separate that statement from the context it appears circular, but we are specifically talking about the difference between skill and knowledge. Both development of skill and development of knowledge are a part of art education, and therefore if I said something like "gain knowledge through education" it wouldn't be any clearer.
Again, reading, listening, and looking are all ways to develop your knowledge.

>>4834156
I have never met anybody whom have demonstrated expert knowledge on the subject of art on a technical level, that can't also draw.

>>4834164
>that can't also draw.
Can't draw or can't draw well?
Because it has been observed endlessly on this board alone that art teachers are typically not the best artists themselves. And many people try to use this fact as an excuse to avoid studying from said teachers.

>>4833718
t. DK

>>4834260
What?

>>4834180
I suppose drawn well enough to establish that they are knowledgeable on a subject. something like that always exists on a continuity, for me its easier to assess credibility with their drawings than to read through a mountain of text. although I am curious which teachers you are referring to, from my experience my prof in uni do draw pretty well in my opinion.

>>4834260
Donkey Kong?

>>4834300
fun fact: the author of picrel was 16 at the time of publishing

>>4834260
Dragon Knight?

>>4834300
>drawn well enough to establish that they are knowledgeable on a subject.
Again, knowledge and skill are separate.

>its easier to assess credibility with their drawings than to read through a mountain of text
Not so. Just as many of the best teachers are poor artists, many of the best artists are poor teachers. Having a great deal of skill does not necessarily make you good at verbalizing what makes up that skill, or how it could be attained.

>>4833154
This is a terrible analogy, drawing is something that is highly dependent on knowledge.
The lower the quality of the art the lower the amount of knowledge needed to know it's shit, the higher it goes the more knowledge required to point out and recognize what's wrong.

>>4833153
pyw and then we'll test your skills.

>>4835987
Knowledge and skill are not the same thing.

>>4835903
You are being pretty vague, give me some examples of bad artist who are great teachers.

>>4833192
They still produce decent food. If you are a star chef that can produce better food, that doesn't really matter that much. Most people just want something that's better than McDonalds.

>>4833153
You don't have to be a plumber in order to tell that there's a leak.

>>4836004
I didn't say it was, nor did I bring up skill.
Skill is the application of knowledge, sometimes people know more than they have applied because application requires time while knowledge can be understood in theory but not practice.
So someone's knowledge can exceed their skill, which allows them to recognize mistakes but not necessarily able to apply it.

>>4836018
But you DO have to BE a plumber to repair that leak

>>4836010
Why?
Just look in the catalog, there's at least one thread up about this topic right now.

>>4836058
Skill is the topic of conversation.

>>4836067
But not point it out.

>>4836018
>>4836067
>>4836078
Neither of you know shit about plumbing, and you’re both wrong.

>>4836071
well, which thread in particular?

>>4833153
The cerebellum is difficult to train, you may have an idea of what you like or what you picture in your head, but the cerebellum is a slow learner.

>>4836067
>>4836018
I don't have to be a doctor to know that someone is obese.

>>4836071
Give examples

>>4836085
You're wrong.

>>4836092
>>4836105
Lurk more and search the catalog.

>>4836114
Thought so, you can’t give a single name, dumbass.

>>4836122
Can, but won't. I've passed by one such thread multiple times while looking through the catalog today, you don't need me to hold your hand through this.

>>4836133
Sure you can, /beg/tard.

>>4836143
Lurk more, check the catalog.
If you can't search through just 3 pages worth of threads, there's no helping you.

>>4836114
I have 3 years of traditional arts education. These course threads never have anything interesting in them, I am sure they are fine for beginners, but I don't feel the needs to pay attention to them. I learn new things nowadays by analyzing finished products or through the critique processes.

>>4836111
you’re wrong +∞

>>4836183
You have 3 years of education? You're a beyinner too then.

>>4836413
I guess.

>>4833153
You know what if wrong. You don't know how to make it right.