/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Honest intent.

>>6816976
REAL Passion of creator towards his creation and the process /thread

>>6816979
>Honest intent.
This art requires intent and purpose it's also the reason why AI slop cannot be art there is no substance or meaning behind it they might as well be classified as natural phenomena and the reason even beg tier work like zun can be charming and interesting to look at.

>>6816976
All I see is Detective Conan

>>6816976
i've been told my work is soulful despite knowing i'm still very very far from /int/ level, let alone going pro. i think it comes down to at least having one part of your process work really really well, like having superb anatomy or coloring while the rest still has that amateur, "always learning" vibe and charm to it. the other anon is right about having honest intent too - i've drawn maybe a handful of requests this year and no commissions, virtually everything i draw comes from my own interests and desire, and almost none of it is forced because i couldn't finish it if it was.
>inb4 pyw
ask nicely

>>6817015
Could you pyw please?

>>6816976
Napoleon dynamite is getting better but he still has the same old proportion issues.

>>6816985
>ai slop

you speak as if artists dont produce worse slop daily. ai slop is a product of artist slop. except you dont need to spend years to make the same slop, just tweak some settings with a proper model and a prompt.

>>6816976
Effort and intent (not some deep meaning but simply sitting down with the intent to draw something)

>>6817030
You speak ASSuming much like sjw`s do.

>>6817025
you're too kind, anon
i think one other part i forgot to mention is that if your art is cute it's much more likely to be labelled soulful when you also have the things i mentioned above

>>6817048
That's actually cute indeed. Well done anon.

>>6816976
Art is a communication between artist and audience, of something that the artist thought was worth communicating. This Asuka art isn't soulful because not even the artist thought the image was worth conveying. It's just practice, copying technique, with no message. Art will always have soul if it is created regardless of technical skill for the purpose of communicating an idea.

Picrel demonstrates very little technical skill. The construction isn't great. The composition is flat. There's no definite lighting. The textures are unrealistic. The perspective is totally whack. But it demonstrates a lot of soul, and the artist clearly took his time in rendering exactly what he saw in his head, to communicate that feeling.

If you want to make art with soul, that starts with your vision.

>>6817030
This is replyslop.

>>6817076
ai slop

>>6816976
Real Soul

>>6817082
ai slop

>>6817081
Also red and blue cows... Rajit Rajit, tsk, tsk.. he never learns.

>>6817028
Kek

>>6817082
this guy practically stopped drawing Lolis once he got big enough to be potentially cancelled. kek.

>>6816985
>This art
Which art? I don't see any.

>>6816976
Other anon on /ic/ asked similiar question some time ago. I'll paste it.
>>/ic/thread/6396251#p6396471

"Soul" can be defined in a few ways, depending on who you ask. Usually people view it as a "you know it when you see it" thing, or they just call every piece of bad artwork "soulful" because the person who made it was earnest and naive.
However I believe that the most essential, fundamental definition of "soul" is thus: "having qualities of earnestness, candidness, passion, and pathos; possessing the ability to strongly communicate feeling, intent, emotion, and narrative to the viewer".
Why people tend to associate soul with naive (and sometimes, although more rarely, beginner) art is because, despite a lack of technical knowledge and self awareness as to the aesthetic qualities of their work, they are still able to clearly communicate what they are feeling and thinking, or what feeling that they want to express with their art. Let's call this "naive soul". One of the best examples of naive soul I can think of would be Tails Gets Trolled- it has this quality of deft expressiveness that doesn't feel awkward or stilted even though the art is very much "bad". See picrelated, the iconic and titular moment in which Tails, indeed, Gets Trolled: The shocked outrage, horror, and dismay on his face and in his posture, instantly recognizable and plainly communicated to the viewer.
On the other hand is most beginner art, especially that of a beginner that starts later in life, that lacks soul because they are completely unversed in creating art and expressing themselves. They are unskilled and self conscious of their lack of skill, so the result is stiff and awkward art that cannot speak to the viewer. This might be called "unskilled soullessness", or "novice soulless" art.
(part 1 of 2)

>>6816976
>>6817136
On the opposite end of the skill spectrum lies "enlightened soul", and conversely, "adept soulless".
Adept soullessness is most often due to an artist skillmaxxing while ignoring or not comprehending the expressive. Sometimes it's because they're a cynical person that only does it for material benefits (see most FOTM coomer pinup artists, picrelated being a prime example of some of the worst), sometimes it's simply because they don't know better and have trouble expressing themselves or feeling what they're working on.
This is also what happens when a previously "soul" /beg/ or naif begins to focus on learning technical skill, their struggle with learning and incorporating new skills into their work causes them to be unable to express themself as freely as they did before. Typically, this is when training logic-based skills or factual knowledge like proportions, construction, and anatomy. This is before learning and incorporating story telling or expressive skills, like character acting and gesture.
"Enlightened soul" is when the artist has both mastered technique AND can express themselves freely, as well as putting obvious passion and love into their work. It's soulful because they essentially are putting their soul into it, and you can usually tell when they do.
Of course, what's soulful or not is probably subjective to a degree. While some things like gesture and character acting are fairly solid concepts that can be pinned down, the other qualities are a bit more ethereal.
(part 2 of 2)

>>6817081
If you think this is AI, you need to recalibrate your visual cues. Literally nothing about this looks AI, and it is full of tells that show it's made out of real materials. For instance, the tree crossing over the road that was clearly painted in afterwards, since the road shows through it a bit. Images persisting through each other like that never happens in AI. AI tells are all about perimeters interacting with each other oddly, and things no longer existing when they aren't fully visible.

>>6817140

>>6817122
absolute fucking coward

Check out classic book covers if you want to see a lot of art that isn't technically stunning while still demonstrating a lot of soul. Book covers had a lot of financial incentive to be easy to paint quickly, but also catch the eye with an arresting message, so they got it down to a science. https://retrobookcovers.com

>>6817122
Cuck move

>>6816976
If no one on earth but you would see the artwork would you still make it?

>>6817082
who is he? The artist.

the only real way to make soulless art is to become a porn artist.

>>6819199
Wrong.

>>6816976
When it speaks to you, that you can see the emotion and intent of the person behind it.

I'm pretty much the epitome of soul on this board. I was back in the day, I am today. Ain't a damn thing gonna change.

<--- this is soul.

>>6817030
They at least draw the slop instead of being afraid of failure.

>>6817030
Your problem is in believing that drawing something poorly is a failure. You think we're calling AI slop because its ugly? Or it draws too many fingers? There are technically perfect AI pictures out there, doesn't make it not slop. Its literally devoid of human input.

You believe drawing badly is worse than generating beautiful AI pictures.

>>6816976
>>6816979
>>6816981
>>6817015
>>6817034
>>6817082
>>6817136
>>6817139
>>6819226
Reminder that "soul" is just a meme word used by morons that can't explain eloquently enough why they like a certain thing.
It boils down to subjective personal preference, which can be dismissed without further analysis.

>>6819522
soulless post

>>6816976
soul is the contrarian opinion of liking an art piece that is not conventionally very well developed because something in the intention or message resonates on an emotional level.

>>6819522
You legit need to see a shrink if you can't read intent in a picture and experience feelings of resentment at people who can.

>>6816976
It's love.
It's that simple, if creating the piece was a positive experience it shows, even if it's technically deficient.
Schizos, autists and psuchos can't feel love, that's why they can't read the soul of the piece like healthy people can.

>>6819524
Case in point.
>>6819551
Intent is just more meme crap that you use because you are unable to talk about art in objective and technical terms.
You are a fucking moron.

>>6821103
>>6819522
You will never have soul in your art.
Soul is what differenciates consoomer product and work of art.
Cope and seethe.

>>6821103
Nta.
Im an art teacher and you are permacrab, i never said kys to anyone ever but holy shit im done with you zoomers, kys.

>>6821106
Bless you.

>>6821103
You're not objective or logical, you're a failed human incapable of interpreting the language of emotion.
You're literally missing circa 45% of communication.

>>6819522
bugman

>>6819226
not soul
its ugly overworked tryhard painting
soul is effortless

>>6821103
You are unable to comprehend the language of emotion, and you resent that others can. You think your 'objectivity' makes up for this, but it doesn't, it never will. You are doomed, you will never produce something that touches the viewer in any way. You are ngmi. I feel sorry for you.

>>6821244
He's not even objective. You can't be objective if you don't understand the object of discussion and they clearly can't read or interpret emotions.

As mentioned above, people like these are less than half human.

>>6817122
he made a naked asuka illustration just a couple months ago retard

>>6819522
Nah every piece of art is a living thing, some has more life to it than others in that you can feel the heart radiate from it. Soul is the perfect word for it

>>6819522
The seething on the replies is palpable. It's literally this.

>>6816976
Art is visual language. "Soul" is just a meme to communicate that the artwork either is saying something or is made a subjectively nice way.

There's a big difference between an artwork and art. It's like comparing a written post it note to Hemingway. Both are written works, but one of them is considered art.

>>6819522
>Artists using metaphors to simplify complex universal feelings instead writing a dry essay of text to explain everything in autistic detail? How absurd.

>>6819226
Anon I....

>>6816976
>when does a piece of artwork have soul regardless of skill level?
An artwork has "soul" when you can get a glimpse of the creator's being through the artwork itself.
To have a soul is to be human. And to be human you have to expose yourself, expressing who you truly are...through your art.
It's like walking down the street naked. Everybody has the potential to create art that has "soul", but most artists are too afraid to expose themselves to the world out of fear of being judged.
Skill is not required to show who you are as a human. You just need to dig deep and reveal yourself.

>>6817030
The shittiest, crudest teenaged deviantart fan artist has more soul than ANY proompter. Cope harder

>>6817030
>>6819522
>>6819529
>>6821103
>>6821535
>>6821665
You're legit not human.

>>6819522
very asian post