/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

art is subjective, draftsmanship is not

>>6936502
/thread

>>6936495
Wow that AI image on the right is really bad.

>>6936495
>Perspective being entirely objective
No, it really isn't. Like not even nearly. If I have to explain why you're either a /beg/ or a shitter 100%. Absolutely nothing has ever been definite in art.

>>6936529
Sure, I'm a /beg/ shitter retard imbecile redditor etc. Get explaining.

>>6936495
>Perspective being entirely objective, with lighting and anatomy coming slightly after it
>perspective
>lighting
>anatomy
All can, and often should, be broken in very deliberate subjective ways to accomplish a final effect. There's plenty of masterful art where these things don't make actual physical real world sense. Because it looks better in the composition that way

>>6936529
Hi Teasunnh

>>6936539
Yes, but that's unrelated. You've gotta learn the rules before breaking them anyways.

>>6936550
It's a little related dude. You should say it's the learning art that's objective, not art itself. Learning means mimicking reality but art is abstracting it to your subjective interpretations.

>>6936538
Linear perspective is not how human vision actually works, or how anything except itself works, really. It's ultimately just geometry, a mathematic approximation of how we *think* we perceive reality, and it "fails" all the time without constant adjustment, introducing all kinds of ridiculous distortions you'd never see in life. Never mind that even if it were "objective," art itself is inherently subjective, so there's no amount of "objectivity" you can put into art that is guaranteed to make the art basically good.
You can objectively determine 2+2 = 4 and this good for accounting numbers, there is such objective criteria for art.
People who believe in the objectivity of perspective have a simplistic view of art and really just want photographs. Of course, if you press them, they probably enjoy symbol drawn anime and cartoons and don't care for photography.

>>6936562
there is no such objective criteria for art*

>>6936562
The goal is not to say "objective thus good", but to say "how close is this to a photograph in this sense". The fundamentals are based upon reality, so it follows that to improve your fundamentals you must make them better replicate reality. 1, 2, 3 point perspective are noticeably faulty approximations, but it's not like it's impossible to recreate what a camera creates with mathematics. Ever try to fill a page with literally everything you see, while trying to apply perspective by carefully measuring things and lines? Useful exercise.
The objective part in this case is that there is a reality to compare to, something that subjective things like composition don't have.

>>6936605
>how close is this to a photograph in this sense
Why should we emulate photographs? Photography isn't even very old. Are paintings and drawings predating photography less objectively good, in some sense? And shouldn't that make photography the ultimate art form? You can't beat a photo for objectivity.
Okay, so the counterargument may be "don't seek a photographic likeness, but a naturalistic one." Naturalism is more objectively valuable, you might say.
But is even that true? As I alluded to, people like to pick and choose what's allowed, almost without rhyme or reason. There's more sloppiness in the pro-representation argument than its believers let on. Why is it ok to symbol draw a face, but not symbol draw the anatomy from the neck down (anime)? Why is it ok to stylize?

When I said art is "inherently subjective", I meant that literally. It's subject-centric, delineated by the edge of the canvas, limited in that it can't objectively and neutrally depict the totality of existence.
Every picture is a subjective snapshot by the artist, and in depicting it, the artist insinuates that "this subject depicted in this way is worth seeing." There can be no real objectivity there, and you don't have to agree with the artist, it's just his opinion. It's this subjectivity that makes art vital and varied.

>>6936495
the only objective aspect of art is whether or not something is accurate to life because the world and its laws are undeniable facts
ffduhuuhrr

>>6936624
I'm kind of confused here.
I, again, haven't said photography is the ultimate form of art. I think emulating it is the best way to improve your fundamentals (this isn't even an opinion worth saying, everyone does photo studies). You're free to draw whatever you want, in fact, that'd be the case even if I thought otherwise, since I have yet to use my connections in the deep state to imprison artists. I just prefer my drawings to have a sense of depth, and a cool look with I feel I can only get when my anatomy is sufficiently accurate, at least in some sense. So if you're not arguing whether an objective visual reality exists, you don't disagree with me in anything.

>>6936636
>I think
>I prefer
>opinion worth saying
>draw whatever you want
So...like, your opinion, man. "Subjective." That's what I'm arguing. Even if all 8 gorillion people agreed linear perspective is wicked cool, it remains subjective. It isn't woven into the fabric of reality, nothing depends upon it.
Subjective doesn't mean lacking "real" value...the value of money is subjective. It just means nothing makes it absolutely so. As far as I understand it, light has a given speed in a vacuum, gravity exists, and 2+2 = 4, except in Bizarro World.
There isn't anything like this in art, so just make your series of subjective choices in your art and be okay with that.

>>6936644
I should clarify, too, linear perspective does seem to be a fact of reality, insofar as geometry is concerned. But *people* used its mathematical principles in decidedly subjective, simplistic, and "wrong" ways, and insist there is objective artistic value in this.

>>6936495
This is peak

>>6936650
peeking out of the trash can more like

>>6936644
You're misunderstanding what I'm being subjective about. I'm NOT saying objective = GOOD. I'm saying objective exists. You can think whatever you think 2+2=4 is, it will remain true nonetheless. This has absolutely nothing to do with value judgements such as:
>beautiful, good, highest form of art
I've never mentioned anything about:
>objective artistic value
Only about a reality and an emulation of it.
Discussing anything like this wasn't even the goal of the thread in the first place...

>>6936658
>Perspective being entirely objective, with lighting and anatomy coming slightly after it, so there is a way to grade art objectively.
Negro, did you not say this? My whole agenda in this thread has been attacking this statement as false. Perspective is not nearly as objective as you suppose (at least as it's been used in art), and there is no way to "grade" art objectively.
Even the idea of discrete "levels" in art is a fictive gamification, a modern obsession. There are no levels, no tiers, no experience points. Now draw and get good anyway.

>>6936495
A study was done to determine the "objective" quality of music and its potential for success (success in this case meant popular.) What researchers found was that there is a minimum viable quality threshold after which it became increasingly difficult for audiences (and musicians themselves) to judge whether or not a piece of music is 'objectively' good. However, at lower levels, the audience and the musicians were in near unanimous agreement whether or not a song was objectively bad. In other words:

-beg work was near universally judged as bad 99% of the time. Everyone knew something was off. Nobody liked this shit. Timing was bad, missed notes, objectively measurable things were just plain "incorrect."

-int work was harder to classify and stratify. Instead what they found was that audiences and musicians both favorited int work in a more random way -- sometimes an upvoted int work would become popular simply because it happened to get lucky enough to rise to the top and the mass of voters would pick it as the 'best' because they didn't have the patience to listen to the rest of the songs and make deeper assessments.

-adv levels were the hardest for anyone to agree on. The most popular ones were again crapshoots, based on a combination of luck and lazy voting, but there was fiercer disagreement about which pieces were 'objectively better,' though they were all judged as "high level." The distinctions became blurrier. At this high level, nobody could really tell if a piece was technically / objectively superior and voters decided what they liked based entirely on personal taste rather than measurable technical facets of the music. Nobody was playing the wrong notes or botching the timing so all that was left was the expression itself.

I don't imagine it's much different for art. Fundies are the closest thing to measurable objectives at least when the artist is trying to represent reality, but even they can be broken for the sake of expression.

>>6936662
I did say that, but an objective grading system can measure anything. It can measure objectivity in the sense that I've described, and at the same time it can also not be a good measure of whether the drawing is good, or likely to make your art teacher cum. >Perspective is not nearly as objective as you suppose (at least as it's been used in art),
It is objective in the real world, the second part is irrelevant.
>there are no levels
>get good

>>6936671
>there are no levels
>get good
>he literally can't decouple mastery itself from a modern gamified conception of mastery
mm worrying yes

In art there's different degrees of mastery. Like I'm sure many posters on here are more attracted to a well-drawn anime girl illustration than they are a perfectly rendered charcoal portrait of a beautiful woman, but ask your babyboomer parents (or grandparents, for our younger posters), and they'd almost universally prefer the charcoal portrait. The charcoal portrait would typically be considered harder to draw than the anime girl, but there's a decent chance that the charcoal artist couldn't draw an appealing anime girl without spending significant time practicing drawing anime girls. So as long as both are well-draen for what they are, the universal skill comparison becomes relatively irrelevant, and each can find success among their own audience.
Look at Proko, who can create good realistic art (inb4 Proko sucks at that too; whatever), but his earlier attempts at cartoons looked like mid-beg work.

And this is where I think some people get disillusioned with their art skill, the belief that by narrowly focusing on traditional art fundies, they'll just immediately reach the same level of proficiency in all areas of art at once

>>6936664
pretty much in line with my beliefs.
there's a quality threshold and after that it's almost entirely subjective.

>>6936495
design and composition matter universally. everything else is an added plus

>>6936562
> all kinds of ridiculous distortions
like what? It's basically correct for head on vision away from the periphery. If you want super accuracy you need to use two overlapping spherical lenses but the actual 'geometry' is the same. light is bent on the periphery causing certain areas to seem distorted (perspective).

you seem to be implying theres some magical property we don't know about how light enters the human eye - ignoring metaphysical navelgazing - and that's just not true. But a perfect model of it requires a computer to calculate because it involves spherical geometry which is hard. Artists have of course played around with this, and it is an interesting creative pursuit in itself.

>>6936774
>ignoring metaphysical navelgazing
Not a true artist

>>6936775
the subject isn't on kant, if you read the post. obviously there's a time and place for that as well.

>>6936783
>time and place
But are time and place, man? Have you ever thought about how duality works? One the one hand, we have obvious dualistic pairings, like male and female, up and down. They're like, inversions of themselves man, and they compliment and inform one another. But how is time dualistic with place or space? I just don't get it man it's some fucking weird shit man

>>6936664
>Fundies are the closest thing to measurable objectives at least when the artist is trying to represent reality, but even they can be broken for the sake of expression

Also bear in that pertains to the everyday human perception of objective reality. When humans say objective, all we really mean is "according to the narrow slice of reality we have thus far decoded and created a framework of functional, repeatable understanding around." For all we know, an artist breaking the rules of reality is actually following an as of yet undiscovered rule about reality that involves the breaking of current frameworks of perception to give way to new ones. Unless a person can claim absolute, unwavering, quantifiable total awareness of all universal principles and phenomena, there is no objective reality being experienced, only broad consensus derived experience with blurry margins and exceptions. Artists love the margins and exceptions.

>>6936495
>What do the levels of art actually look like?
It's not really linear, the the usual "level" metaphor is but a remote approximation. It's much more organic and intertwined.

It's also extremely dependent on what you consider "art" to be, which is a complex discussion.

Drawing exactly like pic on right:
By tracing, level 0
By grid, level 2
By sight size, level 3
Freehand, level 4
Imagination, level 5

>>6936874
*Level 1 not 0