So whats the new CGHub?

[Anonymous No.1740784]

I see a lot of new sites popping up after CGHub died like ArtStation, DrawCrowd etc. but none of them seem to have an active forum and they are pretty much just galleries.

CA.org is still saturated with low quality works and thousands of beginner sketchbooks filled with low effort crap, their weekly challenges are very meh currently and I dont see anyone decent even participating in them.

So did the the community go? I guess CGSociety sort of follows CGHub format of gallery+forums though they dont really have interesting contests. Anything obvious Im missing?

[Anonymous No.1740789]

THERE'S NOTHING FUCKING LEFT

[Anonymous No.1740790]

>>1740789
we'll always have each other

[Anonymous No.1740807]

>>1740784

>So did the the community go

I meant WHERE did the community go. I need my injection of artist interaction and some competition.

[Anonymous No.1740815]

>>1740784
>CA.org is still saturated with low quality works and thousands of beginner sketchbooks
So basically you're looking for muh sekrit klub forum where you can suck pro artist dicks without being overrun by the other 300 people doing the same.

[Anonymous No.1740821]

>>1740807
The thing I miss most is looking at the top tier sketchbooks and learning from them. A lot of great artists would document their progression and show what exercises they did in order to get good. Now most of what I see on forums are finished artworks and I have no idea what they did to get to that level.

[Anonymous No.1740842]

>>1740815
Basically. It would make networking a hell of a lot easier.

[Anonymous No.1740980]

Did you check facebook?
tons of art activity there...

[Anonymous No.1740996]

>>1740980
Facebook sucks. I follow a shitton of artists on there but it only shows like 10% of their updates in my feed.

[Anonymous No.1741015]

>>1740996
yup, you're right.. but its a great way to actually talk to these guys

a friend of mine even got to play DayZ with Dan Luvisi

[Anonymous No.1741025]

Which one of those (or another) is the best at helping beginners?

[Anonymous No.1741044]

>>1740784
i just found this
i think its like pinterest chinese version

http://www.duitang.com/people/mblog/62237129/detail/?pre=40177377

just explore

[Anonymous No.1741047]

better to gun it on your own

most forums use you, they even steal your ideas!! be careful

fuck communities aint good for jack shit

[Anonymous No.1741069]

Is Jason Manley still part of ConceptArt.org?

I remember years ago, there was a bit of a "Man-o-calypse" on CA, and a large portion of "high profile" contributors were banned, or left for various reasons, some in disgust...

[Anonymous No.1741077]

>>1741069
jaSon maNley fot THE WIN!!!!

I PRay he wins his COURT CASE!!!!

[Anonymous No.1741302]

>>1741069
AFAIK Manley is still there. What do you mean by manocalypse? The Cryptcrawler drama or was there something else too?

[Anonymous No.1741303]

>>1741025
>Which one of those (or another) is the best at helping beginners?

None of the mentioned so far. If you want to learn the basics Ctrl Paint is your best bet.

[Anonymous No.1741534]

>>1741302
That place's had a whole lot more drama than just that. A few from the top of my head:
• Consistently guilt-tripping seniors through PM to pay for his site because of everything the forum had done for them
• Using artwork of forum users to promote CAD despite said users not having any affiliation with it
• Doxxing users who had torrented certain classes by matching IPs (I believe videos from Massive Black, which at the time were already a pain in the ass to access even if you paid for them)
• Turning into a massive bitch whenever someone mentioned or linked other art sites on the forum to the point of censoring them
• The layout being broken and the forum being down for weeks at a time throughout an entire year, after which that laughable 'Dreamfuel' kickstarter and a handful of indignation was used for an excuse

[Anonymous No.1741537]

When is CGHub 2.0 going online? Probably not until 2015 or something huh? :(

[Anonymous No.1741539]

>>1741537
The kickstarter probably won't make it
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/kirillchepizhko/next-generation-website-for-cg-artists

[Anonymous No.1741542]

>>1740784
>i still haven't been acepted into Artstation.

>TFW

[Anonymous No.1741547]

>>1741539
good i thought it was a shill in the first place.
notice who is in control do you see a pattern?

[Anonymous No.1741551]

>>1741547
>>notice who is in control do you see a pattern?
no

[Anonymous No.1741554]

>>1741547
Why would you want it to fail? CGHub was the best site we had and now they're trying to revive it. Why do you rail against a good thing? I hate fuckers like you.

[Anonymous No.1741555]

>>1741534

i still remember the goku with the gigantic swinging dick. anyone else?

[Anonymous No.1741556]

>>1741551
Well the 2dgeek guy was involved with cghub as well if im not mistaken.

So handing the keys over to him just seems kind of foolish. they should have had a committe or something. vs just 1 guy and them.

[Anonymous No.1741561]

>>1741539
someone actually gave over 10k...
I'm baffled at the stupidity.

[Anonymous No.1741562]

>>1741554
Cghub had created a pay system just weeks before it shut down, nobody except a few jewed into it. Weeks after it shuts down the "developers" wante 100k to make a new cghub that has the same exact thing with premium accounts etc...

Art station hasn't excepted me yet. but i don't care at least they offer a service worth paying for and doesn't have a shaddy reputation.

There was just to much going on in the dark with cghub and the way it was handeld for me not to think they are doing this for a money grab.

There fist plan failed with the premium accounts so they shut the sight down. now they want you to pay to have it back up.

Verry shilly to me.

[Anonymous No.1741565]

>>1741561
If it was adobe or some video game company that is a drop in the bucket for there marketing campaign im sure. so i don't think so.

[Anonymous No.1741567]

>>1741539
90.000 is a ridiculously high number for a simple project like this. They should have made it a flexible funding with maybe 20-30k goal and then add stretch goals depending how much more additional funding they get. Really dumb decision on their part.

[Anonymous No.1741568]

>>1741562
>excepted
>there
>sight
I have a hard time taking you seriously.

[Anonymous No.1741570]

>>1741565
why would they anonymousely give 10gees when they could just dial them up and make a deal...Besides Im not entirely sure that corporations are allowed to be "backers"

[Anonymous No.1741573]

>>1741562
Cghub ran for years without any drama or shady business practices whatsoever prior to the abrupt shutdown. I highly doubt they threw it all away just for a quick cash-grab. They even refunded everyone who bought their premium accounts. With ca.org on its deathbed, cghub was becoming THE site for digital art, they had basically a monopoly. No one is so stupid to throw this all away for a quick short-term money grab. LEAST of all a business savvy, greedy jew, which is what you are implying here.

I mean you gotta realize what name recognition means in this industry. EVERYONE and their mother had a cghub account. If they wanted to just make quick money, they could have easily sold the site to someone for much more than 90k.

Honestly, the official statement makes much more sense than your little conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.1741574]

>>1741568
well i don't need you to take me seriously on the internet. That's just my opinion if i have no problem supporting something i feel that is deserving of it. but Cghub 2.0 is not it.

Besides the fact that im doubtful of their story. the community sucked in the first place. it only had barley started to gain track in the last year to 6 months before it shut down. "though many had signed up before than"

Again im pretty much against bailing out these companys or ideas that fail. Which is exactly what this is if it didn't work the first time it won't work the second time. let the free market fix it. ie. permanoobs and artstation.

i'm only shocked by how many suckers gave in to supporting it.

[Anonymous No.1741576]

>>1741573
im not saying that im saying that it obviously couldn't sustain itself on what they were selling and yet they are repeating the same mistake with the same exact features yet expect people to pay for it after it failed once.

not to mention they are too little too late imo.

[Anonymous No.1741579]

>>1741570
Kickstarter is not anonymous i don't know where you get that idea. And 4-5 10k ones have sold im thinking schools or workshop can easily make that back with the prices they charge.

Perhaps even little studios like 1pixel or whatever. not to mention the rich kids who have there parents money to spend.

[Anonymous No.1741580]

>>1741574
Permanoobs and Artstation are nothing like cghub. Cghub was great because of 2 things, the gallery and the job listing section. Hundreds of big clients, from movie studios to triple A developers used Cghub to look for artists. No other site has that going for it. Also, Artstation doesn't even have 1% of the professional artist userbase cghub had.

[Anonymous No.1741581]

i read that wrong only 1 sold . :)

10k isn't much in the grand scheme of things really. Not for a individual and deffinetley not for a business.

[Anonymous No.1741582]

>>1741580

>website that is still in beta

vs

>website that had been around for years.

[Anonymous No.1741584]

>>1741576
Cghub didn't shut down because of money trouble though. If they had money problems, they would have tried many different things way before shutting it down from one day to another without any announcement whatsoever. Hell, they could have made a kickstarter with cghub still available, just asking for money to keep cghub alive and I guarantee you that kickstarter would have been funded in a matter of days.

[Anonymous No.1741587]

>>1741584
Maybe it did maybe it didn't? all i know is they had changed tactics quite a bit before the sudden shut down. Not to mention that the severs were often overloaded towards the end with a lot of people having certain hours they couldn't use the site.


The site added a pro feature that was $100 a year but only $60 for those who did it early.

Huge banners on the left and right side of the sight etc...

Maybe that guy had to much pride or shame to ask for help. who knows.

[Anonymous No.1741590]

>>1741587
>who knows.
You sure don't.

[Anonymous No.1741593]

>>1741590
yeah but either do you. and i think that lack of finances or maybe loss of a sponsor or two is the main reason. vs some emotional reason.

[Anonymous No.1741595]

>>1741576
>not to mention they are too little too late imo.

Late to what? There isnt any site that fills the niche and as far as I can tell none of the "new" sites even have a chance of becoming a networking site for cg professionals.

[Anonymous No.1741597]

>>1741595
just because you haven't been accepted to artstation doesn't mean pros aren't using it to network etc..

if that's what you really want i think linkedn and behance are better platforms anyways.

the thing that made cghub great was it's gallery system that's what it had vs anything else.

[Anonymous No.1741620]

>>1741555
Eeyup.

[Anonymous No.1741623]

>>1741597
As you said, the thing cghub was great at is the thing every other site is lacking, the gallery system. Networking can be done anywhere, facebook, tumblr, blogspot, twitter, whatever you like, no one needs Artstation for that.

[Anonymous No.1741705]

>>1741539
I see nobody I follow really talk about this, so I've gotten the impression they're suffering from really poor marketing/publicity.

[Anonymous No.1742383]

>>1741568
your a turd

[Anonymous No.1742407]

>>1741582

>implying any serious professionals are going to join permanoobs so they can be mobbed with asspats and requests for personalized feedback by a bajillion teenaged wannabes.

Pros used CGHub for the gallery system, which was the best of any art site, not the forum, which was dead. Broadly speaking, most pros don't want to interact with a community of noobies, because they don't have a lot of time, and because it's a one-sided relationship in which they receive nothing.