/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4037232]

"Soul" is just mistakes, weird proportions, sloppy construction work, and compositional heavy-handedness, often in conjunction with symbol drawing on a framework of instantly stimulating fundamental elements such as bright color/basic color palette, high contrast, overly busy repetetive detailing or effects, and emotionally evocative subject matter.

So-called "Soulless" art is created when an artist strives for technical excellence but falls short in a way that is contrasted and highlighted against the more successfully executed elements present in the work.

How do you manage to maintain the position that you believe art has soul while simultaneously acting in a way which is violently vitriolic towards any artist that strays away from technical and stylistic uniformity? Is it not hypocritical to refuse allowances for emotionally evocative/stylistic art that doesnt fit your preconception of appeal while praising a piece that fits all criteria aside from those which infuse it with the less beautiful interpretations of existence?

[Anonymous No.4037247]

>>4037232
For all anons.

Art is not a duty, to make art is to have fun and fulfill ones desires.

If you focus so much in treating your art like a duty then you are going to be harming your art ironically.

A lot of people make art for fun, they find a style, be it a "crappy" style or a "good" style, their objective is happiness, not reaching some weird technical goal that you believe is what you should be doing.

[Anonymous No.4037251]

>>4037247
>Drawing should be fun
okay, fine thats basically true but a bit of a juvenile way of looking at things

doesnt really answer my questions though

[Anonymous No.4037252]

'soul' is literally just style and indicators that the artist is passionate and having fun with their work. 'soulless' art is stiff, not very colorful, and/or clearly created just for likes or money. for example, what might make a cute charming lineless watercolor painting would not be good if it were painted digitally and then overshaded, because the entire concept is simplicity. if you think anything other than a photobash or a stiff, lifeless realistic painting is just a mistake then you're actually autistic.

design is a huge part of art and it's absolutely retarded to disregard that and call it all a mistake.

[Anonymous No.4037255]

>>4037251
having fun with your job or hobby is juvenile??
why are you on ic if you don't like art???

[Anonymous No.4037263]

>>4037252
Your definition is vague with lots of room for contradiction. How would you determine the artists intent or mindset? An artist might have a lot of fun creating their piece while at the same time created to be profitable, whether that is clear or not is speculative.

>if you think anything other than a photobash or a stiff, lifeless realistic painting is just a mistake then you're actually autistic.
what?

I also never said or implied that deliberate design was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.4037267]

>>4037255
maybe they liked it before it turned into a duty without them realizing.

[Anonymous No.4037270]

>>4037255
juvenile in that generally, yes art should be enjoyable, however youre making a hedonistic case which implies that a having sense of duty or setting a goal for objective improvement is harmful while in reality taking the time in the present to set aside instant gratification to hone your craft is an investment in your future self and drastically raises the ceiling for long term, high-resolution expression in art (operating on the assumption that pleasure is taken both in the process as well as the finished product.

[Anonymous No.4037271]

>>4037232
say that again

[Anonymous No.4037278]

>>4037270
it's okay to treat art like a duty sometimes, else we can end up in bad situations. What I meant is to do art to fullfil a desire and-

>If you focus so much in treating your art like a duty

Not focusing all the time on treating it like a duty! People really forget that art should be enjoyable/has to fulfill something sometimes and never do anything to get joy out of it. This is a big problem in /ic/ thus the >For all anons.

[Anonymous No.4037329]

>>4037232
>How do you manage to maintain...
People don't... do this... This is an artwork and critique board. In which the general culture is to improve at art. Because this is 4chan, the culture is to mock those who have seemed to failed at that goal. So anons will be vitriolic towards those who fail at improving at art. There is an /alt/. There is an /asg/. In the draw thread, people have different styles. This board is far from technically and stylistically uniform. What you percieve as uniformity is simply due to the fact that you have seen anons mocking works because they have shoddy execution, not because they stray from technical and stylistic norms. Also, your definition of soul is flawed. There are plenty of "soulful" artists that dont follow your definition of soul (moebius, monet).
Your language is fucking stupid. What is "a framework of instantly stimulating fundamental elements such as..."??? What the fuck does this mean? Art has soul because it's interesting? You figured it out, people will find meaning in engaging art, good job. The way you define soulless is stupid too. What is the "way that is contrasted and..."? You just said mistakes (which implies that the artist did something that they were not striving to achieve) make an art have soul, yet here you say that falling short from achieving what is strived (technical excellence) is soulless?

[Anonymous No.4037331]

>>4037232
>>4037329
>Is it not hypocritical to refuse allowances for...
You're using bigger words and redundant language here because you think it more clearly illustrates your point but it does exactly the opposite. You're saying that it is hypocritical to not like stylized art but praise art that fits all "criteria" but doesnt fit the "criteria" that makes it less beautiful. What is this criteria? The fundamentals? The elements of the drawing? What is "a less beautiful interpretation of existance"? There is good art that is ugly that I would wager a lot of anons would praise for being good, like the designs of Giger or the manga of Junji Ito. The entire premise in which you're arguing is vague and false. Try to be less pretentious next time.

[Anonymous No.4037335]

>>4037329
>>4037331
big case of "im missing the point therefore youre stupid" going on here

[Anonymous No.4037336]

>>4037232
Soul is just a way to say "I like this artwork for reasons I can't express. There's nothing that objectively makes a drawing "soulful" or "soulless," as it's based entirely in the viewer's personal opinion.
When people say a very technically flawed drawing has soul, most of the time I think they're trying to say "this drawing looks unusual compared to the more technically refined stuff I'm used to seeing, so it is interesting and unique to me." Since every person has a different experience in the art they've seen over their life, their criteria for "unusual and unique" is going to be different.
It's really just a meme phrase, it's not worth sweating over. I think it's better to focus on whether or not your art looks appealing to yourself, rather than if it fits some vague notion of "soulfulness."

[Anonymous No.4037340]

>>4037232
almost none of the art posted on /ic/ has soul including your opening post

[Anonymous No.4037342]

>>4037335
Big case of "I don't know how to form an argument" going on here, I gave my opinion on your terrible phrasing as well as my response to what I assumed your point was.

[Anonymous No.4037349]

>>4037336
sure, i agree with this mostly.
There's a high incidence of multiple people agreeing that specific pieces have or lack soul though, so i really think there is a certain amount of objectivity at play in the execution, otherwise any shitty doodle would be considered soulful and this is clearly not the case as /beg/s routinely get their shit kicked in.

to this anon's point
>>4037329
i would add that it's of course completely possible to skillfully execute a piece to look good and be very effective using a high-level technical skillset with a great understanding of the principles of effective art but for the purposes of the definition i presented earlier "Soul" in this case is relegated to the parlance of this, which i should've clarified.

[Anonymous No.4037350]

>>4037342
right and off the bat you dismissed my original question entirely and then went on to you tangentially form arguements from a foundation of misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.4037354]

>>4037349
*this board

[Anonymous No.4037371]

>>4037350
You ask how one manages to maintain the position that art has soil while being vitriloic towards artists that stray from technical and atylistic uniformity. My answer: I don't know because that seems incredibly stupid to do, and very little people on this board do this. On your second question, what is this criteria you talk about? I assumed it meant the fundamentals, the definition for soul above, or the elements of a piece (which is the meaning I rolled with because of the phrase "aside from those which infuse it with the less...")

[Anonymous No.4037378]

>>4037232
fucking christ go draw and quit spitting this pseudo dilemma that the internet has tricked you into believing

[Anonymous No.4037475]

Can someone tell me the artists name in the OP gif? I know i follow them somewhere but I forgot.

[Anonymous No.4037477]

>>4037247
>draw
>hate my own art deeply
>decide to wait until i'm good enough to like my own work, just keep drawing in the meantime keeping an at least neutral, indifferent mood
>realize this might never happen and i might never be satisfied my art as i see that of artists i admire
>mfw art is the only thing i have any skill at in this life and i am awful at it in every way and actively avoid drawing to not get depressed

[Anonymous No.4037483]

>>4037371
Okay well "i dont know" is a lot less inflammatory than "youre stupid and pretentious" for the record, also ive seen people doing it which is why i made the thread in the first place. On the second part i shouldve specified, the criteria referring to the set of standards the viewer holds as the sum of what makes a successful image as separated from subject matter

[Anonymous No.4037485]

>>4037477
wait until you finally learn to love your work and find a voice only to see that nobody gives a shit

[Anonymous No.4037491]

>>4037485
i'm not concerned with that frankly i have fun drawing porn so getting an audience (eventually) isnt as much of a problem when even the shittiest porn gets some degree of attention
i don't plan on drawing just porn forever though but just saying. the most important thing to me would be liking what i do, without that, i can't even bring myself to draw for more than a handful of shit every day. cause why would i want to do something that makes me feel like this?

[Anonymous No.4037816]

>>4037491
lower your standards. hope this helps!

[Anonymous No.4037832]

>>4037336
>pic related
SOUL
>your comment
SOULLESS

[Anonymous No.4037835]

Y'all niggas need to read some Self-Reliance by Emerson.

[Anonymous No.4037902]

>>4037232
To satisfy your heart you make art
You want to be better to satisfy your yearning for fun and expression, this is why knowledge and experience are here if you work on yourself you will strive into infinity with nothing to limit you other than the span of your lifetime. After you learn for some time you will see things differently, youll see the world in a new light of curiosity and observation, analyzing and internalizing all you see just like when you were young which is all learning anything you love is, it is being naive and going into things not hoping for anything but for discovering what is on uncharted land... tldr draw when you want, learn and make things YOU care about and you will never be bored or unhappy, treat all of life the same way and nothing is impossible, soul is just you being you and noone else

[Anonymous No.4038070]

>>4037483
Criteria are the standards held by the viewer. So you are asking if refusing allowances for emotiomally valuable art that does not fit your tastes while praising art that fits your own standards is hypocritical? In that case, no, it is pretty logically consistent, just really ignorant and stupid to do.

On your first question, I have seen people be vitriolic to those who stray from the technical and stylistic uniformity, but not for that reason alone. It becomes easier to justify the idea that art has soul while ridiculing those who stray from technical perfection when you realize that those being ridiculed are those who seem to fail to realize an interesting idea (see: tumblr sjw art) or those who have percieved lack of taste (see: /beg/ tier porn artists). Those who do not achieve technical and stylistic uniformity but have good execution are left largely unbothered by anons on this board, as evidenced by the diversity of styles on this board. Most vitriol against art that strays from stylistic uniformity is usually due to the board culture dictating that certain art styles or subject matter are inherently bad because of their cultural connotations (see: calarts style, sakimichan style, footfags), and not simply because they strayed from technical and stylistic uniformity.

[Anonymous No.4038082]

>>4037232
Fucking pseudointellectual drivel. Please, tell me what "compositional heavy-handedness" even means. Your last sentence is such a mangled of wreck of clauses and prepositions I can barely extract a clear meaning from it. Like I vaguely get that you're arguing against the idea of the /v/ meme of "soul," but I hate that you chose this very dishonest way to do it, and evidently it's working because only one other person >>4037331 has called you out on it. Obscurantism does not make you smarter.

[Anonymous No.4038094]

>>4037232
I'll draw what I want because I want to, bud.
>lol ur childish for having fun
Not everyone is jaded and potentially depressed, even if this board (and website) shows otherwise. Maybe I'm being unfair because I'm within that small percentage of good artists who are able to make profit AND like what they do.

[Anonymous No.4038111]

>>4038070
then by this logic, /ic/ should hate the anime style cuz a lot of young artist imitate bad habits from it to the point where they don't recover. you could blame this on those shitty as fuck "how to draw manga" books that litter bookstores but the same could be said for just jumping straight to the tooning.

source: anon who fell into that how to draw manga rabbit hole years ago and hasn't recovered since. albeit my art looks more like young justice and overwatch had a baby but hey it still counts.

[Anonymous No.4038119]

>>4038082
I mean its not that confusing and I'm in no way being dishonest, possibly incorrect but not dishonest.
>>4038070
Managed to understand and give me a fine answer. Heavy-handed is just a way of saying clumsy its not cipher text bud

[Anonymous No.4038122]

>>4038094
I literall didn't) that so okay?

[Anonymous No.4038123]

>>4038111
Nope, by my logic, /ic/ hates what a majority of /ic/ hates. /ic/ doesn't hate anime style because the general consensus is that anime is not bad. However, the vocal majority here agrees that the Calarts style sucks. A different community might shun anime and welcome Calarts toons. The point I made was that the percieved vitriol is mostly due to groupthink rather than some weird idea that everyone has to be the same.

Although it sounds more like you're venting your frustrations about learning to draw anime rather than rebutting my point lol

[Anonymous No.4038124]

>>4038094
I mean I didnt say that how you put it but ok

[Anonymous No.4038129]

>>4038119
No, half of my answer was about how I could not understand your questions due to your pretentious language and how your definition of soul (as well as many other things in your post) is flawed because it is too abstract.

[Anonymous No.4038136]

>>4037232
Nice bait, also great gif you got there.

[Anonymous No.4038145]

>>4038129
I was talking about that specific post, the one where you managed to be civil.

What is with you fuckers thinking that trying to be accurate in phrasing a question is pretentious jesus I shouldve just posted another fucking Kim Jung Gi thread you miserable weebs

[Anonymous No.4038146]

>>4038123
or just the latest incarnation of the anime trend? not all anime look the same but each era had it's style. i barely see anyone on here give a flying about old anime and either call it gay or dogshit cuz god forbid women look like actual women and men look like actual men than those androgynous blobs we have today...maybe i'm just getting too old.

also the calart term is dumb. what you really mean is the round bean look that was super common and still is in the 2010s. i don't hate the style but it's rip offs are cheap and look like poop.

[Anonymous No.4038168]

>>4038145
Posing a question is not pretentious, but
>Is it not hypocritical to refuse allowances for emotionally evocative/stylistic att that foesn't fit your preconception of appeal while praising a piece that fits all criteria aside from those which infuse it with the less beautiful interpretations of existance?
Vague language and big words are.
You know there is a problem with your argument when the "discussion" is more of people pointing out how stupid your language is and you clarifying your point rather than an actual discussion/argument.

>>4038123
Well whether or not that style is the "new anime" this board does not like it, but likes the "old anime", it's irrelevant to my point.

[Anonymous No.4038172]

>>4038168
Consider that most people are retarded
>big words are pretentious
o o f

[Anonymous No.4038175]

>>4038172
>Vague language AND big words
vs
>Vague language OR big words
Is English your second language?

[Anonymous No.4038193]

>>4038175
>the festivities continued for some time

Durrrr so pretentious adoiii

[Anonymous No.4038205]

>>4037232
soul is just nostalgia that withstands its time period, flaws and color scheme are just charm

[Anonymous No.4038271]

>>4038145
Not the anon you're replying to here, but
>What is with you fuckers thinking that trying to be accurate in phrasing a question is pretentious

There's nothing "accurate" in your OP. That's the problem. The actual words are high school level, as they should be. It's how you're using the words that's the problem.

Here, let me rewrite what seems to me a relatively unambiguous sentence.
>How do you manage to maintain the position that you believe art has soul while simultaneously acting in a way which is violently vitriolic towards any artist that strays away from technical and stylistic uniformity?

Rewrite: How do you maintain that art can have soul while also being critical of artists who...

And I realize after three minutes trying to parse this sentence, I can't even rewrite the last bit. I cannot understand "technical and stylistic uniformity," in context. I can guess at what I think you mean, of course. I think the word you're looking for is "accuracy" or "correctness." Uniformity doesn't fit. ANY style, even crayon drawings, is uniform as long as it is consistent with itself. And this is one of your *better* sentences.

If you're really not doing this intentionally, read William Zinsser's On Writing Well. Honestly everybody should read that book. You're getting wildly different responses including >>4038094
because nobody can agree on what you're saying!

[Anonymous No.4038298]

>>4038271
Its not a hard sentence moron its ridiculous that you cant understand it

Technical and stylistic uniformity.

That's it, what the fuck is so hard to understand?

adjective
1.
remaining the same in all cases and at all times; unchanging in form or character.
"blocks of stone of uniform size"

THING THAT AM BE THE SAME OOGA BOOGA

Used in a sentence: The Master Car Builders' Association, a great body of mechanical officers organized especially to being about improvement and uniformity in details of construction and operation, expressed its sense of the importance of " self-coupling " so far back as 1874, but no device of the kind that could be considered useful had then been invented.

Stylistic and technical uniformity in this case being the state of BEING UNIFORM.
A REOCCURING INSTANCE OF GROUPTHINK.

[Anonymous No.4038329]

>>4038298
You realize Picasso's style can be called "stylistically and technically uniform," right? Even though it's quite unlike other styles? If you wanted to say "Don't be an ass to artists who dare to be different," why not just say just that? Why complicate it? The only reason I can fathom is that you're trying to buttress a shaky argument with fanciful language, but all it ends up doing is making everything you say an ambiguous slog to read through.
But yeah, lash out at me, ignore my advice. Keep making dumb threads like this, keep getting these kinds of responses instead of the discussion you would have liked.

[Anonymous No.4038331]

>>4037232
Sargent didn't make mistakes and his work has fuckloads of soul.

[Anonymous No.4038336]

>>4038329
Fucking OBVIOUSLY NOT UNIFORM AS COMPARED TO ITSELF IN ISOLATION THE LACK OF READING COMPREHENSION IS MIND BOGGLING

[Anonymous No.4038344]

>>4038331
Read the post where I clarify my definition as relegated to the common usage on this board

[Anonymous No.4038346]

>>4038336
Yes, obviously! There's an easy solution to ambiguous language. Up to you to you whether you take it.

[Anonymous No.4038351]

>>4037252
nah that's not was soul is about

[Anonymous No.4038353]

>>4037232
pic related is soul epitomized
also how do I learn to draw like this heh

[Anonymous No.4038358]

>>4038346
Sure lets do a book swap