Mediocre art styles thread

[Anonymous No.7067642]

What art styles would you personally consider aggressively boring and uninspired to the point of being somewhat irritating?
Low hanging fruit, but I can't stand the modern Studio MIR/Powerhouse/DCAU standard outsourced to korea look all those recent "serious cartoons for adults" are drawn in.
It's like they're trying too hard to be Avatar but soulless and with significantly lower effort put into it.

[Anonymous No.7067643]

>>7067642
For what purpose?

[Anonymous No.7067645]

>>7067643
he wants to do anything rn but draw

[Anonymous No.7067703]

>>7067642
modern anime moeblob

[Anonymous No.7067715]

>>7067642
What do you gain from a thread like this?

[Anonymous No.7067718]

>>7067715
There should be a term for these types of threads. It's not exclusive to /ic/, but to any board, really. You failed on your homeboard (example, /co/) so you come to another board that's slower that vaguely allows your thread to get (you)s. It's like making a thread on /a/ about Japanese dog jumping through 6 hoops or whatever and it gets no responses then you reattempt the same thread on /jp/.

[Anonymous No.7067722]

>>7067718
A better example would be complaining about how Totally Spies/Martin Mystery/X 2000s "western anime" still can't compete with modern anime thread on /a/ and /a/ tells you to go fuck off then you come to /ic/ and make the thread.

[Anonymous No.7067754]

>>7067642
This boring ass shit prevented me from joining art classes when I was a teenager

[Anonymous No.7067759]

Mike Mignola and all the people who copies him.

[Anonymous No.7067767]

>>7067759
what's mediocre about it?

[Anonymous No.7067772]

>>7067759
nigga this is a mediocre art thread not a bait thread

[Anonymous No.7067776]

>>7067767
>>7067772
>What art styles would you personally consider aggressively boring and uninspired to the point of being somewhat irritating?
nta, but I somewhat agree

[Anonymous No.7067787]

>>7067642
Generic Moeblob style

[Anonymous No.7067857]

>>7067776
but you're both probably anime cringers so your opinion is invalid regardless
but I also know you're literally just baiting so

[Anonymous No.7067868]

>>7067642
>What art styles would you personally consider aggressively boring and uninspired to the point of being somewhat irritating?

Every professionally drawn stuff. I don't care if they are fundamentally correct. They are boring.

[Anonymous No.7067870]

>>7067642

[Anonymous No.7067874]

>>7067754
That's the point, anon. They will suck the fun out of your artistic passion so you can work for megacorpo overlords later on.

[Anonymous No.7067881]

>>7067642
anime in general gives me this vague feeling

[Anonymous No.7067884]

I feel like /ic/ is full of failed and salty tumblr artists.

[Anonymous No.7067896]

The Rick and Morty artstyle and many similar to it. Also south park.

[Anonymous No.7067898]

>>7067642
every modern anime. Especially the ones from netfli

[Anonymous No.7067901]

>>7067776
Ok but that's not saying why you find it boring. To find the art style itself irritating, I wonder if it's a matter of exposure or association with properties you dislike.

[Anonymous No.7067904]

>>7067787
>Generic moebius~
The fuck did you say you son of a bitch!!
>*Eyes focus*
>Moeblob
Ah, carry on then.

[Anonymous No.7067908]

>>7067868
>Every professionally drawn stuff.
Every? Is this some kind of fox and grapes cope?

[Anonymous No.7067933]

>>7067908
Every. I don't care if a drawing was rendered to perfection.

[Anonymous No.7067936]

>>7067776
I honestly cannot find any appealing aspect of Mignola's artstyle and why bunch of drawfags even go googoogaga over it.

[Anonymous No.7067942]

>>7067933
Sucks for you I guess. What do you even like?

[Anonymous No.7067943]

>>7067759
>Mike Mignola
This, I can't understand the appeal looks slighty better than corpo hr art, but just a bit not much.

[Anonymous No.7067947]

>>7067759
Same. His work looks like a toddler got a sharpie and tried to draw a frazzeta poster

[Anonymous No.7067981]

>>7067942
Imagine being a rendermonkey

[Anonymous No.7068013]

>>7067759
I know that this is supposed to be amazing, but I don't see it.

[Anonymous No.7068055]

>>7068013
That's because the emperor has no clothes

[Anonymous No.7068148]

>>7067718
maybe call them Retry threads?

[Anonymous No.7068183]

>>7068148
simple and effective

[Anonymous No.7068216]

>>7067642
I think this is fine because the purpose that it serves is animation
Castlevania (netflix), if looked at still images, is actually quite generic, but in motion it works really great

This style, however, I just can't get in to. So many people love it, on IC as well, but it's really appalling to me.
I think, beyond just the style itself, it's mostly that every single artist that draws like this lacks purpose. It's always [cute girl OC floating in space looking cute/sexy/annoyed/surprised]. That's fine, if it was a character sheet for a larger project, but it's literally just that. A character. No world, no purpose, nothing that it's built on.
It feels so empty and void of life to me like it has no reason to exist or to be drawn
It should be appealing and, by popularity metrics, is, but it just isn't to me

I sometimes see other peoples sketchbooks with stuff like this, often accompanied with random splatches of copic markers in a pristinely conditioned way too clean sketchbook and it's very hard to not immediately lose interest

[Anonymous No.7068354]

The "le epic" mainstream fantasy/sci-fi/video game illustration style. It's functional. That's it. Looks awesome in a thumbnail, then you look at it closely and it's just nothing but implied details, entirely dependent on lighting and color and "muh visible digital brushstrokes." Characters consist of nothing but paint daubs and blobs and streaks. Everything is surface level. Off putting and annoying. Render your fucking shit you pussies. I want to gaze at the work and be lost in it for an hour. If I can't see the stitches on the leather tunic of some peon being eaten by goblins in the background or mentally insert myself like bacteria into every crease and cleft of flesh on the back of a gnarly old dwarf's stained and stinking neck, what's the fucking point? Bring back insane detail hierarchies. Detail is evidence of a fuck given, the "only paint what will be visible in a 256x256 thumbnail lol" is the mentality of corporate slaves who do the bare minimum to get by.

[Anonymous No.7068564]

>>7068354
>It's functional. That's it.

Yeah, the hyper render is functional. It has no personality, no endearing human flaws. It stagnate and stiff. Yes you can see bunch of details, rendering down the to very dust particles. But i personally don't care for such thing. Bunch of cgi models put together can achieve the same effect, if not better. If you learn art only to become discount cgi artists, then you should just fucking quit.

[Anonymous No.7068571]

>>7068354
You mean you want to bring back Renaissance art? Yeah they bores people to death, but i like your spirit.

[Anonymous No.7068575]

>>7067896
South Park's designs are based on when Trey's high school drawings so I give him a pass. Rick and Morty though? Not so much.

SP's designs for the kids are way cuter though, I'll give them that.

[Anonymous No.7068581]

>>7068216
Loish's use of color is really her selling point and willingness to try new things means her art evolves even if you aren't a big fan of her style.

[Anonymous No.7068583]

>>7067642
It's not shitty because western animators can't do better. It's shitty because the people making the decisions don't think the extra effort is worth it. I did an animation course where the industry pro who was the teacher said "don't bother learning to draw humans from above and below because 99% of the time you're gonna be drawing the character straight on"

[Anonymous No.7068591]

>>7068564
What makes this feel so dead versus >>7068571?

Because I agree with >>7068354. I could be bored of it due to its overuse, but at the same time I never feel as excited about it as I do >>7068571 which seems to be much livelier and aweinspiring despite >>7068564 probably knowing way more anatomy and being much more action packed than >>7068571.

Is it because >>7068564 is bordering on looking like plastic as opposed to >>7068571
seeming more like actual humans or is the composition and colors?

[Anonymous No.7068627]

>>7067981
Pro != Render
Get off this board you underage fagoot

[Anonymous No.7068657]

>>7068581
>willingness to try new things
her art in 2024 is exactly the same as her 2017 work
it downgraded because she stopped playing with flats alltogether and started using this weird tree texture on everything

[Anonymous No.7068672]

>>7068591
Alot of pro artworks look stiff and plasticy like that, no matter how hyper realistic you render them. Renaissance stuff is boring to me, however, if they can inspire you, that means they are still paint-like, with visible brush strokes. Unlike digital professional art where you cannot feel the "painting", only a product made from a computer.

[Anonymous No.7068676]

>>7068591
>>>7068564
>What makes this feel so dead versus >>7068571?
compositionally and storywise capeshit
same for
>>7067868

simple compositions are good in simple styles
simple compositions are also good for simple ideas
but now matter how well rendered it is, they are boring

[Anonymous No.7068678]

>>7068591
For one, the colors and contrast in the LoL image are poor, especially compared to Michaelangelo. Like, the blue and red would work fine, but the black just neutralizes the image, and everything is too dark to see. Not only that, but lighting is used poorly, not really bringing any life to the image.

Compositionally it's also mediocre. There's too many focal points, whereas Michaelangelo had a clear central focal point that everything radiates out of. The LoL image just feels busy and is difficult to find a place to really focus on. There's just so much going on, that it feels chaotic, and not in a good way. Like, if it'd just copied the composition of >>7068571 and had several dozen characters fighting each other, it would have unironically been much better.

[Anonymous No.7068685]

>>7068678
I'm gonna follow up, but take >>7068564
Reduce the contrast on the borders, and make everything on the left painted with Red, and everything on the right painted with Blue, and it starts to improve dramatically. The colors are just awful and garrish to look at. Also never been a fan of hyper-rendered anime style. Just stylize it, stop trying to make it look realistic.

[Anonymous No.7068692]

>>7068676
I think it is not just that, but also how Renaissence art didn't make things too "by the book". Human were not too realistic, didn't shy away from visible brush strokes, didn't try to depict human characters with over exxaggerated facial expression. You see at these paintings and find your purpose as an art enjoyer: You like to look at art, actual art, not pale immitation of it.

[Anonymous No.7068703]

>>7068685
Yeah old times- people never actually hyper-rendering their stuff, they keep the detail levels to a moderate amount. From a far, they seems extremely detailed but once you look at them slow and closely, they are just rough brushstrokes. I think that's the charm of art, you are not supposed to overdo it, instead make people feels like you overdo it.

[Anonymous No.7068710]

>>7068703
For anyone who are wondering about the artist. Paolo Veronese, 16th century.

[Anonymous No.7068716]

>>7068685
I seriously cannot comprehend why are modern digital art so boring to look at. When did it all go wrong?

[Anonymous No.7068723]

>>7068716
airbrush was a mistake. those are the digital equivalent of the shitty airbrushed girls on muscle cars.

[Anonymous No.7068744]

>>7068716
Part of it is laziness on the part of digital artists. Often inorganic and the number of digital shortcuts (layers, 3D, and especially photobashing "difficult stuff" like patterns, clothing, backgrounds etc) engender rote and mechanical execution. They're clearly products first, artistic works second.