Limp [DOODLE]

1505153555662

Posts

  • OrikaeshigitaeOrikaeshigitae Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2009
    god i love you guys

    Orikaeshigitae on
  • TamTam Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Tam wrote: »
    I know, I was just pointing out the straw man.

    I don't know shit about matte painting or using textures that way in digital art, so I didn't address it.

    Which is ironic, because it means you're the one going after a straw man, since I was specifically referring to its use in digital art.

    I was shooting down your point specifically about beavo using a crutch- which was a straw man- and nothing else.

    Tam on
  • mullymully Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    now i just want to post doodles of beavo and i pointing and laughing at mattharvest

    boys are dumb

    mully on
  • PROXPROX Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Using photos and textures is something all professionals do in their work. You're bad at it if it's noticeable. The thing is, it speeds up your work, and painting textures by hand is impractical.

    Things need to be painted and painted fast when you're working. Sure you could take your time and render something with a one pixel brush, but that would exponentially increase the cost of creating an asset. Even World of Warcraft textures overlay photos, that are then emphasized by an overpaint to match the art direction.

    Think about it, it takes like a minute to overlay a texture as opposed to up to an hour rendering the same effect. You just increased the cost of your work by a factor of 60.

    PROX on
  • beavotronbeavotron Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    i'll be sure to put a lot of textures in there
    i forgot to comment on the part where he said i'm only putting 95% of myself into my work instead of the full 100% when i throw a texture down.

    i draw probably about 8 hours a day every day.
    i have done this for aboout 10 years now. (that's an exaggeration, i draw more now because it's my 9-5 job... has been for 2 years)
    but by using textures, a common practice in this industry, i am not giving it my all.

    what the fuck was i thinking?
    don't look at me guys, i'm really ashamed.

    beavotron on
  • D-RobeD-Robe Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Why all the hate on straw men? They do a good job keeping the crows out of my yard.

    D-Robe on
    Cheese.
  • ScosglenScosglen Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Beavs I'm gonna have to revoke your artist's license after hearing this shocking revelation that you are a fraud.

    Scosglen on
  • mullymully Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    the most amusing part of this is that this matteharvest guy has tried to emulate pollock paintings

    but thinks textures are cheap and devalue your work

    :X

    mully on
  • beavotronbeavotron Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    i will give it up quietly, scos.
    the shame i feel at being discovered is too much of a burden to bear.

    beavotron on
  • ManonvonSuperockManonvonSuperock Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Yeah they're supposed to be surfboards, but when I made the thumbnails I wasn't looking at a reference pic. They are a surf/snowboard company but that doesn't mean that both must be included in a design. One or the other is still okay too.
    .

    I think you have something going on here. I think it would work best as either a dual image or partner images, a snowman surfing in a wicked wave and a surfer -in his obvious surf gear- snowboarding in a wicked wave of avalanche.

    I also think having one of them surfing in an avalanche, and somehow having the sharks come up out of the snow, looking tough as shit, would be awesome.

    ManonvonSuperock on
  • WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    No using textures? I should probably quit my job.
    beavotron wrote: »
    i use textures in every single thing i do
    sometimes it's photographs, sometimes it's just a straight up texture
    but i always use them
    See, that's not something to be proud of, any more than someone should be proud they always use a projector to scale their drawings up to wall-size murals

    I see people missed this gem.

    How SHOULD they scale the drawings they showed to their client to the space the mural is going to go? Draw it all over again?

    Wassermelone on
  • MetalbourneMetalbourne Inside a cluster b personalityRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I bet using a ruler to draw a straight line is a crutch, too.

    Hell, using pencils to draw is a crutch. You're doing yourself a disservice if you're not willing pictures onto paper with the power of your mind.

    For that matter, you really shouldn't be using paper, either.

    I love how people get so disillusioned when they find out what art actually entails.

    Metalbourne on
  • OrikaeshigitaeOrikaeshigitae Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2009
    beavotron wrote: »
    i draw probably about 8 hours a day every day.
    i have done this for aboout 10 years now. (that's an exaggeration, i draw more now because it's my 9-5 job... has been for 2 years)

    every time i see you make a post like this i'm like 'fuuuuuuuck draw draw draw'

    Orikaeshigitae on
  • srsizzysrsizzy Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    beavotron wrote: »
    my favorite part about today is the part where you used the two movies most well known for their matte paintings as an argument against me
    I just want to say, using a matte painting in a cinematographic sense it not what he's talking about at all. He was talking about the concept art, so he's still right. What goes into the film is an ENTIRELY different art than what goes into the concept art, and has absolutely nothing to do with his argument. I agree with matt, and so I'd say that matte painting is OBVIOUSLY allowed in a film, because they're aiming for complete realism. If you're aiming for complete realism just to say "Hey, look, I can do this," and you're using photographs to make that happen, you're not doing as much work as you could to achieve something that is more your own. Even if you took the damn photos, it's a collage, and not a painting.

    Though I guess movies are just saying "Hey, look, I can do this!" So it really doesn't matter. But that doesn't change the fact that anyone is taking a short cut. Whether or not one is going to respect them for that is up to one's own standards of aesthetics.

    And I have to say, I've seen plenty of amazing work that doesn't use photo textures, so they obviously aren't a necessity if you're good enough not to need to use them. That is, by definition, a crutch. The fact that that makes you angry to hear really doesn't matter. I'm not arguing this to hurt anyone's feelings, I'm just looking at the matter as objectively as I can. I really don't care how anyone does anything, if it looks cool, then whatever.
    I bet using a ruler to draw a straight line is a crutch, too.

    Hell, using pencils to draw is a crutch. You're doing yourself a disservice if you're not willing pictures onto paper with the power of your mind.
    Technically yes. Some people can draw without a ruler. The word "crutch" making people all hot and bothered is really their own problem.

    srsizzy on
    BRO LET ME GET REAL WITH YOU AND SAY THAT MY FINGERS ARE PREPPED AND HOT LIKE THE SURFACE OF THE SUN TO BRING RADICAL BEATS SO SMOOTH THE SHIT WILL BE MEDICINAL-GRADE TRIPNASTY MAKING ALL BRAINWAVES ROLL ON THE SURFACE OF A BALLS-FEISTY NEURAL RAINBOW CRACKA-LACKIN' YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE HERE-NOW SPACE-TIME SITUATION THAT ALL OF LIFE BE JAMMED UP IN THROUGH THE UNIVERSAL FLOW BEATS
  • mullymully Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    False.

    I know a lot of concept artists (I live in Vancouver, land of video games) and I know that they are encouraged to use matte painting as a faster way to show their ideas/intentions so that they can go ahead onto the full-attack at it. When doing characters, some concept artists will litter their desktop with reference textures, pieces, environments etc., to gain a better idea & path towards their end goal. Those references are submitted alongside the concept work itself.

    I'm a CAD Operator and when I don't have the proper measurements I need, I use satellite imagery to gain a better idea of the shapes/dimensions that I need. Oh noes, not a more accurate, helpful image! God forbid!

    mully on
  • MetalbourneMetalbourne Inside a cluster b personalityRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    srsizzy wrote: »
    I bet using a ruler to draw a straight line is a crutch, too.

    Hell, using pencils to draw is a crutch. You're doing yourself a disservice if you're not willing pictures onto paper with the power of your mind.
    Technically yes. Some people can draw without a ruler. The word "crutch" making people all hot and bothered is really their own problem.

    Either you're the stupidest fucker on earth or you seriously want me to come unhinged on your ass again. Shut up and quit talking to me, you pathetic bitch.

    Metalbourne on
  • WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    srsizzy wrote: »
    I just want to say, using a matte painting in a cinematographic sense it not what he's talking about at all. He was talking about the concept art, so he's still right. If you're aiming for complete realism just to say "Hey, look, I can do this"

    You are completely and utterly missing the point of concept art.

    Wassermelone on
  • MetalbourneMetalbourne Inside a cluster b personalityRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    srsizzy wrote: »
    I just want to say, using a matte painting in a cinematographic sense it not what he's talking about at all. He was talking about the concept art, so he's still right. If you're aiming for complete realism just to say "Hey, look, I can do this"

    You are completely and utterly missing the point of concept art.

    If Srsizzy were an arrow, and he were aiming for air, he would still miss the mark completely.

    Metalbourne on
  • LoomdunLoomdun Registered User
    edited June 2009
    there are a lot of things said that have been false by mister srs

    Loomdun on
    splat
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    beavotron wrote: »
    my favorite part about today is the part where you used the two movies most well known for their matte paintings as an argument against me

    and when you called bullshit on me, when you couldn't even take the 2 seconds it takes to type "matte painting" into google and see the heaps of lotr and star wars images that pop up, complete with details on how they did it, which photos they used, photoshop filters they find useful...

    thanks mattharvest, you gave me an awesome laugh today :)

    I didn't say a damn thing about matte paintings; what are you talking about?

    Show me where I said they didn't use matte paintings. Oh, wait, maybe you continued to be oblivious to what I actually wrote about photoreferences/textures.

    Jesus, can you read?

    mattharvest on
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    mully wrote: »
    the most amusing part of this is that this matteharvest guy has tried to emulate pollock paintings

    but thinks textures are cheap and devalue your work

    :X

    (a) I've never in my life pretended my "art" is fine art; I produce illustrative stuff I like, and when a client asks me to paint a particular style, I've done that (e.g. the Pollock stuff). I have absolutely no pretensions about the meaning or wonder of my work.

    (b) I've never in my life pretended my "art" is somehow the pinnacle of anything.

    (c) When on earth has it ever been required that you be an expert at something before you can criticize it? Do all people who critique any particular form of art need to be an expert at it?

    Where is your expert material, so we can validate your participation in this conversation, since you think that's important?

    I'll say this AGAIN: textures, filters, photoreferences all have their place, but their place isn't in producing fine art. Their place is in producing things like concept art, where the point isn't to demonstrate your fine art abilities but rather to create a design for use in one form or another. When you're designing the concept for a character in a movie, your goal is absolutely not fine art: your goal is to design a character. The final work is a partial step in the process toward the finale goal of that character. By contrast, if you're creating a painting for the sake of the painting alone - e.g. a gallery/museum piece - that's very different, and it changes the meaning of your tools and whatnot.

    Think about it this way: if photorealism was the only goal of that sort of fine art, we wouldn't have realist painters, we'd just have photographers.

    mattharvest on
  • PROXPROX Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    beavotron wrote: »
    my favorite part about today is the part where you used the two movies most well known for their matte paintings as an argument against me

    and when you called bullshit on me, when you couldn't even take the 2 seconds it takes to type "matte painting" into google and see the heaps of lotr and star wars images that pop up, complete with details on how they did it, which photos they used, photoshop filters they find useful...

    thanks mattharvest, you gave me an awesome laugh today :)

    I didn't say a damn thing about matte paintings; what are you talking about?

    Show me where I said they didn't use matte paintings. Oh, wait, maybe you continued to be oblivious to what I actually wrote about photoreferences/textures.

    Jesus, can you read?

    Star Wars and LOTR concept art uses textures and photo overlay all the time. They do it in their matte paintings as well. It's just a faster way to do things.

    edit:

    "You're being proud that you're using a crutch; as discussed already, textures and photoreferences have their place in collage work (including some concept art), but by your own description you always use it. Do you feel capable of producing finished work without the textures? If not, why not?"

    This was the main argument I think. Beavo can produce that level of work without texture overlays, but it would take longer. The issue here is time. And with demands of production, it is more efficient to overlay textures and photos then to render textures. That is the advantage of digital painting, being able to duplicate and collage.

    By mastering these tools, it becomes feasable to create more artwork within a shorter period of time. And with that shortened times, one can say that more emotion can be preserved from the original sketches. When you render a piece, things can start looking stiff.

    PROX on
  • beavotronbeavotron Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    the matte painting technique is commonly used in making concept art for films and video games.

    you said, and i quote:
    As for beavo's response: you're spouting nonsense. Among other things, have a look at the concept art books for movies and video games like LOTR, Star Wars, etc. The gross majority is, in fact, not using photo textures at all.

    You talk about all these valve artists, and frankly I think you're just bullshitting. I'm basing that opinion off book after book of concept art, website after website, etc. Plenty use photoref'ing, and it's useful as a shorthand crutch to avoid doing the full work. But at the end of the day, yes, it's just like using filters in photoshop. It's a useful tool, but it diminishes the artwork because it makes it less about your work, and more about the texture.

    much of the environment concept work you're seeing, ESPECIALLY that of lord of the rings and star wars are made up almost fully of photos and textures.

    so maybe your idea of what is a photo or a texture is different from mine?

    beavotron on
  • OrikaeshigitaeOrikaeshigitae Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2009
    buddy, you don't know a thing about fine art. you ever set foot inside a modern art gallery? tons of Photoshop manipulation, photo texture use, and collage, particularly in works that are offshoots of the graffiti wheatpasting tradition. the current definition of art is 'whatever museum owners will accept in a gallery'.

    Orikaeshigitae on
  • mullymully Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Matte paintings utilize photos/textures, which is what we were all talking about in the first place. Some parts of the final image are texture, some are photo, some are painted image. So yes, you are talking about matte paintings.

    And if you weren't talking about concept art, final art in movies, etc, why did you mention those SPECIFICALLY? "Among other things, have a look at the concept art books for movies and video games like LOTR, Star Wars, etc. The gross majority is, in fact, not using photo textures at all."

    mully on
  • LoomdunLoomdun Registered User
    edited June 2009
    I'm so fine

    Loomdun on
    splat
  • beavotronbeavotron Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    now it seems that you're jumping all over the place in some attempt to defend yourself.
    because you said what i quoted, and now you're saying it has it's place in concept art but not in fine art

    yet you used concept art from two series of movies to back up your first claim
    if you had used like... monet to back up the claim that texture overlays are a bad bad thing, then maybe i'd give you some leeway
    but you used concept art as your example for why it's bad and are now probably feeling dumb for not looking it up first so you're backpedalling.

    beavotron on
  • MetalbourneMetalbourne Inside a cluster b personalityRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    beavotron wrote: »
    now it seems that you're jumping all over the place in some attempt to defend yourself.
    because you said what i quoted, and now you're saying it has it's place in concept art but not in fine art

    Yes, we like to call that "tap dancing". And he's bad at it.

    Mattharvest would probably do better as a mime.

    Metalbourne on
  • mullymully Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    i like how he basically said earlier that if he recognized that there was a photo used in an image, it's bad, but if he doesn't, then it's good and not a crutch, it's just a matter of fooling him ... and him alone. that's what determines skill level/laziness of the artist

    mully on
  • beavotronbeavotron Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    you have tricked me david blaine, and therefore you have earned my respect.

    beavotron on
  • rtsrts Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    buddy, you don't know a thing about fine art. you ever set foot inside a modern art gallery? tons of Photoshop manipulation, photo texture use, and collage, particularly in works that are offshoots of the graffiti wheatpasting tradition. the current definition of art is 'whatever museum owners will accept in a gallery'.

    Yes but modern art is bullshit.


    Sorry, this may not even be in conflict with your point, but I don't want to go back and read the discussion because that is the kind of guy I am.

    rts on
    skype: rtschutter
  • mullymully Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    woooowww, david copperfield made an entire plane disappear, but i know he used a mirror (therefore i think i can see it, and tell all my friends that i can), so that means it is a bad trick

    edit: also i agree with cakemikz. hahaha.

    mully on
  • ManonvonSuperockManonvonSuperock Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    two pages of the doodle thread without doodles disappoints me.

    ManonvonSuperock on
  • beavotronbeavotron Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    cakemikz wrote: »
    buddy, you don't know a thing about fine art. you ever set foot inside a modern art gallery? tons of Photoshop manipulation, photo texture use, and collage, particularly in works that are offshoots of the graffiti wheatpasting tradition. the current definition of art is 'whatever museum owners will accept in a gallery'.

    Yes but modern art is bullshit.

    one might say... it's all a load of pollocks

    d-do you see what i did there?
    8-)

    beavotron on
  • LoomdunLoomdun Registered User
    edited June 2009
    I doodled a tissue

    sadtissue.jpg

    I find this ironic because theres a lot of people who might be needing this

    Loomdun on
    splat
  • beavotronbeavotron Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    you're getting better at cloth folds, loom.

    beavotron on
  • mullymully Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    im going to doodle now, for realz

    mully on
  • LoomdunLoomdun Registered User
    edited June 2009
    yay

    Loomdun on
    splat
  • OrikaeshigitaeOrikaeshigitae Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2009
    cakemikz wrote: »
    buddy, you don't know a thing about fine art. you ever set foot inside a modern art gallery? tons of Photoshop manipulation, photo texture use, and collage, particularly in works that are offshoots of the graffiti wheatpasting tradition. the current definition of art is 'whatever museum owners will accept in a gallery'.

    Yes but modern art is bullshit.


    Sorry, this may not even be in conflict with your point, but I don't want to go back and read the discussion because that is the kind of guy I am.

    well, yeah, as a fine artist i completely agree

    Orikaeshigitae on
  • beavotronbeavotron Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    here's a doodle i'm working on:

    owlboy2.jpg

    i'm revisiting my old owl boy drawing from my av...it's kind of in my sig too.

    gonna fix the feet a little, they're a tad too long right now
    i want them to look like ...floppy jammies the way they do in the original... but... eh they need some love.

    beavotron on
This discussion has been closed.