Well, in all fairness, we don't know what you've got planned in your head to do to a piece. If someone's telling you something you disagree with, or already know, you could just feel good about the fact you already knew to get on top of whatever it is they're suggesting, or that they're just flat out wrong. Happens often when I post WIPs. You say most of the stuff in the tread is unfinished, so maybe we don't see exactly where you wind up pushing your pieces? And ... doesn't that mean most of what you post are WIPs? I'm confused.
Anyway, I mean this lovingly, but sometimes you respond to crits in a way that makes me imagine you all sassy with a hand on your hip clicking your fingers and 'mmm-hmm'ing a lot, but your stuff is totally awesome and most of the crits are just like 'omg hurry up and finish it i want my eyes to have an orgasm', so hey, you know, keep being awesome! I'm writing like loom here, sorry.
I donno, Im sorry if it seems like I'm being sassy. I guess I should just say "okay" when people give me crits. When People say stuff like "this image is dull" and "you using pencil lines as a crutch" I feel like thats something I should respond to. I guess that's sassy?
I guess I have my whole library in mind, not really this particular thread, so when I think finished paintings I think back to things like,
So I'm trying to understand where I'm using lines as a crutch.
I dont want to seem ungrateful, I do really appreciate crits, I just usually try to break them down so I understand whats well founded and whats not. Whats the point of me just writing things off in my head? Maybe I'm really wrong and the person can clarify? Is that fair?
Its not like when ever someone crits me I disagree, I mean The last crit radar gave me about perspective was awesome.
No that's fair, of course. And be as sassy as you like. Sassy is the best. Bette Midler would have been a nobody without that trademark sass. But, you know, sometimes people say 'MORE CONTRAST!' and it's like 'well yes obviously'.
I thought radars posts were really interesting, mostly because I'm still getting a handle on colour. Cakemikz is always on my case about me not using colour well enough. And I'm all YEAH YEAH CAKE WHATEVER IT LOOKS GREAT SHUT UP and then I spend the next 8 hours secretly worried that I will never succeed at anything ever and that everything I've ever done is toilet!
I think he's right about you using line art. Sometimes you rely on the lines to do a lot of the work in your images. I wouldn't say it's a crutch, it's just part of what you do. Just like how I use a lot of zimzams* and whiffwhaffs* in my work! Not a crutch, just a thing that I do. I think he was suggesting in that piece that without the line art, the image might fall apart somewhat, and maybe it would be worth your time working on stuff without relying on the lines?
I hope you don't mind me saying, but I think it's a good suggestion -- In the pieces above, it's the parts that dont have any strong pencilly bits that feel the weakest. Still awesome, but other bits are more awesomer still.
I dont mind you saying at all.... Do you mean that the images dont have enough hard edges? Cause I guess I don't see where Im leaving actual pencil lines in the images.
You guys may also kinda interpret when I ask you what you mean, I'm saying your wrong, which is also not the case. I'm not incredibly cryptic, I actually prefer that things be broken down into multiple points with examples, which is generally what I push for. My confusion isnt a defensive stance, its a "explain exactly what you mean so I can understand fully" stance.
I think some of your coloring is weaker where it's less defined and not as sharp, but when you do sharpen out the details it does overwrite the pencils fine. This is aside the point, but I think you have a tendency to get over-detailed when you do sharpen, which probably exhausts you and leads to you not sharpening everything else. For example, you skimped on the backgrounds in two of those pieces you just posted, but the buildings and the heads of the figures are very detailed. It's telling of what you're afraid you can't do, like when people don't draw hands when they first start.
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
Yeah, Srsizzy, that's a constant problem. I actually don't really know how to combat that other than to power through. I've been trying more and more to work with large brushed and try and define stuff all over, but I tend to start focusing on an area despite myself. Do anyone have a suggestion for that?
I Guess maybe the point is that the contrast is weak in places where I used to have pencil lines defining something, but colored them out, but did not sufficiently then bump the contrast and things get soft edged where originally they were hard. Usually when my pencils are particularly nondescript its because I plan for some softer edges in there (like fur, or the smaller furry feathers in this one) I can understand that and agree.
I think its alright to have some soft edges in a piece, but I usually just get bored when it comes to backgrounds, I've been trying to work out things that work without a background in the sense of a scene, because I'm not usually all that interested in building a huge setting. The first one I actually made about the scene, and skimmed on the subjects. But yeah, these are still pretty major confusing issues for me.
It may be that it looks like you go from pencil/initial line work to colour with not a great deal of fucking around in the middle. Like, you just sort of.. colour in your sketch, rather than using the line work as a basis for a painting.
So, how do I explain that. Uh.
Take the birds thing. Again, I know it's a WIP, so I hope I'm not just telling you something you already know/don't care about/whatever, but it just sort of looks like, yeah, you're painting over a drawing. The drawing is amazingly cool, and then you add colour and it's just like... yeah, ok. You have a coloured drawing now. Instead of letting colour/saturation/value choices create the form of the birds, you're just sort of filling in the spaces with colours.
And that's not so much of a problem when the line and colour are working really well together, but then it looks like there are other spots in your work where there are no lines to define what should be there, and strokes start getting lazy and long and ambiguous (ie some of those backgrounds), and that might be giving off the impression that you rely on your initial lines to make your images work?
I dunno, your drawing skills are totally awesome, maybe try working up to that same level of fidelity from a very loose, very rough doodle, and see how it goes. Or if the really tight lines are what gives you joy, draw every motherfucking feather on that god damn bird and totally explode our brains.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but I wasn't sure if it actually made sense. I'm having the same trouble in just learning how to draw, trying to figure out the difference between "forms" and "lines," and that the painterly style is to rely on the shapes of tones and whatnot rather than the lines defining those shapes...? I think so.
I thought about: Well, what if she just drew digitally with no sketch to begin with, and laid out the basic shapes and tones, and then added detail, and then I didn't know if it would make a difference because in the end you're going to put "lines"/line-based detail over all that. But maybe it would be a good exercise; basically like what people do when they speedpaint, and then build off of that to get detail all over everything.
I think in the end the background is just the same as the figure or the character. You have to put as much focus into what it looks like and what it is, and I think that's frustrating for a lot of people and they get around it by not even bothering to do environmental pieces. I don't blame them, I focus on individual objects and details as well, I can't see the bigger picture very well yet, but maybe it's a learned thing? Maybe it's inherent. Perhaps someone should ask in the Chat, Doodle, or Help threads to see if some people got a hang of giving up the details for the sake of the larger picture with time?
I write all this, but in the end I'm far less skilled than you, so I might not know what I'm talking about.
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
You know, after reading what robo said I have to agree with him.
I love your colors; they're very exciting to look at, and dominate the piece completely.
But half of the time they don't show much depth. I think you're relying on your intuition of what would look nice rather than render the actual drawing. If you separate the linework on its own it's pretty slick, and if you separated the color by itself its looking rad, but when you put them together it falls apart at times.
I think the problem you're having here is that you tend to overcomplicate your drawings when in comparison to your colors, or instead of rendering every exhausting detail you put into the piece with color, you stack a few base values on top, blend a few of those hues together and call it a day.
For future reference it might be a good idea to keep in mind which drawings of yours you'd leave in a pencil state and which ones you'll bring into a full blown illustration, and I have a hunch this is why a lot of your shirt designs tend to get overshadowed on those shirt websites.
The wings on that bird are too busy. It would be a nightmare to render each and every feather, because that's what you'd have to do to portray depth in that piece. As a pencils drawing it works beautifully, but past that its a herculean task for the painting.
I'd suggest starting out with a simpler drawing if the idea is to paint it, so that when you start going wild with your colors you can pick and choose what and how far you're going to render the piece.
Ah, so much easier to understand with clarification.
Last time I painted without an pencil drawing under it, I think this was the result:
Doesnt seem to be going in a way different direction, to me, but maybe you guys see something I dont? I really like coloring, so its not that I'm not interested in it. I cant really imagine not working from a sketch, most of the time.
With a drawing like this (the birds), I don't think dimension is actually the highest thing on my list, it is an embellished, vignetted drawing, its not really a scene. So its not like when I drew this I was like "what details should I give up so that I can render a background" Its more emblematic.
You should freelance covers for fantasy books.
not calling you generic or anything
I just think with the amount of magical ladies, flying monsters and wolves on those things
you'd make them awesome
The character herself in that composition has that sense of volume I was speaking about.
I think the environment is hurting the overall piece, and parts of the wolf as well.
The best way I could describe it is that it looks like one of those 3D dioramas, where a few key elements are made to pop out but the rest of the layout is two dimensional.
Most of the figure, the wolf's face and his right paw have that three dimensionality, but the rest of the piece is lookin' a bit cardboard cut-out.
Nothin to add. I like the way the birds are coming along, personally, and agree with your choices. Great color palette, and perfectly acceptable execution for what it is. The preceding advices would be much more effectively applied towards scenes and things, as you say.
i do see that you use a lot of outlines
but i don't see how it's a crutch, more of a stylistic choice.
that being said, I'm all about artists branching out and trying new things, so hey, give no outlines a shot, see how it works for ya
but i believe you should always question your crits... be it out loud with the person critting or in some form of self dialogue.
don't just accept them, push for better explanations, clarity, argue them a little, push back, give your reasons for doing something, ESPECIALLY when it feels subjective to taste, the way this one kind of does.
but in questioning them, you gain more insight on what the actual problem is
many times, with me especially, the problem is in the way I think or approach the problem, so if I discuss it with someone, it gives me better clarity.
if people think you're being a bitch or sassy, then whatever, screw them, you're getting the most you can out of their advice.
beavotron on
0
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
^ Good advise, I've started doing this a bit more. If I think a crit is not on the money, I want to know why they think it is on money. They might be viewing it from an angle that you're yet to see or they could be just plain wrong. Either way it's better to find out for sure.
I think Des'Bots comments are spot on and very well put across; however, if I may offer a counter point.. I think the prominent use of outlines - coupled with your looser colouring style - does come across more of a stylistic choice and works for me.
I actually prefer the sketchier feel of some of your work over the stuff which is more polished; when you are able to hit that perfect balance between the two, I think the work has tonnes of character and, personally speaking, I am endeared to this type of work far more than I am to very polished paintings (though I most certainly have an appreciation of both).
The other thing I would comment on (and this likely applies to other folk on this board) is starting to get a feel for the commercial potential of your work. Regarding your comment, "I mean, if someone was offering me money for that..." -- don't sit around expecting to be offered money! The money is out there, you need to go and get it -- not wait for it to be handed to you. You will gain more success in this area, and be producing work that you want to produce, if you take a hand in controling your own commercial direction.
I know you're relatively young, and this side of things may actually be quite boring to you right now, but I would heartily suggest starting to at least think about how you aim to make a living from your art. Do you want to do concept art for a studio, or do you want to work for yourself? Do you want to work on apparel? Game art? Character design? Fantasy canvas prints? How much is an hour of your time worth? How long does a typical piece take you? Are you able to sell work and actually make a profit based on market prices for the type of work you want to do?
Approaching your work from a commerical angle and working on your business skills & understanding is at least as important as working on your illustration skills, imo. I like your work a lot and think it has huge commercial potential - like anything, you just got to put the work in.
i agree with grenn, iruka.
do you have a website portfolio up yet?
that's a big step in sort of getting your name out there to potential clients
then go pick up a copy of the graphic artist and illustrators hand book 2009 edition (or wait for 2010 edition, it drops soonish if not already...) get some postcards printed out and start doing mailers.
Grenn, thanks for the continued advice on m professional growth. I really need to kick my ass and get a good website up. I've always wanted to do Game characters/concept art, or comics But I don't know what other avenues to go down, really. Right now Im trying to explore my options with this animation thing. Hopefully my thesis can hold its own at some festivals.
I'll look for that graphic artist and illustrators hand book thing, Thanks bevo .
As for the crits and the counterpoints, thanks for taking the extra time to explain your opinions. I'll try to keep all that in mind as I move forward in my work. Next time I find myself without a subject to draw, I'll experiment a bit.
Ok, I've been away from the netz for a while, and I just want to clarify.
When I say you sometimes use outlines as a crutch, I was not saying that you shouldn't use outlines.
My point was only this. That if you do use outlines in a piece that you're coloring, it should still stand as a strong piece on it's own without the outlines. Otherwise, the coloring isn't correct. Because things in real life have no outlines, it should be that you can read things without them as long as you're using color to define form (and thus, this is not applicable to extremely graphic pieces, flat colors, etc.)
For example, as I said (and again, I thought this was the explanation you're looking for):
In the wing, where in the grayscale the only thing you have to tell one feather from another is the lineart. Therefore, without lineart you would have a wing silhouette, and that's all. You rely a lot on lineart, in some cases so much that it's a crutch. But your lineart is so unrefined it doesn't look like a finished product. Which is a style, I understand, but it shouldn't make up for a lack of definition in color, which you also rely heavily on to make this more than just a sketch.
I said it in a strange way, and in kind of a weird order, but what I've highlighted on here was what I meant.
What you seem to do in your work is accentuate the most important parts of a piece with definition. As in, you actually define the forms as they would be seen in space with light bouncing off of them. And then you leave less important parts of a piece "flat", without definition of color. And that is where you rely on the outlines. Because without them, things would just read flatly.
It sometimes doesn't look that way because you use different colors, but the values are all very nearly the same. So, as I said, in grayscale, without the lineart, you wouldn't be able to see any individual feathers on the bird. It would just be a large flat shape.
But there are other ways to do that besides not changing the values. One is to lower the saturation/intensity of the colors you use in those unimportant places. So that the saturated areas pop. Another is to make the general area of unimportant regions darker, while still defining form. And still a better way is to do both. Have darker, less saturated colors, but define form by adding shadows and highlights, just less extreme ones. As it stands, you don't have any shadows or highlights defining the feathers on that wing. And that is why the lineart is holding it up. You couldn't see any of those details without the lines.
As I said before, as well, I don't mind that your lines are sketchy. I also understand that it's a style. But like Des said, it's also always good to try new things. I've also never seen you refine lineart other than by coloring it. So that is a personal opinion. I'd like to see you try some more solid, precise, confident lines. But it has nothing to do with my critique of the definition of forms, which is simply a technical weakness in the piece.
And maybe you already knew all of that, and maybe you were going to define it more. I am not sure. But, since I have been following your work, it's been a consistent error, even in your finished pieces. For example, this piece:
In grayscale, the background reads as a shape. You didn't rely on line here, but color to differentiate the forms. And I know that atmospheric perspective dictates that things even out as they go back in space, but it has to be like, a damn smoggy day for that kind of extreme. And things that are closer don't receive any more definition, besides the characters. Which is how you differentiate importance of "objects" or "regions" in a piece. And I'm just telling you that one way to improve your pieces would be to not do that, and use the methods I suggested above. Edit #2: Also, if it was that flat or far away, the trees should only be one color, then, not different ones, so that the colors and values are consistent with their function.
It is also a problem in that city piece you posted, because the figures in the foreground, along with the brush in the lower right hand corner, have little to no detail. While the city itself, far in the distance, received minuscule attention.
Edit: I would also like to point it out as being a problem in the other bird piece you posted. And I actually said something along those lines at the time:
Also, there is a problem with the brightness of the upper spirit bird. The two light spots are SO light that they are the overpowering force in the image. And, more specifically, they very much make that bird "more important" than the other and also lean the weight of the piece in that direction. One way to fix that would maybe be to light up the red and green spirit bird's eye, or even to brighten the feathers on the top of it's wing. Just something to balance it out.
Though I didn't quite understand the exact problem. If you do turn that piece to grayscale, again, the most important parts have definition, the rest flatten considerably, and the whole piece is overall low contrast.
So I personally don't think you know about the issue, or you would have already fixed it.
You said that I seem upset by your responses, and I guess at this point I am a little upset (though I wasn't before). Instead of actually trying to understand what I was saying, you only challenged me. Another way to go about it would be to simply say that you don't see what I'm saying, but maybe there's a miscommunication, rather than offering up excuses of how you clearly already know everything about what I'm saying.
I'm sorry if I offended you, really, but sometimes you're a little high and mighty when it comes to people critiquing you. And if you do already know what they're saying about their work in progress, say "I think I already know what you're saying, and I plan to do that. If it's still a problem when I post the final, repeat it then."
Oh no, several people have said something about a subject in a thread now it is a dead horse.
I don't see how discussing the topic of color, especially when Iruka said she'd appreciate the clarity, is tantamount to the murder and postmortem beatings of the topic of color.
You said that I seem upset by your responses, and I guess at this point I am a little upset (though I wasn't before). Instead of actually trying to understand what I was saying, you only challenged me. Another way to go about it would be to simply say that you don't see what I'm saying, but maybe there's a miscommunication, rather than offering up excuses of how you clearly already know everything about what I'm saying.
I'm sorry if I offended you, really, but sometimes you're a little high and mighty when it comes to people critiquing you. And if you do already know what they're saying about their work in progress, say "I think I already know what you're saying, and I plan to do that. If it's still a problem when I post the final, repeat it then."
I would gladly do that myself.
Please dont call me high and mighty, I've been pretty apologetic the last few posts. I have a drive to improve, and my art is also intensely personal and important to me. I really think that in general I'm moving forward with my art, and I'm always thinking and always considering crits. I havent been able to work on that piece, and as far as "fixing it" since your last crit, I honestly haven't done much painting since then. There's Been alot of death in my family this year, so I may not be on my game when it comes to absorbing crits, and I've been spending a great deal of this time telling myself that I'm not weak, and I'm allowing myself some recovery time.
I have no reason, desire, or intention to accost people who crit my work. At the same time, you have to be willing to elaborate your points with out feeling attacked if you're going to crit my threads. If you make sweeping general statements about my art, I think you should back it up, it doesn't mean I don't agree with you. I'm sorry if that's a pain in the ass, but if it is, honestly I don't have the energy right now to fight you when you don't see the appropriate improvement.
Please dont call me high and mighty, I've been pretty apologetic the last few posts. I have a drive to improve, and my art is also intensely personal and important to me. I really think that in general I'm moving forward with my art, and I'm always thinking and always considering crits. I havent been able to work on that piece, and as far as "fixing it" since your last crit, I honestly haven't done much painting since then. There's Been alot of death in my family this year, so I may not be on my game when it comes to absorbing crits, and I've been spending a great deal of this time telling myself that I'm not weak, and I'm allowing myself some recovery time.
I have no reason, desire, or intention to accost people who crit my work. At the same time, you have to be willing to elaborate your points with out feeling attacked if you're going to crit my threads. If you make sweeping general statements about my art, I think you should back it up, it doesn't mean I don't agree with you. I'm sorry if that's a pain in the ass, but if it is, honestly I don't have the energy right now to fight you when you don't see the appropriate improvement.
I guess I'm not sure where I made a sweeping generalization about your artwork without backing it up. I felt that I explained my thoughts on each piece clearly. If you could point out where I didn't explain anything then I will do my best to clarify further.
As for me feeling attacked, I don't. I'm not angry, nor am I attacking you back. I said "slightly upset". I meant that in a way that I feel as if you've been treating me as if I've been attacking your art or attacking you personally. Which I don't believe I've been doing.
As for you being apologetic, you were. But not to me. And not that you needed to be at the time. You did apologize after desperaterobots post. As far as I was concerned, we had a general misunderstanding about the technical aspect of the piece. You assumed that I was agitated. And I wasn't. Simple, and I'm still not agitated.
I frankly don't care if you take my advice and fix your pieces, either. I wasn't saying that you had to, or that I expected anything of you. I'm not sure where you got that from. I quoted the post from the beginning of the thread not to bring that point across, but just to note that it was noticeable at the time, and that I'd figured out, through repetition, what I'd been seeing.
All I expect is to say what I think about your art, and for you to defend it in a way that is logical, and not simply "that's not what this is about", "that's not how I do things", and "I already know that". And then I will provide for you a counter argument. Or, if you prefer, and you say so, I can leave it alone. I would respect your wishes.
The last thing I want, or expect, is for you to make this personal. Because, first off, it doesn't do anyone any good if I only give you supportive comments about your art. Least of all you. You're a very strong artist, Iruka, really. And you do understand, much better than most people, all of the techniques that make a strong piece. But, like anyone, there are always areas in which we can improve. I'm guilty of rationalizing, or saying I've had a bad day before, it's true. But when it comes down to it, all we're here to do is look at what you post and say "Is it strong or not? If not, why?"
I could produce a list of reasons why I haven't had a good year. Perhaps not multiple deaths of close relatives, no, but things that are just downright shitty. But I won't, because even if it does affect the way I feel, I can understand that when people disagree with me, they're not trying to add to the stress of my life through some malicious intent. They don't know if you've had a bad day or not. And, much as I can't know where you're taking a piece, I will not stand for being expected to know that you disagree with me because you're sad or depressed.
If your goal was to make me feel bad, consider yourself successful. So, I do apologize for upsetting you. And what I said to begin with still stands. Whatever part is unclear, I will still try to help come to at least a mutually understood disagreement, if nothing else.
Sorry, radar, I mean I take a great deal off offense to being called high and mighty, thats all. Thats a pretty personal accusation. I may have overstated it, but its just like calling someone "a little full of themselves", It never hits the person like "Well they said "a little, not alot!". Don't feel bad, Im sorry for making you feel bad.
In regards to my responses, I don't really think its unfair to say "that's not what this is about" in certain instances. If I'm not going for high contrast, and I don't think the piece requires it, that's really all I'm saying. Its a vignetted, emblematic drawing, as I was explaining, and I dont think it has to pop back and forth in space extremely to be effective.
And, you can define things with just color, many Early Modrian paintings and Van Gogh sunflowers come to mind. Extremely low in contrast, both in value, and in the case of the sunflowers also in hue. but the subjects are still there, and very much so alive.
The Background in that griffin piece is weak, admittedly, and that's because of some of the reasons I was discussing with srsizzy. Those were some crits that lead me to do those pieces that were all setting. I don't really feel like my new birds flatten out nearly as much as that does.
And, you can define things with just color, many Early Modrian paintings and Van Gogh sunflowers come to mind. Extremely low in contrast, both in value, and in the case of the sunflowers also in hue. but the subjects are still there, and very much so alive.
Apology accepted, and as for the Mondrian and Van Gogh paintings, I personally dislike that style of artwork. Mainly because it's so flat. So in that sense, it's a preference. I guess I always felt that Van Gogh started out stronger with his earliest pieces and then as he delved into impressionism and surrealism his pieces became... overrated. Not that he didn't understand the fundamentals anymore, but I don't really appreciate his explorations.
I love Van gogh, personally, so I guess we probably have some pretty substantially different preferences when it comes to certain solutions in executing a piece.
Speaking of threads: Iruka, can I buy one of your shirts in real life? Do you have like boxes of them sitting around? I would buy one and then I would wear it.
Oh no, several people have said something about a subject in a thread now it is a dead horse.
I don't see how discussing the topic of color, especially when Iruka said she'd appreciate the clarity, is tantamount to the murder and postmortem beatings of the topic of color.
The topic of color was not the dead horse. Repeating the same criticisms over and over because are so completely convinced of your views and opinions that you can't stand not having the last word gets pretty old pretty fast.
Speaking of threads: Iruka, can I buy one of your shirts in real life? Do you have like boxes of them sitting around? I would buy one and then I would wear it.
Posts
Anyway, I mean this lovingly, but sometimes you respond to crits in a way that makes me imagine you all sassy with a hand on your hip clicking your fingers and 'mmm-hmm'ing a lot, but your stuff is totally awesome and most of the crits are just like 'omg hurry up and finish it i want my eyes to have an orgasm', so hey, you know, keep being awesome! I'm writing like loom here, sorry.
I guess I have my whole library in mind, not really this particular thread, so when I think finished paintings I think back to things like,
So I'm trying to understand where I'm using lines as a crutch.
I dont want to seem ungrateful, I do really appreciate crits, I just usually try to break them down so I understand whats well founded and whats not. Whats the point of me just writing things off in my head? Maybe I'm really wrong and the person can clarify? Is that fair?
Its not like when ever someone crits me I disagree, I mean The last crit radar gave me about perspective was awesome.
I thought radars posts were really interesting, mostly because I'm still getting a handle on colour. Cakemikz is always on my case about me not using colour well enough. And I'm all YEAH YEAH CAKE WHATEVER IT LOOKS GREAT SHUT UP and then I spend the next 8 hours secretly worried that I will never succeed at anything ever and that everything I've ever done is toilet!
I think he's right about you using line art. Sometimes you rely on the lines to do a lot of the work in your images. I wouldn't say it's a crutch, it's just part of what you do. Just like how I use a lot of zimzams* and whiffwhaffs* in my work! Not a crutch, just a thing that I do. I think he was suggesting in that piece that without the line art, the image might fall apart somewhat, and maybe it would be worth your time working on stuff without relying on the lines?
I hope you don't mind me saying, but I think it's a good suggestion -- In the pieces above, it's the parts that dont have any strong pencilly bits that feel the weakest. Still awesome, but other bits are more awesomer still.
*substitute actual art words here.
You guys may also kinda interpret when I ask you what you mean, I'm saying your wrong, which is also not the case. I'm not incredibly cryptic, I actually prefer that things be broken down into multiple points with examples, which is generally what I push for. My confusion isnt a defensive stance, its a "explain exactly what you mean so I can understand fully" stance.
I think some of your coloring is weaker where it's less defined and not as sharp, but when you do sharpen out the details it does overwrite the pencils fine. This is aside the point, but I think you have a tendency to get over-detailed when you do sharpen, which probably exhausts you and leads to you not sharpening everything else. For example, you skimped on the backgrounds in two of those pieces you just posted, but the buildings and the heads of the figures are very detailed. It's telling of what you're afraid you can't do, like when people don't draw hands when they first start.
I Guess maybe the point is that the contrast is weak in places where I used to have pencil lines defining something, but colored them out, but did not sufficiently then bump the contrast and things get soft edged where originally they were hard. Usually when my pencils are particularly nondescript its because I plan for some softer edges in there (like fur, or the smaller furry feathers in this one) I can understand that and agree.
I think its alright to have some soft edges in a piece, but I usually just get bored when it comes to backgrounds, I've been trying to work out things that work without a background in the sense of a scene, because I'm not usually all that interested in building a huge setting. The first one I actually made about the scene, and skimmed on the subjects. But yeah, these are still pretty major confusing issues for me.
Have you ever colored another artist's pieces?
So, how do I explain that. Uh.
Take the birds thing. Again, I know it's a WIP, so I hope I'm not just telling you something you already know/don't care about/whatever, but it just sort of looks like, yeah, you're painting over a drawing. The drawing is amazingly cool, and then you add colour and it's just like... yeah, ok. You have a coloured drawing now. Instead of letting colour/saturation/value choices create the form of the birds, you're just sort of filling in the spaces with colours.
And that's not so much of a problem when the line and colour are working really well together, but then it looks like there are other spots in your work where there are no lines to define what should be there, and strokes start getting lazy and long and ambiguous (ie some of those backgrounds), and that might be giving off the impression that you rely on your initial lines to make your images work?
I dunno, your drawing skills are totally awesome, maybe try working up to that same level of fidelity from a very loose, very rough doodle, and see how it goes. Or if the really tight lines are what gives you joy, draw every motherfucking feather on that god damn bird and totally explode our brains.
I thought about: Well, what if she just drew digitally with no sketch to begin with, and laid out the basic shapes and tones, and then added detail, and then I didn't know if it would make a difference because in the end you're going to put "lines"/line-based detail over all that. But maybe it would be a good exercise; basically like what people do when they speedpaint, and then build off of that to get detail all over everything.
I think in the end the background is just the same as the figure or the character. You have to put as much focus into what it looks like and what it is, and I think that's frustrating for a lot of people and they get around it by not even bothering to do environmental pieces. I don't blame them, I focus on individual objects and details as well, I can't see the bigger picture very well yet, but maybe it's a learned thing? Maybe it's inherent. Perhaps someone should ask in the Chat, Doodle, or Help threads to see if some people got a hang of giving up the details for the sake of the larger picture with time?
I write all this, but in the end I'm far less skilled than you, so I might not know what I'm talking about.
I love your colors; they're very exciting to look at, and dominate the piece completely.
But half of the time they don't show much depth. I think you're relying on your intuition of what would look nice rather than render the actual drawing. If you separate the linework on its own it's pretty slick, and if you separated the color by itself its looking rad, but when you put them together it falls apart at times.
I think the problem you're having here is that you tend to overcomplicate your drawings when in comparison to your colors, or instead of rendering every exhausting detail you put into the piece with color, you stack a few base values on top, blend a few of those hues together and call it a day.
For future reference it might be a good idea to keep in mind which drawings of yours you'd leave in a pencil state and which ones you'll bring into a full blown illustration, and I have a hunch this is why a lot of your shirt designs tend to get overshadowed on those shirt websites.
The wings on that bird are too busy. It would be a nightmare to render each and every feather, because that's what you'd have to do to portray depth in that piece. As a pencils drawing it works beautifully, but past that its a herculean task for the painting.
I'd suggest starting out with a simpler drawing if the idea is to paint it, so that when you start going wild with your colors you can pick and choose what and how far you're going to render the piece.
Last time I painted without an pencil drawing under it, I think this was the result:
Doesnt seem to be going in a way different direction, to me, but maybe you guys see something I dont? I really like coloring, so its not that I'm not interested in it. I cant really imagine not working from a sketch, most of the time.
With a drawing like this (the birds), I don't think dimension is actually the highest thing on my list, it is an embellished, vignetted drawing, its not really a scene. So its not like when I drew this I was like "what details should I give up so that I can render a background" Its more emblematic.
not calling you generic or anything
I just think with the amount of magical ladies, flying monsters and wolves on those things
you'd make them awesome
I'd probably enjoy the dolla bills
I think the environment is hurting the overall piece, and parts of the wolf as well.
The best way I could describe it is that it looks like one of those 3D dioramas, where a few key elements are made to pop out but the rest of the layout is two dimensional.
Most of the figure, the wolf's face and his right paw have that three dimensionality, but the rest of the piece is lookin' a bit cardboard cut-out.
Nothin to add. I like the way the birds are coming along, personally, and agree with your choices. Great color palette, and perfectly acceptable execution for what it is. The preceding advices would be much more effectively applied towards scenes and things, as you say.
but i don't see how it's a crutch, more of a stylistic choice.
that being said, I'm all about artists branching out and trying new things, so hey, give no outlines a shot, see how it works for ya
but i believe you should always question your crits... be it out loud with the person critting or in some form of self dialogue.
don't just accept them, push for better explanations, clarity, argue them a little, push back, give your reasons for doing something, ESPECIALLY when it feels subjective to taste, the way this one kind of does.
but in questioning them, you gain more insight on what the actual problem is
many times, with me especially, the problem is in the way I think or approach the problem, so if I discuss it with someone, it gives me better clarity.
if people think you're being a bitch or sassy, then whatever, screw them, you're getting the most you can out of their advice.
I actually prefer the sketchier feel of some of your work over the stuff which is more polished; when you are able to hit that perfect balance between the two, I think the work has tonnes of character and, personally speaking, I am endeared to this type of work far more than I am to very polished paintings (though I most certainly have an appreciation of both).
The other thing I would comment on (and this likely applies to other folk on this board) is starting to get a feel for the commercial potential of your work. Regarding your comment, "I mean, if someone was offering me money for that..." -- don't sit around expecting to be offered money! The money is out there, you need to go and get it -- not wait for it to be handed to you. You will gain more success in this area, and be producing work that you want to produce, if you take a hand in controling your own commercial direction.
I know you're relatively young, and this side of things may actually be quite boring to you right now, but I would heartily suggest starting to at least think about how you aim to make a living from your art. Do you want to do concept art for a studio, or do you want to work for yourself? Do you want to work on apparel? Game art? Character design? Fantasy canvas prints? How much is an hour of your time worth? How long does a typical piece take you? Are you able to sell work and actually make a profit based on market prices for the type of work you want to do?
Approaching your work from a commerical angle and working on your business skills & understanding is at least as important as working on your illustration skills, imo. I like your work a lot and think it has huge commercial potential - like anything, you just got to put the work in.
Keep it up. 8-)
do you have a website portfolio up yet?
that's a big step in sort of getting your name out there to potential clients
then go pick up a copy of the graphic artist and illustrators hand book 2009 edition (or wait for 2010 edition, it drops soonish if not already...) get some postcards printed out and start doing mailers.
start getting those clients!
I'll look for that graphic artist and illustrators hand book thing, Thanks bevo
As for the crits and the counterpoints, thanks for taking the extra time to explain your opinions. I'll try to keep all that in mind as I move forward in my work. Next time I find myself without a subject to draw, I'll experiment a bit.
When I say you sometimes use outlines as a crutch, I was not saying that you shouldn't use outlines.
My point was only this. That if you do use outlines in a piece that you're coloring, it should still stand as a strong piece on it's own without the outlines. Otherwise, the coloring isn't correct. Because things in real life have no outlines, it should be that you can read things without them as long as you're using color to define form (and thus, this is not applicable to extremely graphic pieces, flat colors, etc.)
For example, as I said (and again, I thought this was the explanation you're looking for):
I said it in a strange way, and in kind of a weird order, but what I've highlighted on here was what I meant.
What you seem to do in your work is accentuate the most important parts of a piece with definition. As in, you actually define the forms as they would be seen in space with light bouncing off of them. And then you leave less important parts of a piece "flat", without definition of color. And that is where you rely on the outlines. Because without them, things would just read flatly.
It sometimes doesn't look that way because you use different colors, but the values are all very nearly the same. So, as I said, in grayscale, without the lineart, you wouldn't be able to see any individual feathers on the bird. It would just be a large flat shape.
But there are other ways to do that besides not changing the values. One is to lower the saturation/intensity of the colors you use in those unimportant places. So that the saturated areas pop. Another is to make the general area of unimportant regions darker, while still defining form. And still a better way is to do both. Have darker, less saturated colors, but define form by adding shadows and highlights, just less extreme ones. As it stands, you don't have any shadows or highlights defining the feathers on that wing. And that is why the lineart is holding it up. You couldn't see any of those details without the lines.
As I said before, as well, I don't mind that your lines are sketchy. I also understand that it's a style. But like Des said, it's also always good to try new things. I've also never seen you refine lineart other than by coloring it. So that is a personal opinion. I'd like to see you try some more solid, precise, confident lines. But it has nothing to do with my critique of the definition of forms, which is simply a technical weakness in the piece.
And maybe you already knew all of that, and maybe you were going to define it more. I am not sure. But, since I have been following your work, it's been a consistent error, even in your finished pieces. For example, this piece:
In grayscale, the background reads as a shape. You didn't rely on line here, but color to differentiate the forms. And I know that atmospheric perspective dictates that things even out as they go back in space, but it has to be like, a damn smoggy day for that kind of extreme. And things that are closer don't receive any more definition, besides the characters. Which is how you differentiate importance of "objects" or "regions" in a piece. And I'm just telling you that one way to improve your pieces would be to not do that, and use the methods I suggested above. Edit #2: Also, if it was that flat or far away, the trees should only be one color, then, not different ones, so that the colors and values are consistent with their function.
It is also a problem in that city piece you posted, because the figures in the foreground, along with the brush in the lower right hand corner, have little to no detail. While the city itself, far in the distance, received minuscule attention.
Edit: I would also like to point it out as being a problem in the other bird piece you posted. And I actually said something along those lines at the time:
Though I didn't quite understand the exact problem. If you do turn that piece to grayscale, again, the most important parts have definition, the rest flatten considerably, and the whole piece is overall low contrast.
So I personally don't think you know about the issue, or you would have already fixed it.
You said that I seem upset by your responses, and I guess at this point I am a little upset (though I wasn't before). Instead of actually trying to understand what I was saying, you only challenged me. Another way to go about it would be to simply say that you don't see what I'm saying, but maybe there's a miscommunication, rather than offering up excuses of how you clearly already know everything about what I'm saying.
I'm sorry if I offended you, really, but sometimes you're a little high and mighty when it comes to people critiquing you. And if you do already know what they're saying about their work in progress, say "I think I already know what you're saying, and I plan to do that. If it's still a problem when I post the final, repeat it then."
I would gladly do that myself.
I don't see how discussing the topic of color, especially when Iruka said she'd appreciate the clarity, is tantamount to the murder and postmortem beatings of the topic of color.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
Please dont call me high and mighty, I've been pretty apologetic the last few posts. I have a drive to improve, and my art is also intensely personal and important to me. I really think that in general I'm moving forward with my art, and I'm always thinking and always considering crits. I havent been able to work on that piece, and as far as "fixing it" since your last crit, I honestly haven't done much painting since then. There's Been alot of death in my family this year, so I may not be on my game when it comes to absorbing crits, and I've been spending a great deal of this time telling myself that I'm not weak, and I'm allowing myself some recovery time.
I have no reason, desire, or intention to accost people who crit my work. At the same time, you have to be willing to elaborate your points with out feeling attacked if you're going to crit my threads. If you make sweeping general statements about my art, I think you should back it up, it doesn't mean I don't agree with you. I'm sorry if that's a pain in the ass, but if it is, honestly I don't have the energy right now to fight you when you don't see the appropriate improvement.
I guess I'm not sure where I made a sweeping generalization about your artwork without backing it up. I felt that I explained my thoughts on each piece clearly. If you could point out where I didn't explain anything then I will do my best to clarify further.
As for me feeling attacked, I don't. I'm not angry, nor am I attacking you back. I said "slightly upset". I meant that in a way that I feel as if you've been treating me as if I've been attacking your art or attacking you personally. Which I don't believe I've been doing.
As for you being apologetic, you were. But not to me. And not that you needed to be at the time. You did apologize after desperaterobots post. As far as I was concerned, we had a general misunderstanding about the technical aspect of the piece. You assumed that I was agitated. And I wasn't. Simple, and I'm still not agitated.
I frankly don't care if you take my advice and fix your pieces, either. I wasn't saying that you had to, or that I expected anything of you. I'm not sure where you got that from. I quoted the post from the beginning of the thread not to bring that point across, but just to note that it was noticeable at the time, and that I'd figured out, through repetition, what I'd been seeing.
All I expect is to say what I think about your art, and for you to defend it in a way that is logical, and not simply "that's not what this is about", "that's not how I do things", and "I already know that". And then I will provide for you a counter argument. Or, if you prefer, and you say so, I can leave it alone. I would respect your wishes.
The last thing I want, or expect, is for you to make this personal. Because, first off, it doesn't do anyone any good if I only give you supportive comments about your art. Least of all you. You're a very strong artist, Iruka, really. And you do understand, much better than most people, all of the techniques that make a strong piece. But, like anyone, there are always areas in which we can improve. I'm guilty of rationalizing, or saying I've had a bad day before, it's true. But when it comes down to it, all we're here to do is look at what you post and say "Is it strong or not? If not, why?"
I could produce a list of reasons why I haven't had a good year. Perhaps not multiple deaths of close relatives, no, but things that are just downright shitty. But I won't, because even if it does affect the way I feel, I can understand that when people disagree with me, they're not trying to add to the stress of my life through some malicious intent. They don't know if you've had a bad day or not. And, much as I can't know where you're taking a piece, I will not stand for being expected to know that you disagree with me because you're sad or depressed.
If your goal was to make me feel bad, consider yourself successful. So, I do apologize for upsetting you. And what I said to begin with still stands. Whatever part is unclear, I will still try to help come to at least a mutually understood disagreement, if nothing else.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
In regards to my responses, I don't really think its unfair to say "that's not what this is about" in certain instances. If I'm not going for high contrast, and I don't think the piece requires it, that's really all I'm saying. Its a vignetted, emblematic drawing, as I was explaining, and I dont think it has to pop back and forth in space extremely to be effective.
And, you can define things with just color, many Early Modrian paintings and Van Gogh sunflowers come to mind. Extremely low in contrast, both in value, and in the case of the sunflowers also in hue. but the subjects are still there, and very much so alive.
The Background in that griffin piece is weak, admittedly, and that's because of some of the reasons I was discussing with srsizzy. Those were some crits that lead me to do those pieces that were all setting. I don't really feel like my new birds flatten out nearly as much as that does.
Apology accepted, and as for the Mondrian and Van Gogh paintings, I personally dislike that style of artwork. Mainly because it's so flat. So in that sense, it's a preference. I guess I always felt that Van Gogh started out stronger with his earliest pieces and then as he delved into impressionism and surrealism his pieces became... overrated. Not that he didn't understand the fundamentals anymore, but I don't really appreciate his explorations.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
The topic of color was not the dead horse. Repeating the same criticisms over and over because are so completely convinced of your views and opinions that you can't stand not having the last word gets pretty old pretty fast.
INSTAGRAM
Rats.
Dangit!
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
I'm serious!
Fuck, that's the second time that's happened to me.