Stuffs. I realize it's DA, I realize that most people dislike DA, but it's the best I could do. Apologies.

My crap.

I improved.

If {{link=down; art!=crap}
else=awesome
}

tHE RUX.

Good god.

Awsome.

Wow, irony. Just yesterday I thought "hey, I should randomly check DA pages of people I know."

Yes, you did improve. And you went digital =D.

I really love the fluid, fantasy feel to your art. Make sure to watch your line aliasing, though (as in, whether your lines have sharp, blocky edges or nice smooth fades). With photoshop this is usually fixed by coloring the art large and scaling it down to something <50% afterwards. Of course, your line quality is much better in the ID pic, so maybe you already figured this out.

Me like.

i <3 ur crap!

I make it a point never to comment apon DA accounts that are far, far, superior to mine. Needless to say everyone else has said anything I could say.

Wow, thanks guys. Rad, I'm still finding my way around Photoshop, but yeah I'm figuring out out slowly. Thanks for the tip. DD, don't let that stop you.

Oh it does, it does; you haven't seen the junk I post: http://ziblink.deviantart.com/ the only good stuff I have are photographs. You're stuff is far superior, and it shows a lot of you in each picture.

You seem to be more of a photographer, so how can you compare yourself to CT?

Noo, my gallery has drawings in it if you look, and they're very, very poor, that is the compairision. I have no artistic talent.

I know that. But only in the beginning.
Did you switch to photography because you found out you weren't good at drawing or because you wanted to do something else?

Art is subjective. The only one who can say if it's "good" or not is the artist themselves. I can point out technical flaws, etc, but my opinion doesn't make the art good or bad. If the artist is satisfied, if the art accurately represents the vision they had for it, then it is perfect regardless of popular opinion.

That said, I want advice regarding technical flaws - like Rad's tip about the lines. Anyone is qualified to criticize it regardless of how skilled they think they are. You don't need to know acrylics from oils to have a valid opinion. So, criticize away, DD. I want to hear it because I'm not really satisfied, therefore my art is not perfect.

That brought tears to my eyes.

( Well, almost. )

*HUG*

Originally Posted by Coppertop

Art is subjective. The only one who can say if it's "good" or not is the artist themselves. I can point out technical flaws, etc, but my opinion doesn't make the art good or bad. If the artist is satisfied, if the art accurately represents the vision they had for it, then it is perfect regardless of popular opinion.

In this case this is true, but what about art that is actually produced for other people? (IE portraits, game concept art, etc)

'bit random.

Did you switch to photography because you found out you weren't good at drawing or because you wanted to do something else?

Oh heck no, I still draw, muchly so, It just goes to art class or friends notebooks rather than online. I am terrible at art, an utter, utter faliure.

So I really don't feel that I should possibly be commenting on anyone's art.

Dragons! <3

Originally Posted by Doubble Dutch

Oh heck no, I still draw, muchly so, It just goes to art class or friends notebooks rather than online. I am terrible at art, an utter, utter faliure.

So I really don't feel that I should possibly be commenting on anyone's art.

If you suck so much at drawing, why don't you try out different forms of art?

And people show their art to the public because they want feedback from the spectators. Surely an artist can give his own opinion about the quality of his own artwork, but the spectators are the ones who represent the taste of the rest of the world. You don't need to be good at art to have a taste in it.

Oh I have; but I am terrible at nearly all artforms. This painting for example, absolute garbage: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/...e+-in%3Ascraps

I like feedback yes, but I can't comment on anyone elses art due to the simple fact that I just don't know. It'd be like trying to mark an essay on calculus, I just don't know anything. How can I comment on coloring when I can't do it myself? How can I comment on a picture when I can't even concieve how it was drawn. Such awesome art is a closed book to me.

.....you just proved yourself so wrong it hurts to hear you call your artistic skills bad. That's an expressionist painting of the caliber you can see in galleries. Unfortunately, it also expresses involuntarily why you'd think so. I'm sorry.

What's so bad about that, then?
Taste is all you need to comment art...

I'm going out on a limb here and saying that DD is being sarcastic, not self-deprecating.
But, then again, that's what I always guess... maybe it's just me.

Originally Posted by Doubble Dutch

Oh I have; but I am terrible at nearly all artforms. This painting for example, absolute garbage: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/...e+-in%3Ascraps

By comparing your art to Copper's you're mixing apples and oranges. Copper is drawing, what you are doing (photography, cartooning, etc) is more of designing. Making your art better isn't a matter of learning about drawing, but learning more about things like composition, contrast, rhythm, lighting, and so on. And, most importantly, experimenting with lots of different angles, light levels, cropping, and so on.

Explain to me how design does not apply to what Copper is doing.

What's so bad about that, then?
Taste is all you need to comment art..

Heck no it isn't! Otherwise your comments are just 'OOh, isn't that nice! Good work!' For anything constructive you have to know something about how to draw or whatever. I dislike useless comments and I refuse to make them.

I am not comparing my art to Copper's; I am comparing the sketchwork I do and showing that there *is* no compairison, nothing I do is anywhere near her skill level, so comments from me are pointless. It would be like your typical school student readinh shakespear; they'll do it if they're told to, but they can't really comment apon it.

That's an expressionist painting of the caliber you can see in galleries.

Don't get me started on the quality of modern art, I may not paint well, but I paint a hell of a lot better than some of the garbage you see nowadays. How was Andy Warhol able to sell a picture of a soup can for so much money?

....see? So you might be even better. \o/

Six year olds have been scientifically proven to produce work of an equal or better calibre than most modern art. [It was for a TV program if I remember correctly] *Anyone* could paint the things I do, this is Copper's topic, lets get back to *her* stuff; most of the people here are awesome artists, so no doubt have much to contribute.

Originally Posted by Doubble Dutch

Six year olds have been scientifically proven to produce work of an equal or better calibre than most modern art.

{{fact}}

Ah, but of course Stijn, but of course! The problem is finding a citation for something you've seen on TV, I shall try and locate it.

Edit: Nope, can't find it, as I remember they got six art critics from the local college to judge a set of artworks, then later told them several were by six year olds [Finger paintings] I remember one line in it was 'that is a very talented six year old, get her a studio!' but I'll be mogdored if I can find it, anyone know how you can find old TV show episodes? The're harder than scientific journals.

This is an interesting paper though: http://goldin-meadow-lab.uchicago.ed...art_GM1984.pdf

youtube, google video, broadcaster's website...

How do I use those if I don't know the episode name?