Why do so many younger artists have thin skin when it comes to criticism?
Older artists who had to learn and get work pre-internet era tell a lot of stories about how they got torn the fuck down by their art instructors or directors and they were the better for it.
Even Glen Keane talks about how his first portfolio for Disney was rejected because he was told it wasn't good enough.
Other urls found in this thread:
archive.is
youtube.com
twitter.com
They're snotty rich kids with no discipline or humility.
The disease of postmodernism deludes people into thinking that "good" and "bad" art are social constructs designed to oppress free-spirited rebels.
Most artists have thin skin when it comes to criticism. It's something about internet art that attracts primadonnas and drama whores.
Well that comic clearly illustrates good reasons why.
First off, the critic is an asshole "so called cat."
And second, the "critique" isn't valid at all. All he's done is change the style, and not offered any substantial criticism of the original drawing. There is no error that he's correct in any way.
Where the comic is in error is that the critic can actually draw himself. Nine times out of ten, the critic can't draw for shit and has no idea what they're talking about.
Not disagreeing with your initial point, but that's a really bad/stupid example.
"being torn the fuck down by your workplace superior or educator" != "unsolicited critique"
and the image you posted doesn't seem like thin skin or unreasonable, it looks like whoever this is is just mocking an unsolicited & idiotic/uninformed critique. critique from people that don't know what they're talking about isn't valuable.
That's been a thing since forever, mate.
I would say the "wrong" is the usage of the term "unsolicited". When you put artwork online for the public to see, it's subject to anything, even criticism. The criticism can be wrong, helpful, or completely misguided but it's not unsolicited.
You can argue it's rude to draw over someone's art or edit someone's art if you want. But I feel like it should also be just as expected as putting your face on a subway poster and then seeing someone drew a mustache over it. When something is available to the public like that, anything goes.
Well to be fair, INSTRUCTOR implies the advice is solicited, literally in fact. Those people are literally paid to tear into their shit.
Considering the first one is some odd humanoid and not a cat at all, yes he has corrected the image, it is markedly a cat, unlike the first one.
The second image is still bad bu that's because the artist who made the comic is bad or didn't put any effort into this
> whoever this is is just mocking an unsolicited & idiotic/uninformed critique. critique from people that don't know what they're talking about isn't valuable
t. underaged who is pretending being better is a stylistic choice
You need to recognize a strawman argument when you see one. The comic artist is clearly overcompensating due to the saltiness created by onlne criticism. Either ignore the useless criticism, or grow the fuck up and deal with it. These webcomics are always passive aggressive.
wow....so this......is the power..........of..autism....
You seem to be implying that the artist wanted to draw a realistic cat in the first place, which I don't really think is an entirely correct assumption.
I've seen kids with strict parents that criticize everything they do, and it doesn't toughen them, it just makes them weaker. They hear one criticism, and even if they know that it's justified, in their mind it just leads to them thinking that their a terrible person, a burden to be around, they should just quit, wait but if I quit I've wasted everyone's time, I can't stay here, I can't go.
The kids that take every criticism as a personal attack are the kids that are used to criticisms being personal attacks on them.
>When you put artwork online for the public to see, it's subject to (...) criticism. (...) it's not unsolicited. (...) When something is available to the public like that, anything goes.
And the fact that I live at an address with a publicly-visible street number and mailbox means all this junkmail I get is solicited, right? Pick a different argument user, there's plenty of reasonable ones about thinned skinned babies but this is one is moronic. Are you ESL?
>constructs a strawman
>says their strawman is presenting a strawman argument
lol?
You're overreacting to some gentle mocking of useless criticism.
I'm sorry this furfag didn't like your cat picture, OP
>gentle
No it’s passive-aggressive. These types of comics are a dime a dozen. The artist has an axe to grind, a platform to speak from, and no one to refute the points they make in the panels. It’s the perfect platform for a smug artist. I know this because I know other artists like this.
This is what that post is in response to
archive.is
Alright, if you say so. I know quite a few passive-agressive people myself, but this didn't really trigger any responses or recognition from me. Then again, I don't know any artists.
When you use someone's address to push your own business, it's unsolicited. This includes bots that spam their websites on your art blog nonsensically.
When someone you don't know mails you a letter about how much they don't like the gaudy Christmas decorations on your lawn, you can still not like it but to scream, "I DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS!" is something an angsty teenager would scream.
The commenter is still commenting strictly on the art personally to the artist. They are keeping relevant to the public submission they made. Not unsolicited. If you aren't open to hearing every opinion about your art, even ones you disagree with, don't put that shit on a public profile.
>useless criticism
>art lacking an even basic understanding of form is useless criticism
wew lad
They haven't been told their art is shit as much as older artists. They also have been coddled and told they can do anything.
You don't use your bad art as a means to criticize things properly, do you?
>But it's okay when I criticize people even though my webcomic is a poorly written mess
that's modernism you unwise fellow (see Nouvelle Vague cinema and boomers). post-modernism is not caring about anything (gen X and fight club/american psycho)
then comes no-modernism where the social deconstruction starts (anish kapoor, danger music, commercial memetics)
What are you even trying to ask, OP? What is it that you're trying to understand? That people get their feelings hurt?
Yeah, of course great artists were rejected in the beginning. That doesn't mean people can be assholes to artists who are starting out.
These are people who still aren't completely sure if art is what they want to do. They're still trying to find their voice. Having strangers shit on them with the guise that they're trying to help doesn't actually help.
Note that you said 'criticism' and not 'constructive criticism.' You already know what the issue is. So I don't understand why you're even asking. What are you 'actually' trying to get at?
Sometimes you forget just how tumblr this board is.
It's why I barely even come here anymore
If they do not want criticism, all the power to them, but it won't stop with a picture. It's an unstoppable side effect of posting online. As long as they understand that I see no issue
>but it won't stop with a picture
If anything, telling the internet things that you hate will only guarantee they'll troll you more with it.
You're supposed to vent to people close to you things that piss you off, not total strangers.
I found the comic funny just because of my time spent on /ic/, but it's clear that it becomes fuel for people to go, "they hate criticism" and you become known as that person. Hell, they could have titled it, "/ic/ in a nutshell" instead of the unsolicited thingy and I think most people here would find it funny.
Many millennial artists go into art seeking validation. In this way they are much more sensitive to critique, because they view the an extension of themselves.
However, internet criticism isn't constructive most of the time. Very few people take the time to sit down and write thoughtful feedback.
Depends how deep down you REALLY want to improve.
I've been a freelance artist for a few years. I've gotten to know a lot of artists and comic artists.
People in small press or little weird art scenes never really want to improve, I think they know deep down they're too lazy to make any real change.
I've started to ask for more critiques as we reach even high saturation of people wanting to do this for a living. It's pushed me to stand out and do my best.
The good ones just march on and try to get by. They send their work out and try to do the best they can.
The weak ones will bitch and moan online and beg for work on twitter. I can't understand that.
user do you know who PK is
>However, internet criticism isn't constructive most of the time. Very few people take the time to sit down and write thoughtful feedback.
Online constructive criticism is way harder to ignore than just "your art sux" comments. It's hard to shut down two paragraphs of someone telling you in detail what you can improve on, even if they're wrong, without sounding like you're being deflective or don't accept criticism.
It's why the best response is usually just saying, "Thanks for the comment" or nothing at all.
The real question is, does there exist any porn of this so-called "cat"?
What do you mean by younger? If you are referring to artists in their late teens and early adulthood I agree. But who cares if eleven year olds are drawing their shitty sonic OCs. It’s a part of growing up and it will provide them with laughs later in life.
Yep, by the creator herself.
forbidden flora
I'm an artist and have lost a couple of art college friends because they've shown me stuff and I've given them criticism. And it was never even, "Here's how to make it BETTER because your version sucks" but, "Here's how you can push it further it make it really feel cartoony like you want".
I've come to learn that even in your own art community, artists don't actually want criticism unless they specify, "What do you think? I want criticism, don't hold back".
Kind of sucks learning that the hard way though. Those people were a couple of years ago and thinking about them still piss me off because I didn't just kiss their ass. One of them even said I stressed them out because they're just drawing to be happy and I made them feel like a bad artist. And again keep in mind, my comments were not even close to being John K. levels of "harsh".
Fucking baffling to have people act like that in art college where I assumed they wanted to get better.
this.
t. used to be in this exact situation
Based. Thx user
I think you're confused, the implication seems to be that OP drew the unsolicited image for the furfag (PK)
Its the internet age. most of these artists are fucking kids barely old enough to remember when the internet was new. We're watching a bunch of whiny brats grow the fuck up, publicly.
and this fpbp
>Why do so many younger artists have thin skin when it comes to criticism?
In Glip's case is because she's a control freak, everything about her is about control what other people do (because she was abused by her father).
She want people to talk about her content, to make content based on her content, but she hate criticism because she hates when other people try to tell her what to do.
Feel bad for them. I did some stupid shit but I was lucky enough the website it was on never got popular. Though, I suppose they knew what they were getting into
>Knowing this much about them
Jesus, It's like I stepped into Gossip Girls. Who is this literally who and why is there so much beef on them?
But in Glip's case, most of her criticizers are actual kids who don't know what the fuck they're talking about but think they're art connoisseurs.
She got criticized for using bean mouth too much while pic related was supposed to be a claim in how unappealing her art is when she uses those mouths. And these drawings look more than fucking fine. And those are consistently the type of comments she gets every time about her art.
It's not like VivziePop who gets reasonable, "Holy shit, you drew the arm backwards" comments that she refuses to acknowledge.
I am a high school art teacher. Most students are receptive to criticism if you don't treat them like they're hopeless or try to argue that their style is "not art". I faced that last one a lot in college, so I know the feels of being an illustrator in a program with no illustration concentration and professors who worshipped Modern/Postmodernism primarily.
The only kids I see losing it are the ones who don't want to put in the time to actually make the corrections, even when they fully see that there is a mistake there.
>And these drawings look more than fucking fine.
eh, i can see SOME of those faces getting old, specially the snarl, but that's because her characters are always angry petulant assholes just like her, so i don't see how many more expressions she could portray.
>beanmouth
That shit isn't bean mouth though. I was always under the assumption it was like that Steven Universe/calarts face.
Look up "glitchedpuppet kiwifarms"
kiwifarms is a shitty site but that particular thread justifies their existence
>a piece of art that i publicly put on the internet = private information like my home address
what kind of mental loops did you have to jump through to come to that conclusion
>I was always under the assumption it was like that Steven Universe/calarts face.
It is, but even then, people don't complain about a single show's usage of bean mouth. They complain about art stagnation in the industry.
No one is ever compiling We Bare Bear faces and going, "They use bean mouth too much". I mean, at that point, it's just following an expression sheet. It's like complaining Loud House uses pointy mouths too much.
That's pretty much what it is, except frowning instead of smiling. I can find any of those expressions in that image in Steven Universe actually.
>And these drawings look more than fucking fine.
They look like shit actually. I mean after a point you have to realize you're drawing the same expression over and over again and at least change it for a specific scene. That aside her drawings lack dimension and only get by with the use of textured brushes and bright ugly colors.
>I mean after a point you have to realize you're drawing the same expression over and over again and at least change it for a specific scene
How exactly is staying on model for a character a bad thing? Most of the PK examples are the same character. She doesn't have to follow Ren & Stimpy rules of, "throw out re-used expressions".
I've seen both. Either extreme leads to a ball of sensitive mush that's just worthless.
Faggot
>Why do so many younger artists have thin skin when it comes to criticism?
Because they're young, therefore stupid and emotional.
but the beanmouth is just a simplification of how a mouth would look, why is staying consistant to the stylistic choice now a bad thing?
>How exactly is staying on model for a character a bad thing?
Staying on model and giving a character a different expression aren't mutally exclusive.
>She doesn't have to follow Ren & Stimpy rules of, "throw out re-used expressions".
It's not Ren and Stimpy to have characters have specific expressions for specific scenes. Human beings are already capable of this.
And in that case, Genie is probably the worst example you could have given with the amount of creavity Eric Goldberg put into his expressions and character animation.
the point he was making wasnt "genies doesnt have expressions" it was "genie generally uses that expression", because the bean mouth is used for that, an expression
Look up a photo of a real person and trace the inside of the mouth where the lips and teeth meet, it isn't a bean.
>"it's just pixels"
/ourgirl/
a bean seems like a pretty accurate simplification t b q h f a m
>Why do so many younger
you just answered your own question smarty
>genie generally uses that expression
6 examples for Genie vs 40+ for that PK character
>because the bean mouth is used for that, an expression
An overused expression, that's the point of that chart. If it was only used a few times it would be considered nitpicking, but using it over and over again is going into anime territory.
>40+ for that PK character
in the pic a few post above there are way more than a single character
not a bean you shmuck.
>6 examples for Genie vs 40+ for that PK character
Yeah because Genie in the movie only shows up after the 30 minute mark and even then is only around for roughly 35 - 40 minutes of the movie. This is compared to hundreds and hundreds of comic pages for PK.
And those were just images I grabbed off of random screencaps on Google. I could scour through the whole movie and find more + include the DTV Aladdin movies and the tv series and that single expression compilation will grow exponentially. That still doesn't mean it's a tired expression for Genie or that Genie isn't expressive. It's just proving how easy cherry picking can be even for a really cartoony character.
Also a good 10 of those images in the PK one are profile shots, not bean mouths.
It's not about criticism. It's about unsolicited criticism. Criticism when you're not looking for it given to you by some pretentious cunt who doesn't know what they're talking about who wants to seem smart. That shit is annoying.
I would argue the difference is that originally artists practiced and doodled for a long time and their own and then got requested critiques from educators or rejections of professional submissions.
Shit posted on social media today is more like napkin doodles or shit posted on the fridge as casual hobbyists learn to draw or just fuck around for fun so expectations should be much lower. Like if you're watching tv in the student longue and a bunch of random people show up to criticize your posture.
You know exactly which character I'm talking about, stop being intentionally obtuse.
> I could scour through the whole movie and find more + include the DTV Aladdin movies and the tv series and that single expression compilation will grow exponentially.
It probably wouldn't unless you get mostly inbetween frames of a single scene like this did for three scenes.
A comic has less of an excuse as you're telling a story with significantly less drawings than a cartoon. So if you keep reusing expressions across several single panels it's going to get noticable and annoying.
ahahahahahaha
...
Artists are all mentally ill to at least some degree. It comes packaged with creativity and drive.
>Thinks Mary is a better name than Alice
Shit taste.
She tend to use the same mouths because her characters don't have flat faces, so it's kind of dificult be creative there but the expressive part or her faces are the eyes not the mouths
>Mismatch has been pulled because some faggots complained.
What the actual fuck?
This, basically. Though I'd argue the level of discourse from the commentators is equally important. When you've got dozens of people giving you praise for whatever you do, anything that's not "OMG I luv ur work! so good!" comes off as insulting, even if it's stated in a concise and well-meaning manner.
>someone posted something I drew in a thread
>someone else says its shit
Oh wow, PK...they used to run an oekaki full of furry porn back in the day
Theyre from Sup Forums
>PurpleKecleon thread
Not this fucker again.
Hahaha that's gotta suck right...
yeah but a semicircle/something with corners is better
>PK
This is all you need to know.
Beleth's a cute though.
On the flipside, some critics can't stand getting criticized or in reply to their own critique from the artist.
It all matters to the individual.
>Older artists who had to learn and get work pre-internet era tell a lot of stories about how they got torn the fuck down by their art instructors or directors and they were the better for it.
>comparing your stupid internet ass to trained professionals
This is why.
youtube.com
But what if it is meant to motivate you?
Art is generally irrelevant as long as you can tell a narrative with it.
Genie's mouth shape is pretty specific and almost instantly recognizable.
Contrast with anime mouth shapes.
From what I can tell, a lot of them are people with little formal training in art and drawing. In a good art class, your professor will tear your work down and point out everything wrong because they want you to improve on your weak points.
Either that or they just had the misfortune of not having good teachers, instead getting ones who coddled them through all their classes
>Only thing that makes a character recognizable is their mouth
Eh, floraverse is pretty tightly structured, for a webcomic. I think probably because each arc is designed as a discrete unit with clear narrative goals, instead of your standard "make it up as you go" workflow where the overarching narrative is hacked in later.
The actual problem with floraverse is that half of it is flash "games" or "videos" that contain no game and no video, just really inefficiently delivered comic panels. It syncs the art to the music fair enough, and the music's pretty good, but it fucks with the flow of it awfully.
>Tfw she doesn't draw realistic shit more often
Feels bad man
This.
A lot of the shit people call critique is not critique, it's nasty comments or personal attacks on the artist. There's no critique happening, it's some anonymous cockend trying their best to hurt someone.
Sure, get angry about people who get legitimate critique then cry about it, not about people who are just being attacked because the viewer doesn't like the art, the message or is just trying to harm people today.
i think it's better to be a bit full of yourself so you can ignore dumb comments, but no so much you stop listening all together
Cartoons aren't art and there is no 'wrong' way to draw a cartoon.
If a cartoonist likes their style then any criticism is just an opinion.
Because a lot of them are children or at least have the minds of children.