dlt: @Anonymous: ...except I didn't even make a comment about the actual drawing, just a Chip joke about the artist's name. The comment above, however, was a direct criticism of the picture.
I'm not sure if you're attempting to get under my skin or trying to give me honest criticism. The context implies the former, but I do agree with what you're saying about me not having that original of a style. The honest answer is, I don't have much of a drive to develop it, since I'm more interested in learning to copy existing styles, hence it's very derivative. As for the 'better looking' comment, it's all subjective to a certain point.
Anonymous4(2): @dlt: Some would say you don't have much talent if you just copy someone else's style, which is true to a certain point. Its far more interesting to look at something when someone has put their own flair to it.
dlt: @Anonymous: I can certainly understand that viewpoint. This is why someone who makes forgeries of famous paintings is not heralded as being as talented as the painter he's imitating. However, I would argue that on-model fan art can be a different case altogether when the artist goes beyond the original culture product, e.g. erotic fan art done in a manner that attempts to make it look official. It is also here where I do think lies the line between imitation and expanding upon existing matter. Erotic fan art, if done properly, can cross said line.
I can also make the counter-argument that off-model fan art is not always the most interesting thing to look at, even if it's well-made. There are many popular fan artists who draw girls from cartoon shows but always give them facial or body features in their own styles, and while some of them are truly great at drawing, I don't have much interest in looking at something that feels more like a hot girl cosplaying a character than the character itself. Also, learning to imitate someone is not something that's self-evident and can happen without much practice. Just ask any fan artist who aims to draw on-model to look at their earlier pics and listen to them pinpoint every single problem, even the smallest ones, and be all embarrassed about how bad they were, heh.
Anonymous5: @Anonymous: Skilled animators get paid to do just that. Even accurate on-model/mimicry art will have some of the artist's own style bleed through despite them probably trying to avoid it. Depending on the range of the artist's work, developing a unique style can become a shortcut, simply recycling a handful of stock bodies, putting on new heads, and using the artist's prefered inking and coloring methods for every single character regardless of the source material.
Anonymous6: The irony in this discussion is that this person seems to have copped the style of "Sword in the Stone," so it isn't all that unique anyway.
- Reply
- Reply
I'm not sure if you're attempting to get under my skin or trying to give me honest criticism. The context implies the former, but I do agree with what you're saying about me not having that original of a style. The honest answer is, I don't have much of a drive to develop it, since I'm more interested in learning to copy existing styles, hence it's very derivative. As for the 'better looking' comment, it's all subjective to a certain point.
- Reply
I can also make the counter-argument that off-model fan art is not always the most interesting thing to look at, even if it's well-made. There are many popular fan artists who draw girls from cartoon shows but always give them facial or body features in their own styles, and while some of them are truly great at drawing, I don't have much interest in looking at something that feels more like a hot girl cosplaying a character than the character itself. Also, learning to imitate someone is not something that's self-evident and can happen without much practice. Just ask any fan artist who aims to draw on-model to look at their earlier pics and listen to them pinpoint every single problem, even the smallest ones, and be all embarrassed about how bad they were, heh.