Anonymous1: You crayon eating bastards just HAD to have it in color, didn't you? Doesn't matter that it looks like shit, you just couldn't resist regressing to nursery school.
When will people learn that some art was just meant to be in black and white... BECAUSE THEY'RE DRAWN THAT WAY?
craggle: you know, 9 times out of ten i'd prefer even a shitty coloring to a drawing being in black and white, and 999999999999 times out of 1000000000000 a very good coloring improves a black and white.
so i call bullshit on your "some art was meant to be in black and white" theory.
Anonymous2(1): If it was meant to be in color, don't you think the artist would have drawn it that way? And if the art is shitty in the first place, color is not going to make it "less" shitty. They'll just be colorfully shitty.
An ugly girl with makeup is still an ugly girl. This is why they teach people in art school (at least the ones I went to - professional artist) to make sure all your designs work in black and white FIRST before using color. That way the design itself is what pleases to the eye and not some kindergarten throwback look.
This is why artists like Fluffy, Blacktortoise, Garabatoz, the Duke, Linno, Poland, Rinaldi and others can stand on their own in black and white... it's because they draw good shit. Color is not necessary, but it doesn't distract from their good shit.
Let the artist determine whether or not color is needed, and if you are going to color it, do it right.
craggle: i don't know art, but i know what i like. and i don't give a fuck what you like if it conflicts with that. or what artist think about whether a piece needs color or not.
i'd rather it be in color because i'm a human, and human beings respond to color. sorry you wasted your time and money on art school and learned the wrong lessons. sure a pic should work in black and white. but that's no excuse for not using color. doing something in black and white is either half-assing it (if it would require more work), or pretentious. half-assing it is fine, art is a lot of work, and maybe you're not skilled at the coloring part. but insisting that others hold to your half-ass work is stupid.
fact is, all art is better colored. colored well, certainly, but colored.
hey, if you're a professional artist, what's your name where we can see your stuff? draw some more 34.
Anonymous4(1): "fact is, all art is better colored. colored well, certainly, but colored."
Seriously? I suppose you'd want to go over the works of Rodin with housepaint, or redo the statue of liberty with spray cans.
Right.
As for my stuff... I want to continue to be a professional artist, and my clients are VERY conservative. I like my job, and I ain't giving it up for a cartoon porn site. Shit gets around, and artists have had to quit putting stuff here to save their jobs... not me. Not now.
Black and white is not "half assing" if that is what the artist meant to show. B/W can bring out the shadow, the substance, the feeling of a piece. Color is for crayons and kindergarten.
Then again, this is just a porn site, so why should I bother?
Anonymous6(1): The debate wasn't about this piece or even your art, it was about the infantile whining and shit coloring jobs from people who simply can't appreciate someone's creation that didn't look like a box of crayolas threw up on it.
You're the artist on this. You decided that it would be in black and white, then decided to color it in a way that pleased you. I'm fully behind both those decisions, because they were made by YOU, the artist, the one who should have the final say.
What I don't get is people who can't deal with the fact that sometimes art doesn't have to look like a three year old did it, that how it was posted is how the person made it meant for it to look, and that they they should stop whining about it unless they can do better.
craggle: however, anon, you have confirmed my experience that most people i've known who claim to have gone through art school are pretentious twats or churn out corporate logo-design style art, and most people who are actually good artists either never went or left partway through.
Anonymous7(1): Better a "pretentious twat" that actually studied and learned something about the subject so that they could make what art they did create even better than an ignorant twat who doesn't know shit yet persists in talking anyway. Folks like you are the reason we have reality television.
craggle: a pretentious twat what somebody else thinks about art instead of coming up with his own opinions, and wound up too cowardly to demonstrate his ability in an internet argument. probably a fairly shitty artist anyway, desperately trying to justify the money spent in art school by sounding smarter.
yeah, i really want to be like you.
fact remains, art looks better in color. (by the way, since you brought up rodin and the statue of liberty... yes, maybe i should have specified i mostly mean drawn art. i also don't think music should be colored. funny that. but drawn art looks better in color. film also. there's a reason as soon as color could be added to those mediums, it was added almost universally. color adds life, vibrancy and 3-dimensionality that even the best black and white has trouble matching. if a genie snapped his fingers and drawing suddenly became like film, and it was exactly as easy to do a well-colored piece as it was to do a black and white, almost all drawn art would be colored.
interesting how you hated the colors enough to rail at the colorist and then suddenly, when it's revealed the colorist is the artist, suddenly you're "fully behind it". that suggests to me either that you're lying, or that you don't actually think color is intrinsicly better or worse, you just object to somebody tampering with the artist's precious work. my pretentious (and probably unskilled) twat sense continues to tingle.
by the way 'stop whining unless you can do better' has been a thoroughly discredited argument in art for years.
Anonymous9(1): "interesting how you hated the colors enough to rail at the colorist and then suddenly, when it's revealed the colorist is the artist, suddenly you're "fully behind it"."
That's because it was the ARTIST'S decision to color the piece. THE ARTIST'S DECISION. Got that? Not yours, and not mine, but theirs. Both color and black and white have their merits, but that should be left to the discretion of the creator, and no one else.
Colorized films suck for that very reason as well, and that is why I do not watch them.
It's not about the color as it is about the attitude that EVERYTHING has to be in color. It should be the artist who makes that choice, and no one else.
And I hope that tingling feeling in your twat goes away soon. If it doesn't, I'd get it checked.
Anonymous10(1): BTW, Ansel Adams had color film available to him for most of his career, yet chose to shoot all his work in black and white. Wonder why that was?
B/W gives one the shape and form of a thing, the substance and fullness you will never get with color.
Next time you get a chance, go look at one of Adams' original prints in a museum. Not in a book, but live and up close, and then tell me it would look better done in magic marker.
craggle: exactly. you don't have any opinion on the merits of color. you just think that the artist's word is god. well, that's stupid, and you're stupid for thinking it. and you think you're superior while you make little barbs about "better in magic marker"... you've all but admitted that if the holy ARTIST decided to do it in magic marker, you'd lap it up. all of your insults to color, every single one, therefore, have 0 merit and can be dismissed.
whereas i actually have opinions on the QUALITY OF WORK. and that is that in almost every case, color is superior to non-color. like i believe in almost every case, a decent melody is better music that somebody screaming incoherently. i don't care if screaming incoherently is the artist's intent for the music, i'll judge it on merit.
are there exceptions to some of my general pronouncements, like about color being better? sure. there are exceptions to almost everything. i bet you're not an unsufferable prick every day of your life, for example. so throwing up what you think are exceptions to the general rule also has no merit. you have to show that those exceptions aren't exceptions after all. but you don't actually have opinions on color. you probably don't have opinions at all, though, you were just forcefed them in your "art school" and you trot them out to feel superior to people. except you're not, you're pretty sad, and i feel sorry for you.
by the way, colorists are artists too. their decision to color a piece of art is their decision and i won't take it away from them. i actually respect art.
anyway, since the artist and colorist did ask us to stop the debating, this'll be my last post on the subject. you can feel free to make a final barb and i'm sure you'll claim victory, if that helps you, but i'll hold to my convictions and not respond again.
i would like to say to the artist: i do like the piece, coloring isn't my favorite medium style but it works okay for this type of art. thumbs up anyway.
You really don't know what you're talking about and you're just making yourself look bad here.
As for Snookums, I'd give you tips on coloring if I didn't suck so bad with coloring in traditional media. I do my coloring digitally. The color here doesn't look finished, is all, and kind of comes off as flat and smudgy, with the white bleeding through it. What medium are you working in?
d_average: if you get into any kind of debate on a porn site- YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!
@snookums= am I correct in guessing that you used colored pencils to do this? The reason I ask is because it looks like some of my early attempts at coloring my sketches.
PM me if you want some tips (for that and a few other mediums).
Snookums: @Cat Bountry and d_average:
I'm using colour pencils on computer paper, though the computer paper part of the equation is being removed in favor of actual sketchbook paper.
I'm usually a bit better on the colourings, but the computer paper threw me off.
I'm definitely open to any and all tips, though. :)
Anonymous12: I thinks it's alright, and at least you had the presence of mind to include shadows, unlike a good number of others who just seem to open windows paint and break out that bucket tool.
When will people learn that some art was just meant to be in black and white... BECAUSE THEY'RE DRAWN THAT WAY?
jesus h tapdancing christ on a cracker...
so i call bullshit on your "some art was meant to be in black and white" theory.
I thought I did an ok job of colouring that pic what I drew.
An ugly girl with makeup is still an ugly girl. This is why they teach people in art school (at least the ones I went to - professional artist) to make sure all your designs work in black and white FIRST before using color. That way the design itself is what pleases to the eye and not some kindergarten throwback look.
This is why artists like Fluffy, Blacktortoise, Garabatoz, the Duke, Linno, Poland, Rinaldi and others can stand on their own in black and white... it's because they draw good shit. Color is not necessary, but it doesn't distract from their good shit.
Let the artist determine whether or not color is needed, and if you are going to color it, do it right.
This is because you have no concept of art. Probably too many saturday morning cartoons and shit.
i'd rather it be in color because i'm a human, and human beings respond to color. sorry you wasted your time and money on art school and learned the wrong lessons. sure a pic should work in black and white. but that's no excuse for not using color. doing something in black and white is either half-assing it (if it would require more work), or pretentious. half-assing it is fine, art is a lot of work, and maybe you're not skilled at the coloring part. but insisting that others hold to your half-ass work is stupid.
fact is, all art is better colored. colored well, certainly, but colored.
hey, if you're a professional artist, what's your name where we can see your stuff? draw some more 34.
Seriously? I suppose you'd want to go over the works of Rodin with housepaint, or redo the statue of liberty with spray cans.
Right.
As for my stuff... I want to continue to be a professional artist, and my clients are VERY conservative. I like my job, and I ain't giving it up for a cartoon porn site. Shit gets around, and artists have had to quit putting stuff here to save their jobs... not me. Not now.
Black and white is not "half assing" if that is what the artist meant to show. B/W can bring out the shadow, the substance, the feeling of a piece. Color is for crayons and kindergarten.
Then again, this is just a porn site, so why should I bother?
I'm the dude what drew the original and the dude what added the colour, so stop debating about it already.
I just thought we could use some more Meg 34; I wasn't trying to start an art debate.
You're the artist on this. You decided that it would be in black and white, then decided to color it in a way that pleased you. I'm fully behind both those decisions, because they were made by YOU, the artist, the one who should have the final say.
What I don't get is people who can't deal with the fact that sometimes art doesn't have to look like a three year old did it, that how it was posted is how the person made it meant for it to look, and that they they should stop whining about it unless they can do better.
Crack a book, dude.
It's a great pic. Always nice to see Meg with a mouthful of cock :)
yeah, i really want to be like you.
fact remains, art looks better in color. (by the way, since you brought up rodin and the statue of liberty... yes, maybe i should have specified i mostly mean drawn art. i also don't think music should be colored. funny that. but drawn art looks better in color. film also. there's a reason as soon as color could be added to those mediums, it was added almost universally. color adds life, vibrancy and 3-dimensionality that even the best black and white has trouble matching. if a genie snapped his fingers and drawing suddenly became like film, and it was exactly as easy to do a well-colored piece as it was to do a black and white, almost all drawn art would be colored.
interesting how you hated the colors enough to rail at the colorist and then suddenly, when it's revealed the colorist is the artist, suddenly you're "fully behind it". that suggests to me either that you're lying, or that you don't actually think color is intrinsicly better or worse, you just object to somebody tampering with the artist's precious work. my pretentious (and probably unskilled) twat sense continues to tingle.
by the way 'stop whining unless you can do better' has been a thoroughly discredited argument in art for years.
That's because it was the ARTIST'S decision to color the piece. THE ARTIST'S DECISION. Got that? Not yours, and not mine, but theirs. Both color and black and white have their merits, but that should be left to the discretion of the creator, and no one else.
Colorized films suck for that very reason as well, and that is why I do not watch them.
It's not about the color as it is about the attitude that EVERYTHING has to be in color. It should be the artist who makes that choice, and no one else.
And I hope that tingling feeling in your twat goes away soon. If it doesn't, I'd get it checked.
B/W gives one the shape and form of a thing, the substance and fullness you will never get with color.
Next time you get a chance, go look at one of Adams' original prints in a museum. Not in a book, but live and up close, and then tell me it would look better done in magic marker.
whereas i actually have opinions on the QUALITY OF WORK. and that is that in almost every case, color is superior to non-color. like i believe in almost every case, a decent melody is better music that somebody screaming incoherently. i don't care if screaming incoherently is the artist's intent for the music, i'll judge it on merit.
are there exceptions to some of my general pronouncements, like about color being better? sure. there are exceptions to almost everything. i bet you're not an unsufferable prick every day of your life, for example. so throwing up what you think are exceptions to the general rule also has no merit. you have to show that those exceptions aren't exceptions after all. but you don't actually have opinions on color. you probably don't have opinions at all, though, you were just forcefed them in your "art school" and you trot them out to feel superior to people. except you're not, you're pretty sad, and i feel sorry for you.
by the way, colorists are artists too. their decision to color a piece of art is their decision and i won't take it away from them. i actually respect art.
anyway, since the artist and colorist did ask us to stop the debating, this'll be my last post on the subject. you can feel free to make a final barb and i'm sure you'll claim victory, if that helps you, but i'll hold to my convictions and not respond again.
i would like to say to the artist: i do like the piece, coloring isn't my favorite medium style but it works okay for this type of art. thumbs up anyway.
- Reply
Just stop.
You really don't know what you're talking about and you're just making yourself look bad here.
As for Snookums, I'd give you tips on coloring if I didn't suck so bad with coloring in traditional media. I do my coloring digitally. The color here doesn't look finished, is all, and kind of comes off as flat and smudgy, with the white bleeding through it. What medium are you working in?
- Reply
@snookums= am I correct in guessing that you used colored pencils to do this? The reason I ask is because it looks like some of my early attempts at coloring my sketches.
PM me if you want some tips (for that and a few other mediums).
I'm using colour pencils on computer paper, though the computer paper part of the equation is being removed in favor of actual sketchbook paper.
I'm usually a bit better on the colourings, but the computer paper threw me off.
I'm definitely open to any and all tips, though. :)
And it's nice to see some good Meg porn.