|
That was two ladies. They were fused goddesses. I can't be bothered with such an inattentive audience!
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Boy this thread sucks when there's no art in it. It's like a dark void of petty sniping and wifus, So in the spirit of the season.*   *the season of this thread being lovely, not halloween, which is also lovely OmanyteJackson fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Scribblehatch posted:I too would like it if everyone would be polite and on topic. do you run every post through google translate 6 times or do you actually communicate with people in real life this way
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
I really like this. But I think I like the initial sketch more because I like the idea she's lit primarily from the right front. Shading it that way would add a ton of depth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
  I did a cute hairstyle that's almost done!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
Yeah I fancy the sketch more too. It's really easy to lose something in the translation from sketch to "ink". And I don't know what the trick is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Scribblehatch posted:
https://www.apa.org/education/ce/sexual-objectification.pdf
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
I wish Medusa would quit loving objectifying everyone
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Scribblehatch posted:Yeah I fancy the sketch more too. when you switch over to ink you're stripping away a lot of visual information. Soft edges on the lines, for one. Noise from repeated strokes. Transparency / variance in value. Line width. I think a lot of 3D falls on its face because it's a representation of drawings. When you strip away line work altogether in 3D you lose even more feeling of the drawing. My favorite digital artworks use color under sketch lines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
thanks. I think i'm going to lean into the sketchy style.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
OmanyteJackson posted:thanks. I think i'm going to lean into the sketchy style. i basically never post but this whips rear end in a major way and i love it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
OmanyteJackson posted:thanks. I think i'm going to lean into the sketchy style. There's some major double Escher going on with that hammer. The perspective lines of the head should line up with the handle. The other issue is that we're looking up at her from below, yet we see the top face of the hammer. The correct perspective "box" is pretty much a vertical flip. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Have you read this..?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Scribblehatch posted:Have you read this..? it's not even that long lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Why does an art thread have to turn into a feminist discussion that's what i wanna know. This thread is dildos
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
cause that guy is trying to disprove objectification and male gaze because he thinks they are just fake reasons women came up with to be mad at hard working men who are just trying to make titty art
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
why does anyone think that's not a thing. it's very obviously a thing, it's been a thing for ages. You gotta put said thing in perspective though cuz honestly I don't think I'm waving around my tiddy drawings acting like this is what I think everyone should be held to. I just make things cuz it's what I personally want to do and enjoy. This is why this conversation is loving baffling. Why is this still going after like what 5-6 pages
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Colon Semicolon posted:why does anyone think that's not a thing. it's very obviously a thing, it's been a thing for ages. You gotta put said thing in perspective though cuz honestly I don't think I'm waving around my tiddy drawings acting like this is what I think everyone should be held to. I just make things cuz it's what I personally want to do and enjoy. at this point I don't even really have a problem with you. while I think your robot jizz drawings are funny things I like to laugh at, at least you seem to be somewhat self aware scribblehatch however is the one talking over and arguing with women about feminism 101 poo poo trying to say objectification isn't a thing and acting a fool
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Did you mean 'dehumanizing' at any point? Just drop that bomb, if you did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
I'm backing out of this then, see you guys whenever this finally stalls out or I have something new to post
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Scribblehatch posted:Did you mean 'dehumanizing' at any point? that's...kind of what objectification means...
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
Troposphere posted:that's...kind of what objectification means... Everyone is to some extent an object to everyone else. You wouldn't dare switch out half the times you said 'objectify' with 'dehumanize'. It's too heavy. Disconnection =/= Degradation
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Colon Semicolon posted:Why does an art thread have to turn into a feminist discussion that's what i wanna know. because feminism is super relevant to art?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Scribblehatch posted:This is a staggering error. nothing you say makes any sort of sense and I'm objectifying you right now and that object is a toilet, toilet boy
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
If you've ever laughed at a joke about something that has no reason to be funny in a context of reality, you're enjoying part of what objectification is. It's just not a positive or negative thing 100% of the time. Never. It's too complicated. To tag that as the same thing that has been done with the intention to segregate and murder millions of people. Well. That's a little extreme, innit. Dehumanization still packs a punch. To me, objectify still means loads of things unless there's further deliberation. But to you, it has that 'ify' at the end which sounds harsh. Like electrify. Ow, that sounds painful. Don't like it. It must be bad. Wait though. 'Subjectify'. Where are you on that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
*takes hit of pumpkin spice vape*
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Colon we should rig up one of your robots to talk like that Skyrim video you linked in the mods thread and do other things that people will love to see, no doubt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
A cigarette break.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Scribblehatch posted:If you've ever laughed at a joke about something that has no reason to be funny in a context of reality, you're enjoying part of what objectification is. What the gently caress are you even talking about. Seriously, go read at least a page or two of that link I gave you before you try to redefine a word that already has a definition agreed upon by the entire English-speaking academic and scientific community.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
I have read it. It's filled with so many more buzzwords to define the one. It's very obvious what year that thing was written, and there's nothing surprising about that list of references whatsoever. I'm done though. Figure out the etymology yourself. I've just surpassed the point of boredom. Scribblehatch fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
too bad it wasn't written in 1994, the peak of feminist theory
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Watch the actual clip and realize how prophetic it was and how little the language has changed. Good day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSXmJrQcwjo Scribblehatch fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
i can't believe the words women use to explain their experiences just so happen to fall into this guys list of meaningless buzzwords, what a weird coincidence
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Scribblehatch posted:Watch the actual clip and realize how prophetic it was and how little the language has changed. Good day. I said "Good Day, Sir!!" - a real person in 2016 and not an industrial revolution candy bar baron
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
art critic: the men in manet's "luncheon on the grass" are painted in drab colors that cause them to fall away to the background, drawing the all male salon viewers focus to the naked women bathed in light. they become objects of voyeuristic pleasure while the two clothed gentlemen chat amongst themselves. scribblescratch: you just used all theses buzzwords cause you have no rebuttal to what i said
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
scribblescratch please just own up to the fact that there is sexism in art, especially in this thread. like its better to actually own up to this than to literally be claiming that feminist critique of art is just "buzzwords"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
There is everything in art. And there's no point in censoring any of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
jesus christ get over yourself. nobody's telling you to ~censor~ anything. people telling you that something is sexist isnt censorship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
What part of that prompted 'get over yourself'? And there hasn't been any sexist art in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Scribblehatch posted:There is everything in art. There are a lot of reasons people might censor themselves in art, and a big and reasonable one is accessibility and marketing. I am perfectly cool with casual nudity because of life drawing, and it made sense to include it in my work if need be, but when I consulted my super liberal studio they told me to ere on the side of caution and exclude it because it would limit which advertisers could be alongside my work if I went that route. The big issue here is that you're digging your heels in and arguing about this--if you just said 'I draw topless rail thin anime chicks and it is absolutely fap material', I severely doubt that this argument would have persisted past a single page, but instead you're trying to convince people who absolutely have a point to concede that you're not drawing stuff specifically so that you or other people can jerk to it. It's really easy, here, I'll do it first: Hi, I draw a lot of PG stuff that is publicly available, but I also have a patreon account where I absolutely draw fap material for people wiling to pay for it. The subjects of that material are both men and women and are voted on or requested by patrons, and every single one of them is objectified and portrayed in a way that draws the eye to specific assets. That is its function, it gets me money, it's fun to draw and I'm not pretending it's classy and professional work. I'm also not invested in forcing other people to agree that it is classy professional work. I also have the good sense not to post it in a thread where people will ask what the gently caress I was thinking. See? Not too hard, and I don't think anyone is going to pick a fight with me over this statement. Now you try it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:41
|
|
