Oh, there's bad art all right.
When people in their 20s post Sonic/Crash Bandicoot crossover slash fan art that looks like it was drawn by an eight-year-old in MS Paint on the internet... that's bad art.

But in the context of a real artistic setting, like my former college, for critique and stuff, well, no one can say "that's bad" and justify it, no.

Just goes to show. No one is perfect ;)

I use to be soooo guilty of some of these... (particularly #1). I would like to think I've gotten better... I still have issues with low angles (I can do high angle 'ok' for some reason though).

This list just makes me want to practice more... *sigh* there goes yet another sketch book, lol.

NickGuy
and theres no such thing as bad art.

I don't think you've seen enough art.

Senshuu
Oh, there's bad art all right.
When people in their 20s post Sonic/Crash Bandicoot crossover slash fan art that looks like it was drawn by an eight-year-old in MS Paint on the internet... that's bad art.

But in the context of a real artistic setting, like my former college, for critique and stuff, well, no one can say "that's bad" and justify it, no.

no, its not bad. its just incorrectly depicting an image of 2 fake characters. you cant make bad art, all you can do is either draw something the way it looks or not draw something the way it looks. would you sit there and tel an 8 year old he's making "bad" art? the word bad is relative.

*smears human turds on paper*
hurray art is subjective \^v^/

NickGuy
no, its not bad. its just incorrectly depicting an image of 2 fake characters. you cant make bad art, all you can do is either draw something the way it looks or not draw something the way it looks. would you sit there and tel an 8 year old he's making "bad" art? the word bad is relative.

Yeah, exactly. Skill level, mass appeal, difficulty of execution, strength of concept, etc...these form rough categories that are used to determine "bad" and "good," but none are intrinsic values; they're judged by other pieces, through opposition, in an individual way. Personal values, preferences, experiences, originality, knowledge about the piece (historical, authorial, etc), all of these influence perception.

So, though there are recognizable categories, there's no real "bad" or "good."

It's also true of poop art! Little skill required, little appeal, little difficulty, little strength of concept, so almost everyone will agree that it's bad. But it's just as subjective as anything else, it's just that more people are likely to dislike it. It's not disproving the philosophy or anything.

Skullbie
*smears human turds on paper*
hurray art is subjective \^v^/

I like the way you think.

Who dares mock the brilliance of Turd Art?

It's like I always say, you can't appreciate turd art until you've seen it shaped into a 1:1 scale model of the Venus de Milo.

Skullbie
*smears human turds on paper*
hurray art is subjective \^v^/

have you ever seen the lady who just takes pictures of ballsacks and blows them up and hangs them in art galleries?

NickGuy
blows up ballsacks

Hmm, derivative of her distaste for the misogyny that still exists in today's society, she has represented it with her true inner physical reaction to those men;their ballsacks + TNT+ anger.

I HAVE BEEN INSPIRED!!!
*shapes turds into penis*
\^v^/

Skullbie

NickGuy
blows up ballsacks

Hmm, derivative of her distaste for the misogyny that still exists in today's society, she has represented it with her true inner physical reaction to those men;their ballsacks + TNT+ anger.

I HAVE BEEN INSPIRED!!!
*shapes turds into penis*
\^v^/

lol whatever works for you. meanwhile, Im going to start an art photography book where its just close ups of womens vaginas.

this painting [guardian.co.uk] of Mary with elephant crap and pictures of vaginas and asses cut in butterfly shapes from magazines and pasted in the background won the Turner Prize, so both of these ideas stand to earn a fortune.

Ochitsukanai
this painting [guardian.co.uk] of Mary with elephant crap and pictures of vaginas and asses cut in butterfly shapes from magazines and pasted in the background won the Turner Prize, so both of these ideas stand to earn a fortune.

I know I should be pissed, but it's actually a solid painting, once you discount the materials used.

Ochitsukanai
this painting [guardian.co.uk] of Mary with elephant crap and pictures of vaginas and asses cut in butterfly shapes from magazines and pasted in the background won the Turner Prize, so both of these ideas stand to earn a fortune.

oh god i can almost smell it

Ochitsukanai
this painting [guardian.co.uk] of Mary with elephant crap and pictures of vaginas and asses cut in butterfly shapes from magazines and pasted in the background won the Turner Prize, so both of these ideas stand to earn a fortune.

i dont see the vaginas. and i wish i could see it bigger. but i kinda dig that painting. wonder if she used gloves when she made it?

NickGuy
i dont see the vaginas. and i wish i could see it bigger.

You sure can. (nsfw is so trippy <3

NickGuy

Senshuu
Oh, there's bad art all right.
When people in their 20s post Sonic/Crash Bandicoot crossover slash fan art that looks like it was drawn by an eight-year-old in MS Paint on the internet... that's bad art.

But in the context of a real artistic setting, like my former college, for critique and stuff, well, no one can say "that's bad" and justify it, no.

no, its not bad. its just incorrectly depicting an image of 2 fake characters. you cant make bad art, all you can do is either draw something the way it looks or not draw something the way it looks. would you sit there and tel an 8 year old he's making "bad" art? the word bad is relative.

No, but I'd be thinking it.

Ochitsukanai

NickGuy
i dont see the vaginas. and i wish i could see it bigger.

You sure can. (nsfw [tommyuk.dk]?) Looking for them would be like playing "Where's Waldo," right? "Is that a vagina? No, wait, it's not wearing the right hat."

More like magazine pics of women's bums as they bend over. Best thing in it. What a bland piece of decorative, obvious tripe... -_-

"Art" as in "Fine-art" is actually a bit of an elaborate con- a self sustaining industry based on convincing people of the worth of things that aren't actually worth very much. It's like the financial industry; where people pretend to be financial geniuses when in fact it's been shown many times that monkeys, young children and random choice produce the same profit from investments as your average stockbroker.

Like the financial industry, it's unfortunately entirely possible to create "fake" art and be a critical sensation, earning a lot of money- Many people have done that over time, inventing a fake persona and making up work for it. Or setting up a particular person to be "the artist", then making the work for them. And that's been done with children, apes, and cats as well.

You can also manipulate the art market if you're in a position to do so- influential collectors or critics will sometimes "pick" a particular person or group, then pay artificially high prices for their work, or give them extravagant reviews etc to create demand and interest in them. The same thing happens with shares and finical journalism quite often, lot's of mirroring there lol!
-That happens quite a lot, and there are many famous examples of it. The abstract expressionists for example were promoted by two specific influential New York critics back in the 50s.

It's more a feature of the top end of the market though. On the lower end it still happens and people will tend to imitate the top end (especially the trends), but because not so much is at stake people are usually a lot more earnest and genuine in the reasons for what they do- collectors, buyers, galleries, journalists etc.

-------

That might sound cynical, but it'd be foolish to deny that element.

Skullbie
4. They always draw heads and face.

That's where the action is! I wont say I'm truly guilty of this, but most American comics do focus on the Cowboy shot.

7. Every character looks the same.

Guity...

8. They draw same faces with different hairs.

Guilty again...

17. They never draw feet.

I HATE feet, and cannot render them bare, and just barely with shoes. Ankles mean death.

24. They don't know how to draw old people.

I can't draw orcs well either. They're both slouched and wrinkley.

I can say though that at some point I went through damn near all of these things, and on the same token some I still kind of do but not constantly like the ones above. There's been progress though, to be certain. If I showed you my original work compared to the stuff I do now you might have an aneurism.

Wow. ^^;
Heheh...It's hard not to feel a little discouraged when looking at someone else's super nice art then my own. v.v
But, guess that just means it's time to practice and get better! >w<

There was a surprising amount of variation in my old, old comic pages, but I'm still dissatisfied with them since they could have had a lot more impact. I remember thinking of how they fell short of what I was going for even as I was drawing them for the first time, lol. No complacency! Ever!