Over the years, I've seen artists refuse critique and complain about unwanted critique. Today was one of those days where once again it was brought up, and in some comments, a couple of artists mentioned how they wanted critique and had difficulty finding it, saying that those artists who complain about unwanted critique make it difficult to get critique.
Is it true? Well, that's difficult to say. I do think the amount of people willing to critique has gone down in the years, but we can also say that improper critique, or insults that were claimed to be critique is likely to be more at the root of the problem. If artists are getting nothing but unhelpful comments and poor critique, they may be more likely to just refuse any and all critique altogether, and may voice various reasons to refuse them. This in turn could very well make the fanbases and other artists more skittish about giving critique even if they could offer something to the artist of value. If the fanbases and other artists are afraid of giving critique, who is going to step forward when someone really wants critique?
This cycle needs to stop. Let me repeat. It NEEDS to stop. As an artist, as a fandom, as a whole, critique is important for growth. If there's people who are unhappy being stagnant and need to know where to go, then they need people who are encouraged to help them. While there are some people willing to critique, getting any input when you have a small fanbase can be difficult, if not outright impossible.
So what can we do?
Well, firstly, I think educating about proper critique is important. Denying critique doesn't help anyone. No one wants to get yelled at when they're trying to be helpful. Teach them how to help you and others properly. Everyone will be better for it in the long run.
Secondly, this is not a "grow a thicker skin" deal, but artists need to learn to weed out comments that aren't proper critique-we do it all the time with other types of comments anyway. Don't argue, don't fight, just ignore or remove the comment, block if you really feel the need to, and give it two days. If you're still upset about it, talk to another artist as to whether or not there's anything valid to it. There are many comments that people try to disguise or claim as critique which are not valid. Learning to spot them is important to your well being.
Abusive comments should never be tolerated. Get rid of them, ASAP. It will save you and your fanbase a huge headache.
Thirdly, if you're wanting specific critique, talk about what you were going for, ask if your fanbase thinks you've achieved it, ask for specifics on anatomy. Basically, open communication.
And lastly, if you're an artist who is still adamant about NOT getting critique, please, please, PLEASE, be civil. Please don't rant about getting unwanted critique. Please don't get hostile. Try your best to say 'No thank you', and move on.
There are many artists who want and know they need critique. Hostility in this case only damages the chances for those who want to grow, to be able to do so.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Sunday, March 5, 2017
What Critique Is And Isn't
Critique can be a wonderfully helpful thing to an artist, but often times what people are giving as 'critiques' in their minds, isn't critique at all, but rather a personal statement. To the person, they may think that they're being helpful, but in the end, the only thing they accomplish is upsetting the artist and making it far less likely for the artist to be willing to accept critique in the future. Sometimes, the comments are so vague that there's no way that they can help the artist. So today, we're going to go over what critique is, what it isn't, and how to properly critique a piece.
An art critique is described as a strategy used to analyze, describe, and interpret works of art. With students, or those artists who are looking to improve, a critique can be a great way to find out what you already do well, and what you can work on. Sometimes they can be incredibly harsh as some people who critique believe that negative reinforcements may push someone to do better, but over all, a more positive tone is far more likely to make a person more receptive to future critiques.
For a formal critique, which you're rarely going to see in the furry fandom, the first step is to describe what you see. This seems moot when you're commenting directly on a piece online, but there are situations where using this step may still be of use, like if someone makes a thing of reviewing art pieces in the fandom. And typically this stage may also include the artist, the medium, the size, etc before moving on to describe the piece itself. Moving on to analyzing, this is when you're going to talk about the elements like color, shapes, values, texture, etc, and the design of the piece like space, balance, contrast, patterns, movement, and so on.
The next step relies on the previous two, which is to interpret the artist's work. This can include what you feel in regards to the piece, what you think the artist is trying to say, what the piece reminds you of, how it makes you feel. It's a very subjective part of a formal critique. As is the last, judgement. In this part, you're describing why you feel a piece was a success or a failure with reasons included. Sometimes this can even come into how much you feel a piece is vaguely worth and why. This is the area where your own feelings really come into play.
Now that is an outline of a formal critique. What most people expect to give and get when talking about critique is much more simplistic and helpful to the artist and can be broken down in to two parts. 'What is good about the piece' and 'What can be improved upon and how'. Which, means it's example time....
This piece comes from Dogsoul on FA
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/dogsoul
With permission, I have chosen this piece from Dogsoul's gallery for the following example.
What stands out so much with this piece first off is the movement of the piece, this wonderful flowing leap, mane and tail flying upward giving it that sense of being in motion, the forelegs and depth not feeling the least bit stiff. It's a wonderful capture of anatomy as well, overall, with nice shading for muscle definition. The slight hinting of the grass unifies with the green of the eye. In it's simplicity, it's a lovely piece overall. There are a few things that do stand out, the chestnut (the tan mark) on the inside of the right foreleg that doesn't fit with the rest of the colors, not sure if that was a stain or meant to be there, but if it was muted with a grey it would fit in better. The shading does seem to have two modes, smoother on the legs and a little more gritty on the body. I think smoothing out certain areas on the body or holding the grittiness throughout would have made the piece feel more consistent.
With all of this said, there's a lot of artists who generally just don't want any critique unless if they ask for it, if they even do. It's important in a fandom that is built around personalized art to keep good relations between customers, potential customers, and the artists. People in each group will fail, but if we want to see artists be encouraged to improve and accept the critique to help them faster, we must provide the knowledge and understanding to how to do so correctly.
For more information on formal critiques, which are good reading to get to know some of the concepts of how to critique, please have a look at the links below:
ProArt Critique Samples
Four Step Art Critique
How To Critique Artwork Like A Pro
An art critique is described as a strategy used to analyze, describe, and interpret works of art. With students, or those artists who are looking to improve, a critique can be a great way to find out what you already do well, and what you can work on. Sometimes they can be incredibly harsh as some people who critique believe that negative reinforcements may push someone to do better, but over all, a more positive tone is far more likely to make a person more receptive to future critiques.
For a formal critique, which you're rarely going to see in the furry fandom, the first step is to describe what you see. This seems moot when you're commenting directly on a piece online, but there are situations where using this step may still be of use, like if someone makes a thing of reviewing art pieces in the fandom. And typically this stage may also include the artist, the medium, the size, etc before moving on to describe the piece itself. Moving on to analyzing, this is when you're going to talk about the elements like color, shapes, values, texture, etc, and the design of the piece like space, balance, contrast, patterns, movement, and so on.
The next step relies on the previous two, which is to interpret the artist's work. This can include what you feel in regards to the piece, what you think the artist is trying to say, what the piece reminds you of, how it makes you feel. It's a very subjective part of a formal critique. As is the last, judgement. In this part, you're describing why you feel a piece was a success or a failure with reasons included. Sometimes this can even come into how much you feel a piece is vaguely worth and why. This is the area where your own feelings really come into play.
Now that is an outline of a formal critique. What most people expect to give and get when talking about critique is much more simplistic and helpful to the artist and can be broken down in to two parts. 'What is good about the piece' and 'What can be improved upon and how'. Which, means it's example time....
This piece comes from Dogsoul on FA
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/dogsoul
With permission, I have chosen this piece from Dogsoul's gallery for the following example.
What stands out so much with this piece first off is the movement of the piece, this wonderful flowing leap, mane and tail flying upward giving it that sense of being in motion, the forelegs and depth not feeling the least bit stiff. It's a wonderful capture of anatomy as well, overall, with nice shading for muscle definition. The slight hinting of the grass unifies with the green of the eye. In it's simplicity, it's a lovely piece overall. There are a few things that do stand out, the chestnut (the tan mark) on the inside of the right foreleg that doesn't fit with the rest of the colors, not sure if that was a stain or meant to be there, but if it was muted with a grey it would fit in better. The shading does seem to have two modes, smoother on the legs and a little more gritty on the body. I think smoothing out certain areas on the body or holding the grittiness throughout would have made the piece feel more consistent.
Now, let's talk about what critique ISN'T.
Critique is not saying "this leg looks wrong" and leaving it at that. Artists usually don't mind you telling them something looks wrong if you can explain how and what they can do to fix it in a polite manner. But if you can't tell them what to fix, they're not going to know what to do, and it's just going to lead to frustrations on both sides. If you don't know how to fix something, it's better tojust keep quiet.
Critique is not saying "this would be better if ____ was _____" or "it would be better if you added ____". Art, first off, is subjective. One person may love a piece while another thinks it's terrible. That's the way art goes. Comments like these, are not only completely unhelpful, they can also easily be seen as a way to try and manipulate an artist into drawing what the person wants, and most artists aren't going to take kindly to that, especially if the piece in question was a commission. You could end up rightfully blocked.
Critique is not saying "this sucks", "this is terrible and you shouldn't be drawing", or generally just picking a piece a part. This is unnecessary commentary that serves no purpose but to tear an artist down, and can cause harm to the artist's drive to produce. If you're doing this at all, you shouldn't be commenting on art. Don't like something? Move on.
Comparisons can sometimes have their place in critique, but it's rare to see a circumstance in the fandom where this is done, or actually makes sense to do. Typically, a comparison would be related to feel, method, techniques, with why's and how's involved. It's something that is left more to a formal critique than a general one. Most furry artists do not appreciate their work stated to look like someone else's.
Critique is not saying "this leg looks wrong" and leaving it at that. Artists usually don't mind you telling them something looks wrong if you can explain how and what they can do to fix it in a polite manner. But if you can't tell them what to fix, they're not going to know what to do, and it's just going to lead to frustrations on both sides. If you don't know how to fix something, it's better tojust keep quiet.
Critique is not saying "this would be better if ____ was _____" or "it would be better if you added ____". Art, first off, is subjective. One person may love a piece while another thinks it's terrible. That's the way art goes. Comments like these, are not only completely unhelpful, they can also easily be seen as a way to try and manipulate an artist into drawing what the person wants, and most artists aren't going to take kindly to that, especially if the piece in question was a commission. You could end up rightfully blocked.
Critique is not saying "this sucks", "this is terrible and you shouldn't be drawing", or generally just picking a piece a part. This is unnecessary commentary that serves no purpose but to tear an artist down, and can cause harm to the artist's drive to produce. If you're doing this at all, you shouldn't be commenting on art. Don't like something? Move on.
Comparisons can sometimes have their place in critique, but it's rare to see a circumstance in the fandom where this is done, or actually makes sense to do. Typically, a comparison would be related to feel, method, techniques, with why's and how's involved. It's something that is left more to a formal critique than a general one. Most furry artists do not appreciate their work stated to look like someone else's.
With all of this said, there's a lot of artists who generally just don't want any critique unless if they ask for it, if they even do. It's important in a fandom that is built around personalized art to keep good relations between customers, potential customers, and the artists. People in each group will fail, but if we want to see artists be encouraged to improve and accept the critique to help them faster, we must provide the knowledge and understanding to how to do so correctly.
For more information on formal critiques, which are good reading to get to know some of the concepts of how to critique, please have a look at the links below:
ProArt Critique Samples
Four Step Art Critique
How To Critique Artwork Like A Pro
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
The "Worth" Of Traditional And Digital Art In The Fandom Part 3
Given what I've covered in parts 1&2, you might be wondering what else could be said on the matter of worth between the mediums. In truth, a lot. Traditional, such as it is, covers such a wide range of varied mediums itself, that going into great detail could take a lot of time. Digital, is also constantly growing and developing at a rapid rate. They each have their benefits and their downfalls, but when it comes to worth in art, you have to remember that art is subjective, and what you may not pay a single cent for, someone else may be willing to spend thousands. What I really want to talk about in this final part of the series however, is a matter of a couple specific points.
The demand of digital is ever growing in the fandom. There has apparently been the comment made to an artist, maybe more than one, that no one wants traditional any more. If this was the case, then I would think no one would bother with the argument that traditional is worth more just based on supplies. There is likely always going to be a demand for traditional, however slight it may become. As more and more digital artists are refusing to work with traditional character references, it may make an impact on the traditional market, but how much so is hard to say. Regardless, many people still like having a tangible piece of art in their hands, in their homes, and some people in the fandom still value tangible art over digital. This is a personal preference, and in contrast some may value digital more because it's not going to change or degrade, and what you see on the computer is what you get.
I will say that while the initial cost of a piece doesn't matter, that it is a matter of skill, there is one more major thing I would like to talk about.
It's called 'Investment Value'. But before we get into that we have to talk about a couple of other things.
First off, is the fact that, when talking about the modern age of art, some odd decades ago, wildlife art wasn't really taken seriously by galleries. Digital art, as a whole, isn't really taken seriously by galleries, yet many companies that rely on artists have more or less moved towards the consistency that digital can produce. What does this stuff have to do with anything? As wildlife art has become accepted, and as the demand for digital grows both inside and outside of the fandom, we don't know what the future holds. There are artists, past and present, who have created anthropomorphic works that were valued by the public. And the fandom isn't all adult related. We have a number of talented artists who are as good as many professionals in and outside of the industry-it's important to realize that there may very well come a day where "furry" art may be valued greater than we do now.
Secondly, I think all of us, at one time or another, have lost a file or photo on the computer, or been locked out of an account. We have all seen websites and the information they hold fall into the black void of deletion. We have probably all had a computer get fried or just die, or know someone who has. The permanence of digital is a bit questionable. Even if the files manage to make it through the artist's life, what then? Will someone else be able to access them? Do any of us think about that? How far will anyone go to ensure the legacy of their art in the digital medium? What are the steps needed, how will the steps evolve? When the last bit of data vanishes, if it does, are there prints? Some tangible form to live on?
Third, when it comes to traditional mediums, not every product will last for years to come either. Some pigments fade faster than others, currently the majority of markers are made with dyes rather than pigments, not all papers are acid-free, some things will break down over years, yellow and fade. While not everyone wants everything to last, and while some things just won't(lamination can come apart, degrade, and crumble for example...hint, hint, I'm talking about badges), it's still something to think about.
With all that said....we KNOW that original, traditional art, barring accidents and mishaps, can be around for centuries. Original pieces and high quality prints can last years on end. Such things, more so usually for the originals, hold what I mentioned earlier: Investment Value. This is because when an artist passes on, that's it-their body of work is done, there are no more pieces from them unless reanimated corpses suddenly become a thing. So collectors will hang on to pieces, sell them later on, and as time passes, for those artists of note, the value ends up increasing as demand goes up, as fewer pieces are being cycled through the art market. Art, for some, is seen as an investment that gains value, especially if an artist has been someone of note in their style, or seen as a pioneer.
Prints can have investment value themselves, especially those that are hand-pulled, and sometimes hand colored in the style of block printing or lithographs. In that case, when the prints are done being made, the plate is often destroyed for maintenance of the value of the prints. Limited runs are a thing of note as well. However, with digital, it will be hand-signed ones which will hold value any investment value, especially if the original file happen to stay intact and available. Though another thing to be considered is that if the copyright lapses, it becomes public domain, and prints can continue, though they won't be hand-signed. How will the art market handle digital medium in the future? That remains to be seen. We know in the long history of traditional, how things work in the art market, but anything could be possible with digital.
So what does this all mean? Well, it means that with digital, we are faced with a lot of unknowns. We KNOW for sure that original, traditional art holds investment value. We KNOW that hand pulled prints do as well. We don't know what the technology for printing will look like in the future for art, especially digital, and we don't know how the future will maintain digital art, protect it, use it. All of this are things to be considered, things to talk about and open up discussion for. Neither are 'lesser' mediums, but digital is still very much in it's infancy, as is the art market for it. We should be talking about it now, but we also shouldn't dismiss the known value of traditional either.
Variety is the spice of life after all!
The demand of digital is ever growing in the fandom. There has apparently been the comment made to an artist, maybe more than one, that no one wants traditional any more. If this was the case, then I would think no one would bother with the argument that traditional is worth more just based on supplies. There is likely always going to be a demand for traditional, however slight it may become. As more and more digital artists are refusing to work with traditional character references, it may make an impact on the traditional market, but how much so is hard to say. Regardless, many people still like having a tangible piece of art in their hands, in their homes, and some people in the fandom still value tangible art over digital. This is a personal preference, and in contrast some may value digital more because it's not going to change or degrade, and what you see on the computer is what you get.
I will say that while the initial cost of a piece doesn't matter, that it is a matter of skill, there is one more major thing I would like to talk about.
It's called 'Investment Value'. But before we get into that we have to talk about a couple of other things.
First off, is the fact that, when talking about the modern age of art, some odd decades ago, wildlife art wasn't really taken seriously by galleries. Digital art, as a whole, isn't really taken seriously by galleries, yet many companies that rely on artists have more or less moved towards the consistency that digital can produce. What does this stuff have to do with anything? As wildlife art has become accepted, and as the demand for digital grows both inside and outside of the fandom, we don't know what the future holds. There are artists, past and present, who have created anthropomorphic works that were valued by the public. And the fandom isn't all adult related. We have a number of talented artists who are as good as many professionals in and outside of the industry-it's important to realize that there may very well come a day where "furry" art may be valued greater than we do now.
Secondly, I think all of us, at one time or another, have lost a file or photo on the computer, or been locked out of an account. We have all seen websites and the information they hold fall into the black void of deletion. We have probably all had a computer get fried or just die, or know someone who has. The permanence of digital is a bit questionable. Even if the files manage to make it through the artist's life, what then? Will someone else be able to access them? Do any of us think about that? How far will anyone go to ensure the legacy of their art in the digital medium? What are the steps needed, how will the steps evolve? When the last bit of data vanishes, if it does, are there prints? Some tangible form to live on?
Third, when it comes to traditional mediums, not every product will last for years to come either. Some pigments fade faster than others, currently the majority of markers are made with dyes rather than pigments, not all papers are acid-free, some things will break down over years, yellow and fade. While not everyone wants everything to last, and while some things just won't(lamination can come apart, degrade, and crumble for example...hint, hint, I'm talking about badges), it's still something to think about.
With all that said....we KNOW that original, traditional art, barring accidents and mishaps, can be around for centuries. Original pieces and high quality prints can last years on end. Such things, more so usually for the originals, hold what I mentioned earlier: Investment Value. This is because when an artist passes on, that's it-their body of work is done, there are no more pieces from them unless reanimated corpses suddenly become a thing. So collectors will hang on to pieces, sell them later on, and as time passes, for those artists of note, the value ends up increasing as demand goes up, as fewer pieces are being cycled through the art market. Art, for some, is seen as an investment that gains value, especially if an artist has been someone of note in their style, or seen as a pioneer.
Prints can have investment value themselves, especially those that are hand-pulled, and sometimes hand colored in the style of block printing or lithographs. In that case, when the prints are done being made, the plate is often destroyed for maintenance of the value of the prints. Limited runs are a thing of note as well. However, with digital, it will be hand-signed ones which will hold value any investment value, especially if the original file happen to stay intact and available. Though another thing to be considered is that if the copyright lapses, it becomes public domain, and prints can continue, though they won't be hand-signed. How will the art market handle digital medium in the future? That remains to be seen. We know in the long history of traditional, how things work in the art market, but anything could be possible with digital.
So what does this all mean? Well, it means that with digital, we are faced with a lot of unknowns. We KNOW for sure that original, traditional art holds investment value. We KNOW that hand pulled prints do as well. We don't know what the technology for printing will look like in the future for art, especially digital, and we don't know how the future will maintain digital art, protect it, use it. All of this are things to be considered, things to talk about and open up discussion for. Neither are 'lesser' mediums, but digital is still very much in it's infancy, as is the art market for it. We should be talking about it now, but we also shouldn't dismiss the known value of traditional either.
Variety is the spice of life after all!
Saturday, January 14, 2017
The "Worth" Of Traditional And Digital Art In The Fandom Part 2
In contrast to part 1, the more common argument, despite the demand for digital, is that traditional mediums are worth more than digital for a handful of reasons. Sometimes, I feel that this argument is being used to try and haggle a digital artist down in price, given the sheer demand for digital, but, we are going to touch upon the reasons used.
Some will say that traditional takes more skill than digital. I kind of feel that that particular idea extends from two places. First, the idea that traditional as a whole is unforgiving with mistakes, and secondly, that there doesn’t seem at first glance to be many tricks or “shortcuts” to traditional. While, depending on the particular medium, one or both can be true, it’s not always the case, and there’s always more development towards products to aids artists in their work. With actual scratchboard, for example, a mistake can be hidden with scratchboard ink. In watercolor, if you decide to work on aquaboard and avoid straining colors, it is possible to wash the board back to near-new (it may be stained, but can typically be worked with still). In colored pencils, a new powder blender kit is speeding up the process immensely for some artists. And these are just a few examples. In art, sometimes a piece can be saved from a very damaging mistake with just a little adjustment or creativity anyway. Remember what Bob Ross said...'We don't make mistakes, just happy little accidents.' I don't find it to always be true, but I have saved pieces by just continuing to work with the mistakes made.
Outside of that, however, good, solid art takes skill. Skill which comes by the learning process, accidents, and practice. There are many digital artists who know their medium inside and out, have the skill, turn out great pieces that were labors of hours and hours, and those traditional artists who are the exact opposite. The medium alone doesn’t make the piece, it’s the skill behind it.
Another argument is replacing supplies of traditional mediums, and let me tell you, digital, traditional...it doesn’t matter. There’s so many variables. Is the person working with a low end computer, tablet, and a free art program? A cintique, a high end rig, and photoshop? Are they having to replace parts? Are they working with student grade supplies? Are they working with high end, light fast materials? What are their techniques? Light coloring versus heavy layering? It’s a matter of so many variables as to be hard to pin down just because different artists work different ways with different supplies and trying to say traditional is worth more because of that alone is pointless. On top of that, good pieces do come from cheaper materials sometimes. They may not hold up over time when it comes to traditional, and would be better suited to prints, but that’s not what this is about. In the end, no matter what, supplies of either kind should be factored into price, but generally a lot of what makes up the price of a piece still comes down to time and skill.
This isn’t all folks! Stay tuned for part three!
Outside of that, however, good, solid art takes skill. Skill which comes by the learning process, accidents, and practice. There are many digital artists who know their medium inside and out, have the skill, turn out great pieces that were labors of hours and hours, and those traditional artists who are the exact opposite. The medium alone doesn’t make the piece, it’s the skill behind it.
Another argument is replacing supplies of traditional mediums, and let me tell you, digital, traditional...it doesn’t matter. There’s so many variables. Is the person working with a low end computer, tablet, and a free art program? A cintique, a high end rig, and photoshop? Are they having to replace parts? Are they working with student grade supplies? Are they working with high end, light fast materials? What are their techniques? Light coloring versus heavy layering? It’s a matter of so many variables as to be hard to pin down just because different artists work different ways with different supplies and trying to say traditional is worth more because of that alone is pointless. On top of that, good pieces do come from cheaper materials sometimes. They may not hold up over time when it comes to traditional, and would be better suited to prints, but that’s not what this is about. In the end, no matter what, supplies of either kind should be factored into price, but generally a lot of what makes up the price of a piece still comes down to time and skill.
This isn’t all folks! Stay tuned for part three!
Sunday, January 8, 2017
The "Worth" Of Traditional And Digital Art In The Fandom Part 1
No matter who you are in the fandom, if you see anything about artists taking commissions, or are an artist who takes them yourself, you've likely seen the argument of "that's not worth the price", sometimes followed by the person's reasons why. As an artist myself, I often fight the urge to speak out against such comments for a variety of reasons, one of which being the fact that I'm often 'late to the party' as they say, and feel like my response will be ignored. Also, this happens SO often, it can wear one out to try and combat this argument every time it appears. It was actually one comment that made me consider starting this blog in the first place, so it seems fitting to tackle part of this subject first.
"Digital is worth more than traditional."
This actually is not a common argument, as most people's logic about cost of supplies usually has them supporting traditional of being worthy of a higher price. However, the mindset behind this argument is that digital is in higher demand, thus is worth more because of said demand. While it is true that there is more of a demand for it, especially as more and more digital artists are requiring digital character references, there by spurring the market for it even more, it is not inherently worth more because of the medium.
Taking into account that a lot of the fandom's interaction revolves around the computer and internet. Digital is made with and for computers, showing up more vibrantly on a computer screen than traditional which must be scanned/photographed well, and even then, often tweaked. The truth is that 'digital is more in demand'. A side effect of that is that artists often go where the market is, leading to a highly competitive market. Most artists in the fandom work in digital, and because there are so many, a lot of them, especially new comers who are trying to build their fan base, actually start off absurdly low. Most of the higher prices seen in digital are directly related to the subjective quality of art from a particular artist who has large base of supportive customers and fans.
In talk of material costs, most people these days do have a computer of some sort. A basically tablet can be bought for under $100, and while there are free art programs out there, most of the staples are more than $50, sometimes costing into the hundreds. Not to mention, internet. While the basics can get someone started, there's upgrades to hardware and software to be accounted for over time and can vary widely depending on how far the individual wants to, and is able to, go with it. It's not all that cheap, even if you're not having to constantly re-supply the same way you would with traditional mediums, though is does have some flexibility in price range and can easily be considered a cost effective medium.
"Digital is worth more than traditional."
This actually is not a common argument, as most people's logic about cost of supplies usually has them supporting traditional of being worthy of a higher price. However, the mindset behind this argument is that digital is in higher demand, thus is worth more because of said demand. While it is true that there is more of a demand for it, especially as more and more digital artists are requiring digital character references, there by spurring the market for it even more, it is not inherently worth more because of the medium.
Taking into account that a lot of the fandom's interaction revolves around the computer and internet. Digital is made with and for computers, showing up more vibrantly on a computer screen than traditional which must be scanned/photographed well, and even then, often tweaked. The truth is that 'digital is more in demand'. A side effect of that is that artists often go where the market is, leading to a highly competitive market. Most artists in the fandom work in digital, and because there are so many, a lot of them, especially new comers who are trying to build their fan base, actually start off absurdly low. Most of the higher prices seen in digital are directly related to the subjective quality of art from a particular artist who has large base of supportive customers and fans.
In talk of material costs, most people these days do have a computer of some sort. A basically tablet can be bought for under $100, and while there are free art programs out there, most of the staples are more than $50, sometimes costing into the hundreds. Not to mention, internet. While the basics can get someone started, there's upgrades to hardware and software to be accounted for over time and can vary widely depending on how far the individual wants to, and is able to, go with it. It's not all that cheap, even if you're not having to constantly re-supply the same way you would with traditional mediums, though is does have some flexibility in price range and can easily be considered a cost effective medium.
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
Introduction Ahoy!
This is the new year! 2017! And here I am, finally getting underway to doing something that I probably should have done long, long ago.
I run about in the furry fandom as Karja. Or Karjalankarhukoira. No, the name wasn't created by slamming my head into the keyboard-I'm also a massive dog nerd and the full name is Finnish for the Karelian Bear Dog......even though, yes, my fursona is usually a camel. Usually being a key word, because shape shifting does happen. But enough of that!
I've always been involved with art for as long as I can remember, and I've been in the fandom for some time now. I'm solely a traditional artist at this point, which seems to be a rarity in the fandom. And even though I'm artistically moving more towards realism and realistic animals (still going to do personal anthropomorphic work) as far as trying to make it as an artist, I still feel I have many, many things I can share with the fandom in terms of knowledge.
From everything regarding supplies and techniques to how the real world artists do things and how we can learn from it, to debunking myths and countering some of the incorrect views present in the fandom, and much more!
-Karja
I run about in the furry fandom as Karja. Or Karjalankarhukoira. No, the name wasn't created by slamming my head into the keyboard-I'm also a massive dog nerd and the full name is Finnish for the Karelian Bear Dog......even though, yes, my fursona is usually a camel. Usually being a key word, because shape shifting does happen. But enough of that!
I've always been involved with art for as long as I can remember, and I've been in the fandom for some time now. I'm solely a traditional artist at this point, which seems to be a rarity in the fandom. And even though I'm artistically moving more towards realism and realistic animals (still going to do personal anthropomorphic work) as far as trying to make it as an artist, I still feel I have many, many things I can share with the fandom in terms of knowledge.
From everything regarding supplies and techniques to how the real world artists do things and how we can learn from it, to debunking myths and countering some of the incorrect views present in the fandom, and much more!
-Karja
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)