nendil | The details, they burn!

So, first bit of obligatory fanart. There's about a 0.1% chance of this actually happening in the game, but it's what started coming to mind when I think about Zelda adept with a sword, and hear other people discuss the co-op dungeons in Wind Waker. And I know it doesn't make sense for her to be dungeon-crawling in such a fancy dress, but it's the only bit of official wardrobe we've got, dammit.

Actually they're not lost, just taking a rest and trying to figure out what to do with all the weird switches in this room. Go go puzzle solving

- Argh too many details can't take it anymore ::head explodes::
- I think I will be seriously dissuaded from casual fanart for this game just because it's such a pain in the ass (even more than before) to reproduce anybody's costumes. Of course the solution would be to just draw all the characters nude XP
- Yeah, I could just rough it (and probably will, eventually), but I look at the amount of work and detail the art team put into the game and I feel like I'm obliged to do it justice. ^^;
- I hate this getting-better-at-art thing. My standards are rising so high that I can't spend just a couple hours cranking out a cheapie doodle anymore. It always has to be a big drawn-out affair to make sure I include all the details and moods in my mind's eye ¬_¬ And the time-to-quality ratio is not even very good ¬_¬
- That EGM issue is surprisingly good for reference. The magazine printing, though small, is even higher-res than the large images posted before. Anyone need ultra-huge scans?
- I think it'd actually be easier to cosplay this stuff than to draw it. XP ::cry::
- Dramatic lighting saves ~~bad lineart~~ the day again! ~~or not~~
- And dear god, don't even talk to me about how bad I am at drawing shoes/feet. ><

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think you are both working on false information. This leads to your disdain for “modern art”.

Picasso wasn’t the only artist who was an accomplished creator of traditional art. A great deal of the founders of modern art, if not all, received an exhaustive education in the conservatories of Europe. He went through a number of stages in his form before revealing his landmark piece, Demoiselles d Avignon.

It is also unfair to just dismiss modern art on a whole. What about Salvador Dali? To mutilate reality as well as he did an indepth understanding of “realism” is needed. Most artist I know can barely “get breasts right”, let alone cut up a female at the same time. Modern art is a giant umbrella term. It’s like saying, “The nations of the America’s suck in their foreign policy” when you really just mean the United States. In fact Cubism, Surealism, Dadaism, Fauvism all fall under modern art.

I think you’ve bought into the post-modernist. There were artist, like Andy Warhol, whose main goal was to cheapen art, to bring it down.

After a thousand years of running towards that Holy Grail of realism, some artist said, “You know what…that isn’t the only way.” Any art program has you start of with; guess what, tons of realism. Lower division has class after class of figure drawing. The Japanese don’t exactly have a great history of “realistic” art. Yet, from the obvious interest both of you seem to have, the aesthetic does say something to you. The style doesn’t cheapen the stories or ideas in the anime.

You don’t need to make it look real to communicate something.

It’s hard for most people to understand this which, I’m sure, is why artist are still trying to bash it into peoples heads.

Cessation!

Note: I deleted the post I had before this because it had a typo that made something sound horribly wrong.

I'm not saying that Picasso is the only modern artist worth speaking of - it's just that he's the first one that came to mind. I agree, there are plenty of modern artists that were/are decent painters and were/are actually trying to communicate a message. What I have a problem with are the "artists" that paint the entire canvas red/yellow/whatever and then proclaim it to be art – yes, it can be done one time, but after that.... No (this includes painting half the canvas one color and the other half another color).

I never said that I only like realistic art either - just that I prefer it. While some of my favorite artists include Sargent and Thayer, I also like Kadinsky and Dali :D

...and as for anime, I have a friend who's going to an art college and continually comes up against the opinion that "anime is not art" - not because they're cartoons (Disney is perfectly acceptable), but (near as we can figure) they're foreign ::rolls eyes:: Good thing anime doesn't come from France, then it would be even worse. Same goes for anime storylines: "Grave of the Fireflies" (tragic tale of 2 kids starving to death)- not dramatic/sad because it's anime. "Bambi" - omgwtfbbq!!!! His mother died!!! It's soooooo sad!!!!111!!! (Obviously the opinion of the discerning art teacher.)

Well, as I said before, I was in Way-Overgenralizing Mode back then. Of course I don't feel disdain for all modern art, I even respect some pretty outlandish stuff like Duchamp and Pollock. But I feel that too many artists are too concerned with the "making a statement" part, and too little about actually being good at art. I think Duchamp was original about his choice of artistic expression, but I think anyone who tries to follow or copy his style is being a hack, to some degree. And such and such.

Anyway, I got force-fed too much "expressionism" and "constructivism" in the painting class I took here so I'm still bitter. =P Let's just say I'm an aesthetic-oriented person who likes looking at pretty, well-drawn things. ;)

The details, they burn!

Fallacious!

Re: Fallacious!

Re: Fallacious!