when i look at critique by some ppl like for example .
some give advice to adjust the faces or bodys to the standard form of lets say a model. with no flaws or disformed features.
in art if lets say your not drawing a supermodel guy or chick. how can the advice be that the head is to small or arms to long?
its so hard to give advice for how a human should look.also in creatures and demons. there is advice on anatomy and such.
i agree that a non functional limb that will make it difficult or even stop the creature from moving is not encouraged.
lights and shadows is much more easy to recieve and give advice for. but sometimes its very hard to give critique for something.
lets say you draw a tyrannusaurus perfectly, and then coloring it bright pink and purple. now we have all seen that the tyrannusaurus is greenish in color but non of us really know.
so should we continue to give critique for anatomy and colors when the original is flawed and not perfect?
not many humans look like male models or chick models.
if the concept looks better with a good looking guy with tons of muscle then a guy with a beer belly and zits on his face or whatever.then the advice should be applied yea, but not in other ways.
the struggle for the perfect human race ,well atleast anatomly correct is sometimes overrated in forms of critique if you ask me.
its more fun and cool with flaws and wierd stuff that makes the character personal.
what do you think?
Last edited by Mort; January 27th, 2006 at 01:34 PM.
If weird proportions help tell a story, go for it. Otherwise you have to change the entire world's notion of what's acceptable/believable with a single image. If you don't succeed, it "looks wrong" to people, it takes them out of the world you created, and they say to normalize it so it's more believable.
At least here we point things out. Better than clients who will just say, "the guy looks too sad" or, more often, you don't hear a word because you don't catch their eye enough to get a commission.
Concept Artist, Tencent Boston
I think that finding excuses to ignore crits, or arguing that certain crits aren't fair, is just a very bad attitude to have here or as an aspiring professional.
I'm sure most people can tell the difference from something being a bit different as result of small imperfections as such. Like a shubby face, or being kind of lanky. It's when you're drawing humans with T-Rex arms that the crits will usually come out.
* Help a CA artist! Visit the Constructive Critique section! *
If the art being displayed is obviously meant to depict a person within certain "normal" parameters, such as a healthy young person or a stereotypically "beautiful" person, then critiques on extreme deviations from the norm on anatomy are a given. In fact, unless the artist states specifically that these deviations are "real" for some "story-telling" reason, it would be bad form on the part of the viewer NOT to mention them.
Certain "styles" of illustration include breaking the rules of anatomy as part of their structure. Mangas, for example, drawn in the typical Japanese styles for such art, or "cartoon" depictions often used in western cultural artifacts like mainstream comics, newspaper strips and animated cartoons, often will exagerate eyes, the size relationship of heads to bodies, the facial limits when speaking or reacting to some event (the coyote's jaw hits the floor and his eyes get 6 times bigger than his head when somebody shoves a rocket up his ass--wanna complain about anatomical accuracy here?). This type of distortion is usually recognized by most of the viewers here as legitimate and ignored.
This exageration becomes a problem when, for example, a person exhibits a face/head in "manga"-style, but the execution is NOT classic manga treatment. Someone posted a face in this vein just in the last few days in the finished section...childish jawline and mouth/nose, huge eyes, whatever, BUT executed the drawing in an extremely realistic "western" style that made the exagerations out of place/inappropriate. This should have resulted in a lot of critical comments, and it did...the artist was doing the artistic equivalent of building a real car out of orange peels and ketchup. It ain't gonna work, Bubba...
A character that is extreme or monstrous that has elements of his anatomy that appear to be "ineffective" or inappropriate for ITS existence will result in comments because that creature is an attempt to place us in its "world," but some small part of that depiction is tripping us up. It's too top-heavy to stand, its feet are too small or improperly jointed for balance, or its obvious musculature is just impossible under any circumstances. Something has to be "possible" in the defined physical world that the artist is depicting or it will be criticized.
in the biz of illustration, also, you tend to work with idealized people. Beautiful women with gravity defying breasts seems kind of standard and accepted. If a person is trying to gear up a portfolio and all the girls faces look pinched or they all have dumpy legs, it should be pointed out because this will be an obstacle in getting work. ADs will want to see that you can make a person look beautiful, heroic, and superhuman, because these characteristics are desirable to sell products.
Of course, sometimes people crit something silly, nobody made us all experts just because we're talking about somebody elses work. You just have to consider the crit and decide if it's relevant. If something really annoys you, chances are it's because you already know in yourself that it may be true.
though a person is well in their rights to say "that pink is just too distracting" or something like that. Not to say it isn't correct historically, but it might just be harmful to the image. Most crits are given in terms of what will make your piece as professional and sellable as possibleyou draw a tyrannusaurus perfectly, and then coloring it bright pink and purple. now we have all seen that the tyrannusaurus is greenish in color but non of us really know