devART Coalition for Quality Control » Paint and Canvas

Uh…

Mr. Kaiser — Sun, 09 May 2010 18:01:10 +0000

ZSilver + ZGrey Hunting by ~epicoverload

Sometimes, there’s simply not much to say about a picture. Sometimes, the flaws in this picture are so obvious that commentating on it is needless. Sometimes, a picture is so badly drawn, that anyone who isn’t fully blind can figure out that it belongs in a 15 year old’s notebook, and not in a portal which is laughingly called an “art” portal. Sometimes, you have to doubt a child’s creativity when they closest they come to “originality” are recolors or minor retoolings of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog, which look almost exactly like the original characters they are based on.

Sometimes, pictures really are worth a thousand words… Even if there’s only one in it.

Defining Art in the deviantART Age

Habermann — Sat, 01 May 2010 01:30:43 +0000

Art is only art in the eyes of the maker. There are people who think that DaVinchi’s artwork is shit, I assure you this. It doesn’t matter who you are, when something is titled art, it is aways are. Even if you’re the Pope/ruler of the world, something that the maker lables art will always be art, because the maker says it is. Unless you hate your own artwork, only the maker can deside wether their, and ONLY their art is art. I believe we can ALL agree with this, can we not?

~WrexSoul, on the comments of “Sunrises Don’t Smile”

Contrary to popular belief and what uneducated TARTlets such as WrexSoul might have you believe, not everything labeled as “art” is actually art. True art is intended to convey a message or emotion, with an intent which can be interpretated in any number of ways by the viewer. However, when the intent is clear as day and there’s no deeper sense of meaning behind it, a piece loses the right to be labeled as art.

Seeing as the majority of our readers are offended idiots from deviantART, I realize that last paragraph may have gone over some of your heads. To better illustrate my point for you uninformed folk, I’ll go ahead and show you an example of a piece which you may wrongly assume is “art” when you first look at it, so I can step in and explain to you why it’s not.

First College Night by *Iztric

This isn’t “not art” simply because there’s nudity: Over the course of history, many famous paintings and sculptures have depicted humans in the nude while still managing to convey a proper message and a subtle intent. However, when the intent is specifically to arouse, and when the message is as shallow and obvious as “two girls about to fuck each other”, you are looking at media; not art.

Let me be perfectly clear about this: Even if this piece was actually well-drawn (Perhaps if their breasts weren’t twice the size of their hideously misshapen heads, and their torsos weren’t entirely out of alignment with the rest of their laughably misshapen bodies), it still wouldn’t be art. It’d be less of an eyesore, sure, but it still wouldn’t qualify as art. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with porn, and while I have nothing against the graphic depiction of sex, I also understand that porn (for the sole purpose of arousement) is not art.

Don’t You DARE… by ~Shot-Thyh

What’s poorly detailed, lazily set in front of a photograph, and lacks proper perspective? This piece of trash! As deep-seated the furry culture is in the taboo and perverse, and as genuinely disturbed as those who believe they are “animals trapped inside human bodies” may be, we’re willing to admit that there is art out there which does happen to feature anthropomorphic creatures and which has been illustrated by members of the furry community. This picture in particular is not member of that classification.

“Action” shots which are meant to convey a character as intimidating or brute are not art. They may accompany or be a part of art, in the case of panels from comic books for example. But, when a piece is isolated and stripped of it’s context, it is also stripped of whatever message the whole of the product is meant to express. A framed image of angst-ridden, spiky-haired, unidentifiable animal punching a wall for no discernible reason while illogically looking in the opposite direction (And displaying no signs that he is physically exerting himself in any way) is not art.

skin.15 by `betteo

This, folks, is art. The conclusion a viewer might draw from it is as open to interpretation as is the artist’s actual intent. It may initially be hard to read emotionally, and it is the patron himself who must look inside themselves to figure out how the picture makes them feel. The textures, patterns, and the subject matter all work together to compose a piece which the viewer can subjectively decide whether they enjoy or not.

Sadly, it is possible to spend days upon weeks of time on deviantART, and to never stumble upon a proper piece of art such as this. If you deliberately search for generic anime art and depictions of video game characters, you may miss out on media which might actually make you stop and think for a second before deciding whether or not you like it.

Perhaps this is why people do their scout’s best to filter out everything that doesn’t star big-breasted catgirls or tributes to their “favorite characters”: They don’t want to have to think before giving their approval or disapproval. They don’t want to spend the time it takes to put themselves in the shoes of an artist and guess what was running through their minds when they decided that the subject of their painting should be smiling instead of frowning. Imbeciles are comfortable only with characters who are immediately familiar to them, and subject matter which showcases their bland interests.

So please, by all means: Feel free to keep looking at your uninspired scantily-clad anime girls and half-hearted attempts at showing off “Photoshop skills”. But for fucks sake, stop labeling it as art.

WARNING UGLY PICTURE

Mr. Kaiser — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:35:20 +0000

WARNING UGLY BG
by *cecilcat

At first I thought because of the title this disasterpiece of a picture would be a pretty awesome wallpaper for my computer, but unfortunately.. it’s this. What is “this”, exactly? This is a horrible abomination of your typical mix of teenage loneliness (We’re guessing the artist is a teen based on their inability to spell), furry loneliness, furry teenage loneliness, and being lonely. Not only is the idea (“Oh my fucking god I’m so fucking alone and wish you ‘where’ here”) extremely clichéd and horrible, the execution is horrible as well: Just look at the goddamn sky. The artist obviously isn’t able to use felt pens right so the clouds look like enemy spaceships from Atari 2600 games. I just went outside to look at the clouds and can confirm for you – Those are not what clouds look like.

Aside from that, the picture contains logical inconsistencies: The rat-person-thing doesn’t cast a shadow, so apparently it must be a vampire. But if it is a vampire, why is it sitting on a green tit in full clothing? Are vampires able to go outside in teenager attire now? Did I miss something? Twilight? Hello? Maybe I can find out more about its tragic backstory in the description.

I like how Jester came out (of the closet, heh) but not the BG! DDDDDDx

I hate myself for doing shit BGs…..

So why are you doing them? :smug:

lol, I spelld wrong on “where” it’s suppose to be “were”…lol…epic fail on me…..

EPIC FAIL LOL plz rate comment and subscribe <333

Jester is sitting on a ugly grass field and….what can I say…? Missing Cecil..? xDD I dunno.. xD Okay, I’m ruining the moment xD Jester is desprate…He really want Cecil back….Keep wishing Jester….Your wish might come true….

God…I think I’m gonna cry…

Yeah, me too. But for different reasons.

(Note to self: BEST ENDING JOKE EVER)

Daily Deviation Disaster: Cheetah in a wig.

illiterate hippie — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:28:14 +0000

I wonder what the deal is behind this picture. It’s a cheetah in a wig.

Discoveries by *BloodHowl

Whoops, never mind: The artist seems to be a furry. I guess they think they’re awesome since one of their tablet drawings got a Daily Deviation. But no matter how hard they try, they will never be this awesome.

Spring into life… off a high cliff.

illiterate hippie — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:54:08 +0000

Here is a lovely little thing that I’ve been, I suppose meditating on a way to respond to for the past… I’m not sure how long. Anyway, it’s been difficult for me to think of a way to start on this. I’m just going to take a blind leap much like the author did.

Spring into Life by ~rockerchickamc

i carved into a material
then i superglued it to a piece of wood
& then i carved into the wood & made it shiny XD

Well, you know what you’re looking at, and it is an abstract piece. Some rules have been broken here and in this case not in a way that would make your momma proud of you for being a visionary.

Center composition
Poor presentation
Poor craftsmanship

Center compositions can be okay if you know how to make it work. With most pieces (excluding some particularly avant garde works out there) eye movement is visually the strongest yet underlying aspect of a work. It maintains interest and with a center composition you end up with a static and uninteresting piece since the subject/focus is just presented you. It’s safe to assume that the mystery material of this piece is the subject/focus. Well, honestly there’s no eye movement happening except away from this piece of crap.

Same value through out, same balance, and the lines are a pitiful and personally embarrassing attempt at harnessing attention. Yes, I feel embarrassed to look at this piece. These lines make attempts at visual flow yet lead to empty space causing the eye to lazily move from line to line seeking the answer to the all important question, “Why the hell am I looking at this??”. The awkward gashes placed in the wood speak to me, “I tried gouging at the wood a couple of times and got tired of it so wutev.” They actually appear more like accidental damage than purposeful carves. Yes, you can have a Jackson Pollock, but it still looks purposeful in every drop. This crooked-ass photograph, and the piece placed on leopard-print sheets. And I think that this is just what it comes down to. The artist had no idea what they were doing and they let us know that. One needs to have respect for their own work or at least pretend to take their work seriously to some extent if they expect other people to take it seriously, or even themselves seriously.

I’d like to ask the artist how much thought and time was put into this piece. Did they feel that it was a natural and immediate piece of genius, did they feel that this was something worth calling art? Do they not feel any disappointment or shame for being the one to label this art? I personally feel that if anyone is to call such a thing art they have very poor perception. In general. I feel like I’m going to be critiquing a lot of pieces with a lot of the same problems so I’m going to try to find some more…unique ones as this goes on.