Does my version not do that?
I saw your pic on the big board of sdmb pics. I would trust your style.
nm
I personally have never seen quotes used as emphasis, not even by the grammar-ignorant. Though I know that some must exist somewhere.
In my opinion, the only thing more irritating then bad art claiming to be it’s own ‘style’, is people who criticize art when the criticism isn’t asked for. I can understand the frustration of seeing art that you simply want to fix, but honestly unless the person requests the help, you’re wasting your breath trying to give it. Not to say anything of the OP (as I’ve never seen your art) but it is often the truth that people with lower skill in art have a tendency towards this, which is probably ironic. I’ve seen more then a few people make remarks regarding other peoples art, where they’ve gone wrong and why their picture looks off…But when I look at the person’s art who is giving the critique, they’re doing the majority of the same things. Hell in some cases, the person giving the critique has worse art and gets upset when the second ‘artist’ blows them off.
No one is the true master of art. People have a real skill with it, certainly, but almost everyone has issues too. Critique can help fix the issues, but if someone isn’t asking for it, you’re just going to come off like an ass offering it. Or rather, giving it without even offering, as offering would require you saying ‘Do you want some help with this? I’ve seen your art and I think I could help’ rather then simply posting a tirade critique on someones page. (I haven’t seen your critique, or the art in question, or your art but I’m judging based on the OP.)
What it comes down to, if the artist is bad, the art is bad, and they don’t care to change it, then don’t bother trying to. You’re not fixing things by ramming your opinion down their throat. You’re just making them feel shitty and making yourself, often times, look bad. Art crits can be reserved for the learning, growing artists, who want to learn and grow. Not wasted on the people who don’t care one way or another. They’ll either learn in time, open up and ask questions, or they’ll stay the same forever. And, if that’s the case, so be it. It’s not your life, your art, and it’s a waste of both of your time. Focus on the people you can actually help, and let the starter ‘wannabe’ artists do their thing.
Advice that is not asked for is hardly ever followed, though. So unless you just like talking to thin air, it’s not going to do much good.
Is this a place where artists gather to review each others’ work? Are the artists supposed to be formally trained professionals? If so, then yeah, not being receptive to criticism is lame, even if it wasn’t explicitly solicited. But if it’s kind of an open venue where everyone and his mama can show off, all in good fun, then I don’t think that would be a great environment for criticism. Because it’s “all in good fun” and people aren’t necessarily shooting for high craftmanship. It’s the difference between a formal audition and someone’s open-mic night. I might sing at the open-mic night knowing good and well I’m a not great singer, but it feels good to share what my right brain has produced anyway.
Even though I do consider myself an artist, I don’t take my stuff seriously enough that I would ever deliberately subject myself to critical analysis. No juried shows for me. I’m not trying to meet any particular external standard, so it would be kind of pointless. Don’t know if this makes me a fake artist or a true one…frankly don’t care. I create for myself. I would most certainly feel differently, however, if I had to make a living at it. I think the artist in the OP probably just needs to realize this: Create for yourself and do whatever you want. Create for others and expect to be judged.
The OP reads like an opinion piece in the Onion, and I mean that as a compliment.
Picture Chris Farley as motivational speaker.
In that case you are fortunate indeed. The misuse of quotation marks is actually quite common, if painful to read.
Sorry I did not return to the thread sooner to clarify my remarks (this is attributable to the fact that I am in a wildly different time zone from most posters), but the always superb Inner Stickler has taken care of matters for me, so I have nothing to add to his comments.
C’mon, give us an example or two. You can’t start threads like this without letting us see the art and your comments.
And here is a collection of them: http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/
Some make for rather entertaining reading if taken literally (in the sense that the item in quote is something that the author doesn’t believe is true).
You’ll have plenty of “time” to “practice your style” when you’re LIVING IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!
Well! If you don’t like my paintings, I don’t want to know you.
PUU-U-UUUSSYDOODLES!
Thank you, that was my laugh of the day!
To be fair, the OP didn’t exhibit that level of stupidity. But the constant, disjointed quoting of individual words made the opening statement read just as poorly.
You lost me at “wannabe artist”.
Anybody who knows anything about art knows there is a lot of bad art.
As there is a lot of bad art, so too there are a lot of bad artists. If a person is driven to express himself, or attempt to express himself, through art then he is an artist. “Good” is not part of the definition of art and “successful” is not part of the definition of artist.
Wanna label someone a “wannabe astronaut” because they’ve gone through none of the requisite training nor fulfilled any position within an astronautics organization? Sure, go ahead. That person is clearly lacking in the defining attributes of being an astronaut. Boucing on the backyard trampoline all day wearing a fish bowl over one’s head does not make one an astronaut.
Fact is that although the bar is set very high for being considered a great artist, to simply be considered an artist at all the bar is set very very low. All it really requires is the drive to creatively express oneself through art with some kind of follow through.
It doesn’t necessarily make you a good artist and it damn well may never make you a professional artist, but if you’re creatively expressing yourself through art you are an artist.
When people throw around phrases like “wannabe artist” it makes me think one of two things.[ul]
[li]Coming from someone who doesn’t make art, I hear it as “Get a job, hippie!”, the idea that you can’t call yourself something if you are not supporting yourself financially with your work, that someone wishes to be respected as “serious” having not legitimitely earned that esteem. “Oh! A Bullshit Artist! Did you bullshit this week? Did you try to bullshit this week?” [/Bea Arthur][/li][li]Coming from someone who does make art, I hear it as “It is an insult for this wannabe to be recognized in the same class as me!!!”, the idea that these wannabes poison the well, that “real artists” have it that much harder trying to earn respect because these wannabes have attached bad associations to the identity of “artist”.[/li][/ul]
Both fail at the most very basic understanding of art: most of it isn’t particularly noteworthy, and much of it is downright bad. If you demand that certain standards be met before you remove the qualifying “wannbe” to recognize someone’s identity as an unqualified artist, then you really don’t “get it”.
I saw a rare appropriate use a few months back — passed a wing place with a sign out front announcing that it was NOW “OPEN.” The restaurant had gone out of business.
Somebody’s still mad about the amateur rendering of the leprechaun spotted a few years ago down in Alabama…
I don’t think you understand exactly what’s going on with that website. The pictures are allegedly funny (or “funny”) precisely because they are creating, by accident, exactly the effect the OP is creating on purpose. There’s nothing incorrect or ungrammatical about putting quotes around a single word, if your intent is to indicate that the word is not accurate to describe the situation. It’s a common and accepted method of indicating sarcasm.
Which is exactly why DeviantArt deserves all of the OP’s derision. I have no problem calling people who can’t take criticism “wannabe artists.” Art is about making things for other people to experience, expressing yourself in a way for others to understand. This is something you can’t do if you don’t know what people actually think of your work.
The people getting upset are not upset because critics are “haughty” but because they literally can’t take criticism. It’s one thing to eliminate non-constructive criticism, but another to eliminate criticism altogether.
Those are people who can legitimately be called babies.
Yes I do. Appearances to the contrary, I’m not that stupid.
I wish I had never posted in this thread, because I didn’t make myself at all clear. Believe it or not, I understand the distinction between the OP’s quotation marks and the ones on the website. However, the OP’s awkward overuse of quotation marks on too many isolated words gives the same impression as the examples on the website and should have been edited for clarity. I had to read the OP’s first paragraph two or three times to decide whether he was actually quoting someone, or misusing quotes for emphasis.
What makes the OP even harder to interpret properly is the fact that its tone so closely matches the one often adopted by people who misuse quotation marks for emphasis. A majority of these writers seem to be perpetually angry, a state that is conceivably related to their lousy communication skills.
My post attempting to point this out was very badly done and suggests that I too have lousy communication skills. I’d take it back if I could.
**Bienville **- is writing an art?