Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1412425 Posts in 69791 Topics- by 58713 Members - Latest Member: MCHIGM

February 19, 2025, 04:50:30 AM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperArt (Moderator: JWK5)Art is Cool?!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
Print
Author Topic: Art is Cool?!  (Read 33565 times)
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« on: July 09, 2024, 10:18:51 AM »

So, I'm slowly but surely starting to get it, why the indie elite are so careful about keeping their timeline free of "clutter," why an executive at the head of Epic games says he "doesn't talk to losers," and why an executive at Microsoft's "reputation is too important" to help someone like me.

"The Master"

It's not enough to make art that is good. I win that argument: my stuff is good, people who see it are usually extremely positive about it. My XBOX game has close to fifty positive reviews on its store page, mostly because I personally hand-picked who played the thing. But also because the game has merit.

"Jester"

And that gets right to it: Art, and what is cool, is inherently about elitism. "Only very smart people will like this Art" is a technique used to sell all kinds of crap to people who are, in one way or another, insecure. You see: the art itself isn't what is being sold, what people buy is belonging, an identity.

"Music in the Corner Apartment"

And that is why no one really likes my art. My art is not cool. It is dorky, it is lame, it is nerdy... my art is loser art. And that's where I get defiant, and why I do think I'm a bit of a rebel: I like making art that follows all the rules but isn't snooty. And that is how I rebel. My art, by all objective measures, is of high enough quality to make it. But I am not going to fancy parties with the indie elite. I am not stomping on people who behave in ways I don't like. I am not policing who likes my art and how.

"Vista"

Jon Blow had to comment on every blog that talked about his art, thus making talking about his art even more fun. Will Blow like my comment? Am I a winner or a loser? Am I in the club of people who are smart enough to understand how cool this is? All I have to say to someone who talks about my art, even in a negative way that doesn't understand what I'm doing, is "thank you." And there it is. Jon Blow is cooler than me, you can be wrong about his art, and thus some people are in the club and some people aren't.

"Morning Routine"

What would a club be if everyone could join... Why would anyone want to? The point is that the club has the "right people" in it.





That's where I make my mistake, that art is like a building that will either stand on its own or not. Art only works when people buy into it. You can't build this great tower of theory and then create art that follows that framework and expect that to be art.

"Backtalk"

Art is "I want that!" Art is "If I had that I would get laid!" Art is "I would be the coolest person in my neighborhood if I had that thing!" And I admit, my art does not give people that feeling.


Here's the bad guy for my franchise, an out of touch control freak who sits in his lava lamp tower and watches the rest of the world, sometimes taking over people's computers from afar and causing chaos trying to rewrite the universe. ME_IRL.
Logged

J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2024, 10:37:04 AM »

My art, by all objective measures, is of high enough quality to make it.
It's not just about your ability to draw but about the maturity of the content you create. Good art piece, like a good meal, knows its theme and sticks to it. But your work is all over the place—mixing tuna with sugary jam and calling it a meal. And just because some snooty people create mature art doesn’t mean mature art has to be snooty. Let go of this irrational grudge—it limits your ability to truly see and appreciate art for what it is or what it can be.
Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2024, 11:10:21 AM »

Quote
Good art piece, like a good meal, knows its theme and sticks to it.

Even if I am to give up my precious grudge. I don't understand this critique in earnest.

Let's talk about this one (Which I have better color corrected.):


The theme here being too obvious might be a better critique. Obviously, there are three chess pieces, a pawn, a knight, and a king. Then we have the alternating blue and green of the chess board, warped into an absurd perspective as if to say that the game itself is insane. The piece is called "The Master" in reference to these chess players who see the world as a game.

So, for this piece, I'm not sure how it is "all over the place—mixing tuna with sugary jam and calling it a meal" It seems laser focused on one point. No?
Logged

J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2024, 11:59:40 AM »

Have you asked random people about the theme of this picture? Do they see the same things you see in it?

Good art is not a puzzle game. Any artistic twist should emphasize the point you’re trying to make, not obscure it. If you want to emphasize the taste of tuna, you don’t overshadow it with jam.
Similarly, if you aim to display a green and blue checkerboard pattern, dividing the blue into two tones is counterproductive.
It’s objectively arbitrary because it adds nothing to the checkerboard’s structure and only serves to obscure it.

Think of it this way: it’s already challenging to communicate a deeper message, such as the insanity of the game itself. Don’t create unnecessary roadblocks that complicate your communication channel.

This is why I prefer your pixel art in games. The limitations force you to maintain a stronger focus, leaving less room for errors or unnecessary distractions.
Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2024, 01:33:05 PM »

Good art is not a puzzle game.

I'm not so sure about that.


This one has a puzzle-like quality to it, as do many cubists. Again, I like to make people think, not just feel. This puzzle aspect isn't something I consider to be bad art. But I'll consider your point on the matter. My gut tells me that humanity is already spoon fed a bit too much stuff. (And I am trying to lose weight.)

It may be true that no one gets it, I haven't walked up to random people and asked them about my art, but also that would be a strange thing to do. I have had about 5-10 people randomly comment on my art as I was making it, who all have good things to say. I even made a friend I still chat with occasionally who saw me making art and asked me for advice on the direction of a Novella he was writing.

I just think that extremely simple and emotional art, which is not bad art, is not the stuff I want to make, or the definition of "good"

Logged

michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2024, 02:18:32 PM »

Just to pontificate:

Jam and Tuna sounds like an awful meal. Someone may like it, but objectively most people would agree the two flavors don't mix.

I don't see how my art is Jam and Tuna, a flippant Da-Da style Fauvism, nor am I interested in punishing the audience. I would only serve Jam and Tuna to someone I dislike a great deal... a "just desert." (Or is it humble pie?)

But also, simple emotional ploys are fairly cheap in my view of art.

This is my "Jam and Tuna" art:


Oh, a sad clown in an iron lung, so simple, so emotional, also garbage that was the stuff of derision on a nickelodeon cartoon.
Logged

michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2024, 02:29:51 PM »

The Absurdity of Seeing the World as a Game of Chess

This piece seems, subjectively in my humble opinion, much weaker than the other version, but it is simpler, and, in fact, even more emotional ... probably?

Is this version more to your liking with a more direct and clearer name? Some people find color to be like adding too much sugar... and it could be true for all I know. But color also adds information, and additional symbolism and meaning. Green, red, and blue, oh my! So confusing. That may be the audiences' own issues rather than my art's objective weakness.
Logged

michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2024, 02:45:31 PM »

"The Absurdity of Games"

I don't know, this feels cheap to me, but maybe a compromise is reasonable. I was almost going to call this version "The Absurdity of Compromise"

Maybe "Comprimise in a Zero Sum Game"

idk. It's trivial to desaturate my art for those who see the world a bit duller. Maybe tuna with a tangy tartar sauce instead of jam is correct?
Logged

J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2024, 03:02:26 PM »

Again, I like to make people think, not just feel.
By ignoring the limits of the medium, you risk failing to achieve either goal. In a static picture, you must communicate both the rules and the puzzle—an incredibly tight constraint. Interactive media are much better suited for this purpose. At the very least, you should keep your puzzles free of unnecessary clutter or red herrings (don't add anything arbitrary to the checkerboard that does not make it a checkerboard, for example) that only distract from the puzzle's solution structure.

Even though your clown might not make many people cry, most will still consider it better art at first glance because it works well within the limits of the medium. The 'tuna and jam' comment wasn't so much about your color choices—it was primarily about the structure of your content. The structure of the clown picture is clear, making it far more appealing and immediately understandable (not 'tuna and jam' at all).

Simplicity is actually difficult to achieve because it requires recognizing and removing everything that isn’t essential.
Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2024, 03:14:26 PM »

Quote
most will still consider it better art at first glance because it works well within the limits of the medium.

Maybe that is true, but it is more of a sad statement about human limitations rather than the limits of the medium.

I also don't take simplicity as the highest ideal, though it is difficult. I would say "Hundred Bullets" (For sale now on XBOX) is a simple game, but it was in no way easy to make.

My chess art is not particularly challenging, as far as puzzles go. Nor was it extraordinarily difficult to create (hence the medium itself didn't really resist its creation.)

The problem may be that people don't want to think, they just want the sad clown, which is not in any way challenging to the audience's perception. It looks like what it looks like, and is representational and... boring.

A little dramatic flair, eccentricities, quirks, they add spice. Tuna with Jam is a bad meal, but so is bread and water (even though bread and water is in no way difficult to digest.)
Logged

J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2024, 04:04:00 PM »

My chess art is not particularly challenging, as far as puzzles go.
I’d encourage you to rethink that statement. Keep in mind that you might have implicit assumptions that the observer doesn’t share. Communicating something abstract, like the insanity of a game, is already challenging—don’t make it harder than it needs to be. I'd recommend to start with your art piece and its intended message, then strip away or modify anything that obscures that message. The invariant should always be the message itself, and everything else should adapt to it as efficiently as possible. That way, you will encourage people to think.
Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2024, 04:23:29 PM »

I'll accept that I can do better, as my college's motto is "better and better." Though the current version is imho not a failure.

I'm not sure if I'm in the mood to work on this "the insanity of the game" idea more right now though so I may come back to it later.



Logged

J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2024, 07:48:51 PM »

Quote
most will still consider it better art at first glance because it works well within the limits of the medium.

Maybe that is true, but it is more of a sad statement about human limitations rather than the limits of the medium.
I might add that pushing the medium beyond its limits won't help with thinking. The more you go beyond the limit, the more random assumptions the observer has to make. It is not a human limitation, it is a limitation of information. Randomness is the enemy of insight, a clue its friend. The hardest part is to realize your own implicit assumptions and how they don't have to match the ones of the observer.
Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2024, 01:31:22 PM »


So even my close confidants fail to see chess as a theme in these. The sophomoric second attempt presented here being much weaker than the original in my estimation. My wife says this one looks like a dog with funny pants. My parents say that they never would have guessed this was about chess till I explained it. So, points to you J-Snake, I must be being too cryptic with my puzzles.

---

I have a couple of issues with the process we are all trying to get a handle on here.

Does one have to be insane to depict insanity?

That is, my mood for today's piece is dramatically different than the original which was around a year ago? As artists, do we simply will ourselves to feel a certain way to make art that fits our goals? I'm not so sure I want to force myself to feel things just so I can draw something good.

I'm happy to choose a playlist of emotional music, light candles, and even look at nice reference images... hell, I can even draw a bath, why not? But I'm not so into simply using willpower to create art that fits a dictated direction.

To control my emotions with such a fine point would feel robotic (and defeat my theme of wildness.)

Improvisation, Randomness... FUN. It would sour my art if I can't enjoy making it because I have a stick up my rear about trying to follow a million rules and so on just to get the message to be clear and easy to understand.
Logged

michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2024, 09:25:59 AM »

The Absurd Game (Version 3)

This one seems like it was read loud and clear:

It was mostly fun to make, though a bit stiff imo. Bit too formal, less improvisation. I might be able to do a better version.
Logged

J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2024, 12:57:47 PM »

Improvisation, Randomness... FUN. It would sour my art if I can't enjoy making it
Choose themes and content that align with your art style then. And understand that randomness and puzzles don't play nice with each other.

Version 3 is clearer, but the maturity of the art style has to align with the maturity of the message. Your clown picture shows that your art style can be more advanced. It would serve the picture well.
Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2024, 04:14:06 PM »

Just to clarify, I helped design the character in the clown picture, but it was not me who drew that one. Though it is interesting that you chose that image as one you like. Mostly you have a subjective view that more polish means more quality. Rough edges indicate shoddy work, etc.

Your "polish, polish, polish so that it is very difficult to replicate your style" may be how people reach bigger audiences, Miyazaki and a lot of others did it that way, but I'm trying something different.

I had a guy who told me all this stuff about how the number 1 app on iOS works and how they do advertisements and all their best practices to bring in a big crowd. And that is correct: to be the number 1 app on iOS you must be tricky, pay for store placement, and design something that has zero rough edges. Every bit must serve the goal of getting the user to drop in a few bucks.

But my goal isn't to make art like that, even though it's number 1. I'm happy with having a different style that isn't so gate kept. If people find my style easy enough for children to replicate, then I'll have to work with that limitation, rather than fighting to make my art not honestly represent myself.

You can call it a grudge, but I'm just being me: I want to make stuff I'm proud of, and if I polish my stuff to death as a gatekeeping exercise, I'm not going to be happy with it.

That voice you have that sees a rough edge, or colors with some marker streaks and says "oh this is immature" that's just your subjective issues with your own stuff. It has nothing to do with how "good" my art is. And yes, if we make it so that "adult" art takes a deviant amount of practice to make then it is a lot easier to separate who is and isn't worthy. I hate that attitude.

I want my art to be fun. I've seen so many artists who are miserable, including people like Miyazaki. I want to prove that you can have a hit that was fun to make.
Logged

Mark Mayers
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2024, 04:18:41 PM »

It's not enough to make art that is good. I win that argument: my stuff is good, people who see it are usually extremely positive about it. My XBOX game has close to fifty positive reviews on its store page, mostly because I personally hand-picked who played the thing. But also because the game has merit.

You're self selecting criticism rather than getting actual genuine feedback from people. Like if you show it to your wife of course she's going to say it's good. If you have fifty positive reviews on a store page, but you chose the people to review it, of course they're going to say that it's positive.

And that is why no one really likes my art. My art is not cool. It is dorky, it is lame, it is nerdy... my art is loser art. And that's where I get defiant, and why I do think I'm a bit of a rebel: I like making art that follows all the rules but isn't snooty. And that is how I rebel. My art, by all objective measures, is of high enough quality to make it. But I am not going to fancy parties with the indie elite. I am not stomping on people who behave in ways I don't like. I am not policing who likes my art and how.

Part of being a good artist is accepting criticism and being self critical. Like if you blanket statement "my art is good and people don't get it because I'm not accepted by the illuminati- I'm failing because they don't say it should be cool" you'll never actually improve and that's incredibly snooty.

Art is "I want that!" Art is "If I had that I would get laid!" Art is "I would be the coolest person in my neighborhood if I had that thing!" And I admit, my art does not give people that feeling.

If you're trying to make art to be popular you might as well be creating Thomas Kinkade slop.

---

I don't mean to be overly critical but this thread rubbed me the wrong way lol
Logged

Desolus Twitter: @DesolusDev Website: http://www.desolus.com DevLog: On TIG!
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2024, 04:26:33 PM »

Quote
Part of being a good artist is accepting criticism and being self critical.

I'm not so sure I accept that dogma. I've known artists who are desperately self-critical to the point of being ashamed of their work. Empowering the voice of doubt might work for some, but it isn't always effective at creating good art.

Quote
you'll never actually improve and that's incredibly snooty.
I've done thousands of drawings, and maybe you could say I haven't improved over the 6 years I've worked on them. But I would be careful of calling someone snooty in the same sentence you judge someone. My whole argument is that it shouldn't be so systemically elitest, which I guess makes me snooty... if you are one of the elites? I'm trying to wrap my head around it.
Logged

michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2024, 04:33:24 PM »

Quote
actual genuine feedback from people

Every feedback you get exists inside the bubble of the relationships involved with the feedback process. In show business they do the whole "warm up the crowd" routine for any serious entertainment venue.

If you kick someone in the nuts and then ask them if they like your art, they will say, "no." If you are friendly, they will say they like it. There is no such thing as art that exists in a vacuum. Every art experience has some kind of context framing it.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic