Nebularz.

[Guest JoshIcy]

In GFX' date=' there is a universal understanding of terms such as "flow", "depth", "lighting" etc. Art is a broad term so you must add denominations. GFX, Canvas Paintings, and music are examples. Rules are found within each of these denominations that classify the art. If you draw a painting that has incorrect lighting and has no depth, simply stick figures, it is not rated highly. It is the same with GFX.

[/quote']

 

But then you get into art forms and different styles. Some styles do not require any depth or shading, others are built entirely around it. Some do not use technical shapes while others forgo any hard shapes at all. A painting does not need depth to be great, nor a light source. In fact, until you are sure about said style of art one cannot make an assumption or look at it with belittlement outside of personal conflict.

 

GFX however, follows JUST as much things. The only difference here is, there's more limitations such as Media Art, Logo Art, Personal Art (which I refer to as things like Sigs), Consumer Arts and the like. I'm sorry, but your whole definition was incorrect and did not leave enough flexibility as art is as it is. Even the act of walking is dancing, would you disagree? Maybe. But that's you isn't it?

 

Painfully, as I disagree with his definition, he's absolutely correct on this. Based on your style and compo choice it's absolutely dreadful. The Raw Render and Stock alone on the 400x140px canvas would have been better.

[/성成현賢/.led]

Styles are marked by definition and rules that make it a style, as with dancing. The quickstep and walts are two entirely different dances that are judged in different criteria.

[Guest JoshIcy]

The vector is not a true vector as it was not made with Adobe Illustrator and are not rasterized.

 

The first lacks fundamentals of tags.

 

The Original Vector was referred to as Pop Art. And was made with no such things as Adobe Illustrator or other programs. Simply Photo Effects and Painting. You would disagree that there's another way to produce the same features and appeal?

[/성成현賢/.led]

As people advance, the definition of art evolves.

[Ecoboy1324]

As people advance' date=' the definition of art evolves.

[/quote']

 

let me get this straight you think this isnt art simply becouse it has Stick People

[/성成현賢/.led]

As I said, art is in different forms and this is one of them. People have evolved, as did our definition and thoughts on art.

[Guest JoshIcy]

As people advance' date=' the definition of art evolves.

[/quote']

 

And yet maintains a constant appeal based on prior experiences. There is no set definition for art, only a physical or metaphysical expression of an idea.

[/성成현賢/.led]

As people advance' date=' the definition of art evolves.

[/quote']

 

And yet maintains a constant appeal based on prior experiences. There is no set definition for art, only a physical or metaphysical expression of an idea.

 

Yes, and through these expressions, we create general rules that define the style and caliber of a piece.

[Guest JoshIcy]

As people advance' date=' the definition of art evolves.

[/quote']

 

And yet maintains a constant appeal based on prior experiences. There is no set definition for art, only a physical or metaphysical expression of an idea.

 

Yes, and through these expressions, we create general rules that define the style and caliber of a piece.

 

Rules based on whom?

[Ecoboy1324]

As people advance' date=' the definition of art evolves.

[/quote']

 

And yet maintains a constant appeal based on prior experiences. There is no set definition for art, only a physical or metaphysical expression of an idea.

 

Yes, and through these expressions, we create general rules that define the style and caliber of a piece.

 

Rules based on whom?

 

exactly what Ive been asking

[/성成현賢/.led]

As people advance' date=' the definition of art evolves.

[/quote']

 

And yet maintains a constant appeal based on prior experiences. There is no set definition for art, only a physical or metaphysical expression of an idea.

 

Yes, and through these expressions, we create general rules that define the style and caliber of a piece.

 

Rules based on whom?

 

exactly what Ive been asking

 

Based on those who created or thought of the style.

[Guest JoshIcy]

As people advance' date=' the definition of art evolves.

[/quote']

 

And yet maintains a constant appeal based on prior experiences. There is no set definition for art, only a physical or metaphysical expression of an idea.

 

Yes, and through these expressions, we create general rules that define the style and caliber of a piece.

 

Rules based on whom?

 

exactly what Ive been asking

 

Based on those who created or thought of the style.

 

One cannot assume what they thought, as each style is unique to the individual. Even going so far as to RIGHTFULLY assume they were going for their end result. Our goal is to find a median between that and what's our own personal taste.

[/성成현賢/.led]

As people advance' date=' the definition of art evolves.

[/quote']

 

And yet maintains a constant appeal based on prior experiences. There is no set definition for art, only a physical or metaphysical expression of an idea.

 

Yes, and through these expressions, we create general rules that define the style and caliber of a piece.

 

Rules based on whom?

 

exactly what Ive been asking

 

Based on those who created or thought of the style.

 

One cannot assume what they thought, as each style is unique to the individual. Even going so far as to RIGHTFULLY assume they were going for their end result. Our goal is to find a median between that and what's our own personal taste.

 

And our tastes are based on the rules that we know of the style.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Not rules.

Preferences based on what our eyes enjoy and mind accepted as what has to be done.

[Ecoboy1324]

As people advance' date=' the definition of art evolves.

[/quote']

 

And yet maintains a constant appeal based on prior experiences. There is no set definition for art, only a physical or metaphysical expression of an idea.

 

Yes, and through these expressions, we create general rules that define the style and caliber of a piece.

 

Rules based on whom?

 

exactly what Ive been asking

 

Based on those who created or thought of the style.

 

One cannot assume what they thought, as each style is unique to the individual. Even going so far as to RIGHTFULLY assume they were going for their end result. Our goal is to find a median between that and what's our own personal taste.

 

And our tastes are based on the rules that we know of the style.

 

You said yourself that art evolves with the changing of time. that happens by changing our style and abandoning the old form alltoghter

Off topic: Is that an enterprise quote in your sig icy.

[/성成현賢/.led]

As people advance' date=' the definition of art evolves.

[/quote']

 

And yet maintains a constant appeal based on prior experiences. There is no set definition for art, only a physical or metaphysical expression of an idea.

 

Yes, and through these expressions, we create general rules that define the style and caliber of a piece.

 

Rules based on whom?

 

exactly what Ive been asking

 

Based on those who created or thought of the style.

 

One cannot assume what they thought, as each style is unique to the individual. Even going so far as to RIGHTFULLY assume they were going for their end result. Our goal is to find a median between that and what's our own personal taste.

 

And our tastes are based on the rules that we know of the style.

 

You said yourself that art evolves with the changing of time. that happens by changing our style and abandoning the old form alltoghter

 

No, as art evolves, our ideas change, thus our rules change.

[Ecoboy1324]

As people advance' date=' the definition of art evolves.

[/quote']

 

And yet maintains a constant appeal based on prior experiences. There is no set definition for art, only a physical or metaphysical expression of an idea.

 

Yes, and through these expressions, we create general rules that define the style and caliber of a piece.

 

Rules based on whom?

 

exactly what Ive been asking

 

Based on those who created or thought of the style.

 

One cannot assume what they thought, as each style is unique to the individual. Even going so far as to RIGHTFULLY assume they were going for their end result. Our goal is to find a median between that and what's our own personal taste.

 

And our tastes are based on the rules that we know of the style.

 

You said yourself that art evolves with the changing of time. that happens by changing our style and abandoning the old form alltoghter

 

No, as art evolves, our ideas change, thus our rules change.

But rules contradict the very definition of the word art

[Guest JoshIcy]

Off topic: Is that an enterprise quote in your sig icy.

 

Thought of it when I got demoted and it was why I chose not to argue it. And it's very true.

[/성成현賢/.led]

As people advance' date=' the definition of art evolves.

[/quote']

 

And yet maintains a constant appeal based on prior experiences. There is no set definition for art, only a physical or metaphysical expression of an idea.

 

Yes, and through these expressions, we create general rules that define the style and caliber of a piece.

 

Rules based on whom?

 

exactly what Ive been asking

 

Based on those who created or thought of the style.

 

One cannot assume what they thought, as each style is unique to the individual. Even going so far as to RIGHTFULLY assume they were going for their end result. Our goal is to find a median between that and what's our own personal taste.

 

And our tastes are based on the rules that we know of the style.

 

You said yourself that art evolves with the changing of time. that happens by changing our style and abandoning the old form alltoghter

 

No, as art evolves, our ideas change, thus our rules change.

But rules contradict the very definition of the word art

 

No, rules proves what art is and who it is judged.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Didn't we just define art as everything and that there is no rules except those of a personal nature?

[Ecoboy1324]

Didn't we just define art as everything and that there is no rules except those of a personal nature?

 

Yes Icy I belive we just did

[/성成현賢/.led]

Didn't we just define art as everything and that there is no rules except those of a personal nature?

 

Yes Icy I belive we just did

 

-_-

 

Art is an embodiment of our tastes, yet, when we critique, we hold in mind "rules" of the style of art we are critiquing. Thus, someone who does not understand the style of art they are critiquing critiques, it makes no sense and is not helpful

[Night]

"When I comment anywhere, unless in a Mod Capacity (which is extremely rarely) do not see or notice that I am staff. It deeply upsets me, as I follow the same craft as you do. Only doing the request asked of me, due to a promise to a friend. So please, I am just like the rest of you, power or not."

 

You my friend have just gained so much more of my respect.