Jump to content

[CFX] Match #3 - Team C.R.E.A.M vs. Team Nightmare


Night

Which piece do you think is the best?  

8 members have voted

  1. 1. Which piece do you think is the best?



Recommended Posts

Nw_CFXmatch4.png

 

CBnLg7d.png

 

Piece #1

 

Black_Lotus.png

 

Piece #2

 

 

Participants are:

 

Team C.R.E.A.M - Ali x Madsen

Team Nightmare - Night (solo for this match)

 

Theme is: Surreal

 

This is a collaboration based tagging tournament in which teams of two will put their graphic design and collaborative skills to the test in order to earn a prestigious award to showcase under their avatars for a shit ton of e-peen points.

 

Winning team progresses through the lower bracket, losing team is removed from the tournament.

Current standings: Tournament bracket.

 

Voting rules:
 
• Anyone can vote, you don't need any graphic design knowledge to do so, critique and analysis is appreciated but not a must, comments of any sort are favorable.
• Bribing or informing others of which submission is yours is not permitted and if found doing so, you will be banned from the graphic competitions section.
 
First to get 7 votes wins.
Otherwise, this topic will auto-lock in 2 days, whichever team has the most points at that time wins.
 
Good luck to both teams.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing about your post is constructive. Apparently, if an element of the piece does not live up to your expectations or the original artist's vision means it has no inspiration. And defaulting to a piece without saying anything positive about either is just douchey in tone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing about your post is constructive. Apparently, if an element of the piece does not live up to your expectations or the original artist's vision means it has no inspiration. And defaulting to a piece without saying anything positive about either is just douchey in tone.

 

That is literally like my first absent of any kind of detail post in the graphics section. But fine, you called me out on it I'll give a quick summary of what I think properly.

 

Piece #1

I really cannot tell where you're going with this. Functionally it appears to be far more "surreal" than the first, but given the nature of the subject matter you have chosen as your focus, it is hard to call it anything but cheating. Ignoring that I see a bunch of quilt like patterns, 3d elements etcetera slapped onto it with reason to it. In that respect I sort of get what you and your group have been going for, but the perspective given from the original piece still masked into there makes it lose all meaning.

 

To that end, I wholeheartedly think that it would have been a no-contest win for that group had they worked with entirely new pieces to give the piece some structure and additional elements to make it feel more dreamlike, or at the very least seperate the original work into additional pieces and work up from there.

 

Piece #2

I don't even... its a quality piece for sure. But to consider it a "resolution of the previously contradictory conditions of dream and reality" as well as the general not so logical nature of how surrealism works as an artform. Its too coherent, too together on itself. Everything feels like it has a place, a pattern, a goal rather than just a means to an end. Not much else to say sadly beyond that. Its good. But on the stage presented it offers itself nothing to give.

 

​It gets my vote more accurately because I think whatever group did #1 sold themselves short. Disappointingly so.

[hr]

 

... Is that satisfactory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the absence of detail, it's the pretentiousness with which you speak about these pieces. I know these guys have thick skin so it probably doesn't matter much to them, but the tone you're bringing is not conducive of a constructive environment. We get that you know more about art than most of the rest of us. But the way you post, it's like you put yourself above us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is my second reply not exactly that? I did my best to be absolutely neutral and think the best of both parties involved. If I come off as "pretentious" or "myself above others", I sincerely apologize. It is not meant to be that way, just confident in my own abilities to do what my own goals are with my pieces and still be critical of areas of improvement.

 

In my replies to others (in the main graphics section not here) it's more straight analyzing and pointing directly rather than just saying "could use better depth" or other anatomically pointless suggestions when no direction is given to the physical location of the error or place in need of improvement, if this has changed then I will adjust to compensate. No picture necessary for spots that are done well, I'd rather a straight compliment to the ability presented.

 

... If I post here, I see no reason not to explicitly meet the criteria of the contests own requirements rather than what the artists themselves are going for and what areas they'd need to improve or done well. Meeting the criteria, how well it fulfills that criteria, how well the quality affects it meeting the criteria whether good bad or neutral, message the piece attempts to give off if one at all, then straight quality as a whole - in that order. At least thats the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The neutrality is not an issue, the criticism, use of theory or your own artistic knowledge are not the issues. It's the way you said it. Instead of a simple gmv for the second piece, you go out of your way in the first post to say (in bold and red), that the piece doesn't get your vote. Your second reply, while fine, still feels like it shits on the pieces. Sure, surrealism is the criteria, and judging solely (or first and foremost) on that is fine. I think there's a little flexibility to that requirement though; there's no one objective way a team should approach using a given element (in this case #1's use of The Son of Man). You state your opinion on that specifically and that's fine. The message I receive though is that their perspective on the whole thing is invalid because it deviates too much from a certain original point.

 

Often times those of us that aren't very good may give cnc that's basic or ambiguous. Lately, in the last month or so when Showcase was active, I'd been seeing some better replies, people adding on to pieces and offering more specific advice. You're one of those people who can really pinpoint problem areas. There's just a fine line between offering solid, detailed, yet digestible advice, and being just plain pretentiousness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...