Hah já :Þ en sjáðu þetta:
The wall of doom:
I disagree. If you look at some of the horrible comics that they have in the Sunday LA times, you'll know what I mean(but since I don't know your location, that might not be so easy. Look online or something). I don't just mean in the newspapers. I mean in general. There are comics out there where the artwork is positively atrocious and badly done and yet people still buy it. I very much doubt that the artists were told to draw like that. I may not be very old and you may have more experience in this field than I do, but there are bunches of comic book artists who try as hard as they can to make their work look good and yet something less and mediocre manages to get their foot in the door. Look at David Simpson, creator and illustrator of Ozy and Millie. For the longest time, he's been trying to get his comic into the newpapers. Why? Because of its popularity and the content. And what manages to push him out of the way once again? A stupid comic like The Flying MCoys. The jokes and style in that comic is some of the worst I've ever seen. Do you honestly think that someone told Mike Mignola how to draw Hellboy….or what would look better? Or what about Stan Lee? He came up with the idea for Spider-man by himself and yet no one told him that there was something that needed to be fixed. And honestly, how can you criticize a person's work when art critics go gaga over modern art. I mean, I could nail two boards together, slap a pair of antlers on it and stick it in the mud and someone would call it art. A lot of modern art isn't even entertaining. I mean, sure there's a deeper meaning. But when someone's work is truly exceptional and yet the one getting all the attention is the person that splatted bugs on his windsheild and stuck it in a frame. That's nothing that's wrong with the exceptional artist. That's what's wrong with the people. You can call anything art nowadays. Now, I'm not saying that being an art critic is a bad thing. I'm merely saying that there are certain artists who manage to get their work through when it looks like a piece of crap. If the story is good and the characters are unique, then that should be all that matters. You can't push an artists to be happy with something that someone told them to change. They came up with it on their own and have a critic say that something needs to be changed deflates that pride to the harshest degree. No, I'm not speaking from experience of any kind and no, I've never had someone critique my work. People should be able to descide for themselves on what looks good and what doesn't. Critics just get in the way. Look at the reviews for Cars. Several critics are giving it bad reviews and yet loyal Pixar fans still see it, whereas other people sit there reading the reviews and saying, “Oh, well, this guy said it was horrible, so it must be.” What do they know? What do the critics know? People shouldn't be controlled like that. If it's good, let the people decide for themselves, don't try to keep them from doing something they might enjoy. *sigh* In other words, if an artist relies purely on his own eyes to catch mistakes and decide what works, then they should be the ones to judge what needs to change. Everyone has different tastes in everything there is. No two tastes are alike. So shouldn't it be a person's decision on what they see as art, rather than let some bozo who may or may NOT have been an artist tell them what looks good and what doesn't. Has Roger Ebert ever made a movie? NO! He just watches them and tells the public HIS opinion on it. Critics are conformists, they try to get people to look through their eyes rather than let them see things for themselves. It's all an opinion and everyone's entitled, not one person who thinks something should be changed trying to press their opinion on someone else. Critics are opinionated, egotistical fatheads who think that their ideas and opinions are the right ones and that everyone else is wrong. Some of the worst movies out there have been given rave reviews by critics because it's a genre they enjoy. Anyway. I'm not trying to start a heated argument. It's just my take on things. I don't think I'm right, but I don't think I'm entirely wrong either. It's my opinion and I'll stick to it. ^_^
I didn't say that I hated modern art. I just don't see the point of it. That's all. It doesn't seem like modern art is that much work to put together. Like that guy who took a urinal off a wall, stuck it on the ground instead and called it a fountain. That…….ehhhh, doesn't seem like it's that hard to do. Some modern art catches my eye. Most of it doesn't because it seems uninventive to me. It seems like something that everyone can do if they actually tried. I know that certain art is drawn poorly on purpose. Of course I know that! X3 “The Far Side” isn't drawn badly, though. I don't think that anyway. It's a unique style. The characters have a different shape, but they don't look like they're drawn by someone who has parkensins disease like “The Flying McCoys”. Now THAT is a badly drawn comic. Not to mention the punch lines are terrible. And it would be boring for anything to be drawn like DC or MARVEL, of course. That's why there are different styles out there. But there's also the fact that a person starts to make a comic saying, “Okay, I don't want my stuff to look like everyones else's.” I don't see why a critic should be able to govern them on how things look. A lot of critics seem to like repetitiveness. If they see something that they've seen before but with a twist, then they'll say it's good. But if it's something that they aren't used to, they say that something's wrong with it. I mean, I can understand critics when it comes to books. I'm currently writing one and I know that if it does get finished and I want to get it published that I'll definitely get it back saying things need to be changed, but that's only because things need to stay entertaining for however many pages and not get boring. With comic books, that's different, because you have a picture to go along with it. People actually see what's happening. But I still think that it shouldn't be a critics decision on what looks good art style-wise. Why should they be the ones to tell an artist what people want to see? *sigh* I fear that I'm starting to make less and less sense. But I'm a very comic book based person. When I see a comic book that has a different look to it style-wise, I get interested. Like Jeff Smith, for instance. Though he may have been inspired by the Pogo comics, his style is unique. I don't believe that a critic came up to him and said that the characters looked all wrong and that people wouldn't be interested in characters that looked like that. I pass by hundreds of comics that look like the story line would be awesome and the characters cool, but I'm not interested because they look too much like what I'm used to. If an artist isn't willing to take the risk of not caring what a critic will say and putting there stuff out there anyway, then they shouldn't be drawing for the public to view. I don't think I'm wise in any of this, nor do I think I know what I'm talking about. But I know what catches my eye and no critic is going to tell me what I like.
Anyway, I'm sure you're sick of a sixteen-year-old blabbering on about something that bugs them. But thanks for replying, regardless. At least someone was listening. ^_^
Well, at least you're being nice about this instead of chopping my head off like some of the other replies I've gotten. Sheesh. I shouldn't even try. People get all up in arms about someone who expresses their views without prior knowledge or experience of the situation. I've been getting totally slammed into the ground by someone else who thinks that I'm a thin-skinned crybaby who can't take criticism. That, however, is not true about me. I'm positive. I try to look at the good side of things. When people criticize me, I let them criticize me. It's my choice of whether I'm going to listen or not. I usually listen when I agree that something is off and I need to change it. I've forgotten his/her name already, but he/she wouldn't stop hounding me about this. Good grief! I'm just a sixteen-year-old kid who has an actual opinion about things instead of being a rebelious punk like most of the kids I know. I didn't do a bunch of research before submitting my comment about critics. It was just a personal take on it. Hopefully, they'll leave me alone now. I shouldn't have gotten involved once I remembered that there are people on DA that are indeed older than I am and think that I'm just a dumb kid. Sheesh. Well, thank you for being so nice to me about it. I appreciate it. People haven't been very nice to me for a good portion of my life, so thank you. ^_^
ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT!! Sheesh! Lay off, would ya?! I'm just a kid! I know that my facts are a bit skewed, I know that my views are going to be spoken against by someone!! Don't think that just because I can't stand critics that I'm a thin-skinned sissie as you say. I've taken plenty of criticizm for the time that I have been on this planet and none of it has made me thin-skinned, thanks very much. And I didn't think it was personal, either. It was merely a view of things as I see them. An interesting subject comes up, I'm going to express my views on it. For goodness sake, it's not like I'm at war with anyone. For once, I thought that I'd try entering into a conversation that I usually don't get involved in because something like this happens. Looks like I still need some work on that. I didn't think it was personal. I'm not that kind of person. I'm not some teenager who says to the world “I'm different and I'm going to rebel against what everyone else says.” No, no, no. I was merely trying to make a point about my views, as many people do every day of their lives. Thank you very much, you can stop hounding me now. X3
By ~dbzfreak897
(._.')
Breytt: 21:39:13 - 18-06-2006
Hugi notar vefkökur til að bæta notendaupplifun á vefsíðunni og greina umferð um hana.
Einnig hefur Hugi uppfært persónuverndarstefnu sína.