Other places I can be found:
My Professional Site
My Deviant Art Page
My Livejournal
ALSO:
Commission Info!
My Art Tag
Photoset reblogged from Home of Krogan Princess with 1,562 notes
yiq:
drew up some quick nosetips for lee’s lady but i’ll post it here too because yeah ok
what if it is animal crossing tho
what if
somebody doesn’t care what you like on faces and they want to draw and let their style develop how they want tho
what if somebody just wants to make a dumb little doodly line for a nose and are happy with it and don’t care about your stupid art elitism tho
HAHA wow what a dumb thing
and the award for “the most elitist post of the day” goes to
people?? use stylization??? wiTH NOses??
quelle horreur
Okay, take those top four examples, and finish the face. Keep it in the same style. Cartoon faces can have those noses.
If you are trying to do a realistic approach on noses, then you head in the direction of the OP’s intended message.
What this OP should have explained is that you don’t mix ‘em up. Don’t toss a *c* nose on a realistic or semi-realistic facial rendering. And don’t make the most detailed nose in the world on your cartoony character. Make it look like it’s all part of the same face.
And you can use ‘samenose’ if you vary up your facial shapes and hairstyles. Maybe some characters are related and they have the same nose, but different head shapes?
The OP is making a singular nitpick on a singular detail that looked at alone is kinda a weak argument.
OK, OP must not want to work in Animation. Or really any job other than working for herself. Because almost no one hires you do draw in your own personal style. Or even in a realistic style. If you can’t replicate a show’s style and be ON MODEL for that style, then, you will never get a job.
And it’s a little shitty to diss others’ styles. Most of these stylizations are done by people who already know how to draw perfect noses. They move beyond realism and make a stylized form. Does she think that Fairly Odd Parents is terrible? (like the “OMG fucking no” nose?) or Spongebob? Even Pixar characters are stylized and non-realistic.
I’m gonna just chalk this up to this girl being an inexperienced 19 year old. She doesn’t yet know that you shouldn’t insult others’ styles (don’t burn bridges), and that the world doesn’t revolve around realism. I can almost guarantee in a year or two she’ll look back on this post and be really embarrassed.
But of course, she’s deleted the original post now so she won’t see this, but hopefully this will be something she learns from.
Source: kangaya
Photo reblogged from same-sex clover with 26,604 notes
This is an excellent metaphor for what most people go through. Though I think the art was intended to be an inspirational, “go get your dreams” type image, i think its a lot more sad and true than that. The unicorn is a mthical beast that doesn’t look anything like a rhino, except that they most have a horn. There is nothing that a rhino can do to become a unicorn, short of destorying its mind and completely altering its body.
This isn’t a stretch for what most people go through when they have body image issues. They look in the magazines and she glorious beautiful people, people so beautiful they don’t actually exist. And some try to work to be exactly like those people. But maybe they just weren’t meant to be shaped like that.
A rhino can still be a beautiful rhino, it does not have to be a unicorn.
Ok, I did a little research on this, because i-think-you-are-lovely-so-i didn’t use a source link. I Google image searched it, (most lead back to Threadless and artist Allan Faustino) and as I thought, this was never meant to be a “go get your dreams” image. It was made for a t-shirt design, with no name or context. And I think, (and maybe it’s from fine art training that I see it, but I don’t think it takes art history training to get an implied message) that this was ALWAYS meant to be a clear message of “why try to be something you’re not?” or a comment on modern society and the pressures to be beautiful. It’s not even 100% about weight, it’s about perceived beauty too.
I am really, really not meaning to call out people for missing the point of an artwork, and I’m not meaning to make anyone feel bad, but… it scares me sometimes, as an artist myself, that if you don’t make your message totally explicit, people will not read it right. It’s something they taught us in college to try to get over, I mean, once an artwork is done and released, it’s no longer about what you meant as much as it’s about what people see in it.
BUT almost everyone HAS a message in mind when making any particular work. And you want people to see that message. But then I see something like this, which I got an implied meaning, and then the comment with it says that it has no such meaning but hey, why don’t we think of it this way… which was the message the whole time…
Maybe it doesn’t matter… If people get the message that the artist wanted to say, even if the viewers don’t think that’s what the artist meant, but their mind got to that message in the end anyway. The only drawback is that they didn’t think the artist meant it.
LOL ALSO: There’s been other articles and blog posts about people seeing different implied messages in this work. (here, and here ) Gah, I didn’t think you had to be so blatant when you’re saying something sometimes… Do you make art relatable to everyone, or make it ambiguous and know that only people a few people will get it? I should ask poupon, a lot of her work has elements that only certain people will get, and I always love her stuff.
Source: i-think-you-are-lovely-so-i
Post reblogged from Home of Krogan Princess with 82,993 notes
It annoys me how if you’re not good at Art or Music it’s okay because you’re just “not talented” in that area but if you’re not good at Science, Maths or English you’re “dumb”.
This bothers me as well, especially since the only people who say they “don’t have the talent” also place little value on the “talent” in the first place.
This is one of the many reasons I really really dislike the word “talent”.
Agreed. There is no such thing as “talent” only hard work and the results of effort.
Whenever non-artists tell me “I wish I could draw” or “I wish I had artistic talent” I correct them and inform them that art is a skill that can be honed with practice.
HELL YES. ”Talent” is just the drive to get better. I draw well because I practice, I dance well because I took classes for 12 years, and hell, I even got good at math because I knew it was important and I took the time! So when people tell me they aren’t artistically talented, I want to just tell them to try. All things take time to be good at!
Source: gentle-insomnia
Photo reblogged from with 97,459 notes
protonpack:i call this one bold and brash
I swear, I want a framed version of this on my walls.
Source: motherfuckingfineasspussymobile
Photoset reblogged from Balicake for Breakfast with 3,833 notes
I’ve posted earlier about Art inspired desserts at the Blue Bottle Coffee Bar at SF MOMA. But now the full cookbook by Caitlin Freeman is out, featuring a series of modern art inspired deliciousness!!
AWESOME!!!!
I would think that Rothko, Kandinsky and Pollock would make good ones too! And personally I would love Georgia O’Keefe sugar flowers!
Source: indefenseofart
Post reblogged from Balicake for Breakfast with 120 notes
Thess vs Self-Deprecation
Just read a post that is a little too long to add this via reblog and still keep everything, but the gist is the varying and sundry reasons that people who post their art are intensely deprecating of their own work, and the reasons they shouldn’t be.
One thing that was never touched on: THE WORLD TRAINS US TO BE THAT WAY.
For one thing … it’s art. Our parents, teachers and everyone else tells us not to get particularly serious about drawing unless it’s architecture or something that they consider ‘safe’. Encourage a budding artist, musician, writer, whatever and … what, you’re sending a kid out with a 95% chance of failure, or so parents see it. They want to protect their kids from ‘learning that lesson’ too late and essentially dismissing the talents we display in the artistic pursuits with a dismissive “That’s nice, dear”. Tell them we want to be writers, actors, musicians, artists and we’ll get anything from “Fine, but study something serious for when that falls through …if, I mean; IF that falls through” to “Get a real dream”. If we get high marks in art or music or drama, and average marks elsewhere, the arts marks don’t even get brought into the discussion unless it’s to say, “If your real work is suffering, maybe we should talk about you dropping those electives”. Right from the start, the people whose praise matters most sideline our dreams and encourage us to think about these things as not important. That often leads us to believe that we have no talent in that area; if we had talent, REAL talent, then people would encourage us to go for it because to do otherwise would be a waste, right? TV tells us so.
But we’re not stupid. We suspect that we have talent (usually because we do). Those of us who keep drawing or writing or dancing, those who keep showing those talents to the world … they haven’t let go of the dream yet because something inside them acknowledges that talent. And that’s amazing. Anyone who posts their art at ALL amazes me, because they’ve fought through that part of it, the part where people tell them to give up their dreams and settle down into some boring thing that doesn’t speak to their souls without so much as a look back at the time when they created beauty.
Then comes the other problem: the modesty thing. Nathanael Emmons wrote “Make no display of your talents or attainments; for every one will clearly see, admire, and acknowledge them, so long as you cover them with the beautiful veil of modesty”. Religious texts bring out the saws about “the meek shall inherit the earth” (or, in some cases, have the gods turn the prideful into spiders or something). Our parents tell us to be modest, not to sound full of ourselves, not to brag; it’s not polite. So here the artist sits, agonising over whether to post at all, because it’s not like art MATTERS or anything, and who’s really going to like it, hmm? But they get the courage to post it; their talent demands it of them. But they can’t say, “I really liked this one because of—” because that’s immodest. Even posting it without comment at all might make the artist seem full of themselves, and the very act of displaying artwork, we’re taught, demands explanation - how COULD you display this unrealistic dream to the world? So you can’t say something nice, you can’t just say ‘here’s what I drew’ because it calls unnecessary attention to yourself, you can’t say anything at all…
So what’s left but saying you’re not proud of it, that it’s awful, that you don’t know why you’re even posting it? At best, people disagree with your assessment of the work. At worst, you’ve said it yourself before someone else has a chance to hurt you with it.
To the artists and the writers and the everybody: I’m proud of you. I don’t care if it’s stick figures; I am proud of you and I thank you for sharing. You go ahead and say that what you drew is awful if you need to - I just hope you don’t mind if I ignore it in favour of the core message delivered by you sharing your work at all. You know, the very basic message of “I am posting this because somewhere, beyond all the rules about modesty and the discouragement and the self-deprecating tendency that’s been beaten into me for more or less ever, I have seen something to be proud of in this”. Even if you never say what it is, it’s got to be there.
(This mini-rant brought to you by a horrible sick migraine but if I lie in front of the TV anymore I’m going to grow moss.)
I also want to add (because this whole write up is 110% true and I don’t think I’ve ever met someone that this doesn’t affect) that when you go to get a job in art you have to suddenly be proud. You have to show off your stuff, and act like it doesn’t stink. You have to act like “Hot damn, I am good and you will benefit by hiring me!”
And that should be ok and easy in a world that respected art and respected people having pride. But when our whole world up until that point is the opposite, you gather your art together and feel like a fraud, a failure and feel almost like a liar, when you shouldn’t!
Be proud! Flash your art around and if someone gives you flack, ask them if they can do better! (And if they can, ask them to teach you how!)
Source: thessalian
Photo reblogged from always art with 381 notes
Gift sketch 2/18 - Simon Petrikov
Requested by 131-di for the awesome idiot-wagon!
AWESOME! AWESOME! AWESOME!!
I watched you draw it and I still can’t believe how amazing it is! Also, I love seeing a friend who is so talented doing a fandom I love! WOOO!
Photo reblogged from Mass Effect Fuck Yeah with 2,439 notes
mfw when maximum overkawaii
Source: makanidotdot
Post reblogged from A Momentary Flow with 32 notes
How Pixar Used Moore’s Law to Predict the Future | Wired Opinion | Wired.com
See on Scoop.it - Knowmads, Infocology of the futureInventors, visionaries, engineers — whatever you want to call them — have to arrive at each level before they can even imagine a way to the next one … and then create it.-
The exponential improvement of a given technology — Moore’s Law in the case of computer chip technology — measures the ultimate speed at which a large group of creative humans can proceed to improve a technology, under competition, when there’s no physical barrier to its improvement and when the technology must pay its own way.
It’s like the evolution of living things. Tiny changes aggregate into eventually massive changes, different species even — but the living things must remain viable at every step. There couldn’t have been a direct one-step leap from a bacterium to a baby. In contrast to Darwinian evolution, however, Moore’s Law changes have a teleology: towards cheaper, larger, denser, and faster. We implement each step to see if it actually works, then gain the courage, the insight, and the engineering mastery to proceed to the next step.
See on wired.com
This article is amazing! And it made me realize, most all learning works on this system! The author - one of the founders of Pixar, Alvy Ray Smith - describes Moore’s law’s “steps”, as “orders of magnitude” and that ”We use ‘order of magnitude’ to imply a change so great that it requires new thought processes…”.
So, it doesn’t just describe when transistors get better, but it is a measure of how fast we learn and make new things. And I think this REALLY aptly describes almost ALL learning!
As an artist, I struggle with having to draw and draw and wish I was better, but you have to make the small incremental improvements over time. Like he said, you can see the future - I can see the kind of art I want to make - but until you make all the steps in between, you can’t make that great art yet! Learning comes in these steps, that’s exactly what Moore’s Law predicts!
Page 1 of 17
