//crimsondaggers.com/forum/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 02:51:04 +0000 MyBB //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9865.html Thu, 28 Aug 2025 17:25:36 +0000 lvlingArtist]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9865.html At least it seemed as if the people there were "real people".

On youtube there was, for example Sycra and he had Art-Streams with lots of cool people, who were Artists.
He made Interviews with good Professionals like Artgerm, Will Terrell and so on.

Then there were the Forums with hundreds of inspiring People with Sketchbooks.
Some professionals, some amateurs, some amateurs who were aspiring to become Professional.

There were so many inspiring People and Artworks to look at and get inspired by!

(this was not only in Art, but also in all other fields. If you like to cook, you could find an equally big cast of inspiring cooking channels and every other area probably too!)



Nowadays it seems, Youtube killed itself because censorship and so on.
Most videos are made either somehow by bots  or by production companies, who try to make it look like private people, but very poorly. They all use the same script, it looks like. If you see a cat moving into the scenery you already can tell, that these people have been told by some marketing-Agency that they should put a cat in there to look more like private people.


The so-called "social media" I do not use, because they tighten the censorship-grip so heavily and it feels like a complete empty echo-chamber. I am talking about Instagram and such nonsense.

Forums somehow died, even if they were awesome.
Sycra also had an amazing forum back in the day with SO good people, so inspiring!
Nowadays he moved to the so-called "Discord-Server",
but first of all I see that as another censorship-vehicle-thing and also you cannot see any Sketchbooks of people there!




Where are all those amazing, inspiring People nowadays?

Youtube is dead, Forums somehow vanished, and "social media" is censored and unreal and turns you into a zombie.



Do you also feel that the world somehow got very empty nowadays?]]> At least it seemed as if the people there were "real people".

On youtube there was, for example Sycra and he had Art-Streams with lots of cool people, who were Artists.
He made Interviews with good Professionals like Artgerm, Will Terrell and so on.

Then there were the Forums with hundreds of inspiring People with Sketchbooks.
Some professionals, some amateurs, some amateurs who were aspiring to become Professional.

There were so many inspiring People and Artworks to look at and get inspired by!

(this was not only in Art, but also in all other fields. If you like to cook, you could find an equally big cast of inspiring cooking channels and every other area probably too!)



Nowadays it seems, Youtube killed itself because censorship and so on.
Most videos are made either somehow by bots  or by production companies, who try to make it look like private people, but very poorly. They all use the same script, it looks like. If you see a cat moving into the scenery you already can tell, that these people have been told by some marketing-Agency that they should put a cat in there to look more like private people.


The so-called "social media" I do not use, because they tighten the censorship-grip so heavily and it feels like a complete empty echo-chamber. I am talking about Instagram and such nonsense.

Forums somehow died, even if they were awesome.
Sycra also had an amazing forum back in the day with SO good people, so inspiring!
Nowadays he moved to the so-called "Discord-Server",
but first of all I see that as another censorship-vehicle-thing and also you cannot see any Sketchbooks of people there!




Where are all those amazing, inspiring People nowadays?

Youtube is dead, Forums somehow vanished, and "social media" is censored and unreal and turns you into a zombie.



Do you also feel that the world somehow got very empty nowadays?]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9731.html Sat, 05 Apr 2025 10:36:28 +0000 ░M░i░n░k░]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9731.html
And what other resources did you find helpful and recommend?]]>
And what other resources did you find helpful and recommend?]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9696.html Mon, 09 Dec 2024 19:09:45 +0000 angelicin]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9696.html //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9642.html Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:25:29 +0000 Black Spot]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9642.html
I saw the writing on the wall before the forum went down and actually managed to save pretty well most of Art Discussion, plus a few tutorials and other threads I found interesting. Yes, some of the images are missing, but it's mainly the conversations we had back then were more important. I wish I could have saved more, but time ran out. As I saved each page fully I can convert them into pdfs - might have to edit the links though. I was wondering if there would be anywhere here I could upload them for people to read. Would anyone here be interested?]]>
I saw the writing on the wall before the forum went down and actually managed to save pretty well most of Art Discussion, plus a few tutorials and other threads I found interesting. Yes, some of the images are missing, but it's mainly the conversations we had back then were more important. I wish I could have saved more, but time ran out. As I saved each page fully I can convert them into pdfs - might have to edit the links though. I was wondering if there would be anywhere here I could upload them for people to read. Would anyone here be interested?]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9632.html Tue, 04 Jun 2024 22:55:43 +0000 darktiste]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9632.html
I personally know that i was shy taking critic as a beginner might it be because i was already a pretty heavily aware of the importance of self critic and the fact i did not really seem to necessarily understand the importance of critic i was getting i had to make sure i was in control of my ship that meant being able to ''trash talk'' my art toward the direction i built for myself.

Critic are always good but they can also start to stir the boat in the wrong direction. Being to receptive is a thing and learning to filter the critic to work for you is an other skill.

Here a video i want to share on the topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AEq0wTJ2cw]]>
I personally know that i was shy taking critic as a beginner might it be because i was already a pretty heavily aware of the importance of self critic and the fact i did not really seem to necessarily understand the importance of critic i was getting i had to make sure i was in control of my ship that meant being able to ''trash talk'' my art toward the direction i built for myself.

Critic are always good but they can also start to stir the boat in the wrong direction. Being to receptive is a thing and learning to filter the critic to work for you is an other skill.

Here a video i want to share on the topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AEq0wTJ2cw]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9606.html Tue, 23 Apr 2024 01:19:58 +0000 Jephyr]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9606.html
I saw one where a guy was asking AI to do an angry chipmunk (maybe you've seen it too).  The AI kept saying it was as angry as it could make it and the guy kept challenging it, saying 'that sounds like a YOU problem.'  

Then within minutes he had a dozen or so images of an increasingly angry and CRAZIER chipmunk that would take even the fastest artist weeks to do.

Then, the other night as I was painting away on a new image and it occurred to me how much I was enjoying the process.  Yeah — sometimes getting over an issue is a pain — but the joy of painting (hmmm — where have I heard that before) is always outweighed by the process — ESPECIALLY as an image nears completion.

So I thought — 'yeah AI is going to be used more and more and make it harder for us working artists — but it will NEVER take away the natural urge we humanoids have to create.'

Thoughts??  What do you think??]]>
I saw one where a guy was asking AI to do an angry chipmunk (maybe you've seen it too).  The AI kept saying it was as angry as it could make it and the guy kept challenging it, saying 'that sounds like a YOU problem.'  

Then within minutes he had a dozen or so images of an increasingly angry and CRAZIER chipmunk that would take even the fastest artist weeks to do.

Then, the other night as I was painting away on a new image and it occurred to me how much I was enjoying the process.  Yeah — sometimes getting over an issue is a pain — but the joy of painting (hmmm — where have I heard that before) is always outweighed by the process — ESPECIALLY as an image nears completion.

So I thought — 'yeah AI is going to be used more and more and make it harder for us working artists — but it will NEVER take away the natural urge we humanoids have to create.'

Thoughts??  What do you think??]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9594.html Sun, 31 Mar 2024 18:48:52 +0000 yasminnn123]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9594.html Hi guys I'm collecting data for a Uni project about digital art changing the art market and want people in the industry to answer these questions. It won't take long and would really help and be much appreciated 

If there are any artists would you be able to answer these :

1. How has the emergence of digital art affected your creative process and the way you distribute and monetise your artwork?
   
2. What do you perceive as the main challenges and benefits of working with digital art compared to traditional mediums?
   
3. How important is an online presence and social media for your career as an artist, and how do you navigate these platforms?
   
4. What are your thoughts on the use of AI in creating artwork, and how do you think it will impact the art world in the future?
   

If there are any collectors would you please answer these:

1. What attracts you to digital art, and how does it differ from your interest in traditional art forms?
   
2. How do you discover and purchase digital artwork, and what platforms or methods do you prefer?
   
3. What concerns, if any, do you have about the authenticity, ownership, and long-term value of digital art pieces?
   
4. How do you think the rise of digital art will change the way people collect and invest in art in the future?
   

i hope to get some feedback thanks so much !]]> Hi guys I'm collecting data for a Uni project about digital art changing the art market and want people in the industry to answer these questions. It won't take long and would really help and be much appreciated 

If there are any artists would you be able to answer these :

1. How has the emergence of digital art affected your creative process and the way you distribute and monetise your artwork?
   
2. What do you perceive as the main challenges and benefits of working with digital art compared to traditional mediums?
   
3. How important is an online presence and social media for your career as an artist, and how do you navigate these platforms?
   
4. What are your thoughts on the use of AI in creating artwork, and how do you think it will impact the art world in the future?
   

If there are any collectors would you please answer these:

1. What attracts you to digital art, and how does it differ from your interest in traditional art forms?
   
2. How do you discover and purchase digital artwork, and what platforms or methods do you prefer?
   
3. What concerns, if any, do you have about the authenticity, ownership, and long-term value of digital art pieces?
   
4. How do you think the rise of digital art will change the way people collect and invest in art in the future?
   

i hope to get some feedback thanks so much !]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9593.html Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:21:56 +0000 lvlingArtist]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9593.html Where should or could one subscribe or register to look into it?

Back in the day there were Forums like conceptart.org and some more, where you could post work
and also there were big youtubers, who made streams and so on.

When you were on those forums and followed the some youtubers, you had a pretty good picture about what was going on in "the art world".

Nowadays most forums are dead (even if I wished they all just continued)
and youtube/big social media is (from my point of view) also dead, because censorship, fake comments, not allowing thumbs down etc., just not good places. Also many Creators stopped making content it seems.


So, what or where is "The Art Scene" nowadays?]]> Where should or could one subscribe or register to look into it?

Back in the day there were Forums like conceptart.org and some more, where you could post work
and also there were big youtubers, who made streams and so on.

When you were on those forums and followed the some youtubers, you had a pretty good picture about what was going on in "the art world".

Nowadays most forums are dead (even if I wished they all just continued)
and youtube/big social media is (from my point of view) also dead, because censorship, fake comments, not allowing thumbs down etc., just not good places. Also many Creators stopped making content it seems.


So, what or where is "The Art Scene" nowadays?]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9583.html Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:34:02 +0000 galen]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9583.html
[can't in any way at all seem to insert url-links for some reason] thread is at reddit --> r/ArtistLounge --> What happened to art?, by user Relative-Resolve4736

The OP talks about how he doesn't really like 'contemporary' art and prefers 'classical' art as the latter, he argues, presents itself with more skill and depth of content than the former. The replies were generally fairly vitriolic and rude, despite the modest attitude of the OP, as could be expected on that website.

I wanted to give my own take on this topic. I don't actively use reddit.com on principle so I thought I'd come here to post it.

This post will have two parts: the first, my take on what qualifies and defines art, which relates directly to the reddit post in question; the second, my own relationship with static-pictorial-art, which is derivative to the main question.

This is a long post, I know. I guess don't read it if you don't like long posts.

===============================
First part.
===============================

To answer "what qualifies as art?" first of all. I would say this: art is anything created that engages the interest of either its creator, or anyone else who happens upon it, beyond any utilitarian quality that creation may have. Let me just explain a bit further about that 'utility' bit: say someone needs to make themselves a tool, like a wheel-barrow; as long as the reason for that wheel-barrow's existence is purely utilitarian, and so long as no-one else ever happens upon that wheel-barrow besides its creator, then that wheel-barrow will never be art. The barrow's creator, solely concerned with its utility, will not see, in that moment, that hour, that day, in which the barrow is created, anything entertaining about the barrow; that barrow will not engage his interest, beyond being a tool with which to get something done, a means to an end. In the moment that I come back from the shops with some bottles of cleaning-product and store them under the sink, in my eyes, the person placing those bottles, there is no art in the positioning of those bottles under the sink, so long as I don't care to arrange them in a 'pretty' way, and only care that they are safely and tidily stored away there, then those bottles do not entertain my nor anyone else's interest beyond a purely utilitarian context. However, from a different perspective, someone else could well find some entertainment in these otherwise purely utilitarian things: someone else without any experience in gardening could come along, see the wheel-barrow at rest leaning against a fence and think to themselves that its shape is rather striking and inspiring—at that moment, the barrow becomes a piece of art—; in the same way, maybe a house-mate comes along, sees the bottles of cleaning-product stored away under the sink, and admires how tidily and efficiently they are arranged under there, and that their arrangement brings to mind for them images of a marching regiment of soldiers or of beautifully symmetrical geometry, which musings entertain them for a moment—those bottles of cleaning-product are now a work of art (in the case that I merely threw those bottles under the sink while standing in the kitchen's door-way, so as to save time, perhaps the messed-up bottles conjure musings of the beauty in chaos and destruction in the house-mate, and thence qualify themselves as art). In reality, it's so difficult to cleanly cut pure utility from artistic expression, as inevitably the latter bleeds into the former, and I challenge any engineer to design or construct something purely for utilitarian purposes and not find themselves at some point in that process of creation admiring something beautiful about what they have created—and in that moment of them admiring their own work that creation is then entertaining the creator's interest outside of a purely utilitarian context and so is performing the function of a work of art, i.e., it is fulfilling the little definition I gave at the start of this paragraph, which I reiterate here: "art is anything created that engages the interest of either its creator or anyone else who happens upon it, beyond any utilitarian quality that creation may have." Regulated competitions, like, I don't know, say... Super Smash Bros., ... , or karuta... or those games people play when they chase a ball around a muddy field, can also be analysed in this way with regard to utility and art; but that is quite a long discussion in itself so I'll leave that one out here; suffice it to say I think one would certainly conclude that art exists in competitions.

So now having "defined" art for myself, let me bring that around to the matter of that reddit thread. 'Gallery-art' is qualified as art, so long as it is entertaining its audience beyond any utilitarian sense. And there can indeed exist a utilitarian context in which 'gallery-art' entertains its audience, both 'classical' and 'contemporary' types. Consider the power and wealth and status both 'classical' and 'contemporary' 'gallery-art' represent: in both cases, only the extremely rich ever get or got to own these admired pieces privately; audiences in galleries know this; and so, indeed, I'm sure, there exists, sometimes, a degree of motivation in an 'ordinary' visitor to any gallery to the effect of "well, perhaps if I can learn about these paintings and immerse myself generally enough in their culture and surrounding society, then perhaps I too can one day be as rich and as powerful as the people who own these paintings..."—this would be a purely utilitarian context in which the paintings are 'engaging the interest of their audience'. But back to the topic. If there is none of that 'utilitarian context', then, yes, 'contemporary' and 'classical' 'gallery-art' are equally qualified as art, as both are, for whatever reason—be it appreciation of skill, or shock-value, or novelty, or historical and cultural interest, or anything at all—engaging the interest of their audiences outside of an utilitarian context.

The elephant-in-the-room here is "is not 'classical' 'gallery-art' 'higher' and 'greater' than 'contemporary'?". That's a question I'm not going to address directly in this post, though I will now say something tangential to that question. Which has more lasting impact, 'classical' or 'contemporary' 'gallery-art'? This question cannot be proven yet, as not enough time has elapsed since the twentieth-century. Take this as you will, but if I had to wager, I would say 'classical' would win-out here, and the next paragraph I hope will explain myself a little in this regard.

Regarding the OP in that reddit thread, I can definitely see where they're coming from, and, personally, I agree with him in-so-far-as I too almost always fail to be impressed by 'contemporary' art displayed in galleries, whereas I will most likely be impressed fairly keenly by something I may see while browsing pictures by the "masters". Yes, it looks to me too that there is just not half-as-much effort nor skill invested in modern 'gallery-art' as in that which preceded it; which effort and skill on its own impresses and amuses someone without knowledge of the medium nor its history, such as myself. Honestly, I think I am right to say that modern 'gallery-artists' are not so much concerned with creating something excellent and fine, but rather are trying to take advantage of their unprecedented access to novelty and 'shock-value' to impress their audience. Artists of yore impressed their audiences, but I think there's a valid argument for saying that they did so more through their skill and effort, and that modern 'gallery-artists' try to do so through by-passing the long route of skill and effort and shocking their audience with a sight that is radically new visually, such as with a collection of coloured squares on a large canvas: people are so used to seeing 'fine art' hung up in galleries that when someone comes along and instead puts up a big canvas with some coloured squares on it, that have clearly taken at least some time to paint, the viewer, bored from centuries of the same style of picture, can't help themselves but exclaim "yeah! that's cool. that's rock-and-roll. that's based."; I think it's pretty much the same effect as when a new buzz-word enters the popular lexicon and slang, like how everyone recently had been saying "fever-dream" a lot, "based" is another popular one right now, words that just kind-of sound cool so they stick for a while, but ultimately don't have any 'depth' of meaning so don't last.

I've defined art as that which entertains outside of an utilitarian context. I think this definition can only really be considered in the 'present moment' and doesn't really have any meaning when considering a question like "the greatest works of art of all time". My definition considers "what is art?" with respect to the present moment only: i.e., right now—forgetting about before and later—is this creation entertaining anyone outside of an utilitarian context? if the answer is yes, then it exists as art, if no, then it does not. "Which is 'greater' art?", though being a question very closely tied to the reddit thread in question, is not something I'll talk about here; it's a very deep topic in itself.

=======================
Second part.
=======================

Myself, I've never actually been able to enjoy static-pictorial-art very much. As a teenager I remember enjoying browsing pictures by the 'classical' "masters" and by the Pre-Raphaelites, and a few of those pictures, or at least impressions of them, have stuck with me. Static-pictorial-art (sorry for the long term, I just don't know what else to call it in the modern age when our general definition of art has expanded so gloriously to include so many other media) has just never really grabbed me and made me want to dive deeper into it, to learn more about it, to appreciate more its composition and cultural context; or at least, if it did, then there was always some other medium that drew me more strongly, and not having infinite time on my hands, I would always go with whatever was pulling me harder. Similarly, after my teenage years, I've never really wanted to hang any pictures on my wall; I have ASD, so maybe that accounts for it; but I just find the 'repetition' of always having the same picture pass across your vision whenever you glance up a bit annoying, honestly, with the exceptions of computer wallpapers and video-game menu screens, I guess. Say I was "a very wealthy man" and had my own special picture-gallery in my house, with other media that interest me more—games, books, music, film, animation—I just don't think I'd ever want to give time over to going into that gallery to study any of its pictures.

I love good video-games, like the best of Zelda and Mario; I love books and language; I love music; I love good film, animation and short-film. I've already got a lifetime of stuff to enjoy there without static-pictorial-art. Honestly, the question does often come to mind whether in the past static-pictorial-art was so exalted just because a lot of these other media simply didn't exist! Several years ago I was touring Scotland and I stayed at this hostel in the mountains south of Inverness. I met this girl there who was studying fine-art or art-history or something like that. One day we sat down and she showed me some pictures she was studying on her laptop. She explained to me how she was being taught to appreciate a painting, with respect to its perspective and composition and so on. She could talk well about it, but I just couldn't help feeling like she was reciting something she'd been taught, like the passion was missing, like she didn't really care about the art itself but was more concerned with getting the degree for its own sake; reminded me a little of the bland and dispassionate way some tour-guides will conduct themselves with. Nothing really about her, as she was talking, really jumped out at me as saying "I really love this! I'd do this all the time if I could!". And, I don't know, I guess that experience kind-of reinforced my preconception that 'gallery-art' in general is forced and disingenuous in feeling, a lot of the time. 

Having said that, I am in the process of making a YouTube channel myself, and am finding it necessary to learn how to animate a bit, and so, pretty-much automatically because of that, I find myself spending a little longer, when I see a picture in the style I like, studying its shapes and colours and trying to figure out how the artist made it. Ironically also, without artists of static pictures, I have no video-games, and I have no animations, so...

Maybe just to add here that pictures that grab me most strongly (waifus excluded here obviously...) are those that tell a story in their composition: pictures, from any period of history, in which the faces, the blocking of its characters, the scenery, all work together to tell a story to the viewer; generally I find those that have a greater number of characters in them, and which have a greater range of perspective to their scenery (distance between foregrounds and backgrounds), strike me more effectively in this regard also. In short, I guess I prefer generally those that are more "theatrical" or "dramatic" in nature. I remember this picture called "Work" by a Ford Madox Brown:

just google "Work Ford Madox Brown" to see it.

That's it, that's all I wanted to say.]]>
[can't in any way at all seem to insert url-links for some reason] thread is at reddit --> r/ArtistLounge --> What happened to art?, by user Relative-Resolve4736

The OP talks about how he doesn't really like 'contemporary' art and prefers 'classical' art as the latter, he argues, presents itself with more skill and depth of content than the former. The replies were generally fairly vitriolic and rude, despite the modest attitude of the OP, as could be expected on that website.

I wanted to give my own take on this topic. I don't actively use reddit.com on principle so I thought I'd come here to post it.

This post will have two parts: the first, my take on what qualifies and defines art, which relates directly to the reddit post in question; the second, my own relationship with static-pictorial-art, which is derivative to the main question.

This is a long post, I know. I guess don't read it if you don't like long posts.

===============================
First part.
===============================

To answer "what qualifies as art?" first of all. I would say this: art is anything created that engages the interest of either its creator, or anyone else who happens upon it, beyond any utilitarian quality that creation may have. Let me just explain a bit further about that 'utility' bit: say someone needs to make themselves a tool, like a wheel-barrow; as long as the reason for that wheel-barrow's existence is purely utilitarian, and so long as no-one else ever happens upon that wheel-barrow besides its creator, then that wheel-barrow will never be art. The barrow's creator, solely concerned with its utility, will not see, in that moment, that hour, that day, in which the barrow is created, anything entertaining about the barrow; that barrow will not engage his interest, beyond being a tool with which to get something done, a means to an end. In the moment that I come back from the shops with some bottles of cleaning-product and store them under the sink, in my eyes, the person placing those bottles, there is no art in the positioning of those bottles under the sink, so long as I don't care to arrange them in a 'pretty' way, and only care that they are safely and tidily stored away there, then those bottles do not entertain my nor anyone else's interest beyond a purely utilitarian context. However, from a different perspective, someone else could well find some entertainment in these otherwise purely utilitarian things: someone else without any experience in gardening could come along, see the wheel-barrow at rest leaning against a fence and think to themselves that its shape is rather striking and inspiring—at that moment, the barrow becomes a piece of art—; in the same way, maybe a house-mate comes along, sees the bottles of cleaning-product stored away under the sink, and admires how tidily and efficiently they are arranged under there, and that their arrangement brings to mind for them images of a marching regiment of soldiers or of beautifully symmetrical geometry, which musings entertain them for a moment—those bottles of cleaning-product are now a work of art (in the case that I merely threw those bottles under the sink while standing in the kitchen's door-way, so as to save time, perhaps the messed-up bottles conjure musings of the beauty in chaos and destruction in the house-mate, and thence qualify themselves as art). In reality, it's so difficult to cleanly cut pure utility from artistic expression, as inevitably the latter bleeds into the former, and I challenge any engineer to design or construct something purely for utilitarian purposes and not find themselves at some point in that process of creation admiring something beautiful about what they have created—and in that moment of them admiring their own work that creation is then entertaining the creator's interest outside of a purely utilitarian context and so is performing the function of a work of art, i.e., it is fulfilling the little definition I gave at the start of this paragraph, which I reiterate here: "art is anything created that engages the interest of either its creator or anyone else who happens upon it, beyond any utilitarian quality that creation may have." Regulated competitions, like, I don't know, say... Super Smash Bros., ... , or karuta... or those games people play when they chase a ball around a muddy field, can also be analysed in this way with regard to utility and art; but that is quite a long discussion in itself so I'll leave that one out here; suffice it to say I think one would certainly conclude that art exists in competitions.

So now having "defined" art for myself, let me bring that around to the matter of that reddit thread. 'Gallery-art' is qualified as art, so long as it is entertaining its audience beyond any utilitarian sense. And there can indeed exist a utilitarian context in which 'gallery-art' entertains its audience, both 'classical' and 'contemporary' types. Consider the power and wealth and status both 'classical' and 'contemporary' 'gallery-art' represent: in both cases, only the extremely rich ever get or got to own these admired pieces privately; audiences in galleries know this; and so, indeed, I'm sure, there exists, sometimes, a degree of motivation in an 'ordinary' visitor to any gallery to the effect of "well, perhaps if I can learn about these paintings and immerse myself generally enough in their culture and surrounding society, then perhaps I too can one day be as rich and as powerful as the people who own these paintings..."—this would be a purely utilitarian context in which the paintings are 'engaging the interest of their audience'. But back to the topic. If there is none of that 'utilitarian context', then, yes, 'contemporary' and 'classical' 'gallery-art' are equally qualified as art, as both are, for whatever reason—be it appreciation of skill, or shock-value, or novelty, or historical and cultural interest, or anything at all—engaging the interest of their audiences outside of an utilitarian context.

The elephant-in-the-room here is "is not 'classical' 'gallery-art' 'higher' and 'greater' than 'contemporary'?". That's a question I'm not going to address directly in this post, though I will now say something tangential to that question. Which has more lasting impact, 'classical' or 'contemporary' 'gallery-art'? This question cannot be proven yet, as not enough time has elapsed since the twentieth-century. Take this as you will, but if I had to wager, I would say 'classical' would win-out here, and the next paragraph I hope will explain myself a little in this regard.

Regarding the OP in that reddit thread, I can definitely see where they're coming from, and, personally, I agree with him in-so-far-as I too almost always fail to be impressed by 'contemporary' art displayed in galleries, whereas I will most likely be impressed fairly keenly by something I may see while browsing pictures by the "masters". Yes, it looks to me too that there is just not half-as-much effort nor skill invested in modern 'gallery-art' as in that which preceded it; which effort and skill on its own impresses and amuses someone without knowledge of the medium nor its history, such as myself. Honestly, I think I am right to say that modern 'gallery-artists' are not so much concerned with creating something excellent and fine, but rather are trying to take advantage of their unprecedented access to novelty and 'shock-value' to impress their audience. Artists of yore impressed their audiences, but I think there's a valid argument for saying that they did so more through their skill and effort, and that modern 'gallery-artists' try to do so through by-passing the long route of skill and effort and shocking their audience with a sight that is radically new visually, such as with a collection of coloured squares on a large canvas: people are so used to seeing 'fine art' hung up in galleries that when someone comes along and instead puts up a big canvas with some coloured squares on it, that have clearly taken at least some time to paint, the viewer, bored from centuries of the same style of picture, can't help themselves but exclaim "yeah! that's cool. that's rock-and-roll. that's based."; I think it's pretty much the same effect as when a new buzz-word enters the popular lexicon and slang, like how everyone recently had been saying "fever-dream" a lot, "based" is another popular one right now, words that just kind-of sound cool so they stick for a while, but ultimately don't have any 'depth' of meaning so don't last.

I've defined art as that which entertains outside of an utilitarian context. I think this definition can only really be considered in the 'present moment' and doesn't really have any meaning when considering a question like "the greatest works of art of all time". My definition considers "what is art?" with respect to the present moment only: i.e., right now—forgetting about before and later—is this creation entertaining anyone outside of an utilitarian context? if the answer is yes, then it exists as art, if no, then it does not. "Which is 'greater' art?", though being a question very closely tied to the reddit thread in question, is not something I'll talk about here; it's a very deep topic in itself.

=======================
Second part.
=======================

Myself, I've never actually been able to enjoy static-pictorial-art very much. As a teenager I remember enjoying browsing pictures by the 'classical' "masters" and by the Pre-Raphaelites, and a few of those pictures, or at least impressions of them, have stuck with me. Static-pictorial-art (sorry for the long term, I just don't know what else to call it in the modern age when our general definition of art has expanded so gloriously to include so many other media) has just never really grabbed me and made me want to dive deeper into it, to learn more about it, to appreciate more its composition and cultural context; or at least, if it did, then there was always some other medium that drew me more strongly, and not having infinite time on my hands, I would always go with whatever was pulling me harder. Similarly, after my teenage years, I've never really wanted to hang any pictures on my wall; I have ASD, so maybe that accounts for it; but I just find the 'repetition' of always having the same picture pass across your vision whenever you glance up a bit annoying, honestly, with the exceptions of computer wallpapers and video-game menu screens, I guess. Say I was "a very wealthy man" and had my own special picture-gallery in my house, with other media that interest me more—games, books, music, film, animation—I just don't think I'd ever want to give time over to going into that gallery to study any of its pictures.

I love good video-games, like the best of Zelda and Mario; I love books and language; I love music; I love good film, animation and short-film. I've already got a lifetime of stuff to enjoy there without static-pictorial-art. Honestly, the question does often come to mind whether in the past static-pictorial-art was so exalted just because a lot of these other media simply didn't exist! Several years ago I was touring Scotland and I stayed at this hostel in the mountains south of Inverness. I met this girl there who was studying fine-art or art-history or something like that. One day we sat down and she showed me some pictures she was studying on her laptop. She explained to me how she was being taught to appreciate a painting, with respect to its perspective and composition and so on. She could talk well about it, but I just couldn't help feeling like she was reciting something she'd been taught, like the passion was missing, like she didn't really care about the art itself but was more concerned with getting the degree for its own sake; reminded me a little of the bland and dispassionate way some tour-guides will conduct themselves with. Nothing really about her, as she was talking, really jumped out at me as saying "I really love this! I'd do this all the time if I could!". And, I don't know, I guess that experience kind-of reinforced my preconception that 'gallery-art' in general is forced and disingenuous in feeling, a lot of the time. 

Having said that, I am in the process of making a YouTube channel myself, and am finding it necessary to learn how to animate a bit, and so, pretty-much automatically because of that, I find myself spending a little longer, when I see a picture in the style I like, studying its shapes and colours and trying to figure out how the artist made it. Ironically also, without artists of static pictures, I have no video-games, and I have no animations, so...

Maybe just to add here that pictures that grab me most strongly (waifus excluded here obviously...) are those that tell a story in their composition: pictures, from any period of history, in which the faces, the blocking of its characters, the scenery, all work together to tell a story to the viewer; generally I find those that have a greater number of characters in them, and which have a greater range of perspective to their scenery (distance between foregrounds and backgrounds), strike me more effectively in this regard also. In short, I guess I prefer generally those that are more "theatrical" or "dramatic" in nature. I remember this picture called "Work" by a Ford Madox Brown:

just google "Work Ford Madox Brown" to see it.

That's it, that's all I wanted to say.]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9539.html Sat, 02 Dec 2023 03:39:32 +0000 Lunatique]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9539.html
Now, all these years later, I still stand by these tips and I would give them to any young artist serious about developing their artistic knowledge, skill, and sensibility. 


  top_ten_tips.jpg (Size: 981.26 KB / Downloads: 475) ]]>
Now, all these years later, I still stand by these tips and I would give them to any young artist serious about developing their artistic knowledge, skill, and sensibility. 


  top_ten_tips.jpg (Size: 981.26 KB / Downloads: 475) ]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9532.html Mon, 20 Nov 2023 00:22:46 +0000 Lunatique]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9532.html
I was one of the early digital artists during the first wave that congregated in online digital art forums in the late 90s and aughts--namely, the OG, Sijun, and then the spinoff, eatpoo (yes, it's a juvenile name, and the name reflected the younger, more rebellious crowd), then later conceptart.org, and CGTalk/CGSociety which also includes 3D and VFX. For those of you who weren't part of that first wave, let me tell ya--it was glorious. Artists of all levels--from the greenest noob to the most advanced masters and superstars working on AAA games, Hollywood blockbusters, book covers for famous authors, teaching at prestigious art schools, etc. We all hung out and talked like equals in general discussions, and in art-related threads, the advanced artists shared their valuable insights, gave critiques, and taught lessons, and the less experienced artists soaked all of it up like sponges. Even just the discussions among the advanced artists were incredibly valuable because when you witness masters talk among themselves, they will talk about things that less experienced artists have never even thought about, and it was profoundly illuminating what masters actually struggle with and are concerned about compared to those who have not reached their level.

And then it all slowly crumbled when giant hub sites like CGHUB (and later Artstation) came along, and social media also took over. Slowly artists left the art forums and just posted on their social media or art hub page for their followers (or in hopes of gaining followers), where there was basically zero engagement because no discussions happened in the comment section of those posts--people just clicked on like or typed out a short effusive praise (or sometimes a snarky comment), and that was it. Places like subreddits while had some interaction, it's a horrible platform for anything visual because it doesn't function like a normal forum in its structure or features, and most I've seen were run by people who act more like tyrants than trying to create and maintain a community that truly helps artists grow, with unreasonable and oddball rules they enforce with inexplicable rigor. Discord is the latest in the evolution of social interaction online, and it has also not been ideal, because when people post their work, very little engagement happens based on discussions of the work, and any experienced artist will either get swarmed by beginners hungry for answers, or get ignored because no one feels like they have enough knowledge or experience to comment on the work of someone who's far more advanced. So it's just people posting emoji reactions and that's it. Whatever exceptions there might be, are too few and too infrequent to even come close to the kind of community digital artists had back in the day. 

From the oldest posts here, it appears the person who created this forum felt the same way and wanted to create a place where digital artists can once again have the kind of community that once existed back then. However, from how things look, it is just limping along, with very little traffic and activity, and there is almost no presence of veteran advanced artists to shepherd the next generation of aspiring artists, or even just talking among themselves about the advanced issues they struggle with as experienced artists, and the less experienced artists can listen in and learn from their hard-won insights. In some ways, this is understandable, because once online paid education for digital art became a thing, anyone with enough experience would rather earn an additional income stream with that hard-won knowledge and experience, because god knows we don't get paid enough for the amount of love we pour into what we do, not to mention how stressful working as professional artist can be, especially in the entertainment industry. So advanced artists prefer to stay out of places where they'll just get swarmed by less experienced artists with endless questions, and that means they only post to their social media and art hub portfolio page, and whatever interaction they crave with other advanced artists, will have to be in private, at the studios they work at, or private small groups they have formed with colleagues and friends. 

Although I can logically explain why things are the way they are, I still lament the loss of what we had back then. Maybe this post is just me mourning what we lost, and what the younger generation will never get to experience. Part of me wanted to start posting here just to see if doing so will eventually lead to changes that will turn this place into what we had back then. But of course this is just wishful thinking, because when all those old art forums eventually died, they all struggled for years to keep things going but finally had to call it quits. 

Anyway, I guess I'm posting this to gauge what the response will be like, and then go from there.]]>
I was one of the early digital artists during the first wave that congregated in online digital art forums in the late 90s and aughts--namely, the OG, Sijun, and then the spinoff, eatpoo (yes, it's a juvenile name, and the name reflected the younger, more rebellious crowd), then later conceptart.org, and CGTalk/CGSociety which also includes 3D and VFX. For those of you who weren't part of that first wave, let me tell ya--it was glorious. Artists of all levels--from the greenest noob to the most advanced masters and superstars working on AAA games, Hollywood blockbusters, book covers for famous authors, teaching at prestigious art schools, etc. We all hung out and talked like equals in general discussions, and in art-related threads, the advanced artists shared their valuable insights, gave critiques, and taught lessons, and the less experienced artists soaked all of it up like sponges. Even just the discussions among the advanced artists were incredibly valuable because when you witness masters talk among themselves, they will talk about things that less experienced artists have never even thought about, and it was profoundly illuminating what masters actually struggle with and are concerned about compared to those who have not reached their level.

And then it all slowly crumbled when giant hub sites like CGHUB (and later Artstation) came along, and social media also took over. Slowly artists left the art forums and just posted on their social media or art hub page for their followers (or in hopes of gaining followers), where there was basically zero engagement because no discussions happened in the comment section of those posts--people just clicked on like or typed out a short effusive praise (or sometimes a snarky comment), and that was it. Places like subreddits while had some interaction, it's a horrible platform for anything visual because it doesn't function like a normal forum in its structure or features, and most I've seen were run by people who act more like tyrants than trying to create and maintain a community that truly helps artists grow, with unreasonable and oddball rules they enforce with inexplicable rigor. Discord is the latest in the evolution of social interaction online, and it has also not been ideal, because when people post their work, very little engagement happens based on discussions of the work, and any experienced artist will either get swarmed by beginners hungry for answers, or get ignored because no one feels like they have enough knowledge or experience to comment on the work of someone who's far more advanced. So it's just people posting emoji reactions and that's it. Whatever exceptions there might be, are too few and too infrequent to even come close to the kind of community digital artists had back in the day. 

From the oldest posts here, it appears the person who created this forum felt the same way and wanted to create a place where digital artists can once again have the kind of community that once existed back then. However, from how things look, it is just limping along, with very little traffic and activity, and there is almost no presence of veteran advanced artists to shepherd the next generation of aspiring artists, or even just talking among themselves about the advanced issues they struggle with as experienced artists, and the less experienced artists can listen in and learn from their hard-won insights. In some ways, this is understandable, because once online paid education for digital art became a thing, anyone with enough experience would rather earn an additional income stream with that hard-won knowledge and experience, because god knows we don't get paid enough for the amount of love we pour into what we do, not to mention how stressful working as professional artist can be, especially in the entertainment industry. So advanced artists prefer to stay out of places where they'll just get swarmed by less experienced artists with endless questions, and that means they only post to their social media and art hub portfolio page, and whatever interaction they crave with other advanced artists, will have to be in private, at the studios they work at, or private small groups they have formed with colleagues and friends. 

Although I can logically explain why things are the way they are, I still lament the loss of what we had back then. Maybe this post is just me mourning what we lost, and what the younger generation will never get to experience. Part of me wanted to start posting here just to see if doing so will eventually lead to changes that will turn this place into what we had back then. But of course this is just wishful thinking, because when all those old art forums eventually died, they all struggled for years to keep things going but finally had to call it quits. 

Anyway, I guess I'm posting this to gauge what the response will be like, and then go from there.]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9441.html Thu, 27 Oct 2022 02:27:12 +0000 Jephyr]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9441.html
Of course there's a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo they expect you to read and I tried.  

My main question is about how those sites use the images you post.

Here's part of Art Station's I just snipped:


  Art Station Art License 10-26-2022.png (Size: 97.76 KB / Downloads: 479)

I see a lot of people here using AS in particular and I'm wondering about the part where they have you grant them a royalty free PERPETUAL license even if they're not selling it — to MODIFY and distribute what people post.  

Does anyone have any problem with that?  Is that just legal-ese for maintaining the site?  

I'm curious to know what anyone here who is signed up on those kinds of sites feels about that — is that a non-issue for you?]]>
Of course there's a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo they expect you to read and I tried.  

My main question is about how those sites use the images you post.

Here's part of Art Station's I just snipped:


  Art Station Art License 10-26-2022.png (Size: 97.76 KB / Downloads: 479)

I see a lot of people here using AS in particular and I'm wondering about the part where they have you grant them a royalty free PERPETUAL license even if they're not selling it — to MODIFY and distribute what people post.  

Does anyone have any problem with that?  Is that just legal-ese for maintaining the site?  

I'm curious to know what anyone here who is signed up on those kinds of sites feels about that — is that a non-issue for you?]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9436.html Thu, 06 Oct 2022 14:41:31 +0000 ZombieChinchilla]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9436.html
It was a post with a 10 or 20 or so page comic, I think from the like 90s or early 00s, that was an old-school adventure comic that another artist had drawn over and critiqued. It also had two or three pages of handwritten advice, one of which I printed out and taped to my wall years ago. This is what I have:



It looks like the artist giving the critique was ME or MET. I would LOVE to find these again and any help is SERIOUSLY appreciated. Thank you!!]]>
It was a post with a 10 or 20 or so page comic, I think from the like 90s or early 00s, that was an old-school adventure comic that another artist had drawn over and critiqued. It also had two or three pages of handwritten advice, one of which I printed out and taped to my wall years ago. This is what I have:



It looks like the artist giving the critique was ME or MET. I would LOVE to find these again and any help is SERIOUSLY appreciated. Thank you!!]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9432.html Sun, 02 Oct 2022 18:11:46 +0000 SHIRUBA]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9432.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j6LyKwtZ7I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LqIoFB62Rw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XZVcLLg8kM

I've shared these sentiments for a while now, and after watching these videos, I probably won't be using Instagram in the near future.

What are your thoughts on this? Not just Instagram, but other socials in general as well. How much are they worth it for artist in 2022? Should you take the good with the bad?]]>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j6LyKwtZ7I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LqIoFB62Rw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XZVcLLg8kM

I've shared these sentiments for a while now, and after watching these videos, I probably won't be using Instagram in the near future.

What are your thoughts on this? Not just Instagram, but other socials in general as well. How much are they worth it for artist in 2022? Should you take the good with the bad?]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9426.html Mon, 15 Aug 2022 00:20:36 +0000 leo_7]]> //crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-9426.html