Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 8, 2011
Link

Statistics

Replies: 82

How would you classify my art?

:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Hi,

I'm curious....

Please take a look at my gallery and let me know how you would would classify my art, mainly my paintings. What category would you put me in?

I'm asking because I'm trying to find my target audience.

Thanks so much :)
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconartofjeffhebert:
ArtofJeffHebert Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2011  Professional Digital Artist
Naive Art. Seriously! And I like it! Reminds me of refined Picasso portraiture. And I like the colors you use.
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thanks Jeffbear21 :)
Reply
:iconartofjeffhebert:
ArtofJeffHebert Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2011  Professional Digital Artist
No problem. I looked up Naive Art after it was brought up I this thread and I would definitively say it belongs there. I however hate the name. "Naive" has always had a negative stigma I would prefer Whimsical Portraiture lol. Or Whimsical Art.
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thanks Jeff...I really appreciate your feedback
Reply
:icongarnet-moon:
garnet-moon Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2011
perilousrealms is absolutely correct. Art doesnt fit in a box. Can't, won't, and shouldn't. By encouraging people to be different, qwirky, unique, that brings out true geniousness. Not copying what so-and-so is doing. freedom of religion is the same as freedom of art. My art IS my religion, and thats how I choose to express it. I think Seraphine only wanted an indication if her work was more abstract or impressionist, or even expressionist. I think, myself, I see Seraphine's art as expressionist.
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thank you garnet....that absolutely makes sense.
Reply
:iconredsteam:
RedSteam Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2011  Student General Artist
Well, if you have YOUR style than it doesn't have a category
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
well, that doesn't necessarily make sense.
Everyone has their own style...but can fit into a category somehow.
Reply
:iconredsteam:
RedSteam Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2011  Student General Artist
Sorry i'll try to explain better, everyone has their own style but except for the artists who created that category it's rare to trully fit into a category, even if you limit yourself and put a lot of effort into one unique style also everyone will look in a different way to your style.

(For example, one teacher of mine categorise some of my works as "influenced by impressionism" another "with surrealist inspiration" some friends see other drawings with my style as "cartoony" others as "like anime" any classification is imprecise because it changes from person to person.)

Peaple usually see art as fitting into adjectives/caracteristics not categories, for example i see this one from your gallery as: [link]
"fluid, relaxing, watercolor, confortable colors"
Reply
:iconvineris:
Vineris Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Looks like Naive Art to me. It's a legitimate style/genre: [link]
I think you probably ought to study naive art more, figure out what's appealing about it and what seems to work for other people.
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thanks Vineris...that's actually the first answer that pertains to the question i asked! I appreciate it and i'll definitely look into it.
Reply
:iconerspears:
erspears Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011  Professional
By and large, your paintings are cartoons. However, they are cartoons that do not display any knowledge or understanding of anatomy or volume. They are so flat. It's generally recommended that even those who are drawing cartoons have a solid understanding of the fundamentals of drawing, which includes the accurate rendering of volume.

I'm not recommending that you forget what you're doing and start drawing realistically. I'm recommending that you start thinking of the people you draw and paint not as flat images but instead as 2D renderings of 3D objects. Your work will be so much better for it.

I understand that you say everything you do is intentional, but I don't buy it. You've got next to no training, and you've not studied, or at least not studied the right way. Without training and (proper) study there can be little intention in your work where its form is concerned, as everything will be essentially by accident. You seem to think that you've come across a style that is unique and good, but I'm telling you that whatever "style" you have is purely indicative of a lack of experience drawing, and thinking otherwise is just self-deception.

I disagree with ~Snaphaan's suggestion of finding new subject matter that more closely fits the way you draw. I think you need to learn to draw better, not find different subject matter.

Good luck to you.
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
erspears...thanks for your response. I appreciate that you took the time.

You don't buy it, ok...no problem. It's true though...it is intentional.

I don't mean this in a rude way but how do you know I've got next to no training and that i haven't studied? I have.

I may "seem" to think something but I'll ask you to please not assume (again, I'm saying this without tone).

Thanks again.
Reply
:iconerspears:
erspears Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011  Professional
I said it because of the way your work looks, and because you said this: "I'm not extremely well educated in art but I'm not stupid." Art training and education isn't all about intelligence, or lack thereof, so you being stupid or not is besides the point. It's about acquired skill, and it's acquired through repetition. I do not see any of that in your work. I see mistakes made by a beginner, mistakes that beginners have always made, and if you're replicating those mistakes of beginners on purpose, and have been for years...I have to ask WHY? To what end?
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
When i said "I'm not stupid", I meant in terms of art. Maybe stupid wasn't the right word.

What are "mistakes"? Is this a test? It's a piece of art. I'm really not trying to be rude, if we were sitting right in front of each other, we'd be calmly debating, so please don't be insulted.

I'm not a beginner. I'm 35 years old and have been painting/drawing/taking pictures etc for at least 20 years. I studied art and photography for three years. I don't have a BFA in anything, I didn't study technical drawing or anything like that, but the program i studied is equivalent to a university degree (in my province/country).

Finally...you have to ask why? Why exactly do you care (no tone)? Again, I have to mention how i started this thread...with the question of which category can i put my art in. How it got to the point where everyone who comes here feels the burning desire to give me some tough love about my art, i'll never know.

In any case, erspears, i do appreciate the time you took and the advice you gave. Thank you.
Reply
:iconerspears:
erspears Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2011  Professional
"What are "mistakes"? Is this a test? It's a piece of art."

It's not a test. But to suggest that there aren't mistakes in your work, or that because it's a piece of art is inherently devoid of mistakes or somehow above criticism, is ludicrous. Yes, there are mistakes in your work. There are mistakes in my work, as well. For both of us, many are anatomical. It's also a lack of technique in using your chosen media. I know you've said previously that you don't make realistic images--nobody's asking you to, or at least I'm not. But a practical, basic understanding of human anatomy WILL make your images more compelling. I'm not asking you to know how to draw dissected organs or an accurate human skeleton, but I do think that knowing the proportions of a real human figure will help your portraiture. And if you already have that understanding, apply it to your work!

Why are you so resistant to answering the question? I ask why because if you have the skills you say you do, why not use them? If you don't use them, you'll lose them. Why you started the thread is irrelevant. This is the direction the thread went, and it's out of your control. This is the nature of conversation. So, why do you draw this way intentionally? With the experience you say you have you surely must be able to see that your work looks like it came from someone who only just started drawing.
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Of course there are "mistakes" in anatomy...I've already said that that i realize the human forms i paint are not realistically done.

You do realize that there aren't any rules to art right? What gives you the authority to turn around and give me a list of mistakes in my work. What gives anyone the right to to turn around and do that to anyone? (please realize i'm merely debating here, i'm not fired up and arguing).

I'm saying, let's forget about school for second, let's forget about things that are drummed into our heads. Let's just let people be who they want to be. Let's for one second imagine that we have freedom of expression....oh wait...we do.

I never claimed my art was perfect. When questioned mistakes, i never meant that my work does not have any and it's perfect. I just meant that no one really has the right to start pointing out mistakes. If they do, it's purely in a technical sense, and then we're beyond art.

There's a lack of technique? Why? Because the technique i use isn't documented in some text book? Because i didn't learn how to "properly" use watercolours? So let me get this straight, because i experiment, use my own technique and my own expression...my work is crude, childish and shows lack of experience/education?

Now that's ludicrous.

I'm not denying that any education of art would benefit me. It would...in fact, i often say that if...now when (haha) i ever win the lottery, i'd quite my job and study art. I really would! But my education would not make my work "more compelling"...it would make it different. Perhaps i'd gain some fans, maybe i'd lose some too.

I'm not resistant to answering your question. I'm just trying to figure out why the question is so important to you. You say that i have to go with the flow of this conversation? So do you. This thread isn't about me anymore...it's a debate about art. Roll with it.
Reply
:iconerspears:
erspears Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2011  Professional
"Let's just let people be who they want to be. Let's for one second imagine that we have freedom of expression....oh wait...we do."

Nobody's stopping you from doing what you do. If you think that's what's going on, you've missed something along the way. I never asked you or told you to stop drawing the way you draw, painting the way you paint, or to find different subject matter.

"I just meant that no one really has the right to start pointing out mistakes."

Fuck yes they do! The very instant you put something out into the world, whether it's online or on the street, you open your work up to criticism. This is part of being an artist. After 20 years of producing art I'm surprised you're not aware of that. This is actually part of why I put my work on this site--so people can tell me what I'm doing wrong, and what I'm doing right. Yes, I want to show off my work because I'm proud of it, but I'm not so proud of it that I am not open to criticism. I LOVE criticism! It makes me better! It makes EVERYONE better!

You should be glad people are giving you this much attention, especially if it's with a critical eye. I wouldn't bother critiquing your work if I didn't think it didn't have potential, if there already wasn't something that interested me in it, whether in your subject matter or the images themselves. I want you to be better, to be able to express better, for your images to look better. I look at things critically. I am trained to.

"So let me get this straight, because i experiment, use my own technique and my own expression...my work is crude, childish and shows lack of experience/education?"

No. You have no technique. You have no style. You work intuitively, the way a child does, the way someone who is just beginning to draw does. In the beginning of a person's life as an art-maker, all art is experimentation. That's part of learning. But, unless one is dedicated to improving their work, which DOES include learning actual techniques, i.e. learning form, his or her work will stagnate. If what you're showing us on DA is the result of 20 years of making images, you've been stagnant for a good long while. There is work in your gallery that goes back several years, and it's the same as the work from 2011. This is evidence that, while you may have been making art for a while, you haven't worked at making it better. You've been endlessly experimenting with different media, all while repeating the exact same mistakes that hinder your work. You draw like a child because you always have. Your work is content without form. Form is what communicates content.

There are two pieces, though, that are VERY different, and they are the oldest and most compelling in your gallery! They show an attention to detail and proportion that is lacking in much of the rest of your work. One of them comes close to having a passable likeness of your subject, even! It's not just the likeness and attention to proportion that makes them more compelling images, because that's not even the whole point, it's the sense of composition in them, especially Dark Angelina. It guides the eye around the image and back again, which is what a good composition SHOULD do. That brings me to the next bit:

"I'm not resistant to answering your question. I'm just trying to figure out why the question is so important to you."

If you're not resistant to it, then answer it. It's important to me because that's the crux of this whole thing. You say it's all intentional. That every line and mark and brush-stroke is where it is and the way it is for a reason. What is the reason? I see no intention. I see no plan. I see accidents. I see chance. I want to understand what your intention is to make better sense of your work.

If you have these observational skills that let you create those Angelina drawings, and the ability to compose an image that is compelling, and keeps the viewers eyes on it, why create these other images that are so far removed from reality, that use none of the skills you may have picked up in your years of study and practice?

So, if the way you do is indeed intentional, what is the intent? What are expressing and communicating to your viewer?

"If they do [have the right to criticize], it's purely in a technical sense, and then we're beyond art."

No again. If art is about expression of thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions, and everything to do with human existence, it's just as much about critically analyzing that same expression. The truth is that every expression and every action is fair game for criticism. In the world of art, this is a guiding principle. There is nothing that can't be, or shouldn't be, reflected on and critically examined.

"You say that i have to go with the flow of this conversation? So do you. This thread isn't about me anymore...it's a debate about art. Roll with it."

If you don't mind me saying, that's a childlike stance. That says to me that you are not interested in my response in this line of conversation, which in turn says that you and I were not actually having a conversation to begin with. If that's the case, I don't know why I even bothered talking to you.

:shrug:
Reply
:iconmoderngrendel:
ModernGrendel Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011  Student Traditional Artist
"Mistakes"?

The point of the matter is that the watercolors are not treated with skill. It looks uneducated and naive. That look is a mistake, becuase if it is abstracted it should look like it was abstracted *with intent*. Right now it looks like accident or poor execution or that you have no idea how to handle or work the medium you're using.

The color is monotoned and flat, it shows no attention to the shadows, shape or form of the musculature and bone of the head. There's no distinct light source, and the colors don't show the variation that exists in real skin tones. There's no muting of colors using their opposites, no use of blues or greens that are part of skin shadows. There's no shadowing at all except for under the eyes and around the clavicle bones.

Good examples of watercolor being used with technical skill in portraits:
[link]
[link]
now you may look at those and be put off by the realism, but abstraction doesn't always mean ignore reality. It means you exaggerate, you tease out, and you explore the shapes and colors and connections within the work, but even with that it's generally important when painting a portrait to know the fundementals of art and be good at observing and studying real anatomy and real people. The following are some examples of simpler styles of watercolor.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Now in those you can feel the weight of the flesh on the head, you can see how the shadows and lights and color variants clarify and render the head as an actual physical thing. These are not flat, they paint the head as the three dimensional object it is.

Now, these are the last two paintings from her gallery:
[link]
In this the colors are flatly painted. Except for the background which was not painted fast enough or at an angle so you can see where portions dried and the lines pooling (though this may be an intended effect I am unsure). the arms are given no anatomical representation. The clavicles that are a part of the shoulder girdle do not attach to the shoulder at all and instead are placed in the neck. If such a person existed they would never be able to move their arms because the clavicle is a necessary part of the shoulder socket. The lips, eyes, and nose are heavily outlined, ill proportioned offset and unbalanced. None of them are drawn true to form or shape of actual human parts. This is fine if it is intentional, but the hard aspect of making things wrong intentionally is having the work be so damned good that the viewer knows such abstractions and configurations are purposeful and not the hand of a sloppy unobservant artist.
[link]
This one holds many of the same mistakes.
Reply
:iconforgotten-light:
forgotten-light Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011
I'd call your art simple surrel portraits. I do like what you've got going on, and I notice the intentianal exageration of certain features and turning other things like hair into simple shapes. I would recomend pushing this a bit further, and trying to add emotion to your work. Your faces are by no means bad, but they lack emotion and a little bit static. Try doing someone angry and push it to the edge in exageration, or happy and have the smile way too big. These seems to be the way you are headning almost, but that is just an idea of course.
I'd suggest taking a look at what you do right now and ask what you want it to be like. Your paintings are fine, but you do seem stuck on what type of style you want to go for. I'd recommend experimenting as well with things outside what you do completely. You may discover something new, or find something to help with your current work.
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thanks forgotten-light. I appreciate your feedback.
Reply
:iconmoderngrendel:
ModernGrendel Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Student Traditional Artist
Well I'd classify it as "needs improvement".

Your paintings lack any understanding of the form or structure to the anatomy of the face and head and lack an understanding of lighting and color.
Your photo portraits are all digitally manipulated to death and of the same angle and shot with the same lighting. Repetition in excess.
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
ModernGrendel...thank you for responding.

I'm beginning to regret asking this question because i highly doubt anyone understands what I'm asking.

Thanks for another unsolicited critique on my work.

I'll explain to you as well that everything i do is intentional. I'm not extremely well educated in art but I'm not stupid. I'm quite aware that the people I paint are not anatomically correct nor are they realistic. THIS IS ON PURPOSE.

I didn't ask about the photography really, I asked specifically about the paintings. Those self portraits were for fun, taken with my iPhone, but thanks.

Sorry, I am not trying to be rude, I am just frustrated because all I really want is a classification of my work. You know : popart, realism, cubism, romanticism ETC.

Thank you
Reply
:iconmoderngrendel:
ModernGrendel Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Student Traditional Artist
We understand what you are asking. And we've forgone that in order not to give you what you want to hear, but what you need to hear. It's not a lack of reading comprehension on our part.

Oh, passive aggressive "thanks for another unsolicited critique on my work". Joy.

You made a thread in a forum about art, asking about your art. We are merely telling you about your art. Critique comes from all places and at all moments, not just when you ask for it. Take the critique and better yourself rather than cripple yourself in some petty fit of butthurt.


Oh, so you purposefully do poor work? Okay then, show me you KNOW how to render the form and anatomy correctly. Picasso was a great realistic painter before he made his own genre. But even he had to prove that he had the fundamentals of realism down before anyone would take him as more than some mediocre child scribbling away. So purpose or no, your work should show that you are disfiguring people with intent. Right now the intent is not there, it's sloppy and uncommunicative to the viewer and the technical skill is lacking.

All you want. BAH! You want people to spew hollow nothings at you and pat you on the head about your art. That's nonsense. So you want a real classification of your art? "Childish". "Crude". "Messy". "Shows no technical skill or experience in wielding the medium".
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
also...I don't want anyone to "spew" anything, thanks. I never asked for a pat on the head.
I wanted a classification. "Childish", "Crude", "Messy"?....good job Miss Sarcastic.

And FYI....the people that have seen my work...family, friends, strangers.....have always given it positive reviews. I understand not everyone is going to like what i do, but never have i encountered someone so bitter as to pursue a conversation such as this.

Get off your high horse.
Reply
:iconmoderngrendel:
ModernGrendel Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Student Traditional Artist
Of course family friends and strangers give you good reviews. Your family and friends want to support you, and strangers must be polite out of social etiquette. It's also important to note that none of these people (I'm going to assume here, please tell me if I am wrong) have been classically and formally trained in art? Positivie reviews mean nothing unless they come from a somewhat educated standpoint. You wouldn't ask a four year old what car to buy, and you don't ask non-artists about art if you want an honest worldly answer.
Reply
:icongarnet-moon:
garnet-moon Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011
I'll repeat my comment, since it appears to have been deleted. Yes, you are wrong. I have extensive academic training and experience in art, and I do not think you're comments were meant to be constructive, but a somewhat hurtful opinion. If you are not an artist, then you cannot say that her art is only appreciated by social etiquette. And yes, I like her work, its different, its dark, moody, figurative, sometimes abstract, and its expressive. I guess I have an ability to feeeeeeel art better than most.
Reply
:iconperilousrealms:
perilousrealms Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011
I couldn't agree with you (garnet-moon) more.
Modern Grendel- To dismiss a style of art simply because it differs from your own is not just arrogant, it's also extremely ignorant. Realism isn't the only valid form of art. I should think in this day and age our understanding of art would have progressed enough for that at least. Btw picasso might have mastered realism before experimenting with different styles but that doesn't mean all artists have to prove themselves through realism first before their art can be taken seriously. That doesn't even make any sense. Why would the aesthetic merit of a painting be dependent on what the artist might or might not be capable of doing elsewhere? Take henri rousseau for example. He never could paint realistically. But his artwork is more vibrant and memorable than a lot of dull realistic paintings. I personally would much rather wander around a gallery looking at impressionistic paintings rather than spend hours looking at seemingly identical 18th century realist portraits. That’s just my own personal taste, yours might be different. People have different taste in art. Don’t assume your own taste is universal.
Reply
:iconmoderngrendel:
ModernGrendel Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011  Student Traditional Artist
It's not the realistic part that factors in. It's the technical skill of using the specific art medium. In this case, watercolor. The watercolor here is flatly colored with no illusion of a three demensional object on a two demensional page, and the contour lines used are also flat and do nothing. The whole thing screams "beginner art" and has many flaws that are repeated and exaggerated. If the point of the art is to be ironic and bad then I'll eat my hat and agree that this fine art has lived up finely to that purpose, but I truly doubt that was their intention in painting it.
Reply
(2 Replies)
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
perilousrealms....that was incredibly insightful and mature...thank you so much for that.
Thank goodness there are still some mature people on dA
Reply
:icongarnet-moon:
garnet-moon Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011
Thank you, completely and exactly spot on.
Reply
:iconmoderngrendel:
ModernGrendel Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011  Student Traditional Artist
BFA in photography? Two-year degree study program? Did you take any of the medical anatomy classes? Cadaver lab? Self taught?

The point of the matter is that the watercolors are not treated with skill. It looks uneducated and naive. The color is monotoned and flat, it shows no attention to the shadows, shape or form of the musculature and bone of the head. There's no distinct light source, and the colors don't show the variation that exists in real skin tones. There's no muting of colors using their opposites, no use of blues or greens that are part of skin shadows. There's no shadowing at all except for under the eyes and around the clavicle bones.

Good examples of watercolor being used with technical skill in portraits:
[link]
[link]
Now in those you can feel the weight of the flesh on the head, you can see how the shadows and lights and color variants clarify and render the head as an actual physical thing. These are not flat, they paint the head as the three dimensional object it is.

Now, these are the last two paintings from her gallery:
[link]
In this the colors are flatly painted. Except for the background which was not painted fast enough or at an angle so you can see where portions dried and the lines pooling (though this may be an intended effect I am unsure). the arms are given no anatomical representation. The clavicles that are a part of the shoulder girdle do not attach to the shoulder at all and instead are placed in the neck. If such a person existed they would never be able to move their arms because the clavicle is a necessary part of the shoulder socket. The lips, eyes, and nose are heavily outlined, ill proportioned offset and unbalanced. None of them are drawn true to form or shape of actual human parts. This is fine if it is intentional, but the hard aspect of making things wrong intentionally is having the work be so damned good that the viewer knows such abstractions and configurations are purposeful and not the hand of a sloppy unobservant artist.
[link]
This one holds many of the same mistakes.

Is that more helpful? I am clear in my constructive criticism. I guess I have an ability to feeeeeeeeeeel out the truth.
Reply
:icongarnet-moon:
garnet-moon Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011
truth? LOL
keep assuming what you want. Your only proving my point.
whatever, you're input is hardly worth of more time.
cheers!
Reply
(2 Replies)
:icongarnet-moon:
garnet-moon Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011
Yes, you're wrong ;)
I have extensive academic and professional artistic training and experience. You're just being nasty.
the manner in which the responses were given have been nothing but crude, if you are artists, you KNOW how sensitive the topic of one's art is, but you've blatantly insulted her stylism. That's not honesty, it's a "damn, whose feelings can I hurt today?!" kind of response. Which, in itself, is unnecessary. So go piss in someone else's wheaties.
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I have family members who would tell me if my work wasn't good, trust me on that one. My parents, maybe not...but others, definitely.

When i say strangers...I mean that someone who i've never met before approaches ME and compliments me on my work, without any advance on my part. No one is being "polite out of social etiquette".

It is nice to get some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism from someone who has formally studied art. However, when it comes down to it....do not dismiss those who haven't. Their opinion matters more than most people realize. They may not see things that experts see, but they see from their heart. They know what they like. They are the ones that are buying the art.

Ok. I'm finished. I'm tired and i don't want to argue anymore.
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Wow.

Every word i wrote in my last post was without tone. Is there any particular reason why you have to be so hostile?

I did not ask for a critique ok? Can you understand that? I welcome criticism when it's constructive, yours is not. It is arrogant and pretentious though.

I can show you that i can draw realistically...no problem. My mum has some portraits that I did of myself and my sisters when i was in college. Why should i though? I have nothing to prove to you. Whenever i go to my parents next though, I will definitely scan those drawings. Unfortunately i don't draw like that often so i don't much else to show you.

Yes i did make a thread asking about my art...asking something SPECIFIC about my art. Not if it's good, not if you like it, etc...i asked what category i can put it in. THAT'S IT. So far no one has answered my question because it seems everyone that reads my thread is so turned off by my work that they have to let me know.


I would like to finish by saying again, thank you for your opinion. An opinion, that is all it is.
Reply
:iconmoderngrendel:
ModernGrendel Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Student Traditional Artist
Without tone? You were patronizing and passive aggressive. Ha. Without tone my foot.

You've scoffed in the faces of people who replied honestly to this thread, insulted their intelligence by insinuating they aren't capable of basic reading comprehension and understanding in your OP, and everyone who's replied you've been dismissive of what they actually say unless it is "X LABEL".
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
You don't know me. Please do not assume.

I have not "scoffed". If people were insulted by anything i said, that's on them...it was not my intention.

I have some unsolicited advice for you. Grow up.

I'm finished.

I appreciate your time.
Reply
:iconfour-skulls:
Four-Skulls Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I've got to agree with alot of what Bees said. I would classify your art as "Portraits" mainly. I'm not certain I could classify your art as a style. Though, you do have some that feel very "abstract" and "surreal".
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
thanks...appreciate it..
Reply
:iconsuperftmn:
superftmn Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Face-focused.
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
?
Reply
:iconpainted-bees:
painted-bees Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Professional Digital Artist
Unintentionally naive art. Who do you want your target audience to be?
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
i am asking because i'm trying to figure out how to get noticed.

Thanks for your answer...would you mind explaining?
Reply
:iconpainted-bees:
painted-bees Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Professional Digital Artist
what I'm trying to say is that you need to first figure out what you want your work to do for you. What do you want it to get across to your viewers? Do you want something more true to realistic forms? Or perhaps something that's stylized? Do you want work that looks expressive with visible, confident brush strokes? Or something more refined in presentation? Do you want to tell stories with it? Portraiture? Abstraction?

By asking other people to tell you what your work does for them, and who they think the "target audience" is--it's probably not the best way to go about it. You have to figure out what direction you want to take your work--otherwise, your work may appear to lack direction at all, and consequently won't do anything for anyone. You have to own your work before you can expect anyone else to :]

Once you figure out for yourself what you want to do with your work, you can build yourself up and market yourself as such, and with confidence.
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Although i appreciate your in depth response...thank you for taking the time, I'm not sure you understood what i wanted.

What you're asking...what i want my work to do for me...i already know this. I have my own style...i just want my work to touch people.

What i'm asking here is, in your opinion, which category does it fall into. Do you understand?

I asked you what you mean because you said something like unintentionally naive...i wasn't really sure what that meant.
Reply
:iconpainted-bees:
painted-bees Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Professional Digital Artist
ah--
By unintentionally naive, I mean your work comes off as uninformed/uneducated--which isn't bad if it's intentional. But in your particular case, it doesn't appear intentional. It appears like you have a poor grasp on the human form, your understanding of color seems very limited, and your compositions are flat and not very engaging. It feels like you're falling short of what you've set out to achieve with your work.

And this is OK! Like anything, art can be learned and improved upon via practice and study :] and it's good to start somewhere! The reason I asked you to tell me what you were going for is because currently, I'm not getting much of anything out of your paintings. The advice I might offer would vary depending on what you're trying to go for with your work--what you want it to achieve.

However, seeing that you do work primarily with the figure, there is a sure exercise that will help you improve with consistent practice: Study from life. I have an article that outlines the importance of life studies, how to go about it, and how it benefits the practice of anyone working with the figure in any style: [link]

I don't intend to be discouraging by any means--and hope this helps somewhat :]
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
thanks...i think?

When i asked for a classification...i really meant what category, what type.
I didn't really ask for a critique of my work.

Actually, i studied photography and art. Everything that you see is intentional. I don't try to be something i'm not. I like creating things that look or seem weird, absurd, outrageous etc.

I don't paint or draw realistically...it's probably because i studied photography for three years so if i wanted something realistic, i'd take a picture. I like to work from my imagination. That's where i get my colours, my composition etc. Apparently though, my imagination sucks LOL

Anyway, thank you very much for your feedback, i appreciate it.
Reply
:iconpainted-bees:
painted-bees Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Professional Digital Artist
I guess what my responses so far have boiled down to is: I can't classify it, it doesn't communicate anything to me so that I may classify.
It's interesting that you intend your work to look like that of an average highschool student. I'm not sure if you plan to profit off the aesthetic, but you may find difficulty in doing so.
Regardless, I wish you the best of luck! :]
Reply
:iconseraphine:
seraphine Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I don't intend my work to look like that of an average highschool student....
And i don't think it does...most people that see it don't think it does actually.
If you do, that's fine...it's your opinion and you have the right to it. I know, however, that your opinion is only an opinion (as I've mentioned before).

I do plan to profit "off the aesthetic". In fact, I already have.

Thanks everyone for your opinions, I appreciate it.
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment: