Depends on the person really. If I know a guy actually consistently does interesting descriptions ( which you can usually gauge just by reading the user comments ), I'd take a look at it. Otherwise, no, I'm in for the art. Don't judge me for it please!
Yes, I always read the description It kinda represents someone's work and the story behind it. Also, I am sometimes interested in what media na artist used to create some traditional painting.
But somehow, I ALWAYS skip the part that someone used somebody else's lineart and I always comment how good the lineart is, but the colouring could use a bit more shading :/ And I end up looking like an A-hole
I do read them. Unless its some lore on a certain thing, which i will read if I'm interested. Usually the descriptions is about how the person came about with this work, or the reasoning behind certain things.
I like to find some details about the making : the tool used, the time, the difficulties and technical details. If there is more to say about the background, the universe behind the picture I'm interested too But this has to be quite short or well presented to help the reading. I feel quite annoying a copy paste of a wikipedia article in the description...
I only read it if I'm thinking of putting a comment or faving the piece, otherwise I don't really read them, especially if they're long.
As for my own descriptions, I don't like to write much, I just write what I used to create the artwork and if it's fanart who the character is and that's about it, sometimes I may add a little bit more info but nothing much, I like to keep it short.
I usually read the text parts, and glance at lists (stock used etc.) I really like to read descriptions that give the pic additional depth. I also like to know which stock was used - free and bought. Just copying in song lyrics or long texts where you always have the feeling that. You are missing the key bore me, though.
If the piece doesnt have a description, I just admire it, and that's it, I dont feel nothing if it doesnt have a description. I rather pieces that have descriptions though, you can actually get more into the artwork if you read the artist comment
Always, if it's something that's caught my attention and I've favourited it. I always tend to have to read the description for the stock photos I collect too for drawing refs since they have individual rules.
Generally, yes, I read the descriptions of a piece. It's mostly if I intend on asking a question; I check to see if the question is already answered in the description. If I'm just going to comment on how I like the piece, and a specific look about it, then I may skim the description
I think its kind of important to read the descriptions generally. However, they are especially important if you plan on commenting on the artwork. Largely because you don't want to make some statement in your comment about what the work is about, only to later find out that the artist already wrote some information about the themes and ideas that influenced it - and that you way off the mark. The artist might than not be impressed that you didn't take the time to understand fully where it was they were coming from.
Yes. The comments under a piece of artwork can be very important. The biggest example for me is when an artist copies another artist's work- what's in the comments section can make the difference between me feeling that the artist has integrity (the artist acknowledged the source he/she worked from) or thinking he/she's just another PoS art thief. Sometimes knowing the story behind a work can enrich it. Sometimes knowing how something was done could mean another artist tries something different & learns a new skill. (We're a community, right?)
My personal policy is to indicate size, media & if I've used anyone else's work as reference, dead or alive, to list it, & in the case of collages where I've straight out used another artist's work (99.9% of the time the artist has been dead for around 100 years, which means the work is in free usage [usually])...I sure as hell indicate that.
I saw that the first time last night actually when I was browsing the popular/new section. I found a 15 year old artist who in her own style had re-painted `yuumei's spirit deer/ duck picture except it had flowers on the horns as well as leaves. It was a nice copy/ remake but the fact that they lacked to mention where they very obviously got the inspiration/ idea from really ticked me off.
It is. Similarly it is enjoyable to have explanations/descriptions given when a daily deviation is presented. Also then merely posting: This artist, this art, kind of looses the feel, but adding several of sentenses, or atleast one or two, makes it feel right.
Yes, always. I don't mind if it's a full explanation of the concept shown in the pic/lit piece, or just a comment saying 'I had so much fun doing this! ' I'll like it anyway. When the artist doesn't leave a word, or they type '...' I feel as if the artist doesn't care about what he or she just uploaded. Actually it's the same feeling I get when I see a DD with no comment from the one who gave the feature.
Agreed. And sometimes some art or a photograph needs an explanation to solve the question of why it had been done in just that certain way. I've just commented with the DD example a moment ago (just before reading your reply!) so yes, no comment given there also doesn't feel right.
The only description I personally consider necessary is size of the work and materials/tools used. If other people's references or stock images were used, it's fair toward the original photographer to link them.