>"noooo anon, you have to understand! this horse is GOOD because of its imperfections. its crude construction and horrible execution are LE SOVL. depicting something the way it would look in real life in SOVLLESS! art is about FEELINGS, not skill! there's no value in art that's made with attention to detail and accuracy! you should become a CAD engineer or doctor if you care about mechanical or anatomical accuracy! there's no place for autists in the art community!"i know this is /ic/'s consensus, but is this really how artists in general think? i feel like the only technician in a room full of performers.
pyw technician
This horse is good art because it's more interesting to look at than a realistic horse
>>8050147sure. i have a few examples herehttps://itaku.ee/images/1315188https://itaku.ee/images/1317896https://itaku.ee/images/1256622https://itaku.ee/images/1348257floor plans are all mine, but the exteriors are existing 3D models or orthographic drawings. they're not the best (you should see TattooedHobbit on DeviantArt, they're the best!), but i try really hard to measure stuff out.i'm getting my next project mapped out in 3D so i can make the interiors perfect instead of me just trying to guess based on external features.
>>8050151zoz
What in the ever-loving fuck are you talking about? Just draw, faggot.
>>8050151perspective is fucked up, which is strange considering people that are so anal about technical skill are usually hyuge on perspective
>>8050142>but is this really how artists in general think?Well, there's a lot of terribly shit 'art' out there, but I think either something has appeal, or it doesn't. The more technically proficient an artist is, the more likely they are to draw something appealing, but that doesn't mean it's the case 100% of the time.That horse, for example, as goofy and ugly as it is -- does have a charm to it.I would pay for a poster or painting of it, but I would find it charming as a character in a comic.So I suppose appeal is also dependent on context as well.
