Ohh and I will say, you are obviously making tremendous progress and you should continue practicing fundamentals, but I would also advise against getting too stuck in it. both ends of the spectrum can be bad, if you never practice you won't really have the tools to express yourself properly, but if you never try to express yourself because you always practice, that is in many ways equally bad :) I say this as someone who didn't do anything other than practice portraits and character art until I was 20. Trying to put your skills into practice by making something that you care about can be quite a sobering experience, it feels like it should be easy, but it rarely is. Thanks for submitting by the way :)
One of my favorite quotes from a professor was that you should draw as if you had the mindset of a young child with the experience and physical skill of an adult. They said to children the world is so new so when they draw the artwork is charming and expressive. Over time when people grow up they tend to lose the expressiveness because they don't observe the world with the same childlike wonder and let the ideal image in their head of what the world should be dominate their vision instead of being observant.
i never had this "charm" when i was a child, idk what you're talking about, i was suffering from being bad at anything since i was born, never could enjoy anything until i'm good at it and everything happens by itself without any hard work and struggles/mistakes, but even then i couldn't enjoy the process and only the result and never had genuine engagement in any activity, only forced one, i have zero passions in this life
I dont think you ever truly break the rules (unless its really abstract work). Even if youre subverting a rule youre still playing with the expectations that are tied to it - and therefore youre still bound by the rule. I hope this makes sense
I remember posting pixel art I busted my ass to make and getting little attention. Then I posted a tiny cactus I doodled in 2 minutes and just wrote "Cactus" with no hashtags and it blew up. Still confused.
i think you just answered your own question. you didnt even tell us what the pixel art was, but so easily described the cactus. that probably means the cactus is easier to explain maybe.
I had a similar thing happen to me. Spend time and energy making rather detailed NPC portraits, and then I make a hastily drawn foot monster and the foot does better. Glad this video gave me a clearer understanding of what's actually happening than "wtf people like feet"
People's attention span are very small these days, also what anyone considers fine art like a banana taped to an easel is why some talented artists don't get taken seriously they're hoodwinked by low effort crap
I don't want the takeaway from this video to be that you shouldn't practice or that it isn't important to become good. I just think it is important to understand that the meaning of "good" for a lot of beginners can sometimes be skewed, and it's important to also be playful and engaging, its a non-flashy skill but that is often where the substance is. Hopefully this came across in the video and that it didn't feel like a random rant. Ohh, this is also unscripted unlike most of my videos, with another extra angle, if you have any feedback on it being terrible or annoying, feel free to comment down below. And also feel free to check out Allen Dawodu, he makes great videos!
I'd say the main takeaways are that art should have intentionality, and part of developing your own voice or style is understanding where & how you want to use, bend, or break the "rules". (Which requires first learning the rules!) Only thing I'd add is that vulnerability and feedback are integral to that process. What I see online is that a lot of folks are hesitant (afraid?) to let others view and critique their work, whether it's writing, visual arts, games, music, etc. In a formal setting like a school peer-group, it's understood that critique should be respectful and is necessary for growth. But putting your work out for the wolves online obviously comes with fewer guardrails and a lot more anxiety. Still, you can't learn to make compelling work without that feedback.
@@mandisaw I will say that while I very much agree with what you are saying, I personally think it's fine to try and break the rules before you understand them as well. I think there are artists out there that break rules that they don't understand, but they still make it work. I obviously agree that you ought to learn the rules still, but I don't like the idea of being afraid, break the rules, be cringe, be gimmicky, those are methods to learn, it's often when you step too far that you learn to reel it in.
@Nonsensical2D Oh for sure, there are a lot of "rules" that ppl know on an intuitive level, but may just not have a formal knowledge of. Graffiti artists understand the use of color, proportion, and perspective whether they know they know them or not 😄 Could argue that becoming comfortable with breaking rules and not holding back until you're "right" or "comfortable" *is* the main lesson of art, whether you learn it in a studio or in your bedroom.
Imo: A skilled artist knows how to technically put what he envisions on the paper. A good artist on the other hand knows what makes art appealing and interesting.
I have never seen art this way but this speaks exactly to the artist I’ve spend most of my adult life being. An artist that tries to be good, rather than an artist that tires to make good art. Spent obsessive hours studying until I injured myself. passion projects or drawing for myself was not a thing that even crossed my mind. It was not art from a place of inspiration, it was a place of desperation and seeking validation. Subscribed because you preach what you practice. This video was truly a treat!
I must confess your channel made me want to draw again. I quit at a young age when I realized I would never be as good as my favorite artists. Now I just want to be decent enough to make good art. I do believe you need a certain level of skill to make good art on purpose and with consistency. Mastery of art isn't the goal though. Making art is. I enjoyed the video in this format but the other style is just as good. As long as you're having fun making it. You don't have to chase UA-cam algorithm.
thats a very nice way to describe whats basically concept art in a more empirical view ! My 2 cents on this is that whenever we're learning how to draw something ( aka we're copying it ) we're internalyzing shapes that are very organic/realistic ( and boring , as you said ) once we as artists spent enough time drawing , we become very good at drawing things based on what we've studied, but we still lack the principles behind concepting things, so steering away from things that are too realistic/detailed lends us the oportunity to 'feel' our way through interesting shapes in an easier way, since we're juggling less graphical shapes in our art. Imo , even though they're very very closely related, drawing ( copying/studying things found in real life ) and creating ( Designing/Concepting) things are two very different things, with very different fundamentals, which is why there's different specializations in industry art production for these, illustrator and concept artist.
Thanks for my weekly reminder that my imperfect art can still be meaningful. I definitely still fall into the trap of trying to be correct to the loss of all personality, but your channel has at least inspired me to keep picking up my pen instead of hiding from the potential to make something "bad".
I've been watching your content for quite a while now and I find all your videos really interesting and helpful. I really enjoy your content and it has helped me out a ton, thanks for making all this awesome stuff!
Another great meaningful lesson in art. Thanks. Like many others I want to draw and paint again, but I get stuck developing all the time and I cannot devote enough time to become even bad at drawing. Thanks again.
Man you are probably the only one in here addressing these issues with a sincere approach. l think the main problem with game dev is that we need to start calling things by their name, i.e. game ASSETS, game CONTENT, etc instead of ART, because it isn't art.
In my opinion, the only bad art is when a person fails to achieve a specific vision. For example, if a person wants realism, but achieves bad perspective, bad structure/construction, bad anatomy with wrong proportions, bad line and bad shader modeling, also bad lighting. So in this line of thought there are also bad cartoons when the following criteria are poorly done and then the cartoon lacks its charisma. So I agree with you. You have a point. And by the way, for most of my Art life I didn't aim to become good. I just wanted to express my ideas. I don't deny knowledge. Because when at some point I came across a good Art teacher I realized how thirsty for knowledge I am and how eager I was to try out the new knowledge that I already had from this Art teacher. The point is that now I continue to express my ideas instead of trying to improve my skills. By default I aim to make good art. Art that is liked and appreciated from an aesthetic point of view and from the point of view of the people themselves but at the same time, just now, I do not practice art training except applied art for my developments and ideas. In other words, this is the only Art practice that I get now, just practice taken from my personal developments, but not a specific Art training program. And this happens until I feel that I am again forgetting the basics and I start to wonder where in the Loomis-head-sphere the line for the nose was and where the lateral segments for the head temples were. Then I understand that it is time for me to stop with the Elves and monsters and it is time for a little technical practice refresher knowledge. 😁 Art travel is so cool.🙃 It's practically a life without boredom. Because you always have a new art direction to take. Good video.😁
@@stanimirgeorgiev.87 Ye, I definitely agree :) It sometimes gets weird making videos and giving advice. If I feel that a person is too ”practice-oriented” I might give the advice that they should make an attempt at having a vision and executing on it, because that is quite different from ”practice”, but at least equally important. On the other end if I feel that a person just goes wild, I might give the advice that they should reign it in and practice on how to make it look nice and ”accurate”. I am very much not in the camp that skills don’t matter, even if it perhaps sounds a bit like it in this video. I think I personally tried to become ”good” for significantly longer than I perhaps should have :)
Great observation, there is a skill to still staying in the realms of art rules and not completely breaking them, but pushing the boundaries quite a bit to get out of the ordinary. One exception I could think of where "bog-standard" may be beneficial, would be background or secondary characters so that your main character stands out more. Similar to the importance of "boring" space between outer boundary tiles.
Totally agree, I made my art worse (color wise) for the sake of readability + focus shifting, if you see it in a screenshot the old one is better but when playing in the game its worse, the main thing that I ve learned doing that is to identify why u are making the piece of art, what is the target audience/platform/purpose of the art.
Great video, I agree. This compelling versus technically accomplished dichotomy is what helped progress movements like impressionism, expressionism, surrealism, and cubism. Some of the famous artists from those periods were not trained in fundamentals, a few even lacked core understandings of certain techniques/concepts. Others purposely broke them to make more eye catching pieces. Fundamentals are a useful toolbelt; however, I think its also good practice to practice stylization. For one thing, stylization can teach you interesting techniques that realistic renderings might not. How to use texture, shapes, lighting, composition, color, and motion are often reinforced through stylization since many utilize these as exaggerated features. One thing I want to also point out, as a game artist in particular, is that sometimes it’s necessary to sacrifice rules for speed. This is rarely mentioned. Not saying details and polish are bad, but that sometimes ignoring rules can significantly speed up asset creation overall without impacting quality. Cuphead is a good example here as they throw away perspective on certain objects since it is just not needed nor practical for those pieces.
I think making do with the limited level of abilities someone currently has and still producing something good is an art in itself. And of course, improving one's skills opens up more options and possibilities. Regardless of skill level, anyone can probably produce something decent, or at least, interesting.
Ah, finally you said it! We don't need to be exceptional artists to make something creative and enjoyable, particularly in game design. I've seen a metroidvania recently that has awesome environments but the character although being perfectly proportionate is "generic and boring" as you put it. 2:55 also I love that dog
Interesting thoughts, ever seen I've switched my focus from fanart to OCs I did notice this feeling of wanting to push my own designs further with more pronounced shapes and more straight line usage.
"don't serve your ego, serve the art piece" ❤🔥❤🔥 Reminds me why I became an artist in the first place, we are artists not because we make good brush strokes, we are artists because we serve the art piece/project.
i am team turtle - what an important lesson, if you know that from the point you start to learn, its gonna save you a lot of time, instead of focusing on perfect correct looking art
Reminiscent of Da Vinci, sketching "ugly" people; the elderly, the infirm and the outcast because he found the _forms_ fascinating/beautiful/intriguing.
Appeal is the most important aspect of art. Having art with quirks that truly show who you are as a person is so important. People want to connect with YOU. So when you draw a realistic portrait of a celebrity, what is that saying about you? Nothing.
I was thinking about similar thing regarding game design. I think that the biggest sin a game can commit, is not being buggy, imbalanced or lacking. It’s being boring. Personally, if author of the game made brave and interesting design decisions, and it lead the whole thing to beeing a train wreck. It still feels like I got something from that experience. By the other hand, if it’s the exact same game that I have played n-th time but it’s polished, it does feel like a waste of my time
I agree with this point, if a developer makes something painfully generic and it sucks then nobody is going to care about it; whereas if a developer makes something that looks visually awful in every way but still has a sense of uniqueness to it, people are going to be more interested in it even if it's just for the 'so bad it's good' factor. I think a great example as of recently was Concord, the characters looked so ugly in every way people couldn't stop talking about it for months lol.
Although he talks about music, your video reminded me of what Giovanni Giorgio (Daft Punk) once said: "Once you free your mind about the concept of harmony and of music being correct, you can do whatever you want". I think this might be true for all forms of art :)
To tack onto this, with the question of "how do I make my art interesting" or resonate with people etc. I have 2 things that newer artists can keep in mind to get on a path thats a little more concrete. One is that you should try to make art that makes you excited. You have to develop your own taste before you can express it. this is a really simple step too, just find art that gets you excited, and copy it. It's simple, unfortunately it's not easy. But you don't have to copy it perfectly, just copy it enough to learn something from it, enough that you can replicate it, if only in one small way. That's okay, this is simply one piece of your vocabulary, and this is how you will grow it. It will take time, but if you keep at it you'll impress yourself much sooner than you might think. The next is to create art for as specific a person as possible. Create it for yourself to develop your taste, but then try to create it to the taste of some one else. Don't create something that "is appealing" create something that "is appealing to fans of Dr Who" or "this is exactly what my friend would think is cool". This gives you a much easier goal to work towards, and pieces of art to reference when you need some direction. Critically, don't forget to actually show your art to people, and see how you did. Practice regularly, keep looking for art that excites you, and keep trying to learn from it. You can be more specific and focused, but as long as you're taking these steps you will grow.
I think something that's missing in talking about the transition from manga to anime is that the animes generally have an entire team whose sole job is to clean up the models and the lineart to make it actually look better than a quick sketch. The only real exceptions being in-betweens, smears, or deliberately caricature scenes (like fainting and face-faulting).
To be fair, most manga artists also have a couple of junior artists cleaning up their backgrounds. But my point is kind of that the mangas themselves are actually fairly decent and interesting art-wise not just the animes :)
@@Nonsensical2D And some are even better! Manga like Berserk are almost impossible to adapt in a satisfying way because of how detailed and masterful the manga artwork is.
@@Nonsensical2D Maybe, but a lot of manga artists also work solo; and I'm certainly out of the loop, but I do wonder for any given title whether the manga or the anime is more popular. Like I've watched the OPM anime but didn't even realize it was a manga first.
I think this could be probed even deeper. Some of the "good artist" problem is identity-focused: if you build yourself around being "good at art" or a "competitive" artist, you start imposing the kinds of limiting standards that are assumed of social media art: fully rendered, highly detailed digital paintings with dopamine-inducing subjects and compositions formatted for rapid consumption. In a historical sense, the "good art" of old master paintings is deeply aligned with the context of the Renaissance and later: those artists had discovered a collection of tricks and technologies that made realistic images and decided to bank off of that, and the generations that followed simply kept going in that direction. But, just as not all music is Western classical music, that isn't representative of all global art traditions. And a third way is when considering performance versus design: we're in a society that heavily encourages design work, and equates intensive, thoughtful designs with "good art". Design work is philosophical in nature - it's looking for "meanings that the audience can grasp". In contrast many of the fundamental skills in visual art are related to performance: achieving accurate observations, confident draftsmanship, and so on. Those are tacit skills, and can't be taught just by hearing a lecture. And performance skills do matter to design since they create fluidity with "art language" - more of the result feels within your direct control. And on that last aspect I would say, absolutely, go ahead and work on your performance, push out the comfort zone. But when you want the work to be appealing to a broad audience, do design.
I often hear that you need to learn how to do things "right" so you can then learn to do them "wrong." However, the approach of doing things "wrong" straight away is pretty efficient haha.
I'd actually argue that cases such as Cruelty Squad prove that being interesting matters more than being pleasant to look at. It does everything it can to be as unpleasant and painful to look at and yet it's art is insanely captivating because of it .
I think when looking at the extremes of either spectrum you are probably to a large extent just appealing to very different audiences. Some people will probably never like "art" that is meaningless whereas others will never play "ugly" games. But generally I think most people exist somewhere in the "middle", they do want a bit of both from their art :)
You say you aren’t a skilled artist.. but that portrait is beautiful. You can see the emotions on her face. I absolutely love seeing your process and your thoughts.. I don’t mind the less scripted videos.. especially if that means there are more of them.
It gets weird when describing it, I would probably say I am a good artist when it comes to the skills necessary to make portraits. I've also with time gotten quite good at environments, but I am at least not as of yet that flexible as an artist, it isn't too difficult to get me out of my comfort zone and where I have to struggle, I can usually still make something decent eventually, but it's usually because I compensate with what I do know, rather than some of the skills I ought to have. It's a weird thing to say to others, because they mostly see the good results, I have gotten more balanced with time, but I'm not quite where I want to be with it. I will say though that when I say I'm not a skilled artist that is from the perspective of seeing and thinking about what I feel like I ought to be good at in order to call myself good, but from any layman I'm obviously really good, and I also feel in that sense I am skilled enough to have a dedicated channel talking about what I do now :) and good to hear, I am trying to streamline my process in order to make more videos, hopefully it will work :)
@@Nonsensical2D I understand. I've been working with computers nearly all my life - with a career in IT now - but there always seems to be something new to learn, even in the parts i've done a thousand times. I get that. Thanks always for the feedback!
I still have to learn how to do art at all😢 I spent like 3 hours making shadows for a simple 2d tree cause it kept looking weird. I have never studied art nor drawing, so coming up on my own how to draw EXC is pretty hard I had made decent looking trees but they were kinda tridimensional while my whole game is 2d, so they weren't quite fitting Actually this is something you reminded me in a post I made in r/Godot and I've been working on it haha Oh and, these videos are getting better and better, love the multiple camera setup you're using
I do agree with you about Interestingness and Meaning in art. But there is a flaw (or missing disclaimer) in your initial assessment's logic : - Why would the taste of the masses ("it gets more engagement") be more valuable than the taste of X ("X" as any type of people which you deem above the masses in a given area).
Ye, I agree with you. Mind you the main takeaway isn't really "appeal to the taste of the masses" but rather the fact that you ought to make the piece you are creating its best version (whatever that means to you), and if that means making it less correct, you should.
I'm not trying to be a "good" artist, I'm trying to get it just the way I want it. Not perfect, just _my_ way. I'm an aspiring cartoonist, and i just want to get the eyes just the way _I_ want. I'm saying that it's the artist who determines what it looks like, not the audience. Your own happiness is more important than others' approval.
Regarding anatomy, is there some trend in anime/manga where it's cool to be disproportionate and even sometimes not even anatomical correct? Like arms and legs not even aligned. I'm thinking especially about Weiss Swartz and Wixross. Anyway, I hate it.
It depends on what lvl you want to reach. I just want to get to Yusuke murata's level. Not for anyone else sake. But for myself. I want to draw like them. Its cool and unique. Its real anatomy mixed with obvious over the top anime faces.
Higurashi no naku kuro ni (When they Cry 2006 anime, not the remake since I didn't watch that) based on the original game for PC which shows the bad art of the artist (he didn't know how to draw), he drew hands huge and 4 fingers fused together and a thumb. The artist also he is the creator of the game stated that himself in an interview. In the anime, the animators fixed it. It was good both ways honestly but clearly no one will watch horror / mystery anime with bad art.
Is this the reason no rest for the wicked's characters have such weird shapes? Or why Ori's Naru is so bottom heavy? Or why the penitent one has the long hat? (also inspired by their local culture)
Yes in a sense, it is often a combination of trying to make the shape "unique and appealing" while also trying to use that shape to communicate what type of character we are dealing with. A pointy character is usually more sinister, a round character is more cuddly (especially bottom heavy) a blocky character is usually a "tank of some sort". I think Disney/pixar/overwatch are extremely good at this idea of conveying a lot with every single choice they make, if you want to analyse it further
@@Nonsensical2D Not only overwatch but all of blizzard. For all the shortcomings that dissaster of a company has their art teams are not one of those. Take a look at diablo's lilith for example, instantly recognizable with a super cool design. Or any of the WoW main characters/villains or overwatch heroes (well most of them at least)
A lot of competent drawings are bad art as in they are neither intellectually nor emotionally impactful. The bland portraits many people draw are a typical example of this, besides "hey look I can draw really well", which isn't really relevant to third parties, they are barely saying anything. The portrait you showed makes me think "bored girl in front of a bland wall" and shrug, the turtle at least "aww cute". We are sensitive to things such as expressed emotion (the eyes are the most important thing in a character) or storytelling. There are simple tricks that tend to work well on our simple minds: making things cute, impending danger, intense eyes (high contrast), eroticism, making things disgusting, caricaturizing, contrast (very small vs very big)... There is nothing wrong with portraits per se, just "generic attractive girl looking like she is thinking about the Geneva Convention" isn't doing it (and quite overused). "Toothless beggar grinning", "nerdy guy with huge glasses between tons of books" "man with a huge nose looking super arrogant" "gnome extremely focused on his tinkering" "muscular woman patting a pigeon", those are more interesting motives, they get the fantasy going and allow for the expression of ideas and themes. Old fantasy art is good at this, they give you a small dramatic scene with enough hints to make one come up with backstories and a sense of wonder. Art should probably be less about oneself but more about the viewer, a feeling or a concept we want to communicate. Game art needs to be functional and has good potential for storytelling or creating vibes. The early super mario art is fun to look at, not because it is complex, but because of the happy vibes it has. I think a lot of character design is storytelling and should not be viewed in isolation but in context of the rest of the art, the world and story. Your mushroom guy has a bit of a somber, depressing vibe. I think the eyes look a little dead. Which is fine, depending on the vibe you are going for, it reminds me a little bit of old children's book with their cruel subtext, how characters should look is deeply related to the overall vibe you are going for. I think interesting alternatives would be to e.g. give him yellow eyes make him look a little bit scary or alien, or dial up the cuteness or absurdness. Less middle of the road and more extreme. But in the end, I want an artist to do his/her thing, art is best when the artist has a strong intent and follows his/her hands instead of trying to be like everybody else who is supposedly good.
I think this falls into a deep rabbit hole, that I didn't quite have time to get into for this video. But I think there are three main things I tend to think about, or intentionally do. 1. imply a backstory, with every asset or scene you make, you have an opportunity to tell a story, if your character is supposed to be sort of bombastic, don't just design the character to be sort of over the top, make their movements and animations also express that. 2. Is actually kind of a fundamental art skill, think about making the shape of your assets less 'expected' if you make a sign, don't make it a square block, make it slanted and worn down, many people make assets kind of like a "platonic ideal". Instead of making "a chair" make a stool, or a therapist couch, be slightly more specific with your choices of shapes and assets. 3. Subvert expectations. Sometimes you can artificially make something interesting by just making something stupid, like a samurai character that instead of fighting with a sword just throws katanas or has a bazooka. this is just absurd and dumb, but it might get to the point where the dumbness of it just makes it kind of fun and unserious. This last one about subverting expectations can often get gimmicky, but I think it is fine to make it gimmicky, often you need to explore the gimmicks and the stupid in order to settle for your own voice, because you have taken the time to explore your own voice.
One little tip I'd like to personally give is to use a stretching brush. I mainly work in blender, but when I'm finished with the base shape of any model I use the stretching brush to pull it around in weird ways to see if anything would help it stand out more. Whether it's a human face, a creature, or even a tree, this can really help to make the shapes stand out. Sometimes making the chin more square, the cheekbones more pronounced, or the hair kind of whacky can go a long way into making something truly unique. If you're working in 2d then pretty much every program should have a stretching brush, what's nice is that you won't lose the work or the detail, it just puts that detail it in a new spot. Just go crazy with it, pull any random piece in a random direction, as you can always undo it. Sometimes you'll stretch something super far and find that maybe just a little bit is the right answer, so you can scale it back but still get a better shape, or it can at least give you a better idea of how to redraw it. I'd recommend this step well before the polishing stage though, as the further along you are the harder it will be to do this.
I think the secret to interesting art is contrast. my design philosophy is that the best art has a contrast ratio of around 65% and 35%.(close to the golden ratio) for example hollowknight is around 65% detailed(backgrounds) and 35% simple (characters). It's 65% serious (lore and the world) and 35% goofy (the characters, the voice acting) Something like undertale is 65% goofy and 35% serious. popular pokemon designs are often 65% cool looking and 35% cute. or the opposite. this also makes pokemon really popular with both boys and girls. So if you create a character that is 100% bad-ass looking, 100% cute or 100% weird, people will often not care. the secret sauce is contrast.
It's called "more how to draw manga vol.1 the basics of character drawing", the book technically covers more stylised manga as well (it has a chapter called "super deformed characters" so it too knows the value of exaggeration xD)
I feel like "Good" and "Bad" are often meaningless words when talking about the quality of art, because so much depends on the goals of the artist and the context that work is being judged in. Like with the proportion examples, it's good to know *why* you're exaggerating the proportions of a character, otherwise it won't have the intended effect on whoever you want to see it. I guess for example, if you drew Spider-Man with the Hulk's proportions, it'd definitely be interesting, but that's not what would best represent what that specific character is about.
I always like to think about how does a piece work on its audience (or not). Discussing art can be incredibly interesting to figure out how people reacted differently to the same piece. While craft matters, there's a lot of people who try to figure out some "objective quality" beyond our subjective experience, at which point I believe you lost track of why we engage with art in the first place.
the ability to create and the ability to conceptualize are 2 completely different skills. great artists know what theyre doing, but are powerless if they dont have any material to adapt.
Think about what might arguably be the most popular show of all time, it had awful art, horrible colors, janky animations, and terribly proportioned characters; yet it has had 36 seasons. The Simpsons is probably the best example of what you're mentioning here, in that going for realism can take away a lot of character. The Simpsons are nowhere near realistic, but they're all immediately recognizable by their colors, silhouettes, and voices. A huge complaint a lot of Simpsons fans have had is that the newer episodes lost that charm with the more polished feel, taking away the character of the show and making it feel like weird looking yellow people in an ordinary world. Creating something unique goes so far in making a name for your product. I would have a hard time naming most AAA protagonists, because they make them so generic. I could recognize Kratos at any point, as his ghostly skin and red tattoo go a long way into making him distinct, but put most AAA protagonists in everyday clothes and I'd have no clue who they were. On the other hand you showed Hollow Knight which I think is a great example of the best of both worlds with both stylized yet appealing art. It's a great example as the art is never actually that complex, but it is very clean and instantly understandable. The main character's head is a box with two horns, yet I could recognize him anywhere. I'm always an advocate that art style is so much more important than realism, because good art gets lost over the years whereas an art style is basically immortal.
This is that classic step where you go from just understanding the craft, to beginning to find your own voice & style. I would phrase it as going from competent to compelling. It's hard to sum-up in a tutorial, because it's an ongoing process, and will look different for every person. In an arts program, this would be the phase where you start working in peer-groups or circles, and do projects under the tutelage of a master / mentor.
I take issue with saying that "the things he's showing is actually interesting." They're extremely, for lack of a better way to say it, "lifeless corporate art style blobs." And, I mean, if you are going to use them to shit on the things that are both more interesting and visually appealing then I'm just going to say it they're shit and you have bad taste.
I think calling it "lifeless corporate art style" does indicate that what you truly hate about the style is what it has become associated with rather than its actual 'quality'. And basically, I agree, it's not really a style I fancy. But I am not really talking about the style, I am talking about the underlying design language. I also never claimed that the other things are necessarily bad, just that there are situations, especially in game art (which this channel is focused on) wherein it's important to exaggerate forms in order to better convey a story with your art. It's not just about being technically gifted and making things that are visually appealing. So I do think the art there is nice, but I think "nice" isn't the only goal with art.
Once I did an experiment. I took 2 plates, put a candy bar on one, peace of dog sh*t on the other, and left them outside for an hour. When I came back, the peace of dog sh*t had a MUCH higher level of engagement with the fly population... But for some reason I still think the chocolate is better. Is the number of engaged flies really the metric an artist should aim for?
Hmm, I don't think it's technically about engagement, I agree that that metric can get somewhat vapid. From a personal point if I just think to my favourite paintings or my favourite movies, they aren't just trying to "imitate real life perfectly" they are more so trying to use any tool possible in order to make the audience feel or care. I was thinking about mentioning lion king in this video, the animated version is so much better at telling the story, even though the 'live action' is extremely impressive. I feel like your analogy is sort of begging the question, calling it a turd is obviously already implying you don't like it. My point is that I think people tend to care about meaningful stuff, if it can be meaningful and good, that is awesome. but you shouldn't remove the meaningful at the expense of some superficial 'quality'. I still paint portraits, I love painting portraits, but they also don't really excite me to the same extent, they are sort of empty.
@@Nonsensical2D It's not about me not liking something, it's about the mission of art itself. I dislike 90% of what I used to like, because taste is like a skill - it develops with experience. So for people to grow, there has to be a gradient of quality - even the things that I now consider to be turds (just not on my lawn, pls). My point is that artists should be driven by their own vision and self-expression, rather than the level of audience engagement. If art bends to popular demand, we'll end up with the situation like in Idiocracy - a giant farting gluts on a full movie screen. In video, you assumed that good art = laborious + realism (which couldn't be further from the truth), and mixed up mistakes and stylistic choices. More realism and time spent on piece has no direct correlation to its quality. Packing enough meaning into a few simple strokes is also an artistic skill, no less valuable than the ability to replace the camera with paint and brush. Especially in game art, where art has the practical function of in real time telling the player what is happening. What separates good art from bad is its meaning. If you choose an artistic style to convey a certain feeling, it's good art; if you choose the same style just to stand out from the crowd, it's bad art (because it's a cheap, shallow trick that has no innate meaning). It's like making a show for kids - you can just attract undeveloped minds with flashy colors and loud sounds, or you can use the same techniques to make something with real value and meaning.
@@anonimanonimov3251 I mean I kind of agree? It feels as if you got hung up on a couple of examples I used. You are shadow-boxing a position I don’t really feel like I hold. And to be fair I don’t feel like I mixed up mistakes and stylistic choices, I specifically mentioned artists that do make ”mistakes” but have made it work by aligning their stylistic choices with those mistakes. There are examples of artists that are clearly making stylistic choices that might seem like mistakes (like Eichiro Oda) but I don’t think the artists I mentioned fall into that category. Now I will say that I don’t fully subscribe to the idea that popular == bad, but I also don’t think think that popular == good. I am more in the camp that if I like it I like it, sometimes it’s popular sometimes it’s not.
You're really trying to keep people's attention in your videos, aren't you? I'm noticing the many camera changes and putting a picture on top of a Switch. Man, some people just can't focus on what other people say, can they?
the angles has partly to do with attention, but also just trying to have fun when making the video. The thing on the switch is not a picture, it's a protective sleeve I have on the switch :) but ye, I'm also quite inclined to edit my videos for attention to some extent, but mostly because I think it leads to a better video..
I'm happy to be featured on your channel! Going forward, I'll definitely place my focus more on creating interesting art rather than "correct" art.
Ohh and I will say, you are obviously making tremendous progress and you should continue practicing fundamentals, but I would also advise against getting too stuck in it. both ends of the spectrum can be bad, if you never practice you won't really have the tools to express yourself properly, but if you never try to express yourself because you always practice, that is in many ways equally bad :) I say this as someone who didn't do anything other than practice portraits and character art until I was 20. Trying to put your skills into practice by making something that you care about can be quite a sobering experience, it feels like it should be easy, but it rarely is. Thanks for submitting by the way :)
One of my favorite quotes from a professor was that you should draw as if you had the mindset of a young child with the experience and physical skill of an adult. They said to children the world is so new so when they draw the artwork is charming and expressive. Over time when people grow up they tend to lose the expressiveness because they don't observe the world with the same childlike wonder and let the ideal image in their head of what the world should be dominate their vision instead of being observant.
i never had this "charm" when i was a child, idk what you're talking about, i was suffering from being bad at anything since i was born, never could enjoy anything until i'm good at it and everything happens by itself without any hard work and struggles/mistakes, but even then i couldn't enjoy the process and only the result and never had genuine engagement in any activity, only forced one, i have zero passions in this life
In other words, know the rules, and know when to break the rules.
I dont think you ever truly break the rules (unless its really abstract work). Even if youre subverting a rule youre still playing with the expectations that are tied to it - and therefore youre still bound by the rule. I hope this makes sense
I remember posting pixel art I busted my ass to make and getting little attention. Then I posted a tiny cactus I doodled in 2 minutes and just wrote "Cactus" with no hashtags and it blew up. Still confused.
i think you just answered your own question. you didnt even tell us what the pixel art was, but so easily described the cactus. that probably means the cactus is easier to explain maybe.
I had a similar thing happen to me. Spend time and energy making rather detailed NPC portraits, and then I make a hastily drawn foot monster and the foot does better. Glad this video gave me a clearer understanding of what's actually happening than "wtf people like feet"
People's attention span are very small these days, also what anyone considers fine art like a banana taped to an easel is why some talented artists don't get taken seriously they're hoodwinked by low effort crap
I don't want the takeaway from this video to be that you shouldn't practice or that it isn't important to become good. I just think it is important to understand that the meaning of "good" for a lot of beginners can sometimes be skewed, and it's important to also be playful and engaging, its a non-flashy skill but that is often where the substance is. Hopefully this came across in the video and that it didn't feel like a random rant. Ohh, this is also unscripted unlike most of my videos, with another extra angle, if you have any feedback on it being terrible or annoying, feel free to comment down below. And also feel free to check out Allen Dawodu, he makes great videos!
I'd say the main takeaways are that art should have intentionality, and part of developing your own voice or style is understanding where & how you want to use, bend, or break the "rules". (Which requires first learning the rules!) Only thing I'd add is that vulnerability and feedback are integral to that process.
What I see online is that a lot of folks are hesitant (afraid?) to let others view and critique their work, whether it's writing, visual arts, games, music, etc. In a formal setting like a school peer-group, it's understood that critique should be respectful and is necessary for growth. But putting your work out for the wolves online obviously comes with fewer guardrails and a lot more anxiety. Still, you can't learn to make compelling work without that feedback.
@@mandisaw I will say that while I very much agree with what you are saying, I personally think it's fine to try and break the rules before you understand them as well. I think there are artists out there that break rules that they don't understand, but they still make it work. I obviously agree that you ought to learn the rules still, but I don't like the idea of being afraid, break the rules, be cringe, be gimmicky, those are methods to learn, it's often when you step too far that you learn to reel it in.
@Nonsensical2D Oh for sure, there are a lot of "rules" that ppl know on an intuitive level, but may just not have a formal knowledge of. Graffiti artists understand the use of color, proportion, and perspective whether they know they know them or not 😄
Could argue that becoming comfortable with breaking rules and not holding back until you're "right" or "comfortable" *is* the main lesson of art, whether you learn it in a studio or in your bedroom.
Damn got my hopes up for no reason. Might as well had made a video saying “size doesn’t matter”
Imo:
A skilled artist knows how to technically put what he envisions on the paper.
A good artist on the other hand knows what makes art appealing and interesting.
Great points made. This is also the reason, why games with stylized art are more timeless compared to games with realistc graphics.
I have never seen art this way but this speaks exactly to the artist I’ve spend most of my adult life being. An artist that tries to be good, rather than an artist that tires to make good art. Spent obsessive hours studying until I injured myself. passion projects or drawing for myself was not a thing that even crossed my mind. It was not art from a place of inspiration, it was a place of desperation and seeking validation. Subscribed because you preach what you practice. This video was truly a treat!
I must confess your channel made me want to draw again. I quit at a young age when I realized I would never be as good as my favorite artists. Now I just want to be decent enough to make good art. I do believe you need a certain level of skill to make good art on purpose and with consistency. Mastery of art isn't the goal though. Making art is.
I enjoyed the video in this format but the other style is just as good. As long as you're having fun making it. You don't have to chase UA-cam algorithm.
thats a very nice way to describe whats basically concept art in a more empirical view ! My 2 cents on this is that whenever we're learning how to draw something ( aka we're copying it ) we're internalyzing shapes that are very organic/realistic ( and boring , as you said ) once we as artists spent enough time drawing , we become very good at drawing things based on what we've studied, but we still lack the principles behind concepting things, so steering away from things that are too realistic/detailed lends us the oportunity to 'feel' our way through interesting shapes in an easier way, since we're juggling less graphical shapes in our art. Imo , even though they're very very closely related, drawing ( copying/studying things found in real life ) and creating ( Designing/Concepting) things are two very different things, with very different fundamentals, which is why there's different specializations in industry art production for these, illustrator and concept artist.
Thanks for my weekly reminder that my imperfect art can still be meaningful. I definitely still fall into the trap of trying to be correct to the loss of all personality, but your channel has at least inspired me to keep picking up my pen instead of hiding from the potential to make something "bad".
Such an important, yet invariably overlooked topic. Nice video!
I've been watching your content for quite a while now and I find all your videos really interesting and helpful. I really enjoy your content and it has helped me out a ton, thanks for making all this awesome stuff!
Another great meaningful lesson in art. Thanks. Like many others I want to draw and paint again, but I get stuck developing all the time and I cannot devote enough time to become even bad at drawing. Thanks again.
You got really got advices to all kind of artists. I always enjoy watching your videos!
Man you are probably the only one in here addressing these issues with a sincere approach. l think the main problem with game dev is that we need to start calling things by their name, i.e. game ASSETS, game CONTENT, etc instead of ART, because it isn't art.
In my opinion, the only bad art is when a person fails to achieve a specific vision. For example, if a person wants realism, but achieves bad perspective, bad structure/construction, bad anatomy with wrong proportions, bad line and bad shader modeling, also bad lighting. So in this line of thought there are also bad cartoons when the following criteria are poorly done and then the cartoon lacks its charisma.
So I agree with you. You have a point.
And by the way, for most of my Art life I didn't aim to become good. I just wanted to express my ideas. I don't deny knowledge. Because when at some point I came across a good Art teacher I realized how thirsty for knowledge I am and how eager I was to try out the new knowledge that I already had from this Art teacher. The point is that now I continue to express my ideas instead of trying to improve my skills. By default I aim to make good art. Art that is liked and appreciated from an aesthetic point of view and from the point of view of the people themselves but at the same time, just now, I do not practice art training except applied art for my developments and ideas. In other words, this is the only Art practice that I get now, just practice taken from my personal developments, but not a specific Art training program. And this happens until I feel that I am again forgetting the basics and I start to wonder where in the Loomis-head-sphere the line for the nose was and where the lateral segments for the head temples were. Then I understand that it is time for me to stop with the Elves and monsters and it is time for a little technical practice refresher knowledge. 😁
Art travel is so cool.🙃 It's practically a life without boredom. Because you always have a new art direction to take. Good video.😁
@@stanimirgeorgiev.87 Ye, I definitely agree :) It sometimes gets weird making videos and giving advice. If I feel that a person is too ”practice-oriented” I might give the advice that they should make an attempt at having a vision and executing on it, because that is quite different from ”practice”, but at least equally important. On the other end if I feel that a person just goes wild, I might give the advice that they should reign it in and practice on how to make it look nice and ”accurate”. I am very much not in the camp that skills don’t matter, even if it perhaps sounds a bit like it in this video. I think I personally tried to become ”good” for significantly longer than I perhaps should have :)
I'll focused on creating as much art as possible. I need to take my time and them great, not make myself great.
Great observation, there is a skill to still staying in the realms of art rules and not completely breaking them, but pushing the boundaries quite a bit to get out of the ordinary.
One exception I could think of where "bog-standard" may be beneficial, would be background or secondary characters so that your main character stands out more. Similar to the importance of "boring" space between outer boundary tiles.
Totally agree, I made my art worse (color wise) for the sake of readability + focus shifting, if you see it in a screenshot the old one is better but when playing in the game its worse, the main thing that I ve learned doing that is to identify why u are making the piece of art, what is the target audience/platform/purpose of the art.
Great video, I agree. This compelling versus technically accomplished dichotomy is what helped progress movements like impressionism, expressionism, surrealism, and cubism. Some of the famous artists from those periods were not trained in fundamentals, a few even lacked core understandings of certain techniques/concepts. Others purposely broke them to make more eye catching pieces.
Fundamentals are a useful toolbelt; however, I think its also good practice to practice stylization. For one thing, stylization can teach you interesting techniques that realistic renderings might not. How to use texture, shapes, lighting, composition, color, and motion are often reinforced through stylization since many utilize these as exaggerated features.
One thing I want to also point out, as a game artist in particular, is that sometimes it’s necessary to sacrifice rules for speed. This is rarely mentioned. Not saying details and polish are bad, but that sometimes ignoring rules can significantly speed up asset creation overall without impacting quality. Cuphead is a good example here as they throw away perspective on certain objects since it is just not needed nor practical for those pieces.
I think making do with the limited level of abilities someone currently has and still producing something good is an art in itself. And of course, improving one's skills opens up more options and possibilities. Regardless of skill level, anyone can probably produce something decent, or at least, interesting.
Ah, finally you said it! We don't need to be exceptional artists to make something creative and enjoyable, particularly in game design. I've seen a metroidvania recently that has awesome environments but the character although being perfectly proportionate is "generic and boring" as you put it.
2:55 also I love that dog
Interesting thoughts, ever seen I've switched my focus from fanart to OCs I did notice this feeling of wanting to push my own designs further with more pronounced shapes and more straight line usage.
Aww nice cup! But "Your goal should be making good art, not being good artist." Thanks!
So dang true. I needed to hear this. Engagement. Subbed.
"don't serve your ego, serve the art piece" ❤🔥❤🔥
Reminds me why I became an artist in the first place, we are artists not because we make good brush strokes, we are artists because we serve the art piece/project.
i am team turtle - what an important lesson, if you know that from the point you start to learn, its gonna save you a lot of time, instead of focusing on perfect correct looking art
Reminiscent of Da Vinci, sketching "ugly" people; the elderly, the infirm and the outcast because he found the _forms_ fascinating/beautiful/intriguing.
Appeal is the most important aspect of art. Having art with quirks that truly show who you are as a person is so important.
People want to connect with YOU. So when you draw a realistic portrait of a celebrity, what is that saying about you? Nothing.
I was thinking about similar thing regarding game design.
I think that the biggest sin a game can commit, is not being buggy, imbalanced or lacking. It’s being boring.
Personally, if author of the game made brave and interesting design decisions, and it lead the whole thing to beeing a train wreck. It still feels like I got something from that experience.
By the other hand, if it’s the exact same game that I have played n-th time but it’s polished, it does feel like a waste of my time
I agree with this point, if a developer makes something painfully generic and it sucks then nobody is going to care about it; whereas if a developer makes something that looks visually awful in every way but still has a sense of uniqueness to it, people are going to be more interested in it even if it's just for the 'so bad it's good' factor. I think a great example as of recently was Concord, the characters looked so ugly in every way people couldn't stop talking about it for months lol.
Although he talks about music, your video reminded me of what Giovanni Giorgio (Daft Punk) once said: "Once you free your mind about the concept of harmony and of music being correct, you can do whatever you want". I think this might be true for all forms of art :)
Good tips
To tack onto this, with the question of "how do I make my art interesting" or resonate with people etc. I have 2 things that newer artists can keep in mind to get on a path thats a little more concrete.
One is that you should try to make art that makes you excited. You have to develop your own taste before you can express it. this is a really simple step too, just find art that gets you excited, and copy it. It's simple, unfortunately it's not easy. But you don't have to copy it perfectly, just copy it enough to learn something from it, enough that you can replicate it, if only in one small way. That's okay, this is simply one piece of your vocabulary, and this is how you will grow it. It will take time, but if you keep at it you'll impress yourself much sooner than you might think.
The next is to create art for as specific a person as possible. Create it for yourself to develop your taste, but then try to create it to the taste of some one else. Don't create something that "is appealing" create something that "is appealing to fans of Dr Who" or "this is exactly what my friend would think is cool". This gives you a much easier goal to work towards, and pieces of art to reference when you need some direction. Critically, don't forget to actually show your art to people, and see how you did.
Practice regularly, keep looking for art that excites you, and keep trying to learn from it. You can be more specific and focused, but as long as you're taking these steps you will grow.
I think something that's missing in talking about the transition from manga to anime is that the animes generally have an entire team whose sole job is to clean up the models and the lineart to make it actually look better than a quick sketch. The only real exceptions being in-betweens, smears, or deliberately caricature scenes (like fainting and face-faulting).
To be fair, most manga artists also have a couple of junior artists cleaning up their backgrounds. But my point is kind of that the mangas themselves are actually fairly decent and interesting art-wise not just the animes :)
@@Nonsensical2D And some are even better! Manga like Berserk are almost impossible to adapt in a satisfying way because of how detailed and masterful the manga artwork is.
@@Nonsensical2D Maybe, but a lot of manga artists also work solo; and I'm certainly out of the loop, but I do wonder for any given title whether the manga or the anime is more popular. Like I've watched the OPM anime but didn't even realize it was a manga first.
I think this could be probed even deeper. Some of the "good artist" problem is identity-focused: if you build yourself around being "good at art" or a "competitive" artist, you start imposing the kinds of limiting standards that are assumed of social media art: fully rendered, highly detailed digital paintings with dopamine-inducing subjects and compositions formatted for rapid consumption.
In a historical sense, the "good art" of old master paintings is deeply aligned with the context of the Renaissance and later: those artists had discovered a collection of tricks and technologies that made realistic images and decided to bank off of that, and the generations that followed simply kept going in that direction. But, just as not all music is Western classical music, that isn't representative of all global art traditions.
And a third way is when considering performance versus design: we're in a society that heavily encourages design work, and equates intensive, thoughtful designs with "good art". Design work is philosophical in nature - it's looking for "meanings that the audience can grasp". In contrast many of the fundamental skills in visual art are related to performance: achieving accurate observations, confident draftsmanship, and so on. Those are tacit skills, and can't be taught just by hearing a lecture. And performance skills do matter to design since they create fluidity with "art language" - more of the result feels within your direct control.
And on that last aspect I would say, absolutely, go ahead and work on your performance, push out the comfort zone. But when you want the work to be appealing to a broad audience, do design.
Best video you've made so far. I subscribed when you had like less than 200 subs and were already making really interesting content 🎉
I often hear that you need to learn how to do things "right" so you can then learn to do them "wrong." However, the approach of doing things "wrong" straight away is pretty efficient haha.
I'd actually argue that cases such as Cruelty Squad prove that being interesting matters more than being pleasant to look at. It does everything it can to be as unpleasant and painful to look at and yet it's art is insanely captivating because of it .
I think when looking at the extremes of either spectrum you are probably to a large extent just appealing to very different audiences. Some people will probably never like "art" that is meaningless whereas others will never play "ugly" games. But generally I think most people exist somewhere in the "middle", they do want a bit of both from their art :)
You say you aren’t a skilled artist.. but that portrait is beautiful. You can see the emotions on her face. I absolutely love seeing your process and your thoughts.. I don’t mind the less scripted videos.. especially if that means there are more of them.
It gets weird when describing it, I would probably say I am a good artist when it comes to the skills necessary to make portraits. I've also with time gotten quite good at environments, but I am at least not as of yet that flexible as an artist, it isn't too difficult to get me out of my comfort zone and where I have to struggle, I can usually still make something decent eventually, but it's usually because I compensate with what I do know, rather than some of the skills I ought to have. It's a weird thing to say to others, because they mostly see the good results, I have gotten more balanced with time, but I'm not quite where I want to be with it.
I will say though that when I say I'm not a skilled artist that is from the perspective of seeing and thinking about what I feel like I ought to be good at in order to call myself good, but from any layman I'm obviously really good, and I also feel in that sense I am skilled enough to have a dedicated channel talking about what I do now :) and good to hear, I am trying to streamline my process in order to make more videos, hopefully it will work :)
@@Nonsensical2D I understand. I've been working with computers nearly all my life - with a career in IT now - but there always seems to be something new to learn, even in the parts i've done a thousand times. I get that. Thanks always for the feedback!
I'm a terrible artist, I just embrace it. My style is crap and that's ok. 😅
I still have to learn how to do art at all😢 I spent like 3 hours making shadows for a simple 2d tree cause it kept looking weird. I have never studied art nor drawing, so coming up on my own how to draw EXC is pretty hard
I had made decent looking trees but they were kinda tridimensional while my whole game is 2d, so they weren't quite fitting
Actually this is something you reminded me in a post I made in r/Godot and I've been working on it haha
Oh and, these videos are getting better and better, love the multiple camera setup you're using
One of the things I have noticed, simple an exaggerated designs are infinitely more interesting to look at than complicate intricate details
I do agree with you about Interestingness and Meaning in art.
But there is a flaw (or missing disclaimer) in your initial assessment's logic :
- Why would the taste of the masses ("it gets more engagement") be more valuable than the taste of X ("X" as any type of people which you deem above the masses in a given area).
Ye, I agree with you. Mind you the main takeaway isn't really "appeal to the taste of the masses" but rather the fact that you ought to make the piece you are creating its best version (whatever that means to you), and if that means making it less correct, you should.
I've always struggled with "interesting". I think I've come far but the there's a long way to go.
Ohh god, is very make sense to me thank you
I'm not trying to be a "good" artist, I'm trying to get it just the way I want it. Not perfect, just _my_ way. I'm an aspiring cartoonist, and i just want to get the eyes just the way _I_ want. I'm saying that it's the artist who determines what it looks like, not the audience. Your own happiness is more important than others' approval.
Regarding anatomy, is there some trend in anime/manga where it's cool to be disproportionate and even sometimes not even anatomical correct? Like arms and legs not even aligned. I'm thinking especially about Weiss Swartz and Wixross. Anyway, I hate it.
It depends on what lvl you want to reach. I just want to get to Yusuke murata's level. Not for anyone else sake. But for myself. I want to draw like them. Its cool and unique. Its real anatomy mixed with obvious over the top anime faces.
Very true!
Higurashi no naku kuro ni (When they Cry 2006 anime, not the remake since I didn't watch that) based on the original game for PC which shows the bad art of the artist (he didn't know how to draw), he drew hands huge and 4 fingers fused together and a thumb. The artist also he is the creator of the game stated that himself in an interview.
In the anime, the animators fixed it. It was good both ways honestly but clearly no one will watch horror / mystery anime with bad art.
Is this the reason no rest for the wicked's characters have such weird shapes? Or why Ori's Naru is so bottom heavy? Or why the penitent one has the long hat? (also inspired by their local culture)
Yes in a sense, it is often a combination of trying to make the shape "unique and appealing" while also trying to use that shape to communicate what type of character we are dealing with. A pointy character is usually more sinister, a round character is more cuddly (especially bottom heavy) a blocky character is usually a "tank of some sort". I think Disney/pixar/overwatch are extremely good at this idea of conveying a lot with every single choice they make, if you want to analyse it further
@@Nonsensical2D Not only overwatch but all of blizzard. For all the shortcomings that dissaster of a company has their art teams are not one of those. Take a look at diablo's lilith for example, instantly recognizable with a super cool design. Or any of the WoW main characters/villains or overwatch heroes (well most of them at least)
A lot of competent drawings are bad art as in they are neither intellectually nor emotionally impactful. The bland portraits many people draw are a typical example of this, besides "hey look I can draw really well", which isn't really relevant to third parties, they are barely saying anything. The portrait you showed makes me think "bored girl in front of a bland wall" and shrug, the turtle at least "aww cute". We are sensitive to things such as expressed emotion (the eyes are the most important thing in a character) or storytelling. There are simple tricks that tend to work well on our simple minds: making things cute, impending danger, intense eyes (high contrast), eroticism, making things disgusting, caricaturizing, contrast (very small vs very big)...
There is nothing wrong with portraits per se, just "generic attractive girl looking like she is thinking about the Geneva Convention" isn't doing it (and quite overused). "Toothless beggar grinning", "nerdy guy with huge glasses between tons of books" "man with a huge nose looking super arrogant" "gnome extremely focused on his tinkering" "muscular woman patting a pigeon", those are more interesting motives, they get the fantasy going and allow for the expression of ideas and themes. Old fantasy art is good at this, they give you a small dramatic scene with enough hints to make one come up with backstories and a sense of wonder.
Art should probably be less about oneself but more about the viewer, a feeling or a concept we want to communicate.
Game art needs to be functional and has good potential for storytelling or creating vibes. The early super mario art is fun to look at, not because it is complex, but because of the happy vibes it has. I think a lot of character design is storytelling and should not be viewed in isolation but in context of the rest of the art, the world and story. Your mushroom guy has a bit of a somber, depressing vibe. I think the eyes look a little dead. Which is fine, depending on the vibe you are going for, it reminds me a little bit of old children's book with their cruel subtext, how characters should look is deeply related to the overall vibe you are going for. I think interesting alternatives would be to e.g. give him yellow eyes make him look a little bit scary or alien, or dial up the cuteness or absurdness. Less middle of the road and more extreme. But in the end, I want an artist to do his/her thing, art is best when the artist has a strong intent and follows his/her hands instead of trying to be like everybody else who is supposedly good.
how can you improve at making game art more engaging and interesting? (especially for someone who has always struggled with creativity)
I think this falls into a deep rabbit hole, that I didn't quite have time to get into for this video. But I think there are three main things I tend to think about, or intentionally do. 1. imply a backstory, with every asset or scene you make, you have an opportunity to tell a story, if your character is supposed to be sort of bombastic, don't just design the character to be sort of over the top, make their movements and animations also express that. 2. Is actually kind of a fundamental art skill, think about making the shape of your assets less 'expected' if you make a sign, don't make it a square block, make it slanted and worn down, many people make assets kind of like a "platonic ideal". Instead of making "a chair" make a stool, or a therapist couch, be slightly more specific with your choices of shapes and assets. 3. Subvert expectations. Sometimes you can artificially make something interesting by just making something stupid, like a samurai character that instead of fighting with a sword just throws katanas or has a bazooka. this is just absurd and dumb, but it might get to the point where the dumbness of it just makes it kind of fun and unserious. This last one about subverting expectations can often get gimmicky, but I think it is fine to make it gimmicky, often you need to explore the gimmicks and the stupid in order to settle for your own voice, because you have taken the time to explore your own voice.
@@Nonsensical2DThank you for the in depth response. This answer is actually very helpful and makes a lot of sense.
One little tip I'd like to personally give is to use a stretching brush. I mainly work in blender, but when I'm finished with the base shape of any model I use the stretching brush to pull it around in weird ways to see if anything would help it stand out more. Whether it's a human face, a creature, or even a tree, this can really help to make the shapes stand out. Sometimes making the chin more square, the cheekbones more pronounced, or the hair kind of whacky can go a long way into making something truly unique.
If you're working in 2d then pretty much every program should have a stretching brush, what's nice is that you won't lose the work or the detail, it just puts that detail it in a new spot. Just go crazy with it, pull any random piece in a random direction, as you can always undo it. Sometimes you'll stretch something super far and find that maybe just a little bit is the right answer, so you can scale it back but still get a better shape, or it can at least give you a better idea of how to redraw it.
I'd recommend this step well before the polishing stage though, as the further along you are the harder it will be to do this.
I think the secret to interesting art is contrast. my design philosophy is that the best art has a contrast ratio of around 65% and 35%.(close to the golden ratio) for example hollowknight is around 65% detailed(backgrounds) and 35% simple (characters). It's 65% serious (lore and the world) and 35% goofy (the characters, the voice acting)
Something like undertale is 65% goofy and 35% serious. popular pokemon designs are often 65% cool looking and 35% cute. or the opposite. this also makes pokemon really popular with both boys and girls. So if you create a character that is 100% bad-ass looking, 100% cute or 100% weird, people will often not care. the secret sauce is contrast.
OMG , I agree
What is the name of the random manga book at 6:15 ?
It's called "more how to draw manga vol.1 the basics of character drawing", the book technically covers more stylised manga as well (it has a chapter called "super deformed characters" so it too knows the value of exaggeration xD)
I feel like "Good" and "Bad" are often meaningless words when talking about the quality of art, because so much depends on the goals of the artist and the context that work is being judged in.
Like with the proportion examples, it's good to know *why* you're exaggerating the proportions of a character, otherwise it won't have the intended effect on whoever you want to see it.
I guess for example, if you drew Spider-Man with the Hulk's proportions, it'd definitely be interesting, but that's not what would best represent what that specific character is about.
I always like to think about how does a piece work on its audience (or not). Discussing art can be incredibly interesting to figure out how people reacted differently to the same piece.
While craft matters, there's a lot of people who try to figure out some "objective quality" beyond our subjective experience, at which point I believe you lost track of why we engage with art in the first place.
Hi, Have you ever considered creating a course which could incorporate much of your excellent guidance? I would certainly buy it.
the ability to create and the ability to conceptualize are 2 completely different skills. great artists know what theyre doing, but are powerless if they dont have any material to adapt.
Think about what might arguably be the most popular show of all time, it had awful art, horrible colors, janky animations, and terribly proportioned characters; yet it has had 36 seasons. The Simpsons is probably the best example of what you're mentioning here, in that going for realism can take away a lot of character. The Simpsons are nowhere near realistic, but they're all immediately recognizable by their colors, silhouettes, and voices. A huge complaint a lot of Simpsons fans have had is that the newer episodes lost that charm with the more polished feel, taking away the character of the show and making it feel like weird looking yellow people in an ordinary world.
Creating something unique goes so far in making a name for your product. I would have a hard time naming most AAA protagonists, because they make them so generic. I could recognize Kratos at any point, as his ghostly skin and red tattoo go a long way into making him distinct, but put most AAA protagonists in everyday clothes and I'd have no clue who they were. On the other hand you showed Hollow Knight which I think is a great example of the best of both worlds with both stylized yet appealing art. It's a great example as the art is never actually that complex, but it is very clean and instantly understandable. The main character's head is a box with two horns, yet I could recognize him anywhere.
I'm always an advocate that art style is so much more important than realism, because good art gets lost over the years whereas an art style is basically immortal.
This is that classic step where you go from just understanding the craft, to beginning to find your own voice & style. I would phrase it as going from competent to compelling. It's hard to sum-up in a tutorial, because it's an ongoing process, and will look different for every person. In an arts program, this would be the phase where you start working in peer-groups or circles, and do projects under the tutelage of a master / mentor.
I'm gonna cu
i think this is the problem i have with a lot of ai art.... it looks "good" but it's all just samey nonsense
Who is she?
I take issue with saying that "the things he's showing is actually interesting." They're extremely, for lack of a better way to say it, "lifeless corporate art style blobs." And, I mean, if you are going to use them to shit on the things that are both more interesting and visually appealing then I'm just going to say it they're shit and you have bad taste.
I think calling it "lifeless corporate art style" does indicate that what you truly hate about the style is what it has become associated with rather than its actual 'quality'. And basically, I agree, it's not really a style I fancy. But I am not really talking about the style, I am talking about the underlying design language. I also never claimed that the other things are necessarily bad, just that there are situations, especially in game art (which this channel is focused on) wherein it's important to exaggerate forms in order to better convey a story with your art. It's not just about being technically gifted and making things that are visually appealing. So I do think the art there is nice, but I think "nice" isn't the only goal with art.
Once I did an experiment. I took 2 plates, put a candy bar on one, peace of dog sh*t on the other, and left them outside for an hour. When I came back, the peace of dog sh*t had a MUCH higher level of engagement with the fly population... But for some reason I still think the chocolate is better. Is the number of engaged flies really the metric an artist should aim for?
Hmm, I don't think it's technically about engagement, I agree that that metric can get somewhat vapid. From a personal point if I just think to my favourite paintings or my favourite movies, they aren't just trying to "imitate real life perfectly" they are more so trying to use any tool possible in order to make the audience feel or care. I was thinking about mentioning lion king in this video, the animated version is so much better at telling the story, even though the 'live action' is extremely impressive. I feel like your analogy is sort of begging the question, calling it a turd is obviously already implying you don't like it. My point is that I think people tend to care about meaningful stuff, if it can be meaningful and good, that is awesome. but you shouldn't remove the meaningful at the expense of some superficial 'quality'. I still paint portraits, I love painting portraits, but they also don't really excite me to the same extent, they are sort of empty.
A candy packaged in dog urd and a dog urd packaged in candy. Which one do you think disgust humans more? As a human, I dislike yours more.
@@Nonsensical2D It's not about me not liking something, it's about the mission of art itself. I dislike 90% of what I used to like, because taste is like a skill - it develops with experience. So for people to grow, there has to be a gradient of quality - even the things that I now consider to be turds (just not on my lawn, pls).
My point is that artists should be driven by their own vision and self-expression, rather than the level of audience engagement. If art bends to popular demand, we'll end up with the situation like in Idiocracy - a giant farting gluts on a full movie screen.
In video, you assumed that good art = laborious + realism (which couldn't be further from the truth), and mixed up mistakes and stylistic choices.
More realism and time spent on piece has no direct correlation to its quality. Packing enough meaning into a few simple strokes is also an artistic skill, no less valuable than the ability to replace the camera with paint and brush. Especially in game art, where art has the practical function of in real time telling the player what is happening.
What separates good art from bad is its meaning. If you choose an artistic style to convey a certain feeling, it's good art; if you choose the same style just to stand out from the crowd, it's bad art (because it's a cheap, shallow trick that has no innate meaning). It's like making a show for kids - you can just attract undeveloped minds with flashy colors and loud sounds, or you can use the same techniques to make something with real value and meaning.
@@anonimanonimov3251 I mean I kind of agree? It feels as if you got hung up on a couple of examples I used. You are shadow-boxing a position I don’t really feel like I hold. And to be fair I don’t feel like I mixed up mistakes and stylistic choices, I specifically mentioned artists that do make ”mistakes” but have made it work by aligning their stylistic choices with those mistakes. There are examples of artists that are clearly making stylistic choices that might seem like mistakes (like Eichiro Oda) but I don’t think the artists I mentioned fall into that category. Now I will say that I don’t fully subscribe to the idea that popular == bad, but I also don’t think think that popular == good. I am more in the camp that if I like it I like it, sometimes it’s popular sometimes it’s not.
You're really trying to keep people's attention in your videos, aren't you? I'm noticing the many camera changes and putting a picture on top of a Switch. Man, some people just can't focus on what other people say, can they?
the angles has partly to do with attention, but also just trying to have fun when making the video. The thing on the switch is not a picture, it's a protective sleeve I have on the switch :) but ye, I'm also quite inclined to edit my videos for attention to some extent, but mostly because I think it leads to a better video..