They justify it, but they are. The justification and thought process is this: People who want to be artists, do ART. Depending on their skill level, that can range from Seraph Inn webcomic art tier to Sanic meme art tier to stuff that should be in museums, but regardless, the key point is they're willing to put in time and effort, and personal thought, into their art.
College in the modern era isn't about education. It's about employability. Someone who takes a month to make a masterpiece isn't employable. Instead, the goal is art that can be used and applied, quickly made and quickly discarded. That can be easily dictated, and standardized across multiple artists.
The West has always been assembly-line in its artistic works: A comic book is written by one person, storyboarded by another, line-art by a third, shaded by a fourth, colored by a fifth. With a standardized, easy-to-imitate style, you can have multiple artists doing a work. The writing can be done by committee, the art can too. If you have a unique art style, or even if it is not unique but it is classically trained or skillful, that replaceability, that swappable parts in the machine known as the animation/comic/game industry, doesn't work.
So you go to college to learn how to be bland, unoriginal, samey, and plain. How to be a good cog in the machine. The fact you're learning art instead of physics or programming makes no difference there.
Its so gross how much they destroy art. Dont know why they think it will work, when i see something with low effort art (unless i know that they didn't have the resources or unless its a specific style like 8bit or anything obviously intentional and its easy to tell the difference) i automatically assume the rest of the product is probably low effort as well and im usually correct.
But with this sort of disrespect against art, its easy to see why they spend their time trying to destroy the quality of art and stories for the sake of marxist politics. Cause they dont care about it at all.
College and further education has become its own virtue signal. "look at me I have sunk X hours into this futile activity to prove my employability." the quality of said education doesn't matter anymore (hence the move away from merit and grades).
This logic is also why, if you have almost ANY period of time being NEET you are by default likely blacklisted, trashcanned at interviews. Which then leads to you devaluing your labors worth by taking apprenticeships, agency work, or debasing yourself for a $8/hr job by offering to work a month's "probationary".
I'm not an artist let alone a university trained one, but from what I understand a lot of cartoon animators attend the California Institute of the Arts, which give modern cartoons a very distinctive style.
The hippy dippy bullshit that the 60s are known for existed almost entirely in a few square miles of San Francisco. A handful of elites can severely affect culture. CalArts dictates art style like Harvard dictates everything else.
After spending all of about 8 weeks 'studying' art at my local uni, all I remember was anything anyone produced was to be 'corrected' in how they could make it fit the more cartoony style everything was going for. Even the weebs wanting to draw anime were told to round stuff out. "Don't make the nose so sharp" "Stop using such sharp lines on the face, faces are round not angled".
That also applies in a lot of cases, yes. Look at the people that create the art, even in modern games. Or if you put attractive women in video games, the ugly women will always complain. Sense - A Cyberpunk Ghost Story was a good recent example. Attractive characters are offensive.
The difference is that Ateliers train illustrators, and focus entirely on technique mastery, media mastery and Anatomy. They are the trade school equivalent.
Art Colleges teach you about how to feel about art, and what sort of message you should be putting in. Art history is taught but generally with a heavy political slant. It doesn't have a good effect on an Artists technical skills.
Academic training promotes uniformity. You are trained to excel in the manner the professors, your colleagues, or the industry deems it. If its all subjective it cannot be graded, so a baseline standard has to be established and thereby robbing it of individuality little by little.
So if the idea of ugly art has become the standard, then all those being trained will create ugly art.
As webcomics and cartoons are some of the easiest fields to break into, and require speedy production over painstaking detail, I'd imagine CalArts type garbage are shoveled to help students get careers directly from graduation (a very important metric for many schools to help curb the "garbage degree" reputation).
Depends on the school they go to. My school had a Game Dev art track, which seemed to amplify those who had talent, and completely ignore those who didn't. Most of the art teachers were industry veterans, and their classes bore fruit every semester, but they were too soft on students that were falling behind.
Nah. I get frustrated with this computer bullshit too easily sometimes. It's exhausting trying to even keep up with anything any more.
Anyway, it's the difference between classic Disney and Warner Bros and modern fugly Adult Swim, and even Hannah-Barbera was better than the garbage people are passing off as cartoon art now, that started with Beavis and Butthead and Ren and Stimpy being gross for grossness' sake because it was new and different then.
Well....
A cursory glance of the CalArts KYM page shows an example from an artist known as RCDart.
The example on the left is from a picture of theirs drawn in 2014. The two examples on the right are after their admittance to the school in 2016.
BTW, those are supposed to be Steve Rogers and Finn from Star Wars.
So, based on this small sample, you can conclude that one's art has the potential to go from good to barely passable for Steven Universe concept art.
oh god whyyyy
Star Wars? I thought the middle one was Morbidly Obese Transgender He-Man Doing the Splits
Making "art" so unbelievably hideous really does take some serious skill. It's REPULSIVE.
Seems to be done on purpose. Any negative feedback can be used as an excuse to accuse the critic of some bigotry.
Imagine paying tens of thousands to unlearn everything that made you a good artist
They are.
They justify it, but they are. The justification and thought process is this: People who want to be artists, do ART. Depending on their skill level, that can range from Seraph Inn webcomic art tier to Sanic meme art tier to stuff that should be in museums, but regardless, the key point is they're willing to put in time and effort, and personal thought, into their art.
College in the modern era isn't about education. It's about employability. Someone who takes a month to make a masterpiece isn't employable. Instead, the goal is art that can be used and applied, quickly made and quickly discarded. That can be easily dictated, and standardized across multiple artists.
The West has always been assembly-line in its artistic works: A comic book is written by one person, storyboarded by another, line-art by a third, shaded by a fourth, colored by a fifth. With a standardized, easy-to-imitate style, you can have multiple artists doing a work. The writing can be done by committee, the art can too. If you have a unique art style, or even if it is not unique but it is classically trained or skillful, that replaceability, that swappable parts in the machine known as the animation/comic/game industry, doesn't work.
So you go to college to learn how to be bland, unoriginal, samey, and plain. How to be a good cog in the machine. The fact you're learning art instead of physics or programming makes no difference there.
Its so gross how much they destroy art. Dont know why they think it will work, when i see something with low effort art (unless i know that they didn't have the resources or unless its a specific style like 8bit or anything obviously intentional and its easy to tell the difference) i automatically assume the rest of the product is probably low effort as well and im usually correct. But with this sort of disrespect against art, its easy to see why they spend their time trying to destroy the quality of art and stories for the sake of marxist politics. Cause they dont care about it at all.
College and further education has become its own virtue signal. "look at me I have sunk X hours into this futile activity to prove my employability." the quality of said education doesn't matter anymore (hence the move away from merit and grades).
This logic is also why, if you have almost ANY period of time being NEET you are by default likely blacklisted, trashcanned at interviews. Which then leads to you devaluing your labors worth by taking apprenticeships, agency work, or debasing yourself for a $8/hr job by offering to work a month's "probationary".
I'm not an artist let alone a university trained one, but from what I understand a lot of cartoon animators attend the California Institute of the Arts, which give modern cartoons a very distinctive style.
The hippy dippy bullshit that the 60s are known for existed almost entirely in a few square miles of San Francisco. A handful of elites can severely affect culture. CalArts dictates art style like Harvard dictates everything else.
Other than CalArts there's what I call "diversity hire art" and other people call globohomo art which is corporate art that all just looks like this.
Oh, and look what caps it off: yet another interracial family.
Their propaganda has become sickeningly obvious.
Because the Left worships microcephalics as long as they look fuckable.
I would love to see hyper real, hyper detailed cartoons. Similar in style to what a scanner darkly did, but without needing the filmed back layer.
After spending all of about 8 weeks 'studying' art at my local uni, all I remember was anything anyone produced was to be 'corrected' in how they could make it fit the more cartoony style everything was going for. Even the weebs wanting to draw anime were told to round stuff out. "Don't make the nose so sharp" "Stop using such sharp lines on the face, faces are round not angled".
And that's why I bailed. So most likely yes.
So it's ugly women ruining art because they don't want the characters to be attractive?
That also applies in a lot of cases, yes. Look at the people that create the art, even in modern games. Or if you put attractive women in video games, the ugly women will always complain. Sense - A Cyberpunk Ghost Story was a good recent example. Attractive characters are offensive.
Art college? Yes. Atelier? No.
The difference is that Ateliers train illustrators, and focus entirely on technique mastery, media mastery and Anatomy. They are the trade school equivalent.
Art Colleges teach you about how to feel about art, and what sort of message you should be putting in. Art history is taught but generally with a heavy political slant. It doesn't have a good effect on an Artists technical skills.
Academic training promotes uniformity. You are trained to excel in the manner the professors, your colleagues, or the industry deems it. If its all subjective it cannot be graded, so a baseline standard has to be established and thereby robbing it of individuality little by little.
So if the idea of ugly art has become the standard, then all those being trained will create ugly art.
As webcomics and cartoons are some of the easiest fields to break into, and require speedy production over painstaking detail, I'd imagine CalArts type garbage are shoveled to help students get careers directly from graduation (a very important metric for many schools to help curb the "garbage degree" reputation).
I hate calarts.
Depends on the school they go to. My school had a Game Dev art track, which seemed to amplify those who had talent, and completely ignore those who didn't. Most of the art teachers were industry veterans, and their classes bore fruit every semester, but they were too soft on students that were falling behind.
We used to have this, this, and even this
Now it's allthis and it all started with this and especially this
Bleah.
Why is each of those a fucking google spy link?
before:
after:
Sorry, I thought I was just getting the goddamn image link, and not the whole thing.
Fair. Was I too harsh? Google does try extremely hard to to ensure you can't visit and share things without going through their servers.
Nah. I get frustrated with this computer bullshit too easily sometimes. It's exhausting trying to even keep up with anything any more.
Anyway, it's the difference between classic Disney and Warner Bros and modern fugly Adult Swim, and even Hannah-Barbera was better than the garbage people are passing off as cartoon art now, that started with Beavis and Butthead and Ren and Stimpy being gross for grossness' sake because it was new and different then.
Depends on the artist or college honestly.