Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gammadoodler" data-source="post: 8816774" data-attributes="member: 6914290">If you are going to spend the time to indulge your tendency to be verbose, perhaps you could also spend the time to address the actual rather than assumed content of a post.What has come across as binary in your posts has been your tendency to do things like replace &quot;little weight&quot; with &quot;zero weight&quot; and then act as if there is no meaningful difference in doing so.I keep ignoring your particular opinions about the particular art because I don't feel a need to address them. I don't care that much about the particular art.I do care about how the art is used and judged. And I find biomechanical plausibility and comprehensibility one of the more useless metrics by which to judge fantasy art, especially as the creature gets further and further from the human experience.Your contraexamples so far, a unicorn which behaves mostly like a horse, and an owlbear which is and behaves mostly like a combination of owl and bear, are, to me, less fantastical by nature than a demon president of hell. I have never seen real demons with my naked eyes but have seen owls and bears and horses. As a result of this difference, I am more tolerant of elements in the art that seem nonsensical for &quot;demon president&quot; than I am for &quot;owl+bear&quot;. And so I'm more willing to use my imagination to make sense of the nonsensical, rather than pissing on an artist for not doing their job.(Fun story though: what in the unicorn art suggests any of the abilities you have noted? Looks like a white horse with a gold mane and a horn to me)For the art style, it's basically an elevation. It tells you what the thing looks like from the front and that's it. It's like &quot;art&quot; you find in dictionaries (strange though that may seem). In the same way I would not use dictionary art to draw conclusions about creatures' nature or capabilities, so I would not use it here.You are welcome to argue that this was a poor choice. It's your opinion. I'm inclined to call it a push given that is seem to be intended to directly reference an old timey illustration.So again, in total, its a piece of dictionary art for a creature with zero real-world analogues. It just isn't that important to understanding how the thing &quot;really&quot; is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gammadoodler, post: 8816774, member: 6914290"] If you are going to spend the time to indulge your tendency to be verbose, perhaps you could also spend the time to address the actual rather than assumed content of a post. What has come across as binary in your posts has been your tendency to do things like replace "little weight" with "zero weight" and then act as if there is no meaningful difference in doing so. I keep ignoring your particular opinions about the particular art because I don't feel a need to address them. I don't care that much about the particular art. I do care about how the art is used and judged. And I find biomechanical plausibility and comprehensibility one of the more useless metrics by which to judge fantasy art, especially as the creature gets further and further from the human experience. Your contraexamples so far, a unicorn which behaves mostly like a horse, and an owlbear which is and behaves mostly like a combination of owl and bear, are, to me, less fantastical by nature than a demon president of hell. I have never seen real demons with my naked eyes but have seen owls and bears and horses. As a result of this difference, I am more tolerant of elements in the art that seem nonsensical for "demon president" than I am for "owl+bear". And so I'm more willing to use my imagination to make sense of the nonsensical, rather than pissing on an artist for not doing their job. (Fun story though: what in the unicorn art suggests any of the abilities you have noted? Looks like a white horse with a gold mane and a horn to me) For the art style, it's basically an elevation. It tells you what the thing looks like from the front and that's it. It's like "art" you find in dictionaries (strange though that may seem). In the same way I would not use dictionary art to draw conclusions about creatures' nature or capabilities, so I would not use it here. You are welcome to argue that this was a poor choice. It's your opinion. I'm inclined to call it a push given that is seem to be intended to directly reference an old timey illustration. So again, in total, its a piece of dictionary art for a creature with zero real-world analogues. It just isn't that important to understanding how the thing "really" is. [/QUOTE]

Verification