Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dreaded_beast" data-source="post: 1401918" data-attributes="member: 11185">I have to get this of my chest:I LOVE ANIME!I agree with everyone who has said that art is "subjective". One person's masterpiece is another person's crap. Just because I like something, doesn't necessarily mean that it is better than what someone else likes, and vice-versa.That being said, I love the current trend in 3.0/3.5 art today.The way I see it, art is an ever-changing and "evolving" process. Art, in my opinion, is about change, creation, and inspiration. Would art really be art if it were to remain, static, unchanging, and year after year after year, artists produced the same type of work without any semblance of change?I took a few art classes in college and am somewhat into art, but I'm no expert but correct me if I am wrong <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.Take for instance some of the very first pieces of visual art: cave paintings. Those cave paintings, while still art, have "evolved" into the types of "art" that we are familiar with in modern times. In order for art to evolve, artists must experiment with new techniques, poses, subjects, ideas, etc. If artists didn't experiment, would we still be using cave paintings as our preferred medium? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />If I remember correctly, certain aspects of art were slowly discovered, such as perspective. Before the discovery of perspective, much of the art at the time had a 2D feel to it. For example, the "stereotypical" Egyptian art. Only after the discovery of perspective, did pictures start having a more "organic" feel, more depth.That being said, I'm sure there were probably people during those times that didn't like these "new" forms of coming out. They might have "hated" the whole idea of perspective and wanted what they were accustomed to: 2D art and flat pictures.I guess what I am trying to say is that most art is always changing. You can look at some illustrations from a few decades ago and can see a marked difference in style when compared with our "modern" art. This can be seen anywhere from the way cars look, to the way people dress, etc. Times change, people change, art changes. We can hate it, like it, but things will change whether we want them to or not.Hence BASIC, Advanced, 2nd Edition, 3.0, and now, 3.5 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />*I hope everyone got something meaningful out of this?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /></blockquote>

Verification