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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skallgrim" data-source="post: 4993233" data-attributes="member: 79271">This is, ironically I suppose, what I like about the art.  The art is "childlike".  It is intentionally cartoonish and bright, and I thought that brought it vitality and humor.I don't know enough about how the artist produces each work to judge, but I suspect that these pieces are produced very quickly compared to what you might call "polished" artwork.  I thought that was a deliberate choice on the part of the artist, and it summoned some of the energy and fun of the doodles that anyone might do while gaming, or reading through a Monster Manual.Again, everyone's experience of art will vary.  However, describing someone's art as 'unprofessional', however, is either insulting, or has a specific meaning.  If the artist is a professional artist, and this work is done as a paid project, then it is by definition, "professional", no matter how technically challenging it is.  If the artist is unpaid, then no matter how technically challenging or polished the final artwork is, it is "amateur".  The only other way to read "professional" is "good", as in "This artwork is not good.".Also, accusing WOTC of 'parading around' this artwork on their website (and accusing them of nepotism) is also pretty insulting.  Someone (or, more accurately several people) at WOTC likes this person's artwork, and found it enjoying.  They decided to share that artwork on a free section of their website.  I understand that it would be great if all of the web browsing we do was guaranteed to be of stuff that we liked, but I haven't found a web browser with a "My Dislikes" filter.It's art.  It's inherently subjective.  I am pretty sure that it is obvious to most adults that the cartoony primitiveness of the art in question is deliberate to the artist (He's not going to be surprised that it turned out that way).  You might not like vinegar-based barbecue sauce, but to criticise someone who makes their barbecue that way "because they have vinegar in it" implies that there is some objective standard for taste to which you have access, and which they are either sadly ignorant or deliberately violating.You also specifically call out the artist as being less qualified, less skilled, and less deserving of being featured by WOTC.  The article specifically noticed that they LIKED his art.  The criterion for being featured in this free article was "We liked him.".  How is skill, qualification, or being deserving even entered into that choice?  It's art they like; they featured it.  It certainly seems to deserve payment when I LIKE your art, and ask you to paint more of it for me.  If there is, unbeknownst to me, some objective, official, formal categorization for what "art" can be, so that liking it, and only it, can be enforced on others with legal or divine authority, please point it out to the rest of us.  Otherwise, it appears that we are free to like whatever art we choose to like.I would caution you, however.  The entire Internet, and indeed the whole world, may contain images which you personally do not like, yet which other people, inexplicably, feign delight over.  You may wish to proceed through life with your eyes closed so that you do not waste valuable "looking at things" time on them.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification