Could i get a redraw and critique of my oc here?? :3c (im more just curious of what would be said, also i know mod requests aren’t usually listened to but i would very much enjoy mod mola to do this one if possible)


Well I can’t comment all that much on anatomy, considering there isn’t really a precedent for…things…But the ears (?) Definitely need work. Ears have dimension and a great way of showing that is by showing a little bit of the inside of the ear. They are also too straight and should be drooping a little from their weight. The coloring is also weird. The way the white head cuts directly to black looks unnatural, like it’s a whit cat wearing a black suit. The main problem with this picture though is its edginess. I don’t have a problem with edgy or dark drawings on principle, as long as they aren’t a) super middle-school-emo cliché, or b) overdone to the point that the edginess is interfering with the mechanics of the drawing. Yours falls into the second trap. To put it bluntly: I can’t fuggin see it. I spent five minutes trying to decipher what that second face is and I’m still not sure if I got it right on the redraw. I did a similar review/redraw awhile ago that I suggest you check out (/post/150165418163), but basically when you draw a black character it’s important to go easy on the black in order to allow darker and lighter blacks to give shading and so your stuff don’t just look like featureless blob. The character will still read as black, but it will have shape. It’s also a good idea to add a third color beyond black and white. It doesn’t have to have a large presence, but a little bit of color goes a long way. For this one I used a little lime green to draw attention to the eyes. The black background is also doing you no favors. If you want to go for a “I ran into this monster at night look”, do a really dark blue and maybe some fog. The brush you used looks weird. I see you were going for a fuzzy look, but it ends up looking like you just abused the ms paint spray tool. I think you have the right idea with a shakier outline line pattern, I just don’t think this reads well. I think this character would look good with some Tim Burton-esque lines; loose and multiple layers, so that’s what I did on the redraw. I would post this as bad art ‘cause right now it looks like an edgy pear, but if you add some shading you’ll have a much better drawing. 

-Mod Mola  

Bunny redesign, thoughts please? (I know it’s TDA, but I at edited the face, bust size, and model size.)

gray jacket, gray jeans, gray shirt
…it’s a bit much
you should probably add some more color

I would usually be against gamerip clothes, but surprisingly they don’t look too bad?
I would recommend changing them because the rigging can be weird and they cause problems with certain effects, and the detailed textures can look out of place with other models
but it looks fine now
Ep. 44 – Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick on theory, paranoid reading, and reparative reading

Join Emily, John, and B as they celebrate a reunion: John’s brief return to New York in this exciting episode on Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s critiques of paranoid reading, her theories of affect, and the move toward the reparative. More specifically, upon a listener request from Sug, we read her “Paranoid and Reparative Reading” and “Melanie Klein the the Difference Affect Makes.” In response, we ask many questions: Is social and critical theory always already situated as a form of paranoid reading? Is our favorite of favorite methods, of genealogy, necessarily paranoid in its form and origins? And how do we get from theorizing to the ground, to the reparative forms of relationality that may function to heal in the midst of crisis? All these, as well as B’s mysterious return to Heideggerianism, will be eagerly, and for the latter shockingly, explored. Everyone’s favorite Tumblr Friend from Canada has some great questions about graduate school applications. And our dreams segment will have you on the fence, or will it cook your goose? Find out.

new podcast!

“Perhaps the truest thing that anyone can say about Iqbal today is that he has become a blank screen upon which everyone projects their own beliefs. This is largely because his verses reflect a confusing number of opinions, especially with regard to political developments. As Faruqi has written, Iqbal was not simply fixated on expressing his lofty ideas “directly"—when we read his poetry we see that he took care with the language and rhetoric *through* which he expressed those ideas. It is this careful crafting of language and deep familiarity with past Urdu and Persian poetry that makes Iqbal’s verses probably the best of the twentieth century.

Iqbal had a very well-defined critique of Sufism that he developed quite early on in his book Asrār-i khudī. Influenced by Nietzsche and by German Orientalism, Iqbal thought that "Platonic” Sufism was too focused on the annihilation of the self, and, by extension, in political quietism, and that this was a factor in the supposed decay of Indo-Muslim culture. In opposition to annihilation (fanā), Iqbal developed his signature idea of khudī (self-fullness). But khudī itself is a concept that owes as much to Sufism as it does to Nietzschean thought; it can be understood in terms of the Sufi idea of baqā or subsistence, which (and Iqbal must have known this!) was by no means new in Sufism. Fanā and baqā, selflessness and self-fullness, have long been tied together by Sufis. We can see this in Rumi’s verse, which Iqbal knew well:

jahd kun dar bī-khudī khud rā bi-yāb
zūd-tar w'Allāhu a'lam bi’s-sawāb

Struggle in selflessness, and find your Self
with greater speed. And God knows best what is right.”

- Pasha jee (my shayari instructor) on Iqbal 


danipanteez asked:

Hi Claire! Thanks so much for helping out! I’ve attached the sketch.

So, for some clarification on what’s going on in the scene. It’s very slightly inspired by an old fairy tale about broken porcelain dolls. In the picture I wanted the story to be this girl is holding one of the dolls from the hutch behind her, but the man who owns them has just entered the room, and she looks up at him. Want him to be casting a shadow on about half the comp. (Which you can faintly see in the sketch.)

The thing is. I wanted this picture to be a super drastic angle and really push three point perspective. But I’m having trouble doing so and without it looking too weird. haha! Especially the girl. I keep trying to bring the horizon line down to about her knees. But somehow it just keeps going back to where it was everytime I redraw it. And last but not least, I even tried taking some reference photos and I still can’t quite capture the the angle and perspective I want.

That was a mouthful. My apologies for the novel! So my questions to you would be, do you have any advice in exaggerating an angle that we can’t quite get in real life? Any ideas as to how I can better capture this correctly. And for composition. i still feel it’s a bit weak since I made it a head-on shot. I thought of making the corner of the room visible and so her back is not against the hutch, if that makes sense. But then i worry it might take away from the story I want it to tell? And if i can even pull that off. haha. okay! I’m done now! So sorry for being so wordy!

You can feel free to make a post about it on tumblr, as others can always benefit from a critique! But if you just reply here, I don’t mind either. :) Thanks so much love!

So you found me out, I’m actually a total perspective junkie!  I don’t use it a ton in my own work, weirdly enough, but drawing things in perspective is one of my secret artsy happy places.  This stuff is like candy. :)

So first things first, composition aside, you do have a nice handle on perspective- while the composition can definitely use some tweaking, there’s definitely nothing innately wrong about your sketch!  It’s just a matter of shaking up the camera angle a little bit and being less tied to that idea of “placing the horizon line.”

If you look at your current composition, it’s actually (almost!) a vertical 2-point perspective- if you rotate the image 90 degrees you’ll notice that one of the perspective planes is straight-on!  Totally valid composition, but it also lacks the dynamism/imbalance that’s usually associated with full-on three-point perspective:

External image

(Quick aside- props to you for taking the time to design/draw an actual clutch!  I feel like a lot of people phone it in when they’re drawing environments, so the specificity and details you’re hinting at are really compelling.  Makes the clutch a character in its own right.)

Let’s talk about designing three-point perspective in a small space.

So I find it immensely weird that a lot of perspective surveys stop at three-point perspective, or at least don’t touch on the fact that, once you bring the horizon into play, you have to take into account the fourth perspective point as objects start to diminish in the other direction.  If you don’t, things look less like proper perspective and more like actual shape distortion:

External image

…I’m not gonna go too deep into this right now but, suffice to say for our immediate purposes, forget the horizon line.  Throw it out the window.  INTO THE HORIZON you might say, hohohohoho.

External image

In a (confined) indoor space, it takes tilting your head/camera pretty damn dramatically to get the vertical lines of a room to diminish á la three-point perspective.  Because of this, you probably aren’t going to be able to see the horizon line from that camera angle- you’re either staring at the floor or the ceiling, so the horizon line becomes less of a tool and more of a crutch that’s limiting your options.  That dude’s such an asshole.

So to make your life easier, worry less about horizon lines, and more about your individual vanishing points.  When you’re thumbnailing, a great way to solidify your perspective (or come up with new ideas, honestly), is to do this:

External image

If you want to push a vanishing point even further away you can just enlarge the pinwheel!  pretty cut and dry.


Using compositional hierarchy to reflect narrative.

So now that we’ve covered the actual mechanics of three-point perspective, let’s talk about how to make it work for the story you’re trying to tell.

External image

Option no. 1:
(see above) My first instinct would be to consider shifting the camera angle so it’s looking down on her, as opposed to the other way around.  It puts us, the viewer, in (or near) the position of the figure in the doorway, and has the added benefit of making her smaller and more vulnerable in the composition- it visually traps her in the space of the room by showing the surrounding walls.

External image

Option no. 1b: never overestimate the value of tilting/canting a composition for a quick Dutch angle!  Kinda cheating if you use it too much, but WHAM POW instant drama.

External image

Option no. 2: There are an infinite number of variations on this idea- a sharper angle, cropping in closer on her, etc.- so my solution is by no means the PERFECT BEST COMPOSITION EVER, but it gives you some idea of a different direction you could take with this piece while maintaining your sense of drama/tension.

External image

Option no. 3: Aaaaand of course, as I defiantly drew the previous angles, I started thinking about how it could work from her perspective, kinda closer to your original piece.  I do agree with your concerns about a straightforward, “head-on” composition, so I’d imagine at that point you’d have to show the figure silhouetted in the door- your main character would be reacting either to his shadow, or turning to face him.

This methodology for finding narrative compositions is by no means an absolute rule of illustration, by the by- visually “choosing a side” is a great way to immediately interject some drama into an image, but it’s also entirely up to you!  You want to end up with something you’re happy with.


Being a “fly in the room.”
One of the best pieces of advice I got from one of my professors, Mary Jane-Begin, was to be a fly in the room.  We all tend to settle on certain camera angles, either out of convenience of experience,  so letting your mind wander and just sketching out some absurd alternatives can help you stumble across something unexpectedly cool. :)

So tl;dr, it feels like you know what you want out of this piece- these might not be the exact solutions for your tastes, but they might be enough of a push in the right direction that you don’t feel like you’re stalling anymore.  I hope all of this is helpful/relevant!

Best of luck, and I can’t wait to see the finished piece! CLAIRE OUT <3

Do you want to get an Xbox One, but you feel like your significant other is more interested in boring things like knitting / line dancing / watching water boil? Don’t worry, Microsoft has got you covered! They offer a form letter that you can fill out and send to your honey / sweetie / sugar momma. You can even share it on Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin, if you want to spread the embarrassment around!

It’s funny because women don’t play video games, and men have to deceive and cajole to get their support! Ha-ha!

Update: Microsoft has since “fixed” the letter by changing the default “knit” option to “do your taxes early”. Because clearly, that was the sole problem with this ad.

The Emperor's New Clothes (The Myth of Moffat's Scriptwriting 'Genius') by Claudia Boleyn

Today I read an article about Steven Moffat’s Doctor Who in the Arts and Books section of the Independent on Sunday. In this article, by Stephen Kelly, Moffat is criticised for his inability to write women, to complete his plots, to write the Doctor as a likeable and trustworthy figure, and to keep his audience entertained. Yet one line in this frankly scathing (and almost painfully truthful) review reads: ‘When on form, Steven Moffat is the best writer working in television today’.

Having read said article, and written rather a lot of Moffat critique myself, the statement baffled me. Kelly’s entire article is lamenting the current state of Doctor Who at the hands of this man, and yet Moffat is still gifted with glowing praise.

It’s a common theme. I see it often when people are asked to review Moffat’s work. It seems people are almost afraid of criticising him, seeing as he has been lauded one of Britain’s most brilliant television writers.

It’s like the Emperor’s New Clothes. The Myth of Moffat’s Scriptwriting ‘Genius’. It’s a lie we’ve all absorbed and now just assume to be true. Sherlock himself would be frankly appalled by the entire thing. We are seeing, but we apparently do not observe.

Fellow Sherlock watchers will know what I mean (although many will probably not agree) when I equate Moffat’s writing to the empty houses of Leinster Gardens. An empty façade. It looks great from the outside, but when you step closer, you realise it’s just a whopping great train station with some drugged up self-proclaimed sociopath lurking in it.

 Let’s examine this case a little closer, shall we?

Keep reading
Don’t go to art school — I. M. H. O.
The traditional approach is failing us. It’s time for a change.
By Noah Bradley

This. I am living this. 

For those that are in school now: Good on you for going for education! You are strong and brave. I got your back. I will help you every step of the way. I will help you join ranks int he artist community. 

Remember you don’t HAVE to run this like a race. You CAN get what you need and then get out. You don’t HAVE to finish. 

You don’t need a teacher to tell you you can work for Disney or Pixar. Draw every day, several times a day. Use the resources in this link. Watch yourself grow. WORK at it, because the money won’t. 


Today we discuss the conventions of art critique and explore the possibility of the internet as an arena for constructive critique. Can we do it?!

Recommended reading:

Matthew Goulish, 39 Microlectures: In Proximity of Performance (2000)

James Elkins, Art Critiques: A Guide (Second Edition, 2012)

Kendall Buster and Paula Crawford, The Critique Handbook: The Art Student’s Sourcebook and Survival Guide (2nd Edition, 2009)

A recent picture found on twitter which made me realize exactly how horrible the school system is. They are not actually concerned with the kids knowledge, but rather their achievements on paper. Those achievements are what earns our educators those high ranks and titles. However, if you were to test the kids knowledge, on the actual material not their knowledge of how to pass a test, that student would not know half as much as what these standardized tests claim they know. These test aren’t even shaped for each students need. Take the SAT for example-one of the biggest test in determining a students “knowledge” for colleges to base off of, now that tests focuses on two things English reading and writing and mathematics. These are not the only guidelines by which you evaluate each student. You can not base a students intelligence on a few subjects, and you definitely can’t confine their knowledge on a 2400 scale. You are making some incredibly intellectual human beings believe they are not achieving great success; that and they haven’t even reached adulthood yet. 

– sincerely,
a concerned individual