Here’s some art of mine I wouldn’t mind getting a critique on, if you’re taking them. ^-^
It’s a screenshot redraw of, “Mindless Education”, an episode I adore but haunts me because badshithappenedwhenIfirstwatcheditsoitalwaysremindsmeofthen.

~~~~~~

Steven universe redraw: This is pretty good! The only problems are the hands, which look really claw-like, and the feet, which look a little broken. I would not post this as bad art.

-Mod Mola

Hi! I was wondering, do you think the shoulders are too wide? I’m having trouble trying to find out what width the shoulders should be. ;u; People keep telling me they’re too wide and the head is too small, but IDK.

I think the width is exactly right for the head size! I think people are just really used to large heads with tiny shoulders, especially since anime has popularized the style.

 Sometimes people tell me I’ve made the shoulders too wide/head too small when I think the exact opposite 

- Mod Spice

3

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

medium.com
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. 

youtube

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 
PhotoBlogCritic

Listen carefully to first criticisms made of your work. Note just what it is about your work that critics don’t like - then cultivate it. That’s the only part of your work that’s individual and worth keeping.
—  Jean Cocteau

So, in these urgent times, it is particularly appropriate to critique the social institutions that uphold such hypocrisy, including a popular project whose very substance is the triumph of sentimentality over empathy, of platitude over inquiry, of imitation over creativity: the boldly-titled Humans of New York (HONY).

 HONY is a blog—published on Tumblr, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and recently in print—that features portraits taken of New Yorkers on the street by the blog’s creator, Brandon Stanton, along with quotations from his interviews with the subjects. Initially formed as an attempt to create “an exhaustive catalogue of New York City’s inhabitants,” it has become the standard bearer of all that is warm and fuzzy about “humanity.” The stories it shares celebrate people’s greatest achievements, their deepest fears and most trying struggles, along with the quirks that make them unique individuals, all collected and presented in clean digital formats for home consumption. Despite the seeming inconsequentiality of such a social media phenomenon, its irrelevance to the day’s real political matters make significant, and troubling, its incredible popularity.

  One of the most glaring threats that HONY makes to humanity lies in its pretension of representing all of its diversity through the lens of a single individual. While claiming to define the population of New York, it presents a whitewashed image of an earnest, vibrant city that takes place predominantly in Manhattan, during the day. The individuals featured are only those Stanton feels comfortable approaching, those he deems interesting enough to photograph, who do not take offense to an intrusive white man’s request to commodify their images.

  Stanton acknowledges that his success rates in “artistic” areas like the East Village are strikingly higher than in, for instance, “somewhere like Bedford-Stuyvesant,” where he makes his home. Like a haughty gentrifier, he admits, “I do tend to value the portraits from rougher neighborhoods more, because they are harder to obtain, and rarer.” The blog grows like a collection of baseball cards, with individuals identified by whatever bits of personal information deem them “human,” their images representative of the exploits of a privileged voyeur who simultaneously exotifies and moderates the population around him.

  As Daniel D’Addario points out on Gawker, “It appears that Stanton sees people not as people but as vectors of how young, white New Yorkers see them.”

HONY aggressively promotes a wholly sentimentalized experience of New York City through a real-time disbursal of its faces, espousing an idea of inclusivity through a project of enforced uniformity. While the blog purposes to embrace diversity and celebrate each individual’s unique qualities, its effect is not to expand the rhetorical human category or challenge notions of conformity, but to accumulate and contain a more colorful array faces, neatly framed, within its restrictive scope. Beyond the exclusion inherent in a selective determination of what it takes to be counted among the “humans” of New York, the language of sameness it promotes carries a very alarming import.