have my bird oc. i dont know how to draw birds. or wings. or humans. or anything basically ,, but have my bird oc.

his name is aki park, he is part-korean and a photographer. his parents are working in america so he never gets to see them much. he lives w/ his grand father and grand mother who are very sick, so he works part time as a waiter just to help them.

does my oc seem too sad or smth? bc i dont want that.

The style n such is very cute, and there’s not much I can point out! :0c For the bird wings I would study photos of how the wings look folded. (this tutorial is p nifty! (x) )

They don’t seem too sad? But we don’t critique personality/character just art/design hun ;u;

~Mod Wolfrun

Can i get a review?

interesting concept!
the colors and style are solid

are her hands supposed to be weird on purpose?
just try recreating the way those are posed…
fingers really can’t bend backwards, and I think she broke her left wrist to get into that position

maybe try doing something with the hair too? they’re just hanging uselessly…I mean, it looks fine, but I feel like something more could be done

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.