Sissykick, I understand that these are your opinions based on your personal preference. Whatever you choose to put a premium on is your choice and I respect that but claiming that any artist will raise the estimated value of his or her work based on the amount of time used on producing it is something that I won't agree on. I feel like that's a wrong way to value art. I wish more people would look at artists as artists, not just as plain craftsmen.
Last edited by illv; May 1, 2014 at 09:50 PM.
Originally Posted by Sissykick
you guys act as if a detailed artist is just some poor excuse of an artist just adding forever. Erasers exist. I never said thats what the quote was implying, you assumed i was implying such, much like I just assumed what your image of a detailed a artist is.
So you threw out a wise-sounding aphorism without interpreting it, I interpreted it based on the context of the discussion we were having, and now you're accusing me of misinterpreting your lack of interpretation? That seems like a pretty idiotic way to carry on a discussion. If you're going to quote aphorisms then explain what you're on about, don't expect us to nod and say "Ah yes, your point now makes total sense because you quoted a famous person".
I'm also unclear on what point you're trying to make with "Erasers exist." I'm sure in your head it came across as a really witty and stinging rebuke but from where I'm sitting it seems like we're just pointing out things in the room. Pens exist! Cardboard exists! My tablet exists!
"i wish i could do that ken watanabe face where his eyes are really wide" -siku 2015
DONSELUKE, MASTER OF LAWSUIT
if you love america please sign this petition
B&B&B&
<P>I'm gonna end this here before more petty insults, I just want to say is you look on any website that helps novice artists price their work time will be a factor. I also won't bother explaining the eraser comment because it is apparently over your head and I don't feel like repeating myself. These are just opinions, and I respect yours Hanz but please understand I don't have to agree with you because you think you out debated me.</P>
illv I know its a blanket statement, i'm aware there are many other things to consider for the price. My main objective here was to show my opinion on why people assume high-detail should cost more than simplistic in a lot of cases. Were talking about toribash artists for the most part, were not talking fine-arts here lol.
It's also not my preference. I prefer simplistic sets, just look at the set I've had forever now that I got recolored many times. I'm stating my opinion on why I think detailed sets are assumed to be more valuable, nvm the fact that simple sets are a dime a dozen, and a well done highly detailed set is quite rare imo
illv I know its a blanket statement, i'm aware there are many other things to consider for the price. My main objective here was to show my opinion on why people assume high-detail should cost more than simplistic in a lot of cases. Were talking about toribash artists for the most part, were not talking fine-arts here lol.
It's also not my preference. I prefer simplistic sets, just look at the set I've had forever now that I got recolored many times. I'm stating my opinion on why I think detailed sets are assumed to be more valuable, nvm the fact that simple sets are a dime a dozen, and a well done highly detailed set is quite rare imo
Last edited by Sissykick; May 2, 2014 at 01:35 AM.
[RelaxAll]
Since sissy kick isn't willing explain his own comment and since you (hanzo) either don't understand it or have adopted a position of intentional ignorance (this is not an insult by the way, pretending to not know things is almost necessary for survival in this world).
He means that you can always tweak a piece of art by using as eraser to take out one part and replace it with something better. This is probably correct. This is because only the best piece of art possible is perfect and since the possibilities of art are practically infinite the changes of any pieces of art being perfect and impossible to improve are almost zero unless you produce an almost infinite number of art pieces.
However the larger proportoin of possible pixel combinations are terrible and could not even be seen as art . This means that when changing a already good piece of art there is a greater chance of you making it worse than improving it depending on how good the art is and whether the artist knows how to improve it. Since this is the toribash forum I will draw similarities between this and replay making (makes more sense in multiplayer because you can't go back on actions after you pleas space). If you have set up a pretty cool backflip and you can see it in your ghost then the likelihood is that if you (or at least me because I am probably less experienced) try to tweak it to make it better without being certain what you're doing you will muck up the nice flip and make it worse. However, if you can see a easy way to improve the movement then it will often work.
To summarise what I am trying to say: It is practically infinitely likely that a piece of art can be improved but it is infinately likely that a piece of art can be made worse unless you are trying to make it disgusting on purpose. You should only add more or change a piece of art if you can see what you will change it too and you are pretty sure you will not ruin it.
You may point out that art is not a measurable quantitive thing and that I sould not talk about in terms of variations of pixels because the artist will not change pixels at random. I am aware if this but my point that it is easier to make art a good piece of art worse than to improve it. I hope this makes some sort of sense. Thank you for reading.
He means that you can always tweak a piece of art by using as eraser to take out one part and replace it with something better. This is probably correct. This is because only the best piece of art possible is perfect and since the possibilities of art are practically infinite the changes of any pieces of art being perfect and impossible to improve are almost zero unless you produce an almost infinite number of art pieces.
However the larger proportoin of possible pixel combinations are terrible and could not even be seen as art . This means that when changing a already good piece of art there is a greater chance of you making it worse than improving it depending on how good the art is and whether the artist knows how to improve it. Since this is the toribash forum I will draw similarities between this and replay making (makes more sense in multiplayer because you can't go back on actions after you pleas space). If you have set up a pretty cool backflip and you can see it in your ghost then the likelihood is that if you (or at least me because I am probably less experienced) try to tweak it to make it better without being certain what you're doing you will muck up the nice flip and make it worse. However, if you can see a easy way to improve the movement then it will often work.
To summarise what I am trying to say: It is practically infinitely likely that a piece of art can be improved but it is infinately likely that a piece of art can be made worse unless you are trying to make it disgusting on purpose. You should only add more or change a piece of art if you can see what you will change it too and you are pretty sure you will not ruin it.
You may point out that art is not a measurable quantitive thing and that I sould not talk about in terms of variations of pixels because the artist will not change pixels at random. I am aware if this but my point that it is easier to make art a good piece of art worse than to improve it. I hope this makes some sort of sense. Thank you for reading.
Good morning sweet princess
