An "Advanced" board has been added to the oekaki!

[Cherry]

My comments are in Blue

Advanced art is to make a place for art that tends to outshine the real intermediate art, so now you can see the real 'middle artists'! Outshines? That just makes it look like it's way better, albeit it could be, but that just seems like another reason why you buy a photo rather than a Picasso because it is realistic, because it's a photo.
Not all of the art there is realism! Yes, of course it has to look realistic, but no, it isn't just picture-like drawings.

I'd buy a photo if I liked it, but I'd also buy Picasso if I liked it (and could afford it.) Some people like different things, and you can tell, the staff put a lot of variety in there. There's human drawings, animals, realism, cute oreo dinos, unicorns, all kinds of stuff. The mods don't go, "let's be oppressive and biased! Since you're a photo-realist and that's what I love, bam! Advanced. Even though it really isn't that good." (Read/said in a silly voice because it really is silly. The mods/other staff cannot be biased, or else I seriously doubt they'd want to work on here or even be allowed. I doubt anyone thinks about them that extremely, but I'm getting the impression people are blaming the mods or the artists just because they're 'let into some big, exclusive club.') Realism is not the only art in there If you aren't a realism artist, and you work really hard, you can get in there too!

People -not here, in this thread, and not always even on this site- complain about how they never get any comments or likes. Note often they only want kind, "you are sooooo awesome and good!!!" comments. Some artists want to grow, and get crit and compliments because they might be stuck in a rut. There is no problem with that. None at all. I can understand that, I'm like that too. But when the advanced got "you are super great!" comments and you got "oh, cute" comments or none at all then you probably felt overlooked.
Tess noticed that and decided to make an advanced one.
Now people who need it can get compliments and critique and the advanced get the compliments (and rarely crit, which is actually kind of sad since they may not be able to grow, but maybe they could, I don't know) and they don't hide the artists who need, who WANT feedback. Since the advanced change, I've spent more time browsing and commenting in the oekaki than in a long time. And I stay in the beginners or intermediate. Sure, I like a few advanced, but that one extra "you're awesome!"comment doesn't really help them in the end. It helps the artists who had less appreciation than the advanced. Which is a good thing, and the reason for this.

You're always (you is used generally!) going to have competition with your art. But you had MORE then, not now. The only thing that is possible to eliminate the competition is ban all the so-called "good" (and they are, but I do feel that the intermediates are good too. Beginners are good, but they aren't affected quite so much by this change, so I'm not going to mention them.) artists from the okeaki. What a great idea. Not really. I wish I didn't have competition on writing, or singing, which is what I most like to do, but it's not like I can go and attack somebody trying out for American Idol or something. Or picket at a bookstore selling C.S. Lewis's books. (I actually like his books. But that was what popped into my mind.)

That's pretty extreme, but it is almost as if people want it to be an option.


think of this as your chance! A big break!
you are a real artist. (Yes, beginners, that includes you. [Please note I'm a beginner as well.])
And every single real artist deserves in there too. It only takes time.even if it's a scribble someone's a real artist. However by the advanced boards standards not every real artist will make it in there without drawing things that look like photos, which is all i've been seeing in the advanced board from what i've looked at.

You basically warped my post, the way you cut things out.
Please, if you're going to cut things out of posts, add the "..." symbol to notify that you cut something out and it isn't the entire work. (Writing is art, too. Even nonfiction. I can tell you really desire your art and other's art to be respected, and it may have just been an accident you forgot, but please don't edit my post in such a way that it changes my original meaning and sounds more like how you wanted it to sound than the original post sounded. I do see that you just took my bolded points, but still.)

A scribble is art, in a sense. But I don't think a baby coloring on the wall is going to be considered art to A) the parent, B) an art critic or C) any random person. Art is subjective, yes, but a scribble is not art unless you're doing it in the purpose of creating something or conveying something, or something to do with abstract art.
People seem to think that the advanced category is saying/representing "all you 'bad' artists out there, you stink. In fact, we're making a new category just so we can rub it in your faces. Hahahah. "
That's not it at all. It's meant to be good, and I know that "even though it wasn't meant to hurt, it still is!" is what people think.
But wait, stop! If we want to think in the way of "let's make a category to show off the good art and leave the bad art in the dust" then let's apply it to real life.
If the advanced category is only for good artists, so are art galleries. That means that everyone who doesn't have their art there stinks. No, it doesn't mean that. Its meant to honor the artists and give people a place to see it. That's what the advanced it for! Not to leave people out, but to bring people in, and make people better.
In a sense, it may be insulting to say that art like this is just intermediate. viewtopic.php?f=74&t=973143 viewtopic.php?f=74&t=1086810 So that's another reason that the advanced category is good.

...
The categories are not in place to degrade artists
If your ego is not extremely inflated you should be able to tell if your art belongs in intermediate or beginners or whateverWell i must have a huge ego. I have trouble because i see my art as lesser or not good enough. Does that mean i have an inflated ego? No, it means that you're a real artist. If you're afraid to put things out there, it matters to you, You want it to matter to others.
I'm not really sure why you posted that, however.
The beginner boards are great actually! You can show off your skills and PRACTICE without having to be overwhelmed by a ton of art that is better than yours. I said it, yes, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE ART THAT IS BETTER THAN YOURS AND THAT'S OKAY!!!It is okay, however as a new and upcoming artist i felt like i would never be where i am now, because i got completly ignored. Yep, I agree it is okay. It is something we have to accept with a good attitude. I do see that people get ignored, which is why this new board is so good!

You should use that fact as a tool to improve. Don't just sit around feeling sorry for yourself. That's not cool you guys.

So if you're offended by these boards please step back and remember that there will always be better artists than you; there is no need to be discouraged by this. Use this as a learning experience!

My responses in pink. I notice that my post is extremely long, so... Yeah.

[Rainbow Dash]

IKR? It's like you have to be into realism to be respected.
The worst part is when the "better" artist freehand-copies from a photo they found on google, and they get moved up.
Isn't there rule against that, or did I not read the rules well enough? XD

Copies on CS are locked unless they're good. There's a double standard with freehand copies of photos.

Badly copied = Locked
Photorealistic copy = Advanced oekaki and a spot on the "most popular" board

I don't like the idea of advanced oekaki since it pretty much says "you must be this good at stealing photos to join this group."

[䏠xote]

{ I really like the idea of a middle ground, because I know how it feels to have your artwork quickly buried. It just leaves me feeling lost on whether me pictures are fit to be intermediate or not. ::(

[Cherry]

I don't think the staff are so biased as to let the "good" copies through. I also don't think it's necessarily manual that something gets "most popular of all time" until it gets a certain amount of views, likes, comments. They don't say, "this is good, I'll put it here." They out it there because it matches up to the qualifications.

[Sakarilynx]

IKR? It's like you have to be into realism to be respected.
The worst part is when the "better" artist freehand-copies from a photo they found on google, and they get moved up.
Isn't there rule against that, or did I not read the rules well enough? XD

Copies on CS are locked unless they're good. There's a double standard with freehand copies of photos.

Badly copied = Locked
Photorealistic copy = Advanced oekaki and a spot on the "most popular" board

I don't like the idea of advanced oekaki since it pretty much says "you must be this good at stealing photos to join this group."

I don't know where you are getting the idea of a double standard with freehand copies of photos. The reason artists get in trouble on Oekaki for copying photos is if they aren't referencing the photos they used. I haven't ever noticed a double standard with relation to this as long as people are posting references and crediting who should be credited.

Also... not all realism pictures end up on the advanced oekaki board. I have seen realism pictures bumped down to intermediate because they don't show an accurate understanding of anatomy, adequate shading and backgrounds, and so forth. Also... just because something is a photorealism copy it doesn't just appear on the most popular board. Pieces of art that end up on the most popular board have to have a HUGE amount of likes to get there. Thus, most of the time the featured pieces of art end up on most popular. (And if you haven't noticed, not many photo realism pictures end up featured)

I would like to suggest that you take a look at the pictures posted in Advanced Oekaki before you say that you have to be good at photorealism in order to join. Because you don't. It is really aggravating me that this idea keeps floating around this forum.

Also... I need to put a plug in here for artists who are doing photo realism. Personally, I have been doing realism pictures to improve my understanding of anatomy, shading, lighting, and everything in between. By trying to imitate a photograph I am learning how to draw realistic fur, feathers, adequate proportions, etc., so that I can be a successful artist later down the road. My goal is to be able to move away from using reference pictures all together, and to use my understanding of anatomy and such that I have learned from realism to guide me later down the road.

That was really wordy, but hopefully I got my point across. XD

[Rainbow Dash]

IKR? It's like you have to be into realism to be respected.
The worst part is when the "better" artist freehand-copies from a photo they found on google, and they get moved up.
Isn't there rule against that, or did I not read the rules well enough? XD

Copies on CS are locked unless they're good. There's a double standard with freehand copies of photos.

Badly copied = Locked
Photorealistic copy = Advanced oekaki and a spot on the "most popular" board

I don't like the idea of advanced oekaki since it pretty much says "you must be this good at stealing photos to join this group."

I don't know where you are getting the idea of a double standard with freehand copies of photos. The reason artists get in trouble on Oekaki for copying photos is if they aren't referencing the photos they used. I haven't ever noticed a double standard with relation to this as long as people are posting references and crediting who should be credited.

Also... not all realism pictures end up on the advanced oekaki board. I have seen realism pictures bumped down to intermediate because they don't show an accurate understanding of anatomy, adequate shading and backgrounds, and so forth. Also... just because something is a photorealism copy it doesn't just appear on the most popular board. Pieces of art that end up on the most popular board have to have a HUGE amount of likes to get there. Thus, most of the time the featured pieces of art end up on most popular. (And if you haven't noticed, not many photo realism pictures end up featured)

I would like to suggest that you take a look at the pictures posted in Advanced Oekaki before you say that you have to be good at photorealism in order to join. Because you don't. It is really aggravating me that this idea keeps floating around this forum.

Also... I need to put a plug in here for artists who are doing photo realism. Personally, I have been doing realism pictures to improve my understanding of anatomy, shading, lighting, and everything in between. By trying to imitate a photograph I am learning how to draw realistic fur, feathers, adequate proportions, etc., so that I can be a successful artist later down the road. My goal is to be able to move away from using reference pictures all together, and to use my understanding of anatomy and such that I have learned from realism to guide me later down the road.

That was really wordy, but hopefully I got my point across. XD

The problem with "referencing" for photorealism is that it isn't referencing. It's copying. Referencing would be looking at a picture to get an idea of anatomy and then building your own character using points of reference like where joints are, directions of fur on different parts of the body, and so on.

Most of the photorealistic oekakis are just copies of photos. Referencing =/= copying and a lot of people don't seem to be getting that. They are two entirely different things. It grinds my gears when I see people say "Referenced from X" and the link goes to a photo they just copied.

And I never said you have to do photorealistic art to get into advanced and I have looked at advanced. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Sakarilynx]

Copies on CS are locked unless they're good. There's a double standard with freehand copies of photos.

Badly copied = Locked
Photorealistic copy = Advanced oekaki and a spot on the "most popular" board

I don't like the idea of advanced oekaki since it pretty much says "you must be this good at stealing photos to join this group."

I don't know where you are getting the idea of a double standard with freehand copies of photos. The reason artists get in trouble on Oekaki for copying photos is if they aren't referencing the photos they used. I haven't ever noticed a double standard with relation to this as long as people are posting references and crediting who should be credited.

Also... not all realism pictures end up on the advanced oekaki board. I have seen realism pictures bumped down to intermediate because they don't show an accurate understanding of anatomy, adequate shading and backgrounds, and so forth. Also... just because something is a photorealism copy it doesn't just appear on the most popular board. Pieces of art that end up on the most popular board have to have a HUGE amount of likes to get there. Thus, most of the time the featured pieces of art end up on most popular. (And if you haven't noticed, not many photo realism pictures end up featured)

I would like to suggest that you take a look at the pictures posted in Advanced Oekaki before you say that you have to be good at photorealism in order to join. Because you don't. It is really aggravating me that this idea keeps floating around this forum.

Also... I need to put a plug in here for artists who are doing photo realism. Personally, I have been doing realism pictures to improve my understanding of anatomy, shading, lighting, and everything in between. By trying to imitate a photograph I am learning how to draw realistic fur, feathers, adequate proportions, etc., so that I can be a successful artist later down the road. My goal is to be able to move away from using reference pictures all together, and to use my understanding of anatomy and such that I have learned from realism to guide me later down the road.

That was really wordy, but hopefully I got my point across. XD

The problem with "referencing" for photorealism is that it isn't referencing. It's copying. Referencing would be looking at a picture to get an idea of anatomy and then building your own character using points of reference like where joints are, directions of fur on different parts of the body, and so on.

Most of the photorealistic oekakis are just copies of photos. Referencing =/= copying and a lot of people don't seem to be getting that. They are two entirely different things. It grinds my gears when I see people say "Referenced from X" and the link goes to a photo they just copied.

And I never said you have to do photorealistic art to get into advanced and I have looked at advanced. Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't want to start an argument here. I'm just saying that I haven't ever seen a double standard in "copying" photos. Also... I don't see the harm in it when you are using it to learn from. I do see the harm when you copy a photo and claim it as your own original work for the purpose of getting gain. However, when you are copying photos just to draw for fun on Oekaki, I don't see the harm in it. Once again... for me, it is a learning experience, and I have improved a lot from it.

I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth... and I'm not trying to make you upset.

[Scarlip]

I've been debating whether to post here or not, because I know that this post might not make me very popular but I just can't hold back any longer, reading those deprecative comments about photorealistic art being "copies of photos".

I pretty often draw photorealistic pictures in real life (with pencil in grey scale), but regarding digital art, I have only started working on my realism skills. In both cases I use photos as references, and yes, I try to make my picture look as close to it as possible. Because this thread is about the Oekaki I will use the first and, so far, only digital example I have. This tiger head based on this photograph.
Yes, it does look like the photograph (except for the eye color which I changed on purpose) and again, yes, that was my intention. That makes me a thief? Sorry, but I can't quite tolerate comments like that without speaking up. I find them very offensive and even plain rude. I spent hours, and I mean, HOURS of work on drawing this, I redrew it several times because it did NOT quite look like the ref and I wanted absolute accuracy, where possible. When I was done it was 3:00 am in the morning and my eyes were burning and my head was aching like crazy. I'm a perfectionist and if I have a photograph that I want to make a drawing of, then I want to get as close to the orginal as possible, and include as many details as possible. That's the way I roll. And I give full credit, I never claimed this or any picture like it as a picture originating from my own brain.

Why I am doing this?
Because I love the challenge it provides for me, I love to train my eyes, I love to look at the photograph and say "Hmmm how does this and that look? How can I transfer this detail into my drawing? Where does the fur shine, where is this stripe and when does that stripe join it? How do these colors blend together?" and things like that. I know that most people think that it is much more of a challenge to not draw it exactly like the photograph, and many will even say it is the easy way out to just copy what you see - I can tell you, it is not. It is both hard, very hard. Drawing without making it look close to the ref is hard because, well, you have to do it more "freestyle", but drawing something with the intention to make it look identical to a photo reference has its very own challenges because it can be very, very tiring to get the details right, use the right techniques to archieve certain effects and all that. So, it is not all about "simply copying a picture", it does take power of observation as well as drawing skills (mine aren't close to perfect but I'm frequently working on it, hence doing more pictures like that).

Many artists who "copy" photos also dream of that one day in the future when they will be able to draw that kind of pictures without using any ref at all, and yes, drawing after a photograph is a dang good practise. Not only anatomy wise but also when it comes to fur, shading, light effects, proper backgrounds, things like that. If you use a photo just to get the anatomy look right and draw from there, that is great. But if you don't know how to draw proper fur, how to do realistic light effects and such things, it can be helpful to just draw it identically like on the photo refercence until you start to develop a sense for it. Art is always about learning and practice. At school, if you learn something new by reading a book, you also kind of "copy" the information into your brain before you can use it in your own way. Does that make you a thief of knowledge? Didn't think so. This might not be the best example but it's the only one I could think of.

What annoys me the most is when people bash on "copying" google photos, yet if I was to use my personal photograph as a reference that would be fine, even if my version looked 100% identical. Pardon, I can't take the next plane to Sumatra, go into the jungle, sit down in front of a tiger and wait until he raises his head to take a photo (if I haven't been eaten by then). Not that I would even have the camera one needs to take a photo that is of useful quality. And no, nearby zoos don't have tigers I could take photos of. So what is my alternative? A photo I have found online after hours of searchng. And I give full credit. And apparently I am still a thief, only because it came from google, only because no zoo here has tigers and I can't travel to Sumatra. You see what I mean?
Of course if a photographer states that they strictly want nobody using their photo for drawings, that is perfectly fine, and I respect that. But many photographers I know (mostly hobby-wise) don't mind as long as proper credit is given, and I do that of course. I never use references without linking back to them. Never.
And most drawings that are locked aren't locked because of the fact they were "too badly copied" but because no proper credit is given. I have never seen a drawing locked or degraded for being "too poorly copied" or "lacking copying skills".

I could go on with my rant but I don't want to start arguments, I just want to throw my two cents in. You don't have to agree with me, this is just the way that I view it and if I am a thief in your eyes, or uncreative, great. I will survive I guess. I'm just trying to defend some really great artists who are shown in the very wrong light only because they are dedicated to another way of drawing.



---------------------

Now, about the Advanced Oekaki, I like the idea. People who used to post nearly Intermediate-worthy pictures in Beginners because some of the art in the Intermediate section scared them off have their problem solved now. They can post in Intermediate without feeling "unworthy to do so" and at the same time, don't reduce the work of the true beginners. People who used to draw pictures that stuck out from all the others in Intermediate can now post in their own category, without scaring people off Intermediate. I don't really see the problem with it. Even if art doesn't end up in the Advanced section, it doesn't mean it is bad, it only means that you might need a little tad more practice (maybe just one or two more pieces of art) until you get there. Art is always about broadening the own horizon, so if your art isn't the level you wish it was, don't take it as an offense but as a motivation to work even harder and improve your skills. After all, you should be proud of your art no matter what category it belongs to.

If someone has a general problem with their art being categorized, then they might just want to think about not posting their artwork in the Oekaki boards. There are other programms that can be used to draw privately on the computer (and then it can still be uploaded to use in signatures, avatars or posts on here). Or they can create the drawing on here if they love the Oekaki programm (like me xD), post it, download it really quick to their computer and then delete it on here. That way the piece can be enjoyed without being categorized. Because whenever art is made public amongst other people's artwork, it will be compared to other pieces and put into a category. Either by true sections like the Oekaki, or by the people viewing it. And artwork isn't always easy to classify as it's always suggestive. It's hard to decide where the line is between the Beginner and Intermediate section, or Intermediate and Advanced. It can happen that a picture would deserve to be in a higher category, and it can seem very unfair, but there's not much that can be done about it I guess.

A suggestion that I have would be to maybe (if possible) create a "Free For All" board? At the moment, the Sketches and Experiments board servers as something like that, for people who are unsure about where their art belongs or who just don't want to be put into a skill section. There could be this Free For All section where artists of all skill levels are welcome to post, if they can live with their artwork maybe being spammed off and not getting the credit it should. For those who wish to post in a category, to get comments and critique and just more attention, there would be the three categories that we have now, and the Sketches board could finally serve its orginial suppose of displaying sketchy drawings and experiments. It's just an idea. ^^

[Bovidae]

I've been debating whether to post here or not, because I know that this post might not make me very popular but I just can't hold back any longer, reading those deprecative comments about photorealistic art being "copies of photos".

I pretty often draw photorealistic pictures in real life (with pencil in grey scale), but regarding digital art, I have only started working on my realism skills. In both cases I use photos as references, and yes, I try to make my picture look as close to it as possible. Because this thread is about the Oekaki I will use the first and, so far, only digital example I have. This tiger head based on this photograph.
Yes, it does look like the photograph (except for the eye color which I changed on purpose) and again, yes, that was my intention. That makes me a thief? Sorry, but I can't quite tolerate comments like that without speaking up. I find them very offensive and even plain rude. I spent hours, and I mean, HOURS of work on drawing this, I redrew it several times because it did NOT quite look like the ref and I wanted absolute accuracy, where possible. When I was done it was 3:00 am in the morning and my eyes were burning and my head was aching like crazy. I'm a perfectionist and if I have a photograph that I want to make a drawing of, then I want to get as close to the orginal as possible, and include as many details as possible. That's the way I roll. And I give full credit, I never claimed this or any picture like it as a picture originating from my own brain.

Why I am doing this?
Because I love the challenge it provides for me, I love to train my eyes, I love to look at the photograph and say "Hmmm how does this and that look? How can I transfer this detail into my drawing? Where does the fur shine, where is this stripe and when does that stripe join it? How do these colors blend together?" and things like that. I know that most people think that it is much more of a challenge to not draw it exactly like the photograph, and many will even say it is the easy way out to just copy what you see - I can tell you, it is not. It is both hard, very hard. Drawing without making it look close to the ref is hard because, well, you have to do it more "freestyle", but drawing something with the intention to make it look identical to a photo reference has its very own challenges because it can be very, very tiring to get the details right, use the right techniques to archieve certain effects and all that. So, it is not all about "simply copying a picture", it does take power of observation as well as drawing skills (mine aren't close to perfect but I'm frequently working on it, hence doing more pictures like that).

Many artists who "copy" photos also dream of that one day in the future when they will be able to draw that kind of pictures without using any ref at all, and yes, drawing after a photograph is a dang good practise. Not only anatomy wise but also when it comes to fur, shading, light effects, proper backgrounds, things like that. If you use a photo just to get the anatomy look right and draw from there, that is great. But if you don't know how to draw proper fur, how to do realistic light effects and such things, it can be helpful to just draw it identically like on the photo refercence until you start to develop a sense for it. Art is always about learning and practice. At school, if you learn something new by reading a book, you also kind of "copy" the information into your brain before you can use it in your own way. Does that make you a thief of knowledge? Didn't think so. This might not be the best example but it's the only one I could think of.

What annoys me the most is when people bash on "copying" google photos, yet if I was to use my personal photograph as a reference that would be fine, even if my version looked 100% identical. Pardon, I can't take the next plane to Sumatra, go into the jungle, sit down in front of a tiger and wait until he raises his head to take a photo (if I haven't been eaten by then). Not that I would even have the camera one needs to take a photo that is of useful quality. And no, nearby zoos don't have tigers I could take photos of. So what is my alternative? A photo I have found online after hours of searchng. And I give full credit. And apparently I am still a thief, only because it came from google, only because no zoo here has tigers and I can't travel to Sumatra. You see what I mean?
Of course if a photographer states that they strictly want nobody using their photo for drawings, that is perfectly fine, and I respect that. But many photographers I know (mostly hobby-wise) don't mind as long as proper credit is given, and I do that of course. I never use references without linking back to them. Never.
And most drawings that are locked aren't locked because of the fact they were "too badly copied" but because no proper credit is given. I have never seen a drawing locked or degraded for being "too poorly copied" or "lacking copying skills".

I could go on with my rant but I don't want to start arguments, I just want to throw my two cents in. You don't have to agree with me, this is just the way that I view it and if I am a thief in your eyes, or uncreative, great. I will survive I guess. I'm just trying to defend some really great artists who are shown in the very wrong light only because they are dedicated to another way of drawing.

Ah dude you're fine! The rules state that if you copy a photo for practice and give credit where credit is due you're not breaking any rules uvu

If you heavily reference your artwork from a photograph then please give credit by posting a link to the original image. The reference information should be clearly visible above or below your image.