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

[PeachFuzz]

But, before, things still got moved all the time anyway... And a new 'level' isn't really a bad thing either, it gives you a better chance to make your art better, since it gives you something more to strive for. In art, you're always pretty far from the top because there's always a different style someone likes better and such, so, really, are you ever at the top when it comes to something creative you have made?

But that's exactly the problem. Levels. Why should we put levels on art? Why can't we all just be the best we can be? It doesn't seem right to pick out the better art and the worse art. And don't say that's not what they're doing, it is. Advanced is better than beginners. That's just the way it is. But why should it be done that way? Everyone has different talents, different skills, different styles. We can't compare everyone's art, it's all just too different.

[Sabatea]

But, before, things still got moved all the time anyway... And a new 'level' isn't really a bad thing either, it gives you a better chance to make your art better, since it gives you something more to strive for. In art, you're always pretty far from the top because there's always a different style someone likes better and such, so, really, are you ever at the top when it comes to something creative you have made?

But that's exactly the problem. Levels. Why should we put levels on art? Why can't we all just be the best we can be? It doesn't seem right to pick out the better art and the worse art. And don't say that's not what they're doing, it is. Advanced is better than beginners. That's just the way it is. But why should it be done that way? Everyone has different talents, different skills, different styles. We can't compare everyone's art, it's all just too different.

Very true. But, if you draw a stick figure as a child, are you really satisfied with being an artist later in life with the style of a stick figure? Or do you want to improve? All the levels are a amtter of improvement. The artists that have worked years to be able to be placed in the Advanced category deserve to have that right, because they have worked so hard. If you want your art to be there, you have to work for it. You cannot become an amazing artist overnight. I do agree with you, art cannot really be compared, but would you really want to put, say a Van Gogh painting beside a child's two minute crayon drawing? Those two are not on the same level, and the child's drawing, will be overlooked if it is beside an artist of such a big name. But, if you place that child's drawing with others of it's kind, it can get more recognition for being what it is.

[zelay]

But, before, things still got moved all the time anyway... And a new 'level' isn't really a bad thing either, it gives you a better chance to make your art better, since it gives you something more to strive for. In art, you're always pretty far from the top because there's always a different style someone likes better and such, so, really, are you ever at the top when it comes to something creative you have made?

But that's exactly the problem. Levels. Why should we put levels on art? Why can't we all just be the best we can be? It doesn't seem right to pick out the better art and the worse art. And don't say that's not what they're doing, it is. Advanced is better than beginners. That's just the way it is. But why should it be done that way? Everyone has different talents, different skills, different styles. We can't compare everyone's art, it's all just too different.

Very true. But, if you draw a stick figure as a child, are you really satisfied with being an artist later in life with the style of a stick figure? Or do you want to improve? All the levels are a amtter of improvement. The artists that have worked years to be able to be placed in the Advanced category deserve to have that right, because they have worked so hard. If you want your art to be there, you have to work for it. You cannot become an amazing artist overnight. I do agree with you, art cannot really be compared, but would you really want to put, say a Van Gogh painting beside a child's two minute crayon drawing? Those two are not on the same level, and the child's drawing, will be overlooked if it is beside an artist of such a big name. But, if you place that child's drawing with others of it's kind, it can get more recognition for being what it is.

True <3
I really agree.

[Lucifer]

But, before, things still got moved all the time anyway... And a new 'level' isn't really a bad thing either, it gives you a better chance to make your art better, since it gives you something more to strive for. In art, you're always pretty far from the top because there's always a different style someone likes better and such, so, really, are you ever at the top when it comes to something creative you have made?

But that's exactly the problem. Levels. Why should we put levels on art? Why can't we all just be the best we can be? It doesn't seem right to pick out the better art and the worse art. And don't say that's not what they're doing, it is. Advanced is better than beginners. That's just the way it is. But why should it be done that way? Everyone has different talents, different skills, different styles. We can't compare everyone's art, it's all just too different.

Exactly. Everybody just wants to have fun, and everybody has different talents.

[zelay]

But, before, things still got moved all the time anyway... And a new 'level' isn't really a bad thing either, it gives you a better chance to make your art better, since it gives you something more to strive for. In art, you're always pretty far from the top because there's always a different style someone likes better and such, so, really, are you ever at the top when it comes to something creative you have made?

But that's exactly the problem. Levels. Why should we put levels on art? Why can't we all just be the best we can be? It doesn't seem right to pick out the better art and the worse art. And don't say that's not what they're doing, it is. Advanced is better than beginners. That's just the way it is. But why should it be done that way? Everyone has different talents, different skills, different styles. We can't compare everyone's art, it's all just too different.

Exactly. Everybody just wants to have fun, and everybody has different talents.

I agree, but if all the art was in one place, then really good drawings that took hours to make would be bumped down right away, and the 3 minute sketches in front.
I think having the new board inspires others to try harder to get there.

[Rainbow Dash]

One more concern about the advanced oekaki:
Won't it become a haven for art theft? Already it's popular to take a photo off Google, repaint it on oekaki and change nothing so it's an exact copy of the photo or subject and claim the photo is a "reference" when reference =/= copy. Ganking a photo off Google and badly tracing it is theft, I don't see why "photorealistic" oekakis get a pass. I feel like it's just going to make oekaki photo copying worse.

(To clarify: repainting your own photos? Knock yourself out. It's taking someone else's photo that's theft.)

my problem with CS's photo reference rules.

First of all, there are tons of stock photos that can be used for free. Also, I applaud people that can create photo-realistic art. Its freaking hard. But, if you dont make any money off of the picture then there is no real problem with copying a picture. Do you know how many artists in the real world copy exact pictures when they are trying to make realistic art? Using a picture reference is not bad, especially since it does improve your drawing skill. I really don't see the harm in drawing someones photo, especially if credit to the photo is given

If the stock photo is free and repainting it abides to the terms of usage (like no profit made from it, credit where due, etc)? No problem. But a lot of stock photos with big ole watermarks on them you find on Google are not free for the taking because they're stock photos. Until you pay for usage it's theft.

As a photographer, I would be angry if someone yanked my photo and repainted it. Because it's my work they're copying. Photographers don't just point and click and get a perfect shot of a wolf, the cost of equipment alone (not counting travel fees to get to where that wolf is) would make your head spin. It's an art, it needs to be respected and therefore not ripped off unless the artist has given permission.

I hate that "freehand copying" is still allowed because it's theft. Just because someone makes it look nicer doesn't mean it isn't. Poorly done freehands get locked but photorealistic ones get untouched. It's an unfair double standard.

[Bebop]

This sounds like a good idea.

[delete pleasexx....]

I know this is gonna piss off a bunch of people. And the CS tag. Sorry.

But I see nothing wrong with the new Oekaki. Except that I'm not used to having another tab XD
I look through Intermediate, and I see Intermediate worthy pictures. And then I see those pictures that look amazing. Like they're real life. They deserved their own category. And besides, theses are the guidelines for Intermediate:
Intermediate:
- Good understanding of how the oekaki tools work
- Lines and shapes should be clean, smooth, and not shakey (where appropriate)
- Coloring should be tidy/purposeful and stay inside the lines (where appropriate)
- Extra effort in details like shading, a simple background, or intricate designs/details to "finish" the artwork
- Good understanding of anatomy, even if the artwork is stylized/simplified

art which is intentionally "messy" or fuzzy/rough/soft/sketchy in style may not meet some of these criteria but can still be considered intermediate when done well


Pretty Simple. Guys. It's there, just deal with it.

[Andiliion]

One more concern about the advanced oekaki:
Won't it become a haven for art theft? Already it's popular to take a photo off Google, repaint it on oekaki and change nothing so it's an exact copy of the photo or subject and claim the photo is a "reference" when reference =/= copy. Ganking a photo off Google and badly tracing it is theft, I don't see why "photorealistic" oekakis get a pass. I feel like it's just going to make oekaki photo copying worse.

(To clarify: repainting your own photos? Knock yourself out. It's taking someone else's photo that's theft.)

my problem with CS's photo reference rules.

First of all, there are tons of stock photos that can be used for free. Also, I applaud people that can create photo-realistic art. Its freaking hard. But, if you dont make any money off of the picture then there is no real problem with copying a picture. Do you know how many artists in the real world copy exact pictures when they are trying to make realistic art? Using a picture reference is not bad, especially since it does improve your drawing skill. I really don't see the harm in drawing someones photo, especially if credit to the photo is given

If the stock photo is free and repainting it abides to the terms of usage (like no profit made from it, credit where due, etc)? No problem. But a lot of stock photos with big ole watermarks on them you find on Google are not free for the taking because they're stock photos. Until you pay for usage it's theft.

As a photographer, I would be angry if someone yanked my photo and repainted it. Because it's my work they're copying. Photographers don't just point and click and get a perfect shot of a wolf, the cost of equipment alone (not counting travel fees to get to where that wolf is) would make your head spin. It's an art, it needs to be respected and therefore not ripped off unless the artist has given permission.

I hate that "freehand copying" is still allowed because it's theft. Just because someone makes it look nicer doesn't mean it isn't. Poorly done freehands get locked but photorealistic ones get untouched. It's an unfair double standard.

yea i see where your coming from dont get me wrong, but maybe because i am not a big photographer myself. But im not sure if re-drawing a photo counts as theft. I know that photomanips can (because its cutting out a legit piece of the picture), but i still am not sure about redrawing it. I still dont see whats wrong with painting a photo (if your not making any profit), since most photographers are just taking pictures of things most people could go and see. But i do see your point.

ps: how many people actually buy legit copyrights (obviously other than the famous)?

[SelkiesSong]

But, before, things still got moved all the time anyway... And a new 'level' isn't really a bad thing either, it gives you a better chance to make your art better, since it gives you something more to strive for. In art, you're always pretty far from the top because there's always a different style someone likes better and such, so, really, are you ever at the top when it comes to something creative you have made?

But that's exactly the problem. Levels. Why should we put levels on art? Why can't we all just be the best we can be? It doesn't seem right to pick out the better art and the worse art. And don't say that's not what they're doing, it is. Advanced is better than beginners. That's just the way it is. But why should it be done that way? Everyone has different talents, different skills, different styles. We can't compare everyone's art, it's all just too different.

Because again, "STYLE" is not the same as being a beginner. It's actually pretty obvious.

For instance.



This is the work of a beginner. Anatomy is all over the place. Paint bucket fills. No shading. No real understanding of scenery/background. Absolutely no sense of lighting or color. It takes time to grasp an understanding of those things, believe it or not. (also this is my own work from 10 years ago, before anyone tells me I'm being too blunt)

This isn't a style. Unless 'inexperienced teen dabbling in MS paint for the first time' is a style, these days. :p There are plenty of different 'styles' showcased on the intermediate and advanced boards, if you actually look.