What makes it good?

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Mr. Apocalypse said:

Then you agree with me. I acknowledged there is an apreciation of its time and place, but yet you can still think its junk!

 

Eh...I wouldn't put it that way. Personally I don't like Picasso's art that much. I wouldn't want one hanging in my house. But I understand why it's significant and worth a lot of money.

I wouldn't call it junk. There's also a lot of art that is from highly respected, accomplished painters like Da Vinci. That's not my cup of tea either. And likewise I wouldn't call it junk just because it doesn't appeal to me.

[Mr. Apocalypse]

28 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

Picasso did a lot of things and worked in half a dozen different styles. 

 

Picasso at age 16:

  Hide contents

 

Picasso at age 22:

  Hide contents

 

Picasso at age 29:

  Hide contents

 

Picasso at age 30:

  Hide contents

 

Picasso at age 58:

  Hide contents

 

Eye of the beholder though. It may all be junk to you. 🙂

mostly when people think of Picasso, and refer to it as unappealing,  they are referring to his "cubist" and more abstract works. that's what I was referring to. I am an art layperson. I don't consider myself an art scholar. I recognize that he was a very talented artist, but the methods in which artist achieve fame is more of who you know, not what you did even. most artist never see an appreciation in their lifetimes, only to have their works be considered that of genius, once an "art scholar" decides to turn a profit with it by exploiting the name.

 

I like Jackson Pollack's work, but all most of them really are, is the result of throwing paint at a canvas. Scholars attribute, lots of fancy words to his method and style, but at the end of the day, he threw paint at a canvas. But I still like them.  I would attempt to copy one myself, before paying for one though, if purchasing one  was even an option on my budget.  No matter how art is perceived, regardless of anything else, it is subjective to the observer and what value he places upon it. That has been my point all along

 

I Like some things, I don't like others, but simply putting a certain persons name on it, garners the work no more value in my eyes, regardless of any other factors.  Yet I can still appreciate the other aspects of its origins, removed from my like or dislike of the said art piece, and understand why others may hold it in high regard.

Edited September 6, 2022 by Mr. Apocalypse

[Erratic1]

25 minutes ago, Mr. Apocalypse said:

mostly when people think of Picasso, and refer to it as unappealing,  they are referring to his "cubist" and more abstract works. that's what I was referring to. I am an art layperson. I don't consider myself an art scholar. I recognize that he was a very talented artist, but the methods in which artist achieve fame is more of who you know, not what you did even. most artist never see an appreciation in their lifetimes, only to have their works be considered that of genius, once an "art scholar" decides to turn a profit with it by exploiting the name.

 

 

Artists not being valued during their lives then being well-regarded after passing is a popular trope though I am not sure how generally true it is. Most artist are widely unknown and remain widely unknown.

[Mr. Apocalypse]

1 minute ago, Erratic1 said:

 

 

Artists not being valued during their lives then being well-regarded after passing is a popular trope though I am not sure how generally true it is. Most artist are widely unknown and remain widely unknown.

I re-read what I wrote and I did not reflect my thoughts with enough detail or clarity. I meant infer that only a select few  become famous posthumously.. I agree with you on this 100%

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Mr. Apocalypse said:

most artist never see an appreciation in their lifetimes, only to have their works be considered that of genius, once an "art scholar" decides to turn a profit with it by exploiting the name.

 

If someone is not appreciated while they are alive, how does someone else come along later and exploit their name? What value in the name is there to exploit?

 

Art in general reflects the cultural currents of the day. Modern art is such a strong break from previous traditions because there were major shifts in our understanding and experience of reality during the modern period. The discovery of the subconscious, radical scientific theories (evolution, relativity, etc.), world wars, technological developments etc. all spurred divergent styles of representation in the visual arts. Usually when someone is discovered or rediscovered, it means that the current trends have shifted in a way that makes their work relevant again to other artists and collectors. J.C. Leyendecker for example was very popular in the early part of the 20th century and then gradually faded from prominence. Lately, I'd say he's having a resurgence because contemporary fantasy artists love him. 

[Mr. Apocalypse]

3 hours ago, battlewraith said:

 

If someone is not appreciated while they are alive, how does someone else come along later and exploit their name? What value in the name is there to exploit?

 

Art in general reflects the cultural currents of the day. Modern art is such a strong break from previous traditions because there were major shifts in our understanding and experience of reality during the modern period. The discovery of the subconscious, radical scientific theories (evolution, relativity, etc.), world wars, technological developments etc. all spurred divergent styles of representation in the visual arts. Usually when someone is discovered or rediscovered, it means that the current trends have shifted in a way that makes their work relevant again to other artists and collectors. J.C. Leyendecker for example was very popular in the early part of the 20th century and then gradually faded from prominence. Lately, I'd say he's having a resurgence because contemporary fantasy artists love him. 

Van Gogh is a a obvious example, died penniless. unappreciated, his art only found critical recognition after his death.  A large majority of his painting were discarded with other trash, only to be sought after vigorously after he was dead many were lost forever.

[Cancrusher]

My opinion is that, like all forms of artistic expression, it's subjective.

 

If you view art, and you enjoy what you view, then that art is objectively good- at least as it relates to you.

 

Likewise, if you view art and you enjoy what you view, then that art is objectively bad- at least as it relates to you.

 

I have won a couple of costume contests in my several years of playing on Homecoming.  Both times that I won, there were several costumes that I liked better than my own.

 

Likewise, there are regular costume contests on the monthly that I go to, where I see several costumes win that (IMO) are far less  more interesting/cool/whatever than the costumes that actually win.

 

I chalk all that up to subjective opinion, rather than I have bad taste in costumes or they have bad taste in costumes.  The people judging just like very different things than I do, for the most part.   This is neither bad nor good, it just is.   🤷‍♂️

Edited September 7, 2022 by Cancrusher

[Marshal_General]

Looking at his 16 year old art, I think he had a progressive vision problem.

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, Marshal_General said:

Looking at his 16 year old art, I think he had a progressive vision problem.

 

Generally speaking, people that don't have much artistic ability tend to be wowed by realism. It's pretty common for people with a high degree of artistic ability to be bored by it.

[InvaderStych]

On 9/4/2022 at 8:22 AM, Ukase said:

I see some of the pics in this forum section of various costumes, read the praise...and I am left wondering -- what is it that made player X think that was a good costume? Most aren't hideous, but I see nothing particularly special about them to be worthy of praise. 

 

Hmm.  A lot going on in these questions.  A "good" costume could be one that is particularly artistic in its use of pieces, color, etc.  It could be one that is completely hilarious and works because of word-play with the toon name, or combination of sets.  For many folks it is invoking a certain age of comic art.  Interplay between AT/Sets/Costume/Backstory with or without a touch of humor are usually the best ones.

 

I am a bit of an oddball in that I don't really make traditional "super hero" style toons.

 

On 9/4/2022 at 8:22 AM, Ukase said:

How many colors is too many? Are there some rules of thumb that all of you go by that the rest of us are unaware of? 

 

Sometimes 2 colors are too many, sometimes there is no such thing as too many.  I tend to work with no more than 3 main colors and will vary their shade (brightness and saturation mostly) in order to enhance the look.  There are certain costume pieces that lend themselves to this sort of thing: like the Elemental Order pants/tops for example.  Often a touch of out-of-place color (sunglasses, goggles, etc) can make something really pop.  Like that one point of light in a darkened frame that brings the whole image together.

 

My only real rule of thumb is that all my toons (that are humanoid or that have hair) are redheads, just like me. 😉

 

On 9/4/2022 at 8:22 AM, Ukase said:

Should the belt buckle match the boot color? Or should the belt itself match the boot color? Or neither? Should it match anything? 

 

Depends on the rest of the costume.  I'll match boots to belt when making a "street" look like a suit or something similar. 

 

On 9/4/2022 at 8:22 AM, Ukase said:

Is the origin of the character supposed to have any bearing on the costume? 
Is an archery defender supposed to be natural origin? or Tech? I wouldn't think origin matters. But my thinking has never been seen as typical. 

 

Origins are very broad.  Why not Magic? An archer who's abilities and bows are enhanced through magical means.  Or science?  Perhaps genetic manipulation has given this person incredible abilities with a bow.

 

Aliens who's abilities are part of their evolution could be considered Natural.  A powered armor wearing warrior could be mistakenly pulled from their world by a "demonic summoning" gone awry - is that magic or tech?  Is an android hero Science or Tech?  Origin is very loose, and the game just doesn't account for anything other than a modified human based on mission/npc chat text.

 

On 9/4/2022 at 8:22 AM, Ukase said:

Is a fire character supposed to use a chest symbol that's associated with fire? And the fire stripes for shirt and pants? 

 

Does that fit with who they are, even if that is only defined on a rudimentary level?  Is the Fire wielder the sort to don flashy spandex and draw attention to themselves?  Or are they a reformed Hellion still rocking street-wear on their way to fancy new duds?

 

On 9/4/2022 at 8:22 AM, Ukase said:

What makes a player think their costume is "good"?

 

Their own aesthetic taste.  I can't say if anyone else thinks my costume designs are any good, but I like them.  Unsolicited compliments, naturally, are validation that one's taste is shared with others.  To date I have only gotten 1 via a PM, for the toon in my avatar, and I don't think it was necessarily for the costume. 🤣