Butterfly Commission.

[LP]

Your right, art is subjective....

 

 

 

But this is business, and it doesn't work that way

 

And apparently few here know the business behind art.

[Nom]

You all need to cool off a bit. Does it not occur to you that you have your own little "hug box" in launching a full-scale attack on LP? Nothing appeals to human nature like uniting against a lone outsider.

[Unoalexi]

the blue glow isn't universal with all backgrounds....

 

It's there for the presentation factor, it isn't going to be in the final.

 

 

 

Well, frankly, it looks staged, never the less. In fact, without it the lineart would look horribly choppy...

 

 

 

All art is good to people who lack the eye for it.

 

I made $5k-6k last year with promotion solely from facebook. How much did you make from your art in your lifetime?

 

Also won $1500 in prize from a contest last november.... (which was voted on against 20 pieces by the public)

 

 

 

Unlike you, art to me isn't about the money. I don't do assembly line, predrawn crap. You're being elitist waving around your figures in my face. Plus, you do anything flashy enough, and everybody will think it's the best they've ever seen. Just look at Hanna Montana!

 

 

 

 

 

And for those bashing DA, I don't care. look at my last 4-5 peaces and look at there submitting date.

 

I don't use it often anymore, or take it seriously.

 

 

 

 

So? You act like any other prima donna DevianTARD. I hate people like you would think they're so great because they can color in lineart and sell it for lots of money. Go do that, and be happy about it, but please don't call it art.

 

 

 

You all need to cool off a bit. Does it not occur to you that you have your own little "hug box" in launching a full-scale attack on LP? Nothing appeals to human nature like uniting against a lone outsider.

 

 

 

I don't like elitist people..

[Lionheart_0]

 

 

 

All art is good to people who lack the eye for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I take personal offence to this statement.

 

 

 

Should I start saying that all music (which is an art) is good to those that lack the ear for it? (People who just happen to like pretty much all genres?)

 

 

 

The fact is, there is no 'eye for art'. There is an eye for styles and seeing what people do inside art, but in no way, shape, or form does it mean that some people perceive all art as good simply because they don't have an advance artists knowledge.

 

 

 

 

 

Separately, and I mean pertaining to this little debate, LP simply posted something, and although he did not asked to be critiqued, there is a large difference between being critiqued and being put down. To tell someone 'your painting sucks simply because it looks like a 5 year old did it', or 'this is way too basic' are ways to put someone down, not say something constructive about a piece of art.

 

 

 

Think before you post: are you criticizing the artist, or the art?

[LP]

Well, frankly, it looks staged, never the less. In fact, without it the lineart would look horribly choppy...

 

Lmao, that's because it IS staged, that's what presentation is.

 

And if you knew about contrast you would know that dark on light would make any choppynes show up worse.

 

The black vector is on top of a much lighter colored glow.

[chris_0076]

Wow... I love what this gallery has come too... it used to be like a real art gallery nice, peaceful and relaxing... it did not matter how bad the picture was you would never truly get a flame war like I see all too much now. *Almost* every single topic all everyone does is just bashes the image, no matter what it is, and when one does it you have 10 more follow suit to just say the same thing. Nary a one gives the person specifics of what they don't like. All they tell them is that they don't like it...well that is obvious... Also I have noticed a decline in people editing other people's pictures to show them what they are talking about. Not only does this make their point clear, but it also brings to attention specific parts of the image. No matter what someone posts there is no reason in the world that there should be any flaming at all. If you are able to flame them then there must be something wrong that you know how to fix, which then you should provide aide to them in fixing it.

 

 

 

Isn't that the point of this being a community? To build each other up?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways back on topic...

 

 

 

Personally I really like both of them. The first one though seems just a tad to sharp. I do like that both of them have the glittery feel of when you look at a butterfly. For the background I like the canvas/parchment look, it gives it a butterfly collection case look. The glow on the second one is a little to white for me though, maybe even go to a soft green. Maybe you could even do a more centralized glow like if it were a filter placed over a lamp.

 

 

 

Hope this helps some,

 

Chris

 

 

 

*Burn Baby, Burn*

[yaff2]

Holy [bleep] guys... in all honesty, friendship aside, LP knows more than the lot of you put together, so pretty much, just shut up. LP is one of the most skilled artists on this forum, he actually knows what he is doing and does more than a sig, sigs take NO talent compared to what he does. To make a sig, takes 15 mins of nothing. no skill in a sig, they are just fun to make. What LP makes is art, a signature how ever, i dont consider to be art, because anyone can do it.. How many of you can even compare to LP?

 

 

 

 

 

As for the art,

 

 

 

The first one as said, looks way to sharpened, and im not a fan of the colors, they do not blend (the brownish, grey, red, blue, and greenish)

 

 

 

The second one is much better i think but still seems a bit to sharp. the colors how ever, i love

[hiimben]

Holy [bleep] guys... in all honesty, friendship aside, LP knows more than the lot of you put together, so pretty much, just shut up. LP is one of the most skilled artists on this forum, he actually knows what he is doing and does more than a sig, sigs take NO talent compared to what he does. To make a sig, takes 15 mins of nothing. no skill in a sig, they are just fun to make. What LP makes is art, a signature how ever, i dont consider to be art, because anyone can do it.. How many of you can even compare to LP?

 

 

 

 

 

As for the art,

 

 

 

The first one as said, looks way to sharpened, and im not a fan of the colors, they do not blend (the brownish, grey, red, blue, and greenish)

 

 

 

The second one is much better i think but still seems a bit to sharp. the colors how ever, i love

 

 

 

All friendship aside? Hmm, I call [cabbage].

 

 

 

LP is a talented artist, yes. But he is also a major douche and is incredibly arrogant. I think that is what the arguments are stemming from.

[mister_moocky]

[yaff2]

 

 

 

All friendship aside? Hmm, I call [cabbage].

 

 

 

LP is a talented artist, yes. But he is also a major douche and is incredibly arrogant. I think that is what the arguments are stemming from.

 

 

 

The hell are you talking about? Pat and Lexi and i get along great, and would consider them buddies.

[Shiny]

Woah. Woah. We need to tone down the negative nellies.

 

 

 

It looks good, though could be a little more detailed. They are probably being paid for, so spending more effort his good. I like them though.

[venomai]

How many of you can even compare to LP?

 

I would say many posters in The Gallery far surpass LP in artistic ability. The amount of profit he makes is irrelevant.

 

 

 

There are two types of graphic designers, as I see it. Those who are passionate about making art, and those who are passionate about making money. LP, you seem to fall in the latter category, along with those such as Hannah Montana and Soulja Boy.

 

 

 

For you to throw in a few tacky colours and sell these butterflies as "your own designs" (and then whine and b*tch when criticized) shows your complete disregard for what we artists value in a work.

 

 

 

Sorry if this seems harsh, but you've got to hear it. You're acting like a child and an elitist moron, LP. My respect for you as a old-time poster and as an artist has gone out the window.

[yaff2]

wrong, i dont care about money, him makin money means nothing to me, but skill wise there is not many that browse this forum whom are better. Lots may be about the same, but not many are better as he is easily one of the best artists on this forum. For you to be able to consider artwork yours, it has to have 50% or more of the image yours. he started off with a base layer and did it from there on, he can easily say its his. besides, theres a new law out, copy right images means [cabbage] now. though i think thats bull, you can still take an image with the copy right symbol, and claim it to be yours.

[hiimben]

 

 

 

All friendship aside? Hmm, I call [cabbage].

 

 

 

LP is a talented artist, yes. But he is also a major douche and is incredibly arrogant. I think that is what the arguments are stemming from.

 

 

 

The hell are you talking about? Pat and Lexi and i get along great, and would consider them buddies.

 

 

 

I'm sorry Yaff, but I honestly can't think of how you read my post in a way that would give you that answer. It's ... mind boggling. I'm saying you have a bias opinion on LP because you're friends whether you say so or not.

[venomai]

For you to be able to consider artwork yours, it has to have 50% or more of the image yours.

 

The "50% rule" only exists on TIF. :lol: For the record, not nearly 50% of that work is original.

 

 

 

In the real world, adaptations of a work must abide by copyright laws. LP fails to do so in two ways, and thus he is infringing on the copyright.

 

Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

 

 

 

Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes

 

 

 

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

 

 

 

And I would seriously question the validity of your other statement. While LP is a fine artist, I haven't seen too many works by him that are any more impressive than even the 'render tags' we see so often here.

[Nadril]

Wow... I love what this gallery has come too... it used to be like a real art gallery nice, peaceful and relaxing... it did not matter how bad the picture was you would never truly get a flame war like I see all too much now. *Almost* every single topic all everyone does is just bashes the image, no matter what it is, and when one does it you have 10 more follow suit to just say the same thing. Nary a one gives the person specifics of what they don't like. All they tell them is that they don't like it...well that is obvious... Also I have noticed a decline in people editing other people's pictures to show them what they are talking about. Not only does this make their point clear, but it also brings to attention specific parts of the image. No matter what someone posts there is no reason in the world that there should be any flaming at all. If you are able to flame them then there must be something wrong that you know how to fix, which then you should provide aide to them in fixing it.

 

 

 

You haven't been here long. This is starting to feel much more like the older days.

 

 

 

@ Lionheart:

 

Should I start saying that all music (which is an art) is good to those that lack the ear for it? (People who just happen to like pretty much all genres?)

 

 

 

People do lack an ear for music though, and inherently go for that which has a catchy beat or tune. It doesn't matter the genre, and you don't need to have an ear for a specific genre. A musician I think would know a lot better what is good and is not good when it comes to music.

 

 

 

The fact is, there is no 'eye for art'. There is an eye for styles and seeing what people do inside art, but in no way, shape, or form does it mean that some people perceive all art as good simply because they don't have an advance artists knowledge.

 

 

 

There is an eye to art. Now, granted, there are two sides for this.

 

 

 

For one, this is a commercial piece. That means that it's aim is to please the average consumer (whoever that happens to be, in this case). That means chances are they don't know how to properly critique an image, or what is "good" and "bad". Granted, the average person may be able to choose what image is more eye popping or attracting (key component in commercial artwork) but in a more artsy piece I don't think a lot of people have a real eye for it. I'm not saying that any non artist is stupid, or that they don't know good art from bad art. I'm just saying that the average person may be drawn to something flashy, not something artistically good.

 

 

 

Separately, and I mean pertaining to this little debate, LP simply posted something, and although he did not asked to be critiqued, there is a large difference between being critiqued and being put down. To tell someone 'your painting sucks simply because it looks like a 5 year old did it', or 'this is way too basic' are ways to put someone down, not say something constructive about a piece of art.

 

 

 

Think before you post: are you criticizing the artist, or the art?

 

 

 

It's the tone LP is taking with us first.

 

 

 

 

 

I would say many posters in The Gallery far surpass LP in artistic ability. The amount of profit he makes is irrelevant.

 

 

 

There are two types of graphic designers, as I see it. Those who are passionate about making art, and those who are passionate about making money. LP, you seem to fall in the latter category, along with those such as Hannah Montana and Soulja Boy.

 

 

 

For you to throw in a few tacky colours and sell these butterflies as "your own designs" (and then whine and b*tch when criticized) shows your complete disregard for what we artists value in a work.

 

 

 

Sorry if this seems harsh, but you've got to hear it. You're acting like a child and an elitist moron, LP. My respect for you as a old-time poster and as an artist has gone out the window.

 

 

 

This I agree with 100%. Plus, it's not like LP is the only artist here to have made money from artwork. DementedHero has made a lot of cash from T-Shirt designs (which are incredible), Hiim has made money commissioning pixel art. Hell, technically I have made money doing web design (although it was an internship, it still follows under the idea of graphic design) for my stuff.

 

 

 

The point is, LP really doesn't have any ground to be as elitist as he does when there are plenty of users here, even in the Gallery, that know much better than he does. The fact that LP completely disregarded any sort of copyright laws (I don't give a [cabbage] if it says you can use it, there are laws for this stuff!) really backs up the "5 year old" statement, it really does.

 

 

 

wrong, i dont care about money, him makin money means nothing to me, but skill wise there is not many that browse this forum whom are better. Lots may be about the same, but not many are better as he is easily one of the best artists on this forum. For you to be able to consider artwork yours, it has to have 50% or more of the image yours. he started off with a base layer and did it from there on, he can easily say its his. besides, theres a new law out, copy right images means [cabbage] now. though i think thats bull, you can still take an image with the copy right symbol, and claim it to be yours.

 

 

 

Yaff I don't think you realize how easy it is to do what he has done here. I know the technique LP uses (focuses heavily around Gradient Layers) and it's crazy easy to do, you can pop out colors like this in 15 minutes without any real artistic work done to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I have a few questions for LP:

 

 

 

 

 

Question 1: What are the butterflies for. Are they the cover of the program? Are they just some pretty picture?

 

 

 

Question 2: If they are the cover of the program, how are you printing this? I'd hope you wouldn't just do a digital print (would look unprofessional) and the colors are much too varied to do a normal print with something like offset. (Plus there is a lot of color, which means a lot of money for the ink)

 

 

 

Question 3: How is the program going to be laid out? Do you have your sizes figured out?

 

 

 

 

 

Really I'm curious what the hell this is actually going to be used for. I don't think it would work very well at all as a cover for a funeral program for a number of reasons, some which I have already talked about.

 

 

 

 

 

The actual piece is pretty amateurish in nature however. But everyone else has already covered that and I don't feel like typing a paragraph explaining why.

[VjuliusT]

It looks like you used outerglow (I know it's not, but it's some kind of gradient) on the butterfly, I can't say it's particulary good looking with that kind of effect so I suggest removing it completely, the Blue/purple could be slightly darker as well which would make the butterfly stand out slightly more than the background itself.

[rangeor]

You said you have to make a blue, green, white and brown, right? Well I think the difference between the blue and the green is too subtle. I would try maybe changing the color of the background a little to match the butterfly.

[Unoalexi]

 

 

 

All art is good to people who lack the eye for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I take personal offence to this statement.

 

 

 

Should I start saying that all music (which is an art) is good to those that lack the ear for it? (People who just happen to like pretty much all genres?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can like something without knowing what is good. That's why popular music is what it is-it's designed to appeal to people who don't have the ear to tell a good piece from a bad piece. Granted,there's still opinion involved here, but you hear music differently when you're a musician than when you're just a casual listener. I didn't mean to offend anyone by saying that, but that's how it is. Do realize that some genres are created soley to sell to said casual listeners. For example, pop music.

 

 

 

Holy [bleep] guys... in all honesty, friendship aside, LP knows more than the lot of you put together, so pretty much, just shut up. LP is one of the most skilled artists on this forum, he actually knows what he is doing and does more than a sig, sigs take NO talent compared to what he does. To make a sig, takes 15 mins of nothing. no skill in a sig, they are just fun to make. What LP makes is art, a signature how ever, i dont consider to be art, because anyone can do it.. How many of you can even compare to LP?

 

 

 

 

Yaffles, I really don't want to get into a fight with you, because you're pretty cool otherwise. However, just calm down and look at the facts. Sure sig making isn't technically an "art form", but to say slapping textures and gradients on a butterfly vector is is just plain silly.

 

 

 

The reason why I'm acting so snippy is because LP comes in here, posts his image, and then snaps at me for making comments about it. Furthermore, he also seems to think coloring in butterflies and selling the result somehow makes him a better "artist" than all the people in the Gallery put together, and that pixel art is only about replicating images in minature. Apparently, this also puts him on a shelf above critisim because he manages to sell the results. I for on think it's wrong to sell colored line art to a person without paying the line artist. I don't mean for this to be a personal attack, but he has just the worse attitude I ever seen about everything, frankly.

[pryomancer]

LP knows more than the lot of you put together

 

Incorrect

 

 

 

LP is one of the most skilled artists on this forum

 

Incorrect

 

 

 

sigs take NO talent compared to what he does.

 

Point a camera at something and press a button? Incorrect

 

 

 

To make a sig, takes 15 mins of nothing. no skill in a sig

 

The last time someone was this wrong, was when Mr. Goldstein in 1939 said, 'Hey there's a Nazi over there, let's go say hello?'

 

 

 

How many of you can even compare to LP?

 

Lots of us, and by your tone in that whole post, you sounded like a complete kiss-[wagon], verily.

[Lionheart_0]

:arrow: Off topic is that way guys.

 

 

 

Wanna make a thread pertaining to the discussion of viewing art, thats fine by me. There is no reason it should continue on this thread.

 

 

 

There is too much elitism on both sides, and too many people assuming too much.

 

 

 

Now get back on topic, all of you.

[Unoalexi]

 

 

 

Wanna make a thread pertaining to the discussion of viewing art, thats fine by me. There is no reason it should continue on this thread.

 

 

 

 

Why not just close it then? This is turning into a flame war, and he said he doesn't want CC anyway... Though I believe we are on topic. We are discussing the piece, and it's merits as both a product and as artwork.

 

 

 

Point a camera at something and press a button? Incorrect

 

 

 

Photography takes talent too you know... :shame: It's not the assembly that matters, it's the final result.

[pryomancer]

I think you need more talent to make a half decent signature than to take a half decent photograph.

[yaff2]

lol! anyone can make a sig, i make sigs all the time, and most of them are pretty good too, but im not good at taking pictures.

 

 

 

if thats your logic, go take a good photo right now.

[Shiny]

I think you need more talent to make a half decent signature than to take a half decent photograph.

 

 

 

I agree. Though you need much more talent to create an excellent photograph than you do for a sig.