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.
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.