How do you know how good or bad you are at art?
I'm always terrified I will die, and God will tell me, "yes you sucked at drawing the whole time and everyone just felt bad for you so they told you you were good. also you were very ugly"
How do you guys know?
>>2318037
If you've been doing it seriously for less than 3 years you probably suck. If you can make a living off it you probably are at least okay. If you can put your art next to your heroes and not see much of a difference then you probably are great.
The only time I feel confident I'm proficient at drawing is when:
-my dog barked at a painting I made cause she thought it was a real person
-someone is bashing someone else's art in comparison to mine (ex. in drawing class some kid made a big obnoxious deal that I was the best)
-someone doesn't call my drawing "good" they say instead "professional"
>>2318042
>...less than 3 years you probably suck
But what about learning curves? Not everyone progresses at the same time.
>make a living off of it you probably are at least okay
But what about people like Leifield?
>>2318050
>But what about learning curves? Not everyone progresses at the same time.
Most people will take considerably longer than 3 years. Very few do it in three, and I don't think I've seen anyone do it faster than 3. Even Algen and other fast improving people took closer to 5 to before being really professional. 3 was a cutoff. Also I said "probably", as in, it is a rule of thumb.
>But what about people like Leifield?
He's okay. He has a few instances of terrible anatomy like the one you posted (that tends to happen in comics with all artists to some degree though because of deadlines, volume of work, and stylizations), and he hid feet and reused the same design choices a lot. But he still had a huge impact in the industry and is pretty good overall.
Do you have fans?
Then you are good at art.
>>2318050
>>2318037
I'd like to hear thoughts on this too.
Over the last couples years, the way I've been able to tell I've been getting better (aside from comparing my older shit to my newer shit), is that art I used to think was good now looks like crap. I can see more mistakes, and they're very distracting.
I go by the adage 'You're never as good or bad as you think you are'. So consider how good you think you are when you're riding high, compare it to how shit you think you are at your lows, and find the middle. That's probably about where you actually are.
But don't worry about how much you suck. Every drawing you do makes you a better artist, so keep drawing, and eventually you'll stop sucking. You probably won't even realize when you pass that point, because you'll be too busy drawing. And that's a good thing.
>>2318191
As this anon said, keep drawing.
It doesn't matter if you are getting gud, what matters is continual progress and working. It's fun to paint, so do it for the pigments sake.
>>2318037
Don't worry OP there is no god(s). Worry instead about seizing your life in order to make the best art you can make.
>>2318081
Could not be anymore wrong if you tried
>>2318262
depends on what your goals are as an artist. If you want to communicate to people through your works, and you have fans, bam you've succeeded at art great job
>>2318081
So all I have to do is draw furry porn to be a good artist?
Thanks /ic/!
>>2318037
i'm fucking terrible, why? because know for a fact i'm fucking terrible. think of it like this, think of a simple concept. can you do it? if not you're shit and need to draw more if you can then you're bad..but not terrible,
I think it's more important to not dwell on the Goodness of what you produce,but to make an identifiable style for yourself. Look at Picasso for instance. Imagine him trying to show his Cubist strangeness to the Old Masters,the ones who painted portraits of royalty and such. They might laugh at first,back away slowly, but in the end they would see that Something,that uniqueness utterly His. So create what you wish,ignoring opinion and influences as you can,and explore yourself through the process of Creating.
>>2319550
this is the Modern Art mentality
>>2319550
And Picasso knew how to draw. He studied those masters you're decrying in order to find his 'uniqueness'. Your style will define itself as you learn. Your artistic exploration into new territory will crash and burn if you don't know what you're doing.
Fuck style and identity. Worry about that once youve mastered your craft. Baitin tumblrfag
That feeling when you finish a drawing your happy with, show it to someone and they say "Oh... that's good". That's it? Good? Nothing more emotive? and then it hits you.... good is about right, in fact it's probably too generous. So now I have a working assumption my work is shit, better to do good work I think is shit than shit work I think is good
>>2319562
and here we have the typical /ic/ mentality that breeds nothing but failure. Mastery of your craft requires your entire life. Picasso never mastered realism. He was moderately okay at it. If you want to master your craft before you develop your style and think about WHAT you actually want to say with your art, you will have wasted your life.
I don't care if I'm good or bad.
In fact, I stopped caring at the crossing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhVcwL6gKZY
>>2319623
>Picasso never mastered realism. He was moderately okay at it.
I never got the whole "he mastered it and got bored with having reached the peak of realism, so he moved on". He was okay at it. Pretty good for his age. Not even close to mastering it though. I guess it makes for a better narrative though to play up the mastery thing. Same way when people talk about Bernini's dad being a sculptor they say he was mediocre at best and was untalented and stuff. Sure, it makes Bernini look better that way. But his dad literally was working for multiple popes and got very important commissions and was a skilled sculptor in his own right. Not as good as his son by any means, but definitely not bad.
>>2318082
madotsukipuking.jpg
