So we recently had a realization thread about art and it was interesting and funny, I just had another epiphany and I think others may benefit from it.
TLDR; Share your artistic epiphanies
>>2436511
>Learning to render
>can never get my shadows to look good
>Doing my first ever face study yesterday
>color pick to double check because I don't understand how the fuck shadows work
>Shadows give more saturation to the area
>WTF?
>I always figured since the ultimate shadow was pure black, that would mean you de-saturate shadows as you go darker
>that is not the case..
>>2436511
You do know that there are plenty of ways to just stretch them to the correct ratio as a batch in under a minute, right? Even just going through and doing it by hand would have been quicker than making your OP image. Photoshop macros (I'm guessing, I haven't used it in forever) or Gimp scripts could do this without even having to touch a terminal.
You'll loose some quality, but it's not like they're ruined.
>>2436515
Well skin is different due to subsurface scattering. For most things you darken and desaturate, for skin you darken and saturate.
>>2436515
Maybe you should try experimenting with colors more, go crazy
You can push that shit pretty fucking far and it still looks good
My main one is that nobody knows anything. Most of the critics in art couldn't draw to save their lives, and this bullshit about these neotraditionalists and their circlejerks about 'objective standards' is just that, complete bullshit.
Ultimately, time is the final arbiter on whether something is worthwhile or not. If an artpiece has existed for 2000 years, you can be pretty sure that it will remain relevant for quite some more time. Also, by then, all the shitty art has been filtered out and forgotten completely.
So my epiphany is: don't trust art critics, trust father time
>>2436515
>the ultimate shadow was pure black
wtf does that even mean
>>2436740
So.
Wait for 2000 years to find out what's wrong with the piece you're working on?
Do you even understand why artists seek critique? Are you, perchance, an idiot?
>>2436749
didnt mean to link your comment.
>>2436749
Pretty sure he was referring more to professional critics, and certainly not to people offering critique to a receptive artist who is seeking one.
>>2436740
>Ultimately, time is the final arbiter on whether something is worthwhile or not.
I disagree. 2,000 years ago most people were illiterate and poorly educated. 2,000 years from now our values may change drastically, hell, humanity could be extinct. Looking to people that will never exist in your lifetime to tell you something is nonsense.
I think you too may have confused critical thought with some snobby critic. Sure, plenty of people that pass themselves off as critics are full of shit, but there are good artists that give good critiques.
