Oh I seen this video before and I'd put myself at a solid level 4
wow that was a fun informative video, and now the only thing I can think of regarding the level of my art is this song. I've been everywhere, man. All over the map.
Here's the same frame from CG 15 from 2015 to 2018 I think was the last redo.
2015 - wow my eyes, the colors eek!
2016 - color coming together a bit more.
2017 - buckled down and did the 3d library but only minor anatomy fixes
2018 - total redraw with my set in context
Ack I can hardly bear to look & I was really proud of that pose when I started too. I'm sure that redo won't be my last. Things get better though, people look less wonky every day. In context I'm really happy with how that whole episode turned out. It'll all come together in the end. eventually.
There's no examples that really look like my artstyle and I wonder how they reached the conclusions because there's level 4 examples that has better coloring than some of the level 6 ones? I guess I'd put myself at level 5, but also some level 6 because there's such a mixed bag.
I think this kinda ranking isn't fair because everyone likes different kinds of art, but interesting nonetheless.
you look at the old Jack Kirby era comics, they were simple, quick and dirty, but the focus is on the idea more so than having your breath taken away from the artwork. Personally, covers and single pieces of art, I put immensely more effort into than my panels in storytelling. My comic is less about trying to wow someone with art and more ignite the concept for them
Maybe 5? Only because I haven't finished anything in...god, a few years. Lack of confidence and guidance will do that.
Yeah, there's a huge difference in being a proper sequential storyteller and pin-up/single image artist.
Kirby was creating an internal kinetic energy that propelled the reader through the story at a pace that best served the story... not images that made you pause to reflect on the artist's skill in the middle of a tale.
That was a very interesting video to see the progression from level 1 up and what each level. I went back and looked at my own art from over the years from when I drew my comic traditionally on paper (I didn't have any digital resources at the time) and compared it to a colour re-do of the page from last year and then a current WIP from yesterday that I did.
Level 1 I think: (ink with cut out screen tone and copic markers, probably a version drawn somewhere between 15-17 years old?)
Level 2/3 (digitally inked and coloured)
Solid Level 3? (digitally inked, but not in colour)
I want to improve more, but finding the time to focus on my weak points and practice is hard with work. My brother helps me when he can, which I really appreciate.
I guess by their standards I'm a 5.5 or a 6. Their standards are wacky tho - like, there's way more to learn beyond 6, and some of the 5's they were showing I feel were closer to 3's.
My other issue with the video is it makes it seem like learning art is a linear process when it's totally not. Like I've been good at color theory stuff for much much longer than I've been good at painting or comicry or just drawing good, cuz for whatever reason I started learning about color theory really early on. Meanwhile there are artists who are fantastic at environments and comicry and character design who just have terrrrrrrible color palettes.
Jack kirby is a really interesting example - like, they're a master at comicry and flow and movement, but I would argue that their character design is super stiff. No dig on Kirby, everyone has their strengths and weaknesses cuz learning art isn't a linear process.
And I would argue you're judging his character design by criteria that's 50 some years removed from the criteria of character design during his age. Kirby (and Ditko) was a unique paradigm shift in design that still had to pay attention to the assembly line approach to comic production. You can recognize a Kirby design from a mile away... And the longevity of his iconic creations speaks to his functionality ...and genius.
I would not call a minimalistic style low level per se. Even if you go simplistic and go for an intentional copypasted shapes with simplified colors, you have some interesting compositions, clever use of negative space and the coloring creates a semblance of shading (like those tables and chairs). Also.....you manage to convey a lot of emotion using only eye shape, the direction of the pupils and body position. I would say you could be at least a level 2 or perhaps a very well hidden 3????
Thank you, that I'm glad to hear.
But I do feel that I'm just an odd blue figure trying to fit in amount great artists.
Love to hear a 3-party view on this...
Ever hear of Mushbuh??
5
This guy is fantastic and uses a really similar "0.5" style as @jensrichard77
(Also mushbuh is published...)
(Several times)
(You can buy their books in stores)
I'd say it's level 5 considering the level 4 examples were pretty simplistic in terms of backgrounds.
I’m not the only one who thinks this video is whack, right? The standards don’t really make sense and I don’t think the artist has a consistent idea of what makes art “good”. Not to mention a good 80% of the artwork is in that one specific furry art style - there’s barely any variation. You can’t simply rank one artist above the other because they’re “good at color theory” or “their composition is good”. There’s way more to art than just that and it’s unfair to say one is better just because their line work is nice or something.
Also, how is this:
On the same level as this:
?
There’s no way of ranking yourself using this system cause it doesn’t make any ham sense lol. If there’s anything to take away from this video, it’s that every one of you is at level 28. I’m looking into this too much, aren’t I.