|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:55 pm
this is something of a rant; it's bothered me for some time.
okay, so this has always been something of a pet peeve of mine. i always hate it when i'm surfing through some artwork and the artist doesn't even care to write ANYTHING about the picture....i admit, i tend to go overboard and/or ramble about my drawings, but it seems like if the artist cared enough to put so much time into it, they would care enough to write something more than (for example)
"I drawed it with a ballpan in the class."
there are a few things that bother me about that description.
1. the spelling/grammar makes me want to stab myself repeatedly with a blunt object. granted, i dont expect perfection when it comes to things such as this, and i realize that many artists do not speak english as their first language, but (especially for those that do speak english as their first language) thats sad. i'm okay with "drawed;" i see this a lot. it's a common mistake. but "ballpan"? does this person say "ballpan," or...? i dunno. it's really very petty. but seriously, english speakers, you can do better than that.
2. its vague. was this drawn in art class? math class? college? what inspired this drawing? judging by the description, one could never know.
3. it shows no emotion about the picture. does the artist like it? did he/she intend something different, or did it turn out how he/she intended?
i just feel that the artist, considering how much time was spent on the work, owes it both to the work and the veiwer to say something on it's behalf. if nothing else, tell me the medium and amount of time it took.
to clear something up, this mostly bothers me on finished works. on sketches...not so much. but finished works...it just seems like some information on it would be nice.
anyhow, i'm not meaning to come off as abrasive, it just seems to me that many artists just shrug off their great talent. more, still, acknowledge it and put descriptions such as "copyright to -insert name here-" but don't add anything extra. i dunno, maybe i just want a little explanation of why the artist decided to draw this in this way as opposed to the countless other things that could have been drawn in countless other ways.
am i the only one who feels this way? if there are artists who give vague descriptions, why do you do it? any other thoughts on the matter are 100% welcome.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:09 am
I guess I can't say much considering the description I gave of the faerie I recently did. But yes, I feel your pain. Especially when people who are perfectly capable writers and are fluent in English aren't willing to invest the few extra keystrokes it takes to write a legible description. I do know of a couple of people who are not able to write a more literate description without investing more than a half hour in it because of various, legitimate disabilities, but that is often not the case with many of the people posting.
It's nice to know the background of a picture, as well. It engages your audience and makes them feel more like they are a part of it. It almost becomes a part of them like it is a part of you. I enjoy reading such descriptions, as mundane as they can be sometimes. It gives me inspiration that maybe I, too, can make decent art anywhere I go.
I do have to admit, though, that whenver I've put something like, "I drew this while in church today," I get some pretty funny feedback from the people take the time to read the descriptions. biggrin To me, it's rewarding to see how people react.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:25 am
I have to annotate every single picture I do for college, so I'm used to it..but yeah, I think that if someone is putting their work on a website or something, they should at least say what medium they used, and why they drew the picture and what inspired them..and whether they like it or not..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:58 pm
phew, well i'm glad im not alone in this.
@eucilid: i can imagine the responses you get from "i drew this while in church today." nothin wrong with that, hehe.
and i have to admit that, as annoying as inadequate descriptions are, i am less inclined to read a description if it looks like a novel. i'm all about a lengthy description, but i've seen some people go a little overboard. generally i'll read/skim most of it to get a feel, but descriptions that take up more than a page....well that had better be one interesting/symbolic/awesome/abstractish drawing mrgreen
@Shadow: i agree with you, and i think that for the most part, it's not asking a whole lot (why they drew it, medium, and whether they feel like it lived up to their vision) and i dont understand why so many artists just cop out with short, no substance descriptions. i figure that if you're posting it online, they give you a text box instead of a bar for a reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:23 pm
i usually go off on a tangent on my work, and say nothing important in the end.... sweatdrop
i usually find it easier for me to actually talk about my work then writing about my work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:06 pm
I'll admit that I DO like seeing at least a brief description, especially on narrative or character concept illustrations. But really, it's up to the artist, and if they don't write anything, I just shrug.
I suspect that a blank description is often because the artist feels as though his work should speak for itself. However, some details in particular that I love to read about good works are the length of time the piece took to complete and the medium used (if not obvious), among other things.
What I definately don't agree with is the idea that the artist "owes" his viewer an explanation of anything. Unless you payed him for one, (s)he really doesn't owe you squat. stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:17 pm
Kristal Lee I'll admit that I DO like seeing at least a brief description, especially on narrative or character concept illustrations. But really, it's up to the artist, and if they don't write anything, I just shrug. I suspect that a blank description is often because the artist feels as though his work should speak for itself. However, some details in particular that I love to read about good works are the length of time the piece took to complete and the medium used (if not obvious), among other things. What I definately don't agree with is the idea that the artist "owes" his viewer an explanation of anything. Unless you payed him for one, (s)he really doesn't owe you squat. stare hm....its true, what you say about the "owing the veiwer something" part. i think...i was speaking from my personal experience and reasoning for posting it online: to get feedback and improve. for the artists who don't post their artwork for this reason....you're totally right. but i think that since i personally am asking for something from the veiwer, i feel i need to at least tell them about how i feel about the work before they give me their input. but you make a very good point; i had not considered those who post it for a reason other than to improve and/or get feedback. also, i agree with you in that many artists feel the work should speak for itself. i understand that. but it seems like so many artists want ALL of their work to speak for itself (if they dont write a description on one work, chances are they aren't going to write one for their other ones) and...i dunno. ((i'm trying to find my point, i know i had one xd )) i think that i would be satisfied with just posting the media, amount of time taken, and perhaps the original size of the work. i just get annoyed, i guess, seeing so much artwork with no description whatsoever. @sox: its true, i tend to ramble on in my descriptions, but somehow, people seem to like reading them--i've actually been commented on my description before (odd). i actually find it easier to write about it. i guess it's because i'm something of a writer (or at least a wannabe writer) and feel i can express myself in more detail and/or clarity with writing rather than talking. i have trouble getting out what i mean in person; it's frustrating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:19 pm
well, i've learned over the years that not every art piece has to have an explination. usually, the title says enough (which is what i usually do). i think every artist should include in their discription the media (or mediums) used, the dimention (if applicable) and the date created/time taken to do it. sometimes it's more about the process than the finished art work.
i can talk. just get me started, i can go on for hours. i'm the type of person who starts conversation with random stranger while waiting at the air port of something. so yeah....i can talk more than i can write.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:51 pm
Dirty_sox3 well, i've learned over the years that not every art piece has to have an explination. usually, the title says enough (which is what i usually do). i think every artist should include in their discription the media (or mediums) used, the dimention (if applicable) and the date created/time taken to do it. sometimes it's more about the process than the finished art work. i can talk. just get me started, i can go on for hours. i'm the type of person who starts conversation with random stranger while waiting at the air port of something. so yeah....i can talk more than i can write. its true that not every piece of artwork requires a description of what it is; sometimes its simple enough that it's a tree, or its something abstract and the work should speak for itself. i think it just seems that writing something (how it was created, you know, mediums and such) is just...i dunno, something that one should do. for me, its...its almost about respect and love to the peice itself (i love all my childrens...but if i had to play favorites...) but not all artists feel this way. i just wish that the artist would at least take a minute or so to let me know some basics of the work. i think in my original post i wasn't being clear enough and/or i was angry-ish and goshdarnit, read between my binary! hehe, just kidding (that is, unless you can...then by all means, do so)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
