Holy shit these proportions 
thread for unbelievably poorly-drawn art? -
- Thread starter Emo Crow Fumikage
- Start date
- Highlight
- #122
Seems like a fitting place to post these.
Local guy has started to make and sell his own pokemon cards. His very own monster designs, and they're all holographic because they're all made of tinfoil glued to a chunk of cardboard.
I'm hoping he keeps making and posting these.
They're $5 each, and each listing has one or two pictures of the front of the card, and like 10 of the back...
Local guy has started to make and sell his own pokemon cards. His very own monster designs, and they're all holographic because they're all made of tinfoil glued to a chunk of cardboard.
I'm hoping he keeps making and posting these.
They're $5 each, and each listing has one or two pictures of the front of the card, and like 10 of the back...
Well, I want one.
Put me down for 10
Pope Negro Joe the XIIIth
AI Pope Of Entropic Declesiastics, Illuminati Alum
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
This is going to be a whole new collectible market.
Here's another dude who will sell you the best art ever.
Or maybe just pictures of it?
Or maybe just pictures of it?
IDontKnow902
kiwifarms.net
In those drawings, those people either look stoned out of their minds or on crack. Idk if I'm supposed to laugh or not but I did lol.
The turtle one's face is giving me Kingdom of Loathing/West of Loathing vibes and it's kind of endearing. I still want to know how old these artists are and just how serious they are being. The pokemon cards feel like a parent selling their child's art.
I have no issue with them selling such..."art" tbh. If someone willfully buys it then power to them.
Does this even count as art? It's literally just a bunch of bases edited to look like characters (a very shitty job, I might add).
I glanced at this thread and thought 'ah, who gives a shit what some innocent sperg posts on deviantart?'
Kickstarter is a different matter.
www.kickstarter.com
Posted here instead of the SJW art topic because, while I'm sure that's what 'reimagined for a modern audience' means, I haven't braved the free preview to confirm.
Edit: okay yeah it's woke. They saved some of the least shitty art for the preview but the writing is shitty enough to make up for it. The frog prince is led astray by a black princess and turned into a frog but that's okay because adulting is hard. Rapunzel is straight up paranoid shrieking at a straw man about wearing masks. Unironic use of "we live in a society!" And Hansel and Gretel is native american werewolves getting back at the eeevil whiteys.
Kickstarter is a different matter.
Not So Fair Tales - A Fractured Fairytale Anthology
An anthology of classic fairy tales reimagined for a more modern audience.
Posted here instead of the SJW art topic because, while I'm sure that's what 'reimagined for a modern audience' means, I haven't braved the free preview to confirm.
Edit: okay yeah it's woke. They saved some of the least shitty art for the preview but the writing is shitty enough to make up for it. The frog prince is led astray by a black princess and turned into a frog but that's okay because adulting is hard. Rapunzel is straight up paranoid shrieking at a straw man about wearing masks. Unironic use of "we live in a society!" And Hansel and Gretel is native american werewolves getting back at the eeevil whiteys.
Last edited:
FriendlyPrimarina
kiwifarms.net
I'd be disgusted if I wasn't more confused. What is the cat(?) doing? He's like a foot away from the wolf. Just jerking off? What qualities does this image have that make the artist horny? It appears to have some pretty gross underage vibes going on with the classroom and how small the yellow thing is, so I guess it's the pedo aspect. And whatever is going on with the chest of the wolf and the shoulderblade of the cat thing is pretty bad.
I don't mean to shit on people's contributions, but a lot of this stuff isn't "unbelievable poorly-drawn" The stuff in this thread is like modestly incompetent at most, and the worst of it looks like it was made either by kids or by relative beginners, which makes the lack of aesthetic quality perfectly believable. This one
I'd say UNBELIEVABLY poorly-drawn art would have to be something like Monkey Christ, the notorious restoration job that ruined a classic church fresco, or the similarly botched Immaculate Conception:
I can believe someone being inexperienced at painting, but it's literally unbelievable that someone would be allowed to do restoration work, in good faith, and have it come out looking that way.
Other things I'd consider unbelievably poor include Miro:
those are sketches of people, birds, and animals, in case you were wondering.
and
although to be honest, I admire Haring's sense of humor, and I think if Art People were less inclined to overhype his work due to political reasons, some of it would be perfectly adequate and enjoyable, despite how lazy and crap it is.
is hilariously crap-looking, but I sort of love it. It's got loads of charm, and I could see myself purchasing it unironically.Seems like a fitting place to post these.
...
I'd say UNBELIEVABLY poorly-drawn art would have to be something like Monkey Christ, the notorious restoration job that ruined a classic church fresco, or the similarly botched Immaculate Conception:
I can believe someone being inexperienced at painting, but it's literally unbelievable that someone would be allowed to do restoration work, in good faith, and have it come out looking that way.
Other things I'd consider unbelievably poor include Miro:
those are sketches of people, birds, and animals, in case you were wondering.
and
Pope Negro Joe the XIIIth
AI Pope Of Entropic Declesiastics, Illuminati Alum
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I'm not sure I follow. Are you implying that Miro and Haring should be immune to criticism on the grounds of technique "because Art"? Or are you saying this is a thread for "art" rather than Art?
Pope Negro Joe the XIIIth
AI Pope Of Entropic Declesiastics, Illuminati Alum
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
This one. It's not that I disagree but then we'll get into shit like that color field trash and I'll get mati af lol.
Ah, well, point taken.
But I stand by my choice; I think Miro is objectively worse at drawing than almost everyone on DeviantArt, and I think the fact that he was a professional artist with a lifetime of experience makes his lack of talent all the more unbelievable. Nor do I think it was just an affectation, either - a lot of those "colour field trash" artists COULD draw reasonably well, IF they wanted to; they just choose not to Because Art. But with Miro, I don't think it was an act. I think he was aggressively horrible at drawing, but he was smart enough (or had friends smart enough) to market his work as brilliant subversive and deeply emotional surrealism.
For example, a few weeks ago there was a thread on this
which is obnoxious and awful Art art. However, if you go back and check his earlier work, the artist who "drew" this piece - David Hockney - can actually draw if he wants to. Not especially well, and judging by some of his more recent portraits I'm thinking that maybe the mental and physical deterioration of his advanced age has robbed him of the ability to paint in a technically-proficient manner... but it's not like he HAS to draw that way. He draws this way because it's the aesthetic his billionaire patrons pay him for.
But Miro's just plain crap, through and through. He's not pretending to be crap because he wants to make a political statement about life in Francoist Spain or something. He draws like crap because he's not very good, and he has (or rather, had) no incentive to get better, because unlike - say - Chris Chan (who had dreams of making Sonichu a respected franchise) or Linkara (who wanted to earn a living drawing comic books about rape), Miro's goals were already met. He was very well respected, by very "respectable" people, even in his lifetime. He could rabbit on all he wanted to about using art to smash the bourgeoisie - but whoever drew Wojack first "used art to smash the bourgeoisie", too, and Wojack is actually a fun drawing with grassroots support amongst the working class, unlike Miro's shitty surrealist stick-figure or even-shittier early Cubist portraiture, which are simply vehicles by which effete bourgeois socialists can feel superior to their peers.
Leaving aside the difference between High Art and Low Art (which I would argue is a flawed and outdated concept), which of these drawings is more poorly-done?
Despite how offensive David Gonterman's work is, it's nowhere near as unbelievably bad as Miro.
(ironically, Gonterman's furry smut even works better as subversive anti-culture, too!)
Similar threads
IT'S JUST LIKE MY JAPANESE ANIMES..... not
Why you shuold use Urbit, and so should your mom
Atheist furry who dropped out of college; sperged to Bionicle fans about God not existing #SAVEBOB
