Philbert: This picture’s terrible. The faces look like microwave ovens. Also, there are two pixels out of place in the lower left corner. Shame on the artist for forcing me to look at this! My eyes! I can’t unsee! Etc, etc...
craggle: considering you seem to be pretty butthurt at all criticism of this guy's work, to the point of passive-aggressive comments like this one before people can complain, i'm going to assume that you're the artist.
keep trying. i do think you'll get better and be a force to be reckoned with... however, and this is key, stop being a whiny bitch. it's easier to improve if instead of expending your energy trying to defend why you don't suck as much as people think, you expend it on actually getting better.
Philbert: Craggle: You’ve got it quite backwards. The ungrateful cretins who “complain” here when they’re offered free porn are the whiny bitches, especially when their complaints are baseless, unfair, or incomprehensible. If you think the artist of this Doctor Who picture needs to improve much compared to 90% of the artists whose pictures are on Rule 34, you need to get your eyes examined. I mean, seriously, your condescending advice to the artist is laughable in light of how easy it is for anyone to simply compare this artist’s work with most of the stuff on Rule 34 and even on pay sites.
Philbert: Indeed, kill this picture with fire! A bazooka too would be in order, or perhaps a nuclear bomb. After all, there are those two pixels out of place in the lower left corner. Those alone merit this picture's destruction.
Anonymous3(1): Am I really watching someone simultaneously bitch about the voluntary nature of "free" pics on this site when comments/compliments are just as voluntary? Seems like there are two parties here, equally forcing unwanted shit down each other's throat.
Philbert: Anon3: No one’s forcing anything on anyone here. You don’t have to look at the uploaded pictures, nor do you have to read the comments. So that’s not the problem. The problem is with the irresponsibility of those who post anonymous snide comments on websites like this one. They may have the right to do so, just as I have the right to mock the nonsense they type.
Take, for example, Anon4’s ludicrous comment. Someone goes to the trouble of painting a fairly elaborate erotic Doctor Who picture, and then instead of giving constructive criticism or simply ignoring the picture, Anon4 makes a perfectly worthless snide remark.
Obviously, everyone has their own taste when it comes to art, let alone porn, so there’s any number of reasons why people may not like certain erotic pictures. But that’s no excuse for the disparagement from the anonymous art critics here, most of whom probably couldn’t draw a stick figure if their life depended on it.
pinku: Dude people who consume this stuff are rejecting the work. Keep arguing with those guys up there, though, cause it's totally gonna change how unpleasing this pic is to people. Or continue to be a special sensitive snowflake on a porn site, I hope it's fulfilling for you man.
Philbert: Pinku: Most viewers don’t type comments, so a handful of negative comments needn’t represent anything. And I’m not super-sensitive. I’m just explaining why I’m mocking certain comments. Yes, it’s a porn site, but does that mean the standard of discourse has to be subhuman? Some people take their erotica seriously. ;)
Chupacabra555: Whether you're the artist or not, for my 2 cents:
If you post here you've got to be aware that most commenters at Rule 34 are trolls, and even the word of excellent professional artists will be cut down by them.
If you want true constructive criticism post your work at DeviantArt (no x-rated stuff though), or join mailing list run by erotic artists such as ComeroticaCorner.
When I post here I know what to expect, and I have sometimes had images of mine that I didn't post here removed.
Anonymous5: I for one am on Philbert's side. I approve of this picture, and this site is absolutely the place for horrifying and unsexy imagery.
Keep shaking things up, without pictures like this I'd bust a nut after 10 minutes of browsing and have nothing to do!
Anonymous6(5): I for one embrace pictures like this that shake things up. Without these horrifying interludes, I'd bust a nut 10 minutes into browsing this site and have nothing else to do all afternoon!
craggle: see, this is my point. i say you have potential, but that as it stands your work sucks, and instead of taking that and trying to improve your work, you complain that my comment is condescending? so, comments that say it's good but needs work are too condescending, and comments that say it's awful are too critical, what do you want?
oh, i know, you want complete unvarnished praise!
well, get over that desire, you haven't earned it.
while there are trolls who bag on even excellent work, that doesn't mean everybody who posts a comment like "this sucks" is a troll. not all criticism has to be 'constructive'. not all criticizers can identify exactly what's wrong with a piece, especially when there are a lot of things wrong with it. they still have the right to say that the picture sucks, just like they have the right to say a piece is awesome, even without a detailed critique of why it is. and the fact that it's free isn't really an excuse for not being able to take the judgement.
you bring food to a party and someone mentions that it tastes like shit, and everybody around them agrees, you don't get to play the martyr about how people are picking on you and they didn't have to pay for it... you don't even get to complain that we don't tell you exactly why it sucks... some people might be able and willing to do it, and great, but we're not food experts, all some of us know is that we can tell the taste of shitty food when we encounter it, and even if we can spend a lot of time showing explaining exactly where you went wrong, it's not our responsibility to spend all our time trying to teach you, especially when you're clearly so defensive about your talents that you'll probably disregard it anyway. you're the one who brought up 90% of other artists being worse than you, none of us compared you to other artists, we just said that this piece sucked. other artists aren't here, we're dealing with you and this piece.
you're the one who brought it to the table. and it sucks. deal with it... usually one of three ways: either learn to cook better, learn to take criticism, or stop bringing your shit to the table.
or leave your shit and just don't listen to the comments at all, i guess.
Philbert: Thanks for the positive comments about this Doctor Who picture.
Chupacabra: I do post pictures on friendlier or more serious sites, and I understand that there are trolls on internet sites like this one who just to like to vent or cause mischief. That’s why I even called them trolls in some of my comments on other pictures. And I ignored most negative comments on Futurotica Comics art. But I started to see a pattern which speaks to a problem with Rule 34. The problem is that viewers here want filthy porn they can jerk off to, not more serious erotic art. The filthier here, the better, meaning that the art doesn’t have to be drawn well: it simply has to focus on certain body parts, have lots of bodily fluids, or depict some depraved sex act. Then the picture is usually praised (unless it’s too weird or has a glaring flaw).
Thus, more serious erotic art that isn’t necessarily useful as jack-off material is deplored here as a waste of time. It’s not so much that these viewers are trolls in the technical sense, that they love to throw down red herrings to stir up trouble. It’s that they’re not interested in erotic art as art: rather, they’re pragmatists who want to use art for a narrow purpose. As for this particular Doctor Who picture, I don’t think it’s particularly useful as jack-off material. I wouldn’t jack off to it. But to say simply that a piece of erotic art should be “killed” (burned, etc) because you can’t cum to it is to assume that erotic art has only that narrow purpose or else it’s worthless. That assumption is erroneous.
Philbert: Craggle: Thanks for trying to explain, but I still think you’re wrong on a few points. What do I want in terms of comments? Comments that help, that are constructive, or that at least show the minimal amount of civility humans expect from other humans. I understand that this is a free porn site and that commenters here enjoy the shield of anonymity. But saying simply that an elaborate or more serious piece of erotic art should be burned or that the viewer wishes he’d never set eyes on it just encourages serious artists to take their work elsewhere, which is surely why Rule 34 is filled with so much dreck.
You’re absolutely wrong when you say that I want only praise of Futurotica Comics art. To prove that I’d like constructive criticism, here’s my own criticism of this particular picture. Martha Jones’ face is too narrow and the ink line on her right cheek should be removed. The highlight on her left ass cheek is too bright, wide, or otherwise prominent. Jones’ jacket could use more wrinkles. There’s too much hair covering Jones’ palm, since the colours there get muddy. River Song’s facial expression, while perhaps amusing, isn’t sexy or flattering: she looks old. Also, and perhaps relevant for the Rule 34 audience, the picture isn’t useful as jack-off material, since some key body parts are covered and the picture doesn’t feature a depraved sex act.
Trust me, if there’s a flaw in a piece of Futurotica Comics art, I’d be the first to see it. But focusing on these or other negatives and overlooking all the rest that this picture has to offer is simply churlish.
As for your food analogy, there’s a big problem with it. Food is actually consumed and so there’s a health issue. If someone brings lousy food but presents it as edible, and people eat it and are disgusted by it, their right to complain even when the food is free is based on the fact that their very internal organs are violated. Contrary to the hyperbolic criticisms on Rule 34, there’s no such violation when we merely see a picture we don’t like. Only if the picture were so offensive (like a snuff video of someone being beheaded) that the very memory of having seen it would be painful, would this be analogous to eating bad food. And I’m afraid that however you slice it, this Doctor Who picture isn’t that offensive. This leads me to think that some viewers hate it simply because they want all erotic art to be useful strictly for masturbation.
Chupacabra555: "The problem is that viewers here want filthy porn they can jerk off to, not more serious erotic art."
Well, yeah, that's the main reason I come here too ^_^
DeviantArt and Mailing List are there for the more 'artistic' side, but lets face facts: No matter how artistic a piece will be, this is Erotica, so someone somewhere is going to fap to it :-)
Rule 34 is just more or less the 'lowest common denominator" for erotic art (although I've heard a lot about "4 Chan" sites, which I've never visited).
craggle: once again, you get people's reaction to your piece and you act all hoity-toity. "rule 34 patrons just want stuff they can fap to, quality is irrelevent and more serious erotic art is ignored." so you're suggesting that your work has significant, underappreciated quality that we philistines are missing just because we can't fap to it, that your work is the 'serious' erotic art compared to the drek that everything else is? cause it sure sounds like it, especially when you earlier said you were better than 90% of the artists here. you don't seem to really be offended that the comments are over the top (and i agree, ones about them picture needing to be burned are in that category), you seem to genuinely think that you deserve more praise than most of the art here, and certainly don't deserve negative comments. and that's not only haughty, it also sells a lot of artists here short. yes, there are some really awful pictures here. there are also some really nice ones. there are some fantastic ones that have no more nudity or fluids or fetishes shown than this picture has. the difference is, those pictures are well drawn. and there are loads of them. and loads that might not count as 'great', but are certainly a lot better than this.
fappability is an aspect to erotic art, but it's not the be all and end all. if you want to prove me wrong, draw one picture of exactly what you think we want to see in terms of content and fappability, at your normal level of quality. we still won't forgive the lack of quality.
and while there are a few trolls who will mock even those types of pics (and a few people who genuinely don't like it for one reason or another), if most people are telling you your work isn't great, it's probably because it's true.
as for constructive criticism: if you already see the problems with your art, fix them, instead of bitching at the reception you're getting.
like i said, i do think you show potential, particularly in composition. i honestly believe that, i'm not just trying to butter you up. but you're not there yet. you're not at a level where you can legitimately get pissy at people not finding your work good and expect people not to laugh at you. keep working on your art. keep posting it. but don't think you're some underappreciated master, or you will not improve as fast as you otherwise might.
(and the food metaphor is pretty apt, most people who complain something tastes bad aren't actually worried they're going to be poisoned or that their organs are violated, it's just unpleasant to eat, and in many cases that it could be a lot better if the person doing it just learned to do it right).
BrickShitHouse: I don't give a shit about circumstances. These are horrible, horrible looking faces. By comparing them to microwave ovens, you sir, are insulting microwave ovens.
On the bright side, their ugly mugs pulls the attention away from the mundane look the rest of this picture has.
Please, never do a picture like this one, ever again.
Anonymous10(9): NO guys it like this(=_=)
Good art: little commentary much fap
Bad art: much commentary and little (if)fap
as you can see this is bad "art"
And you filthy trollPhilbert stop posting here and die (^_^)
Chupacabra555: I'll feed the troll one last time and make an actual comment on the piece here....
The faces are very spot on to the actual persons. However, this suffers from what a lot of 'celebrity' erotic artist suffer; its kind of obvious that the faces are drawn from an actual image of the real person.
In this case "River's" head is just WAY too big for her body, and the body itself doesn't match what a woman of her apparrent age should have (I'm not saying I want to see a fat old woman, but that looks like the skinny body of a teenager).
There's something off about the placement of 'Martha's" head as well, it seems too far over her shoulder to be natural (to me anyway).
Krawczyk: Chupa: Chan sites have the worst art of anything because 99% of the art is troll art.
But /tg/ (both board and chan) has some nice minimalist B&W artists. These threads are usually referred to as 'drawthreads'
>>542317 >>507215 >>496556 >>496389 Actual fap request art
(well, we don't seem to have the B&W copies but the first two once started as sketches too.)
Philbert: In case anyone's interested, I uploaded a new version of this Doctor Who picture. You can see how I changed the faces. The picture's #750634.
keep trying. i do think you'll get better and be a force to be reckoned with... however, and this is key, stop being a whiny bitch. it's easier to improve if instead of expending your energy trying to defend why you don't suck as much as people think, you expend it on actually getting better.
- Reply
MY ART IS BETTER
YEAH, TAKE THAT!
>>291044
ERNF UNF UNF UNF
Take, for example, Anon4’s ludicrous comment. Someone goes to the trouble of painting a fairly elaborate erotic Doctor Who picture, and then instead of giving constructive criticism or simply ignoring the picture, Anon4 makes a perfectly worthless snide remark.
Obviously, everyone has their own taste when it comes to art, let alone porn, so there’s any number of reasons why people may not like certain erotic pictures. But that’s no excuse for the disparagement from the anonymous art critics here, most of whom probably couldn’t draw a stick figure if their life depended on it.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
If you post here you've got to be aware that most commenters at Rule 34 are trolls, and even the word of excellent professional artists will be cut down by them.
If you want true constructive criticism post your work at DeviantArt (no x-rated stuff though), or join mailing list run by erotic artists such as ComeroticaCorner.
When I post here I know what to expect, and I have sometimes had images of mine that I didn't post here removed.
Keep shaking things up, without pictures like this I'd bust a nut after 10 minutes of browsing and have nothing to do!
oh, i know, you want complete unvarnished praise!
well, get over that desire, you haven't earned it.
while there are trolls who bag on even excellent work, that doesn't mean everybody who posts a comment like "this sucks" is a troll. not all criticism has to be 'constructive'. not all criticizers can identify exactly what's wrong with a piece, especially when there are a lot of things wrong with it. they still have the right to say that the picture sucks, just like they have the right to say a piece is awesome, even without a detailed critique of why it is. and the fact that it's free isn't really an excuse for not being able to take the judgement.
you bring food to a party and someone mentions that it tastes like shit, and everybody around them agrees, you don't get to play the martyr about how people are picking on you and they didn't have to pay for it... you don't even get to complain that we don't tell you exactly why it sucks... some people might be able and willing to do it, and great, but we're not food experts, all some of us know is that we can tell the taste of shitty food when we encounter it, and even if we can spend a lot of time showing explaining exactly where you went wrong, it's not our responsibility to spend all our time trying to teach you, especially when you're clearly so defensive about your talents that you'll probably disregard it anyway. you're the one who brought up 90% of other artists being worse than you, none of us compared you to other artists, we just said that this piece sucked. other artists aren't here, we're dealing with you and this piece.
you're the one who brought it to the table. and it sucks. deal with it... usually one of three ways: either learn to cook better, learn to take criticism, or stop bringing your shit to the table.
or leave your shit and just don't listen to the comments at all, i guess.
Chupacabra: I do post pictures on friendlier or more serious sites, and I understand that there are trolls on internet sites like this one who just to like to vent or cause mischief. That’s why I even called them trolls in some of my comments on other pictures. And I ignored most negative comments on Futurotica Comics art. But I started to see a pattern which speaks to a problem with Rule 34. The problem is that viewers here want filthy porn they can jerk off to, not more serious erotic art. The filthier here, the better, meaning that the art doesn’t have to be drawn well: it simply has to focus on certain body parts, have lots of bodily fluids, or depict some depraved sex act. Then the picture is usually praised (unless it’s too weird or has a glaring flaw).
Thus, more serious erotic art that isn’t necessarily useful as jack-off material is deplored here as a waste of time. It’s not so much that these viewers are trolls in the technical sense, that they love to throw down red herrings to stir up trouble. It’s that they’re not interested in erotic art as art: rather, they’re pragmatists who want to use art for a narrow purpose. As for this particular Doctor Who picture, I don’t think it’s particularly useful as jack-off material. I wouldn’t jack off to it. But to say simply that a piece of erotic art should be “killed” (burned, etc) because you can’t cum to it is to assume that erotic art has only that narrow purpose or else it’s worthless. That assumption is erroneous.
You’re absolutely wrong when you say that I want only praise of Futurotica Comics art. To prove that I’d like constructive criticism, here’s my own criticism of this particular picture. Martha Jones’ face is too narrow and the ink line on her right cheek should be removed. The highlight on her left ass cheek is too bright, wide, or otherwise prominent. Jones’ jacket could use more wrinkles. There’s too much hair covering Jones’ palm, since the colours there get muddy. River Song’s facial expression, while perhaps amusing, isn’t sexy or flattering: she looks old. Also, and perhaps relevant for the Rule 34 audience, the picture isn’t useful as jack-off material, since some key body parts are covered and the picture doesn’t feature a depraved sex act.
Trust me, if there’s a flaw in a piece of Futurotica Comics art, I’d be the first to see it. But focusing on these or other negatives and overlooking all the rest that this picture has to offer is simply churlish.
As for your food analogy, there’s a big problem with it. Food is actually consumed and so there’s a health issue. If someone brings lousy food but presents it as edible, and people eat it and are disgusted by it, their right to complain even when the food is free is based on the fact that their very internal organs are violated. Contrary to the hyperbolic criticisms on Rule 34, there’s no such violation when we merely see a picture we don’t like. Only if the picture were so offensive (like a snuff video of someone being beheaded) that the very memory of having seen it would be painful, would this be analogous to eating bad food. And I’m afraid that however you slice it, this Doctor Who picture isn’t that offensive. This leads me to think that some viewers hate it simply because they want all erotic art to be useful strictly for masturbation.
- Reply
Well, yeah, that's the main reason I come here too ^_^
DeviantArt and Mailing List are there for the more 'artistic' side, but lets face facts: No matter how artistic a piece will be, this is Erotica, so someone somewhere is going to fap to it :-)
Rule 34 is just more or less the 'lowest common denominator" for erotic art (although I've heard a lot about "4 Chan" sites, which I've never visited).
fappability is an aspect to erotic art, but it's not the be all and end all. if you want to prove me wrong, draw one picture of exactly what you think we want to see in terms of content and fappability, at your normal level of quality. we still won't forgive the lack of quality.
and while there are a few trolls who will mock even those types of pics (and a few people who genuinely don't like it for one reason or another), if most people are telling you your work isn't great, it's probably because it's true.
as for constructive criticism: if you already see the problems with your art, fix them, instead of bitching at the reception you're getting.
like i said, i do think you show potential, particularly in composition. i honestly believe that, i'm not just trying to butter you up. but you're not there yet. you're not at a level where you can legitimately get pissy at people not finding your work good and expect people not to laugh at you. keep working on your art. keep posting it. but don't think you're some underappreciated master, or you will not improve as fast as you otherwise might.
(and the food metaphor is pretty apt, most people who complain something tastes bad aren't actually worried they're going to be poisoned or that their organs are violated, it's just unpleasant to eat, and in many cases that it could be a lot better if the person doing it just learned to do it right).
fappability paragraph should be after the one immediately after it.
On the bright side, their ugly mugs pulls the attention away from the mundane look the rest of this picture has.
Please, never do a picture like this one, ever again.
Good art: little commentary much fap
Bad art: much commentary and little (if)fap
as you can see this is bad "art"
And you filthy trollPhilbert stop posting here and die (^_^)
- Reply
The faces are very spot on to the actual persons. However, this suffers from what a lot of 'celebrity' erotic artist suffer; its kind of obvious that the faces are drawn from an actual image of the real person.
In this case "River's" head is just WAY too big for her body, and the body itself doesn't match what a woman of her apparrent age should have (I'm not saying I want to see a fat old woman, but that looks like the skinny body of a teenager).
There's something off about the placement of 'Martha's" head as well, it seems too far over her shoulder to be natural (to me anyway).
Great work on the colorization/shading, though.
Take it or leave it :-)
- Reply
But /tg/ (both board and chan) has some nice minimalist B&W artists. These threads are usually referred to as 'drawthreads'
As examples:
>>377679
>>88031
Troll art
>>542317
>>507215
>>496556
>>496389
Actual fap request art
(well, we don't seem to have the B&W copies but the first two once started as sketches too.)
- Reply