Gfx Contest FINALS! Wonka vs Eurononymous

HellBlazer · Post by **HellBlazer** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:32 am

KhayotiK wrote:
Rozard wrote: I also like the pic because of its LACK of background....

You know.. thats not very good

HellBlazer · Post by **HellBlazer** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:33 am

HellBlazer wrote:
KhayotiK wrote:I also like the pic because of its LACK of background....
You know.. thats not very good

thats how its spose to be

Rozard · Post by **Rozard** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:33 am

KhayotiK wrote:
Rozard wrote: Feathers aren't supposed to be that chaotic, they're supposed to be somewhat uniform and layered.
Bullshit, it gives it a sense of REALISM compared to having every fucking thing be uniform and perfect. The damn thing is laying down like it was hit by God's fly swatter, the wings look good this way.

I also like the pic because of its LACK of background. Nothing to distract me from what it's about, I like that. What the fuck do you want, pretty-ful cloudz andeh da yellow sun? Grow up, you suck at comparing art.

Gee. Thanks for the lecture, Mr. Museum Guide

When did I ever say that my opinions expressed here were to be taken for fact and were to be respected and held true across the land? No where. I merely stated that in nature, I have never seen wings like that. Nature is in fact very structured and organized. Give me one good picture of a bird that was whacked by God's fly swatter. Besides, I don't think that was the effect Euro was going for. Also, I never said that I wanted a background that rings familiar to that of a 2nd grader's picture. Again, I stated that I think there should be a horizon and some shading to add depth and realism to the picture. Instead, to me, it looks like she's just floating in the air (which is possible with wings, but not in the prone position that she's in). If Euro wanted to add background to the picture to his art, then I'll let him do that. I just believe a horizon will help express a sense of three dimensions.

Lord Rae · Post by **Lord Rae** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:34 am

Nature and especially angels and winged beings conform to the geometry of realism... look a shell out of the ocean.. notice the nice clean spiral? Look a birds wings... Notice the nice clean lines? maybe if it was a chaotic arrangment but the feathers were nicely rendered... or if they had some details of feathers in them... Then you could talk alot about realism.. but nope.. its not there man.

A background does more than "distract" you if its done right... in this case the lack of a background doesn't point to a higher purpose... Its left that was because the artist was unsure of his talent. Unsure of his technique. The blank background distracts from the picture because its blank. its stark white... it draws your eye more than the lines in the picture.

What the fuck do you want, pretty-ful cloudz andeh da yellow sun?

nope.. thats something the artist should decide.... but in this case ANYTHING would have been preferable to blank space...
Also I'm sure that when art critics don't agree they look at one another and say "Grow up, you suck at comparing art."

Yep.... thats what the grown ups do...

KhayotiK · Post by **KhayotiK** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:43 am

Damn strait it's what they say. All I see is a bunch of nit picking pricks who want more. What's wrong with the lack of background? Will you look at the fucking pic again and tell me that it doesn't add to the feeling? It's laying there, looking rather spaced out, and all the emptyness does is actually add more of what it's probably feeling while it's laying there, nothing. And yes, there's definite lines of symmatry (sp?) in nature, but that doesn't mean everything is strait lined down. Birds have feathers out of place, do they not? There will also always be imperfections in nature, this is fact. Grow up, you suck at whining.

NeoGohan · Post by **NeoGohan** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:46 am

Nit-picking/bitching .. constructive criticism.. it's all the same, right?

I vote for Wonka. It r0><0red my socks more. I'm not nit-picking anything because I don't want to "ruffle anyones feathers" (damn, I'm good) about it all.

I like Wonka's and I WONT tell you why. So hah.

Kamoc · Post by **Kamoc** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:48 am

LIGHTEN THE FUCK UP.

christ, if i had a nickel for everytime people argued over stupid shit on the internet, i would have enough nickels to fill a gigantic swiming pool; in which i would swim every day and not die of a heart attack from eating too much kfc like my online 'how are you going to die?' test told me would happen.. well, it was either that or create a hillarious cartoon about my everyday life if i was a duck, had 3 nephews, a smart co-worker, a floppy airplane pilot and several criminals after my enourmous swimming pool filled with gold. the criminals are badgers, of course.

HellBlazer · Post by **HellBlazer** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:48 am

i love your vids neo gohan 8) aarons are cool also

DvWizard · Post by **DvWizard** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:51 am

Damn strait it's what they say. All I see is a bunch of nit picking pricks who want more. What's wrong with the lack of background? Will you look at the fucking pic again and tell me that it doesn't add to the feeling? It's laying there, looking rather spaced out, and all the emptyness does is actually add more of what it's probably feeling while it's laying there, nothing. And yes, there's definite lines of symmatry (sp?) in nature, but that doesn't mean everything is strait lined down. Birds have feathers out of place, do they not? There will also always be imperfections in nature, this is fact. Grow up, you suck at whining.

My vote goes to Wonka cause I think it looks cooler and I don't care what you think so STFU.

The Messiah of Pain · Post by **The Messiah of Pain** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:51 am

DvWizard wrote:
My vote goes to Wonka cause I think it looks cooler and I don't care what you think so STFU.

sounds like a plan