HOME | DD

TheAuty-sama In reply to ??? [2014-06-26 14:07:55 +0000 UTC]

Very stupid.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Florian-K In reply to TheAuty-sama [2014-06-27 13:58:15 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheAuty-sama In reply to Florian-K [2014-06-27 14:07:37 +0000 UTC]

nono, I sent another message explaining. I have MS, which causes scarring on your brain blah blah, and long story made short, I didn't mean that! I really like this picture.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to TheAuty-sama [2014-06-27 14:51:51 +0000 UTC]

Yes, I read you other comment, but I was going to comment on it in the order of appearance
It's all good. I hope you do well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheAuty-sama In reply to Florian-K [2014-06-29 23:49:24 +0000 UTC]

<3 Well as can be expected. And you, too. Again, I'm totally sorry about that...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

leftshark In reply to TheAuty-sama [2014-06-26 20:22:13 +0000 UTC]

If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all. That isn't even an acceptable critique. You could have maybe said what you thought was "stupid" about this piece of artwork?   

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheAuty-sama In reply to leftshark [2014-06-27 03:24:18 +0000 UTC]

...omfg... I am so sorry... I have MS, and it attacks the brain and causes scarred tissue, blah blah... I won't bore you with excuses, just... I totally didn't mean that! I actually really like the pic, but I was thinking about something else t the time I posted this...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

leftshark In reply to TheAuty-sama [2014-06-27 05:40:29 +0000 UTC]

Ok....?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheAuty-sama In reply to leftshark [2014-06-27 14:08:02 +0000 UTC]

Umm...exactly what didn't you understand..? o.0

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Hergman In reply to ??? [2014-06-26 13:49:12 +0000 UTC]

i see quite a trend with the pants

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to Hergman [2014-06-27 13:58:07 +0000 UTC]

Yes, they all love comfortable clothes

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

tenchibaka In reply to ??? [2014-06-26 13:04:39 +0000 UTC]

the dudes look great but why are all but one of the females showing off the bulk of their tits and crotches in massively undersized pasties and thongs?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to tenchibaka [2014-06-27 13:57:10 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, but why is this a problem? Half of the guys show the same amount or even more "skin" than the girls.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tenchibaka In reply to Florian-K [2014-06-28 05:16:22 +0000 UTC]

none of them are dressed in a way that would be considered sex-orientated and none of the males are posed in manners that would make their gender the most predominant feature of them as opposed to their personality(though a second go through made me notice the ferret, this is prolly best with a warning) i get that they are all supposed to be provocative but only the females are done in a gratuitously sexualized manner, if it helps though reread what you wrote 'half' is something to say when of 18 total (gendered, i am not counting the ungendered monsters) chars 1 male is in supertight revealing underwear and 4 girls are, or more exactly, of 8 males only one is explicitly showing off his junk and 4 of the five females are, even more awkward is that the one male is the only one of the five that is not in a stock 'crotchshot' pose(with hips out and impossibly angled so you can see the entire of the genitals and part of the butt as well as the top/bottom and front of the chest)

dont take this as me trashing the picture, you very obviously put a heck of a lot of work into it and i think it is really cool looking(or else i would not have clicked) i am just trying to look at it as a picture that has several demeaning and casually objectifying stereotypes and clothing choices and trying to get you to see it as well and question the tired old 'everyone else does it' that gets used when females are given less clothes and less personality and extra pantyshots. it says something that the only female that has her breasts covered and is not giving a blank face has a large conspicuous slit over her crotch that opens easily and makes me uncomfortable to think she, like the others, is in a thong. i want positive female representation as well not more pointless t&a aimed at pubescent boys/manchildren

it is one of those things were it looks like it would be an amazing game/comic only i'd just want to stick to male chars and stories because each of the females look like they have 'the girl character' syndrome and make me disengage emotionally. i don't want to have to suss out whether the char is the 'mommy' the 'bitch' the 'innocent' or the 'whore' and make my choices based on which of those means the least amount of insult. i want chars that are not so flat, i want chars that have actual personality not just a personality trait 'appropriate' for their trope and easily fitting into a thong. i found a comic a while back that sums it up; tenchibaka.deviantart.com/art/…

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to tenchibaka [2014-06-28 12:00:18 +0000 UTC]

I appreciate the time you take to explain your way of thinking, but I get the feeling that you over-interpret the designs and put standards in them that don't exist in the context of the whole concept. Because the characters belong to a bigger concept I treated them all as equal (all of them use the same level of exaggeration and stylization; all of them are shot from the center of their body (what you consider "crotch-shots")). The idea that bare male breasts are okay, but showing a part of female breasts is somewhat discriminatory is an arbitrary standard I don't accept.
There're 16 clearly gendered human-like characters from which 9 (ca. half of them) "show skin" and 4 (again ca. half of these 9) are female (proportional distribution alone is able to justify these numbers). You're right that I could've exaggerated the male characters more (in fact the initial designs were more exaggerated, but the female designs too), because I wanted a slightly "provocative" visual theme that goes along with the general concept. But I decided to take everything back one level and make it more "appropriate" in general (although what's appropriate is a purely subjective standard I try not to use).

I don't take it as "trashing the picture". I like the thoughts and comments you have about it. Again, I think you use an arbitrary and unjustified standard if you're trying to say that only the female characters are objectified and ignore half of the male characters (which are even more objectified (especially in the case of Chad, Yakone and maybe Demissie). The only willfully "objectified" female character is Avel, but this is explained by her personality. It seems like you expect female characters to be treated as objects and therefore see them as objects, dismissing all other characters (this becomes especially obvious when you try to "interpret" Makayla as demeaning; I created the character but not even I thought about what she might wear under her dress, because whatever it is it's not part of the visible costume and therefore not of interest).
I gave every character the same level of personality. No character exists only because of its appearance (actually I'm not able to design a character without having thought about its personality first; personality defines most elements of the visual appearance). One of my favorite characters is Qadira, because of her personality and the way her costume interprets it.

So in this sense you want to play "objectified" male characters rather than "objectified" female characters. This is a purely subjective standard. It isn't wrong and I have nothing against it, but I try to stay away from these personal evaluations. Same goes for stereotypes. All characters are equally stereotypical (or non-stereotypical, depending on your view). Btw stereotypes are only real stereotypes if they fall back to a collection of clichéd elements that describe the personality and role of a character and replace a genuine personality and role.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tenchibaka In reply to Florian-K [2014-06-29 10:44:03 +0000 UTC]

maybe not as the whole but as does exist in the context of this image which is my sole exposure to the concept(and the sole exposure of many people who will be looking at this) and that is where my opinion lies, in this exact image itself and in the context of a person who is familiar with western concepts in general seeing an image that relies heavily on those western concepts, though a crotchshot is lower starting at about the top of the hips and skewed. it is discriminatory but not arbitrary, in the culture you and i are in female breasts are given a much different place in society than male breasts and your having given them very typical and blatant type of showing is important, if male breasts were seen in the same way as female ones then the issue would not be about reflexive sexual exploitation of female characters but of sexual exploitation in general, many of the chars have bare stomachs too but because there is nothing about stomachs that are seen as sexual the are not considered objectifiable parts and baring them is not an issue. the issue lay with how you decided to consistently utilize something that is considered sexual in a manner that traditionally is seen as exploitative. i do not know you so i cannot say if you are the sort of person who likes to ogle strangers' breasts but if i were to make assumptions of you based on your art(a thing which is human nature) my assumption would be you do indeed like to oggle, you actively chose to portray your female chars in a way that is generally used to ogle and very rarely is anything other than sexist and objectifying

it is not actually unjustified. i use about fifteen years of personal exposure to pop culture and use the trends and habits of that culture to make base-line theories of what i am seeing. i am not an ignorant creature who has never seen anything, heard anything or formed thoughts before seeing the image and other viewers are not either. i base my understandings on my past histories and my past histories have told me quite explicitly many times that 'thae girl' character follows only a very narrow definition of character when she is given certain qualifications, sadly 'underdressed for the situation' 'submissive posing' 'lack of visible personality' and 'sameface/body syndrome' your female chars have the exact same body with four of them having the same blank facial expression, four have traditional 'female exclusive' non-dominating poses that maximize exposure of genitals and breasts(though to that degree two of your males do as well though both are well covered) they are comparatively underdressed next to their male counterparts with one exposing her crotch, four exposing the bulk of their breasts(understand this is within context of the culture YOU drew them in and are showing them off in) in clothing that is inappropriate for movement(granted most of the clothing you drew is inappropriate for movement) and of them all only one gives any clue to her personality through her bodylanguage and that is most likely a false-positive since the language is one that is standard pinup for female chars regardless of their personality. some of your males suffer from lack of personality too but with a mix of pose variety, bodytype variety and clothing variety it is a lot harder to pick out which ones are not as well planned same if you looked at some other part, there are plenty of other facets of them to make the fault less apparent

if i had to guess what type of person each char is i would say quadira is the tomboy(she is drawn in the least submissive pose but is showing the most skin)
vaya is the aloof 'bitch'
makalaya is the 'princess' she is the most dressed so she is the most childish and is likely either another spoiled char or is a baby, from the fact that she is not in ribbons she is probably another bitch char
avel, she is either another 'bitch' char or else she is the mommy char, because she is a visual match for yakone who looks like the leader she is likely to be a mommy but because she is wearing the least amount of clothing of any of the chars(except the animal one, zar, who by rote does not wear clothes) she is probably not a mommy and is another aloof 'bitch' char
thera is a workhorse char and is just background fodder. she is likely to be a char that has some sort of past and is likely to be aloof. i cannot get a handle on this one because unlike the others she actually seems to have some sort of history from the look of her, she has tattoos that do not seem expressly decorative and is wearing clothes that ft in with the male chars and her clothing style/color implies that she is a little older than the others and understands something fundamental. she seems to have a personality from her apparel despite the blank face and neutral pose and though she does not have the pizazz of a main char she does have potential despite her surface appearance grouping her in with the others


it would be nice if people could be entirely openminded and look at each thing without biases and without judgement but that simply is not possible. people will look at things and try and make contextual sense of it. art is not created in a vacuum and will never be looked at without someone seeing something and when you put in certain visual cues people will pick up on those cues and respond thusly. you put out several cues and i picked up on them, i am not trying to see what is not there i am looking at what you have put there, intended or not. all of the chars wear black and white, every last one of them, you may have intended it this way and it may be pure luck that each and every one has these two colors but because you put those colors on every char i, someone who does not know the story, will assume it is intentional that you did so, it is not statistically likely that you accidentally drew 18 designs and they all had those two colors especially considering  half of the monsters have both black and white and the other half have at least white which means 22 chars with those colors of 25 and the last three have at least one of the two chars meaning 25 chars of 25 with white somewhere on their design. i see the same with the  way you did the females, whether you intended to portray them that way or not you did in fact portray them that way and i, taking in the context of the image and comparing it to the rest of my life experience assumed that you, the creator, did so intentionally



of course after saying all of this and spending so much time looking at the chars i am curious to see if thera at least has potential of not being an entirely two-dimensional char she and chad are both interesting to me(even if chad is only interesting because he is a snake with snakebites and an ipod stuck to his dick)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to tenchibaka [2014-06-29 12:51:51 +0000 UTC]

Your thoughts are very interesting. I hope I'm able to respond to all of them.

The collection that represents all elements of a concept in miniature form cannot be the replacement for every single sheet that shows the elements in detail with additional information. You would be right to only consider a collection if there were no additional information available. The only thing this collection is for is to show and compare all characters, their color scheme and sizes.

Only because "social norms" or our "culture" dictates what's acceptable and what's naughty doesn't mean that I have to comply with it. If I find arbitrary social norms I either ignore them or do the opposite. You're right that nothing exists in a vacuum, but I'm able to redefine what I encounter (I have the bad habit of redefining the meaning of symbols and if people don't get this or look at certain stuff superficially they will make mistakes and misunderstand it. They might think that certain elements are "wrong" or "not acceptable", because they're wrong and not acceptable in a global context, but not in the local context — the local context as a whole can be compared to a global context, but comparing isolated elements of the local context will always create misunderstanding).

No, I don't like to ogle and you make the supreme mistake of putting the author of a piece of art on one level with the work of art and its content (it would be the same mistake if you say the narrator in a novel is the same person as the author who wrote the novel). You have to be more careful and distinguish between both levels. If I depict something that doesn't automatically mean that this is what I want in real life. There can be overlapping elements, but you usually have to start with looking at the author and his work separately.
In this sense I agree with you that stereotypes are used too often and that female characters are often objectified — but I'm going to wilfully use stereotypes if this fits the concept (like I said, stereotypes are only stereotypes if they're used for purely functional reasons to replace personality or to initiate certain events in a story mechanically (this means without natural flow of the characters involved), but if certain personality traits and visual elements grow out of the concept and overlap with certain stereotypes, these traits aren't stereotypes (they're backed by the concept and are natural within the context; not functional or mechanical)).
And you're making another mistake: Stereotypical visual elements are only stereotypical if they replace any kind of personality (or go against actual personality) and are put on a character arbitrarily. If certain visual elements enable you to tell what a character is like and what you expected overlaps with the genuine personality of the character it's not a complete stereotype any more (the whole world of character design is about finding visual elements that depict character traits. If you say that knowing about a character's personality and role by looking at its appearance is stereotypical, than everything is).
I'm usually extremely open minded and try to treat everything respectfully and fair — but this doesn't mean that I hold back or break everything down to the lowest common denominator — it often means that I exaggerate all elements to the point were they become "not acceptable" for some people. Initially I played with the idea to make all characters completely nude (what would have been more in line with the general concept), but this would've transformed all character into "furry porn" for some people and going against this preconceived notion is way more difficult and needs more work than to give the characters revealing clothes which only hint at the "nude"-idea (and clothes give me more freedom to define the roles and abilities of the characters; in the end the clothes became the main focus of the whole series).
None of the characters shows body language or facial expressions that explicitly hint at their personality (for one thing, this is because I concentrated on the costumes and the appropriate kind of animal more than on the pose and face (if you want to show the costume, leave out distracting poses and expressions) and for another thing, this is because I have to practice on silhouettes and proportion and used less demanding poses to do it).

You're right about Qadira (the main idea behind her is a female character that feels like a boy. She has no female friends, but many male buddies. None of them is a potential boyfriend. She wants to be seen as "sexy" (but not girlish — dog tag, cap, drop crotch pants, "military" color scheme) because she thinks this might attract genuine boyfriends, but this is not the case. She is a bit naive in this regard and uses her female attributes like tools (that's why she shows the most skin; this is similar to Avel, but Avel has completely different intentions)).
Vaya is actually the most energetic female character (casual shoes, harem pants), a bit unfocused and sometimes far-away (headphones, beanie). Together with Thera she's the least bitchy female character, but she's headstrong.
Makayla is a "spoiled princess" (and you're right, this is clearly obvious by her extravagant looking clothes), but she's not childish (maybe a bit naive, because she thinks she has the right to order around other people).
How on earth do you think Avel could be the mommy? None of her elements hints to a motherly character. To the contrary she's the most intelligent, most calculating and "most evil" female character (horns, face partially hidden). She uses other characters and herself like tools (her whole costume is designed to make it look like a tool she uses to wrap other characters (especially males) around), but she's also strong and agile ("combat" boots, padded arms).
Thera would be the "mother" after your definition. She's the wisest and the most down to earth of all characters. Together with Avel she's the only character that's able to plan and to think stuff through properly. The military theme of her clothing hints at her supervising and tactical abilities. Her vest represents warmth and protection, but not the insecure kind of protection (like Håka's vest represents). And again combat boots and padded arms symbolize strength.
I think you're interpreting symbolic elements too directly. And all characters are more or less bitches or are at least headstrong (I designed most of them to have more negative aspects than positive).
There's no leader. There're only "positive" and "negative" characters (positive character generally want to help each other and to stick together; negative characters want to go their own way). Positive characters are Jeremy, Qadira, Zaim, Vaya, Nikon + Zar and Thera; negative characters are Xylon, Makayla, Håka, Chad, Avel and Yakone; neutral characters (can be on both sides) are Keaton, Demissie, Garyn and Pascal.

I never said that there're elements I didn't plan. Everything you see is planned, but you interpret some elements differently or put more emphasis on them than I intended.
You're correct, all characters use black or dark gray in their clothing and this is a purely conceptual choice (black can easily be combined with a secondary color I used to hint at the personality of a character (for example black + red/pink for dynamic or headstrong characters)). Black tones everything down. In this concept it's the color of everything not heavenly, everything tainted, but also the color of natural things; in contrast the Angels as unnatural beings of heaven don't show black or gray; they show the indefinable color of ether. The Puritans only show black and white, because they're torn between earth and heaven; same goes for Xylon.

Thank you for all your input. This is more helpful than one hundred generic comments.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tenchibaka In reply to Florian-K [2014-07-02 06:46:07 +0000 UTC]

except what you are basically doing is turning away potential viewers when you put it that way. the full-sized ones that i saw did not change anything of my perception and the data was scant at best, it did nothing to expand the concept other than give a spec chart which is frivolous data when one is wanting to see if they are interested and aside from the point entirely

let me use an example, if you saw an add for say a new shoe and the ad was really insignificant on the details and not do anything to tell you anything about the shoe and had some physical flaws that you could see in the sample shoe itself would you then look up the shoe company and read up on customer reviews of the shoe and check to see the means of manufacture before making a decision of whether or not the shoe is good or would you look at the commercial and then decide you are not interested?

i am looking at this image as you would look at an advertisement and i am judging, by what i can see whether or not it is something i am interested in, if i am not interested i will not do any more research, when you imply that this is is not the best way to make a judgement you are basically telling me 'dont look at the commercial' or more to the point you are discrediting the art by letting me know that the art is not properly representational of the characters or the story and to not use this as a basis for deciding if the story is any good which turns me away(or would if i was not trying so hard to make a point) and makes me not want to learn about the story or the chars

except you gave 0 inclination that you are redefining anything and what we can see of the art is the same old thing we have seen many times before, i can paint my house yellow in a neighborhood of red houses and tell everyone it is red and is different but unless i explain that for me red means yellow noone will believe the house is yellow and that the house is any different from all the red houses is NOT their fault you are not giving any local context, it is yours and is a very bad thing to do when telling a story. you are not explaining that your red is actually yellow and you are misleading your viewers by purposely omitting a crucial detail


and you are making the mistake that i am comparing you to the narrator.  i do not know of any writer who willfully writes things they do not believe in when given the freedom to write whatever they want except to insult it and i do not know any artists who repeatedly draws things they dislike when given the freedom to draw whatever they want unless they are putting it down. you wanted to draw this, you willfully chose it a minimum of four times meaning you must, on some level enjoy making it by virtue of drawing it so many times without any hind of derision. noone made you do this, noone paid you off or made threats YOU chose it and by you choosing it i am given the impression you enjoy such things, why else would you keep drawing it? why else would you make it canonical? i do not like pictures of people being gagged and tortured, looking through my gallery you will find no pictures of people being gagged and tortured, that makes sense right? i like dudes in dresses, i have a gallery full of dudes in dresses, that too makes sense right? the same applies here. it makes no sense to draw things for yourself you dont like and so it is a safe assumption that you do in fact like these things

you do not agree with me at all i am afraid, you keep saying these stereotypes are not stereotypes and then when i try to explain why you do not give me any data to back your side up you only tell me 'well if you look at it another way a stereotype is not a stereotype. and you have done nothing at all to tell me why this is not a stereotype.


these do go against the personality of the char that i saw and likely against the others as well, if she is military she would be prepared and well defended, her weapon is defensive and her personality is also on the defending bent so why do her clothes expose her to not only the elements but to attackers? those are not clothes you would ever expect someone who is not open themselves in fact by your own admission she is not the sort to do anything that would make her stand out, wearing a teeny-tiny undersized(yes, that is undersized. it does not fit her) bikini is going to make her stand out. you are openly defying your own character by making her clothes lie about what kind of person she is. that is the very essence of what i am talking about


except in this instance you kind of did break it down to the lowest common denominator.


nude could have been worked with, omit nipples or penises, or cover them with a bit of fluff, then it is just furry art(which it still is now) and removes entirely the implication that here nudity means something which is what covering up parts of the body mean(everywhere that clothing is worn this is what it means)


you did a good job at making them mean something but i fear what they mean is not always what you imply or even intend


except several of your male chars have very expressive poses and faces. almost half of your males have indicative posing and expressions that give away possible personalities snake dude especially



i explained my reasons for each dear, if you are confused i recommend re-reading my explanation just know your response does indeed bolster both my chastisement and my claim that your female chars are very stereotypical and flat though the more i am reading the more i think it is because your skills lay in world building more than character development and that your issue is, at least from what i have seen, in omitting important information alltogether more than outright bias against females in general. i would totally suggest you go more in-depth with your profiles and do not worry about 'saying too much'


forgive me i did not explain it correctly, i am trying to say the color choices were obviously planned and that there was little way it could be coincidence

well, what would you do to keep me from putting too much emphasis on things? where would you explain or counter or halt my questions? what you do not say needs to be as useful as what you do say and even silence means something. i want you to think about all the parts you /didn't/ think about or assumed your viewers would not think about. you need to have an answer for the ones who look and see and wonder about things and not just prepare only for people who just give it a glance and are sated





i am glad you are willing to take it. sometimes people just tune out because they are not comfortable answering questions or worse are not comfortable thinking of answers to questions that have not been asked. thankyou for trying to soak in some of my feedback

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to tenchibaka [2014-07-02 16:10:22 +0000 UTC]

Thank you again for your opinion. I try to answer as best as I can.


You may be right with "i would totally suggest you go more in-depth with your profiles and do not worry about 'saying too much'", if this was a site about literature or something focussed on conception, but this site is about visual imagery and the functions dedicated to descriptions or textual stuff are rudimentary and I won't create walls of text that engulf an image only because this stuff might be interesting for some viewers who actually want to read about background information. If they want to know stuff they can ask me (like you do), but I won't beat them to death with descriptions which are better suited for a concept booklet (what in itself would be overkill for a small just-for-fun project like this).
I have answers for people who ask. People who don't ask don't need answers. People who turn away, because they think there's something missing, don't deserve answers.

I'm not that interested in viewers that turn away because I do things in a way they don't like. This is a personal project and I can do whatever I want. There're many flaws in it and many things that might be critical, but there're enough people who like it despite of these flaws.
Your example of advertisement doesn't fully apply. If the product is interesting (even if there's only one tiny detail that stands out) I will look it up, even if the ad doesn't satisfy me. And you're right: Don't look at the commercial — look at the product.
And you seem to desperately want to look at this collection like it was the peak of the project, but that's not its purpose — to be honest I cobbled it together, because I needed an image to say "that's the end of this project" (that's why there's no description at all, only links to the individual pieces).
And you're right: My art will never be good enough to represent the whole of a project — in fact, my art sucks; it's only a surrogate, a catalyst (mainly for myself) for some ideas I have.

Yes, I enjoy doing stuff, but not all I do is because I enjoy it; some things are functional or conceptual and you don't need to like them in order to acknowledge their power or abilities within a concept. If I wrote about a dystopian world in which all people die of a flesh-eating virus doesn't mean that I like people getting killed by dissolving their bodies — it's a functional unit within a concept. The concept may have many enjoyable tones (that can be represented in the kind of atmosphere, action, events etc.), but this doesn't mean that every detail necessary to flesh out the concept is a product of pure joy. In this regard your view looks overly simplistic.
And I indeed enjoy female breats, male breasts, dynamic curves, crotches, muscles and all the things that make bodies beautiful. I like to use designs of costumes that highlight these features rather than burry them.

So you're basically telling me that all women who wear bras and show some skin are stereotypes per definition?

You're still keeping the gold standard on the real world. In a world where practically all characters walk around half naked Theras's vest is a "more conservative" item, because it hides parts of their body and veils their female curvature. You can keep looking at it and find it inappropriate, but in this case you should call all characters more or less inappropriate.

I could've made them nude, but I surely wouldn't have hidden their primary and secondary sexual characteristics (I think this is the main thing you're complaining about, garnished with some "inappropriate" or "stereotypical" excuses). If I had made them nude you would've said: "You cannot show their penes and especially not their nipples" and even now when everything is covered sufficiently you still say: "You cannot show their crotches and their breasts".
I could turn around and find all the stuff I find inappropriate or sexist in your art, but I don't want to do it, because I hope you realize how futile and extremely hypocritical this is.

I intended to give them negative traits what results in some mean characters, because I didn’t want to portrait them as overly cheerful or happy or naive. The whole scenario, the toned down colors, the clothing style, and the "indecent" stuff is more or less part of a "negative and mean" concept.

[...] well, what would you do to keep me from putting too much emphasis on things?
You could start with not taking everything too seriously and stop using the real world as gold standard. You could go through an art gallery, point at the images and say "This tree doesn't look like trees I know", "The apples in this still life don't look like apples I want to eat", "The legs of the person in this nude study are too long and I find them sexist", "I don't know what the artist wants to tell me with this image, that's why it's bad" and so on.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tenchibaka In reply to Florian-K [2014-07-04 10:51:02 +0000 UTC]

i have been trying to do this in order but your last bit was so far off the mark i need to address it first and foremost as it's own separate thing;

i am in no way asking you as an individual to suggest to me as an individual how to think. i am asking you as an artist to take some responsibility and take preventative action against giving all viewers unnecessary and contradictory information by refining your own work so that it is not largely dishonest. i am asking you as the artist to use proper and well studied methods of redirection to keep from misleading people and to do so because you care about your art and this project

let me repeat because this is very much the sum of the whole issue and the first time i was honestly offended by something ignorant and arrogant that you said. YOU NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ART AND NOT DISREGARD HONEST INTERPRETATIONS AS BAD OR ASIDE FROM THE POINT JUST BECAUSE YOU WERE TOO LAZY TO ADDRESS THEM BEFORE THEY BECAME AN ISSUE

please read this next part until it makes sense i will even emphasize the word you ignored;

well, what would _you_ do to keep me from putting too much emphasis on things?

i am not asking you to give me advice i am asking you to take a critical look at your work and see where you have been sloppy and to fix it so that you may express yourself in a way that people can actually understand and to prevent others, like myself, from misinterpreting your thoughts and actions. i wanted to avoid this word because it is innately rude but i am at the end of my ability to try and explain the issue and i am ready to use it. the way you express your ideas are lazy. you do not take the time to look at what you want and fit it into the world you are creating in a clear and effective manner and instead you take tired old tropes and stereotypes and use them wholecloth in your creating with no regards to if they hurt the overall story or not. you decided to cut so many corners that you've left gaping holes in your work that can only be dealt with by soundly ignoring them or walking away. you have chosen to be lazy and that laziness shows very clearly, regardless of whether or not you have adequate reasons for it or not the long and short of it is that you did shoddy work and have not made any effort to do anything other than make excuses as to why it is not your fault

i will reply to the rest of it later but for now i am somewhat worked up and offended and would like to take a breather

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to tenchibaka [2014-07-04 14:49:43 +0000 UTC]

I'm sorry if I offended you, but even if I misunderstood you specific question my answer still applies and if you get offended by something like this your gauge of acceptance seems to need some adjustment

You seem to have a slightly rigid definition of what's art and what art should and shouldn't do. Even if I granted you that what I'm doing is art (I don't think of it as art) I'm more than justified by the nature of art alone to do whatever I want with every subjective, misleading, manipulative detail I want (if you want to look at those things as "misleading"). I think it would be overkill to explain in detail how a piece of art is only a proxy for a subjective reflection that creates the virtual entity of what an individual perceives as art, but I'd like to state that your subjective look on a piece of art initially creates this piece of art you see. The piece of art doesn't exist as an objective entity and therefore what you subjectively put into it are the flaws you create within yourself. Only if you put a passageway between your subjective perception and the subjective perception of the artist that emulates an objective standard you're able to evaluate an artwork ("the suitable use of a tool to create a certain effect", "the suitable way to point out the dangers of water pollution", "the suitable color to represent fear in a certain context" can be such standards; but if an artist in a subjective scenario builds a subjective world and says that fear is a mix of screaming yellow and pale orange, like the floating pieces of a squirrel hit by a truck at noon you cannot impose your subjective view and say "In reality fear has to be dark blue" or something like this).

Yes, I take responsibility for everything you think I should be responsible for — but this doesn't mean that I accept your accusations or that I will change anything only because you think I should.

I don't remember the artist (or philosopher) who said: "There are many interpretations, but not all of them are correct and not all of them are useful".

It's your right to have the opinion that I'm lazy and do sloppy stuff and I have no reason to argue for or against it.

This is not a good question in general and I usually try to avoid it, because it's not important for many aspects, but we're trespassing theoretic territory that needs to be based on something more than just opinion and hobby. Therefore I think the question is (at least slightly) justified:
What's your expertise? What qualifies you to evaluate a concept and the visual representation of it in such detail? How many years have you studied art or design? How many years have you studied symbolism, physiognomy, layout etc.? How many movies, games, illustrations etc. have you analyzed and deconstructed? How many concepts have you written? How many professionals have evaluated these concepts and their visual representation?
I don't ask because I want to anger you — I ask because your subjective opinion would be backed up by something and I can value it more when you have additional experience with this stuff.


Okay, take your time, but don't take everything I do too seriously (I know another deviant who's good at taking everything too personal and too directly

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ExitMothership In reply to ??? [2014-06-26 12:49:10 +0000 UTC]

Wow, these Puritan and Angel designs are fucking smoooth!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to ExitMothership [2014-06-27 13:54:58 +0000 UTC]

Thanks. I think these designs were the easiest to draw, but the most fun

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Grump-Support In reply to ??? [2014-06-26 10:39:06 +0000 UTC]

These are nice! Its funny because more than half of these are real! I have seen people with their pants so freaking low! XDD

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to Grump-Support [2014-06-27 13:51:54 +0000 UTC]

Thanks. I think without people that walk around with their pants this low I wouldn't be able to come up with those designs

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Grump-Support In reply to Florian-K [2014-06-27 14:20:00 +0000 UTC]

They look wonderful! Sorta Sumo Punk-ish!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to Grump-Support [2014-06-27 14:28:45 +0000 UTC]

What is Sumo Punk? Oh, I think I know what you mean

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Grump-Support In reply to Florian-K [2014-06-27 15:49:09 +0000 UTC]

Yeah! Well their cool anyways >.<

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to Grump-Support [2014-06-27 16:26:08 +0000 UTC]

Thanks again

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Grump-Support In reply to Florian-K [2014-06-27 21:29:14 +0000 UTC]

No problemo!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

heey1888 In reply to ??? [2014-06-26 10:28:17 +0000 UTC]

furries with swag?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to heey1888 [2014-06-27 13:50:30 +0000 UTC]

Is "swag" still a thing? I thought it's over and we can return to wearing regular clothes with style.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

heey1888 In reply to Florian-K [2014-06-27 21:18:12 +0000 UTC]

I dont know, here it still is somehow. even people from my age :/

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SaatciSpider In reply to ??? [2014-06-26 09:57:33 +0000 UTC]

Let me guess... You love shoes?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Florian-K In reply to SaatciSpider [2014-06-27 13:49:10 +0000 UTC]

Generally, I love good and interesting clothes. Shoes are only one part of them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Baka-Lee In reply to SaatciSpider [2014-06-26 10:32:45 +0000 UTC]

K, I'm curious... These are full characters drawings, so obviously since the focus is on outfit design, they all have shoes. 

When I draw characters they all tend to have a nose. I wonder if that means I have a fondness for noses...  lol

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Duraiku-kun In reply to ??? [2014-06-26 09:30:07 +0000 UTC]

how d'ya get the inspiration for this o: amazing stuff man.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to Duraiku-kun [2014-06-27 13:48:09 +0000 UTC]

It's difficult to tell. Maybe it's because I like to create a simple story or a general concept and then try to come up with different characters that fit the story/concept. This way I can fool around and try out different things without getting lost in endless possibilities.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Duraiku-kun In reply to Florian-K [2014-06-29 19:49:05 +0000 UTC]

it's still quite amazing of you to pull that out though, i mean they're all in the same style but each have different features and clothes, and you can tell their personalities apart easily. that, i think, takes tremendous skill.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to Duraiku-kun [2014-07-01 11:44:06 +0000 UTC]

Thanks I think it's more about forcing yourself to be consistent over a long period of time and to not lose interest.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Koniak007 In reply to ??? [2014-06-26 09:21:03 +0000 UTC]

Wow amazing characters and designs! I love them all

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to Koniak007 [2014-06-27 13:46:23 +0000 UTC]

Thank you

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

amptcat In reply to ??? [2014-06-26 08:33:21 +0000 UTC]

I have a giant hard on for Qadira O.O;;;;

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to amptcat [2014-06-27 13:46:04 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, I guess

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

fruitbloodmilkshake In reply to ??? [2014-06-26 08:14:36 +0000 UTC]

Nobody knows how to wear pants

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to fruitbloodmilkshake [2014-06-27 13:44:37 +0000 UTC]

Actually, it takes more experience and knowledge to wear those pants than it takes to wear the regular stuff

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

19thCenturyKhaleesi In reply to ??? [2014-06-26 08:06:20 +0000 UTC]

I LOVE QWQ

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to 19thCenturyKhaleesi [2014-06-27 13:42:46 +0000 UTC]

Thanks

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DanSyron In reply to ??? [2014-06-26 07:03:58 +0000 UTC]

yeah, um. holy shit man

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Florian-K In reply to DanSyron [2014-06-27 13:38:24 +0000 UTC]

Oh yes, "holy" seems to be an appropriate word

👍: 0 ⏩: 0