Am I the only one who gets annoyed when someone compares a starting or inexperienced artist to someone like WolfBlade? We all know that artists can do better, but I just feel like It's almost an insult to point out errors in one's art in comparison to a highly acclaimed artist in the fandom.

Now, I know that most people don't mean to be insulting when they do it, but It's really hard to depict when people are being sincere anymore. Perhaps people could just point out the error in a polite manner and leave it at that?

Also, I have no idea if this would be classified under "Art Talk", so if it isn't, please feel free to correct me.

Nikolaithefur said:
Also, I have no idea if this would be classified under "Art Talk", so if it isn't, please feel free to correct me.

Yeah, this fits in here.

There's an artist who compiled a journal on how things can be misinterpreted as being rude: http://drachenmagier.deviantart.com/journal/The-Art-of-Misunderstanding-618632047

drachenmagier said:

=> "Looks like Ghibli!"

After a few years on dA, I started to hate Ghibli with a passion.

Not that Ghibli is a bad studio. They had created amazing movies and I dearly love Totoro. But for me it it started to mean that my works were not original and just a cheap copy of a famous brand.

I know that it's meant as a compliment, but it's not easy to say "thank you" to every person who writes this. On a bad day I'd love to just reply with a very impolite "fuck you". Of course I don't, after all I still know that it's meant as a compliment.

It's not just "oh, looks like Ghibli" that gets annoying. Most artists won't see it as a compliment if you compare their works to anything you like. For them it will translate into "this is a knockoff." No matter how big the compliment seems to be for you, they will most likely be peeved out.

And if you want to compare a drawing to anything, make sure to explain yourself and not just drop a name. You can prevent a lot of confusion with this.

Short answer: no, you're not the only one. I get this a lot, as well as having my own story ideas compared to things I've never even heard of. Makes me not want to bother making stuff anymore.

Furrin_Gok said:
There's an artist who compiled a journal on how things can be misinterpreted as being rude: http://drachenmagier.deviantart.com/journal/The-Art-of-Misunderstanding-618632047

As far as I can tell, people giving these kinds of compliments do it with the utmost sincerity, with the mentality that "this is great, it reminds me of this other great thing, maybe the artist will appreciate how great I think it is in those terms." You can't expect people to think their actions through as though they're crossing a minefield when they're saying these things, it's just not gonna happen.

If we simply talk skill and criticism, then I definitely agree. Saying "you're not as good as xyz" or "xyz has already done that" is definitely not a good way to give criticism (the second one is arguably not even criticism). Ideally criticism should be given on a individual basis without direct comparison to other works.

Regarding things @Furrin and @Ratte mentioned and positive comparison (albeit might be negatively perceived) to other works, I feel like that would be really hard to get people to stop doing, especially if it is truly meant as a compliment and the person in question is a fan of what they compare the art to.

I would compare it a bit to fan art of popular media. You get fans of something else, expressing their feelings towards something they like. If these happen to find something similar to what they like they're likely to go "omg that's just like this thing I like and I need to tell everyone about it". I'd be inclined to say that I've personally seen this behavior more than "oh how dull, it's just like xyz" (except for stupid claims of tracing and plagiarism).

That said I can definitely sympathize about how it how it can feel diminishing to even be compared in a good way to something that might be "better", already done or similar or simply more widely known.

The comparisons make it seem more like your work isn't original and the compliments seem almost backhanded. When you work hard to come up with your own work, concepts, artwork, etc, being told that it reminds them of something unrelated makes your own work seem like a cheap knockoff instead of something you work hard to make. I can understand why people do it, but I wish more people could understand why it isn't always appreciated.

I mean, since my art never got popular, I can't really speak from experience, but I see other artists facing this issue, and it just infuriates me.

drachenmagier said:
=> "Looks like Ghibli!"

After a few years on dA, I started to hate Ghibli with a passion.

Not that Ghibli is a bad studio. They had created amazing movies and I dearly love Totoro. But for me it it started to mean that my works were not original and just a cheap copy of a famous brand.

I know that it's meant as a compliment, but it's not easy to say "thank you" to every person who writes this. On a bad day I'd love to just reply with a very impolite "fuck you". Of course I don't, after all I still know that it's meant as a compliment.

It's not just "oh, looks like Ghibli" that gets annoying. Most artists won't see it as a compliment if you compare their works to anything you like. For them it will translate into "this is a knockoff." No matter how big the compliment seems to be for you, they will most likely be peeved out.

And if you want to compare a drawing to anything, make sure to explain yourself and not just drop a name. You can prevent a lot of confusion with this.

My thoughts exactly.

I remember when cartoons on youtube were still booming, many artists with "so random" over exaggerated flash made cartoons got basically mistaken for egoraptor all the time. So much that there was cartoon about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1rdIWlf8uI

But that comes from lack of better words. "Like Skyrim with guns" is meme at this point, but if I had to descripe Overwatch for someone, I would simply say "It's like TF2, but more modern and with more characters" which would say what I want to say, even if majority of details are missing from my description. Everyone eats, so it's easy to say when something is bitter or spicy. If someone plays a lot, they know what TF2 is and know what to expect and that doesn't mean like overwatch is TF2 knockoff because of that.

This is also the reason why I usually do not give any positive feedback on anything, because it becomes pretty much pretentious sounding commenting and thus doesn't sound like something I would normally say, which sometimes do get to level of "this looks like X, amazing". It's also much easier to descripe when something is horribly wrong. And I know this is also ass backwards approach to giving feedback as that negative commenting will only raise the attention the piece is getting when it doesn't deserve it.
(This is also why youtube comments are busted as negative comments get more attention -> they are more important -> they are given more visibility)

I take it more as, pretty much every style has some precedent, and every artist has influences. Hearing "your art reminds me of X" isn't incredibly helpful, but not particularly bothersome either.

Regarding the negative side of things, sometimes I think the negative comparisons ("x did it better") can be helpful if it's elaborated on. For instance:

"Your anatomy here is a bit wonky. The legs, in particular, look far too short given the position the character is in. [Accomplished Artist] did a picture in this pose, you can see there how the legs ought to look - you see how far they go?"

That's not often how it's done, but as a visual aid, I think it's helpful.

I don't do this, of course, on anything that can be considered part of style (which is a lot).

Fenrick said:
As far as I can tell, people giving these kinds of compliments do it with the utmost sincerity, with the mentality that "this is great, it reminds me of this other great thing, maybe the artist will appreciate how great I think it is in those terms." You can't expect people to think their actions through as though they're crossing a minefield when they're saying these things, it's just not gonna happen.

This is exactly what people think.

I myself try to be as original in my comments as the art is original. I try to describe and appreciate it as it is, and not what it may be related to. A watcher should should be generous, and that means truly looking at the piece and telling the artist how it is, because it is hard for an artist to tell what their own work looks like (in my personal experience), and giving honest praise. This is what I try to do, though sometimes I get lazy. Would you agree, @Ratte?

Honestly whether intended as a compliment or not it's rude as hell to come up to an artist or writer and tell them "hey your art is the same as this other guy you never heard of."

GDelscribe said:
Honestly whether intended as a compliment or not it's rude as hell to come up to an artist or writer and tell them "hey your art is the same as this other guy you never heard of."

I think that's an overly hostile reaction to what are ultimately innocent, if misguided, remarks

This whole thread can be summarized with the phrase "nihil novi sub sole."

Fenrick said:
I think that's an overly hostile reaction to what are ultimately innocent, if misguided, remarks

Its really not though. Youre literally going up to someone whos working on a unique product and then telling them essentially "hey this guy does the same shit you do."

Thats tantamount to saying "you shouldn't do it at all because this guy does it."

"Youre not needed."

It may not be the intention but it's how it feels sometimes to people for sure.

That way of thinking is completely alien to me. Just because something similar already exists, there's no need for more? What? Might as well not create anything, then. No new music, especially not in existing genres, because there's already plenty. No movies, no books, nothing.

I'm along the same lines as Mark Twain:

There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope. We give them a turn and they make new and curious combinations. We keep on turning and making new combinations indefinitely; but they are the same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages.

Many of the best artists draw art that's not at all unique on the surface: landscapes, portraits... But common art style and subject don't make their art any less special.

I don't know when people are being sincere -- I mean, it's the internet, haha.

"Originality" isn't really that relevant. If you're doing your own thing your own way, that's original, even if 10000 people picked similar things and similar ways. Both originality and being compared to others are pretty mundane things.

generally people give either bad critique or non-critique.
I don't agree it's an insult to compare your art to a more accomplished artist; it's merely unhelpful (ie. i'd put it in the 'non-critique' basket). Good critique is specific about both what is wrong and how it can be fixed; Clawdragons gave an example.

(just to be complete: bad critique is specific but about irrelevant stuff, like the viewer's subjective preference of how this or that should be depicted -- compare this with good critique, which is about contradiction of objective reality vs what is positively shown in the picture)

savageorange said:
I don't know when people are being sincere -- I mean, it's the internet, haha.

"Originality" isn't really that relevant. If you're doing your own thing your own way, that's original, even if 10000 people picked similar things and similar ways. Both originality and being compared to others are pretty mundane things.

generally people give either bad critique or non-critique.
I don't agree it's an insult to compare your art to a more accomplished artist; it's merely unhelpful (ie. i'd put it in the 'non-critique' basket). Good critique is specific about both what is wrong and how it can be fixed; Clawdragons gave an example.

(just to be complete: bad critique is specific but about irrelevant stuff, like the viewer's subjective preference of how this or that should be depicted -- compare this with good critique, which is about contradiction of objective reality vs what is positively shown in the picture)

I don't think that subjective critique isn't necessarily wrong though. Depending on who your intended audience is, or other factors, it might be important. I'm not willing to say that only objective critique should be considered valuable.

Personally I don't think its a bad thing to be compared to someone else whether they are more famous or not. Or whether they are still active or not. And I most certainly disagree with GDel's assessment that "Oh hey you and this guy are pretty similar" is basically the same as "Your not needed because this guy does it." because no one ever but a troll would ever imply or even say that.

There are many out there whose art styles I love but no longer do art. And I would love to see that style again. No matter who does it.

Now that being said making that comparison is pretty unhelpful as savageorange said. And I don't make them. It doesn't add anything or take it away, what I think is best is to say to the artist what the did great and what they need work on, help them play up their strengths and improve so they can grow to be even greater then they are.

But thats just my view. Take what I say with a grain of salt.

Clawdragons said:
I don't think that subjective critique isn't necessarily wrong though. Depending on who your intended audience is, or other factors, it might be important. I'm not willing to say that only objective critique should be considered valuable.

Subjective critique isn't wrong per se. But it requires context of why you are making this thing, what this thing is about; and also about the person making the critique. That's a high bar to pass for random strangers. IRL friends are much more likely to provide useful critique of this kind.

IOW, I don't expect useful subjective critique on the internet because the necessary information to interpret it usually isn't readily available. I think trying to give subjective critique anyway despite this, generates more noise than signal.

Though there is a certain amount of leeway for fairly coarse subjective critique, like 'feels too heavy in the bottom-left corner', or "the eyes feel like they are visually separated from the rest of the face", which the artist can relatively easily analyze and take or leave depending on their intent for the picture.

Aster_Viridian said:
I myself try to be as original in my comments as the art is original. I try to describe and appreciate it as it is, and not what it may be related to. A watcher should should be generous, and that means truly looking at the piece and telling the artist how it is, because it is hard for an artist to tell what their own work looks like (in my personal experience), and giving honest praise. This is what I try to do, though sometimes I get lazy. Would you agree, @Ratte?

Agree with what? All of it? I suppose.

It's nice to have your work commented on and appreciated for what it is rather than compared to something you don't know or care about. I don't really look at the works of other people or delve into most fiction media for one reason or another, so to then be compared to that makes me, personally, feel like my work is just a regurgitation of something else and that I should scrap the idea, whether it's a character, concept, or anything else important to my work/story. I can understand why comparisons are made (ex: I like x so I like things seemingly related to x) but I wish people would understand why a lot of others really don't like that kind of commentary.

I mean, on one hand, I agree with the idea that maybe some people didn't mean to come across as rude, but I had said before, comparisons are kind of open to interpretation by the artist. The Internet truly is a trigger minefield, and we can either plow straight through it, or we can tip-toe our ways around a potential fight. In all honesty, if I started doing art again, I'd love to have some kind of reference point from my fans to get inspiration from. I only get angry when people straight out say that Artist Y's art is just a copy of Artist X's work.

... and I'm kind of a hypocrite when it comes to this kind of stuff. I reworked one of anhes works, and they didn't have a problem with it. It was pretty close, but I added my own artistic flair to it.

EightyNine said:
This whole thread can be summarized with the phrase "nihil novi sub sole."

There's also the saying among experienced writers, artists, musicians etc. that goes something like,

"Nothing in Art is completely new"

Which is technically true to some degree, I suppose, but the same could be said for almost every cultural facet in the world
-
I think it's more about what you do with a concept or how you handle it, rather than just the concept itself

I don't worry about it. Most of the people my art is directed towards are not artists and have a very skewed view of what is original, inspired, indepth, or thoughtful.

I draw what I like and if everyone else likes it too that is merely an added bonus.