vexeling and vectoring, A different take on what it looks like. Options

[Ktru]

Hey everyone, there just something that's been bothering me about the forum's ethnic on vexeling and vectoring (which I will call Vextor).

So i'm browsing this forums and I'm looking at all the vextoring of people pictures and I'm thinking to myself gosh these people suck. Why is it that 99% of all the vextor images soo layery? Vexels and vectors are suppost to look flat aren't they?

Maybe you're new to vexeling or vectoring and so you're following the shapes that was created when you desaturate. But it seems like the popular notion of vectoring and vexeling is just to follow the shapes created by photoshop.

I think of graphic design as a form of art. Learning how to vexel and vector is hard because it takes time to learn what kind of shapes you need to make and what kind of opacity the shape should be. To make a good vextor you need to learn the basics ( how to desaturate. how to create shapes, how to blend the layers, etc) after you have that what you do with the vectoring should be up to you. Experiment with the color and shapes to create something different.

Here's a tutorial that I thought was great on vextoring. Can someone else provide their tutorial so I can see what they're doing?

http://www.melissaclifton.com/tutorial-vector.html

let me know what your take on this is

[*mona lisa*]

Not sure if they're supposed to look flat.

I draw what I see and modify it later but here are a few tutorials I've used in the past:
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/26534736/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/22403733/

I'll provide links for tutorials when I'm at home but take a look at these vextors (heh, I'll just use your term):
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/49265057/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/35602026/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/45044082/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/42834464/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/38595148/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/13018484/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/30849458/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/49660240/

The last four are more "flat" than the others. The others are more realistic and detailed. Whatever suits you, I suppose.

[*[2]Nekked*]

. Why is it that 99% of all the vextor images soo layery? Vexels and vectors are suppost to look flat aren't they?

after you have that what you do with the vectoring should be up to you.

You may have contradicted yourself there. Many people like their vectors to be "Layery" to have more of a 3D effect. Some like their vectors flat for a more cartoony effect. Some like to be more creative with their vectors and dont follow any guidelines at all or have mixed "layery" and "flat" elements.

I can give you examples of my own work that apply to each technique.

Layery: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/24468882/
Cartoony: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/15269229/
Mixed, No Guides: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/37630318

All in all, it's up to the designer. There's no right or wrong way. It's art, like you said.

[*Intercourse.*]

I'll have to provide some links later. But I remember viewing that tutorial when I first started vectoring or the second time I tried doing it and I didn't like the outcome at all I guess I've never really liked the 'flat' effect that they gave out, so the more layers as Trish said does give out more of a 3-d effect which is what people want in a lot of cases. I wouldn't say that they suck, although its your opinion and everyone is entitled to their own.

[Ktru]

Mona lisa's tutorials on vectors is the area that I head with my vextors. It's more organic and flat and the images turn out crisp and clean at the end, without the layery look.

You may have contradicted yourself there. Many people like their vectors to be "Layery" to have more of a 3D effect

I don't think it's necessarily a contradiction. You can have the 3d effect without having the layery look. It's just how you change the opacity on the shapes that makes them blend well.


Layery: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/24468882/

I think it's awesome except for the area where there's skin. The piece does not suck, but it lacks cohesiveness ya know? Your whole picture is flat but then when it comes to skin it becomes layery and it stands out. OF course each person's vision of their work is different and unique which is the purpose of art. But you are in essence calling it a certain type of art, and there are certain guidelines to it. What I mean by that is you wouldn't call a painting painting unless it uses paint right? You wouldn't call something cubism if it was organic right?

Cartoony: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/15269229/

I wouldn't consider this vextoring at all because of it's just 2d shapes it's not creating any kind of dimensional feel through the shapes. If I saw this randomly somewhere i would think that it was painted or just drawn. Although you're using vextoring techniques to create it, it shouldn't necessarily be considered vextoring. Plus you have lines which is not something used in vextoring.

Yea I agree that it's art so it's up to the designer. But you're not just calling it art, you're calling it a certain art. When you label it shouldn't you ensure it follows the style?

I guess I've never really liked the 'flat' effect that they gave out, so the more layers as Trish said does give out more of a 3-d effect which is what people want in a lot of cases

The point of vectoring is not to create more layers to bring out the 3d effect but to make the 3d effect through various colors and shapes, I think that's the point I'm trying to get at. Maybe this is just my interpretation of the style?

[*[2]Nekked*]

Do you know what vectoring is? Because when you say:

What I mean by that is you wouldn't call a painting painting unless it uses paint right?

There are different styles of painting. Theres abstract, cubism, expressionism, fauvism, impressionism, pointillism, post impressionism, realism, surrealism, etc, etc, etc.

You can use paint for all styles.

There are different styles of vector.

Abstract, portraits, still life, etc.

There are different styles of vector portraits.

high contrast portraits (like my hyori), 3d (i.e. gradient mesh), cartoony, etc.

It's up to the designer, and their preference.

Your "interpretation" is not of THE style, it's of A style.


Maybe if you were a little more educated about the subject, you would understand the point i'm trying to get across. Allow me to educate you.

Vector graphics is the use of geometrical primitives such as points, lines, curves, and polygons to represent images in computer graphics. It is used by contrast to the term raster graphics, which is the representation of images as a collection of pixels.

Vexelling is a term coined to define using raster shapes to IMITATE vector.

So your idea of "vextor" being limited to a certain "flat" style is, in my opinion, wrong.


And I do have to say, you're a little out of line. Maybe if you'd post some links of your work, I could pick it a part and point out its flaws according to MY interpretation of style.

And no one on this forum claims to be an expert in creating "vextors." There will be flaws in their work. It's a learning experience. A major fraction of this forum is to help people LEARN about this stuff. I'm sorry, but outright telling us that most of the work here sucks makes you seem like an ass, ESPECIALLY since most of us have never seen YOUR work. I'm sure you're not REALLY an ass, but it may interest you to keep a closer eye on how you allow yourself to be portrayed. And with that said, I'm done with this thread, as it no longer interests me to continue reading.

Ahem. No offense.

[Ktru]

Maybe if you were a little more educated about the subject, you would understand the point i'm trying to get across. Allow me to educate you.

Why yes please do educate me, I really would like to see where you got the idea of vectoring from

Vector graphics is the use of geometrical primitives such as points, lines, curves, and polygons to represent images in computer graphics. It is used by contrast to the term raster graphics, which is the representation of images as a collection of pixels.

why yes I can see that on wikipedia, and yes that is the basic term of a vector written for a general audience by general people.

So your idea of "vextor" being limited to a certain "flat" style is, in my opinion, wrong.

Who said i was limiting it to a flat style? I'm telling you that 3d style is not done in the proper way. If you're trying to acheive realism from vectors then that's not vectors that's realism.

And I do have to say, you're a little out of line. Maybe if you'd post some links of your work, I could pick it a part and point out its flaws according to MY interpretation of style.

Maybe I am out of line and I will be posting images so you can " pick apart things you don't like"

And no one on this forum claims to be an expert in creating "vextors." There will be flaws in their work. It's a learning experience. A major fraction of this forum is to help people LEARN about this stuff..

neither am I, and I did say it was a learning experience that's why I made this post. It's to guide others into the basic area before they're making mistakes. All the threads I've looked at has shown people appraising work but not criticizing it. No one here is an expert, but if everyone just passes everything as great, no one will know that their work "sucks". Yes it's harsh to be told your work sucks, but it sucks even more when you think your work is professional when it just sucks.

I'm sorry, but outright telling us that most of the work here sucks makes you seem like an ass, ESPECIALLY since most of us have never seen YOUR work. I'm sure you're not REALLY an ass, but it may interest you to keep a closer eye on how you allow yourself to be portrayed

Maybe I do appear like an ass, that's not something that concerns me. What does concerns me is the general consensus that's going on about certain design.

And with that said, I'm done with this thread, as it no longer interests me to continue reading.

Why would you not visit a thread?Are you mad that someone called your work crap? Or are you infuriated that some punk ass just criticized your work? This is a learning experience we're all here to learn and yes I don't have anything up. I am new to the forums, but I do plan to post things up as time goes on. But that doesn't make my opinion any less valid. I have been working with graphics since freshmen year of high school I do know what I'm talking about. Oh and please if you don't like criticism don't stick your stuff online where everyone can see it, cause really you're asking to me criticized when you publicize your graphics.

Ahem. No offense.

same here, bitch

[Blaqheartedstar]

no need to call anyone a "bitch"... isn't the whole point to this thread to tell us about vectors?

critizing people on their work when u supply none of your own gives u no right to bash on [2]Nekked

[*[2]Nekked*]

Aww sweety. I'm not mad. I find you mildly entertaining. Been doing this since highschool? How about been doing this since middleschool, majored in it in college and now doing it for a living fulltime and making bank?

And, not just wikipedia, love. It originated from a text book. Many text books, in fact. Text books that we're forced to read in college, and that definition I cited is something commited to memory.

Is there a proper and improper way to design? It's art, silly. Think about all the people that told Picasso he was doing it all wrong. You're following right into the footsteps of people that are now ridiculed and frowned upon in vast collections of Art History text books.

I notice that you havent supplied a retort to the logical explanations of vector design i have so kindly provided you with. Either way you should calm down.

Kthx.

And once more, with feeling: I'm done with this thread. This is my last response. Your views were entertaining at first, but now you're just not being very nice.

[*mona lisa*]

Is there a proper and improper way to design? It's art, silly. Think about all the people that told Picasso he was doing it all wrong.

Ditto.

I don't see why art cannot "evolve". Although I'm not an expert on vector graphics, I've never heard of vectors being limited to flat, 2D shapes.

Best way to set yourself apart is by doing something different.

[Ktru]

Aww sweety. I'm not mad. I find you mildly entertaining.

Aww really?! The feeling is soooo mutual right now

It's art, silly. Think about all the people that told Picasso he was doing it all wrong. You're following right into the footsteps of people that are now ridiculed and frowned upon in vast collections of Art History text books.

Ridiculed? Wow I wouldn't go that far and call it ridiculed, more like unmemorable because their art doesn't stand out.

I notice that you havent supplied a retort to the logical explanations of vector design i have so kindly provided you with. Either way you should calm down.

There is nothing to retort to, your views are yours and mine are mine. You call it tomatoe I call it ketchup. All in all it's the same thing. I'm very calm btw what made you think that I'm not?

And once more, with feeling: I'm done with this thread. This is my last response. Your views were entertaining at first, but now you're just not being very nice.

Hmm that's what I thought that's why I added something at the end of my post thought you'd come back and respond. Oh hey look you did Oh ya forgot to mention i'm not a very nice person. That's why we have mods to keep me in check, i prefer chaos it's more fun

no need to call anyone a "bitch"... isn't the whole point to this thread to tell us about vectors?

critizing people on their work when u supply none of your own gives u no right to bash on [2]Nekked

Oh but you see there was a need and it achieved it's purpose. Besides I don't see what your post contributed to this thread wouldn't that be spam? I've also responded to your comment on the post before yours, thanks for taking the time to read it

Ditto.

I don't see why art cannot "evolve". Although I'm not an expert on vector graphics, I've never heard of vectors being limited to flat, 2D shapes.

Best way to set yourself apart is by doing something different.

There's no question about that. Of course everyone should do things differently, it's art i agree completely. From what I hear this forums is for learning and after looking through it I'm constantly bombarded with the same style of vector left and right it gets really boring mostly because everyone appears to be following photoshop's rendered image instead of learning to create their own rendered image in there own head.

If you're learning it one way and not exposed to other methods then you'll always do your vextors that way. I'm just trying to shed light on more proper starting methods. You can do what you want after you have grasp knowledge of style. I just don't want everyone on the forum to think it's okay to always make vextors based off rendered photos in photoshop.

Oo nekked you're a funny bitch ill always remember

-signed ass

p.s. I hope you don't take offense to this if so let me know

[Blaqheartedstar]

Oh but you see there was a need and it achieved it's purpose. Besides I don't see what your post contributed to this thread wouldn't that be spam? I've also responded to your comment on the post before yours, thanks for taking the time to read it

had i not read it and just posted a comment with no back up then it will be spam... what can i possibly say about vectors when you summed up just about everything?
i was just trying to get things back on track... ending it like u did would of started a fight with someone who would of taken it personally.

[xtrancie]

my first one came out pretty crappy

look at my signature >_>

[Blaqheartedstar]

its better then what i can do.. u know how to work the pen tool 10000000 times better then i can

[*IVIike*]

yeah trancie your great i suck at the pen tool as well i'm trying to get better though

[xtrancie]

there's a trick O_O

[Blaqheartedstar]

and that will be?

[*StanleyThePanda*]

same here, bitch

*ahem*

PERSONAL ATTACKS
Flaming, trolling, member bashing-you name it-will not be tolerated here. If you're making an argument, it's always better to retort with reason and composure. Personal attacks are childish and have no place in these forums.

Please refrain from name-calling. This is your verbal warning, Ktru.


Anyways, I'd have to agree with Trish on this issue. It's definitely up to the artist what the outcome looks like.

[Ktru]

my first one came out pretty crappy

look at my signature >_>

actually it turn out really nice. I would even say it's better then nekked! The skin doesn't stand out, and you kept the layering to a minimum. What makes it so bad?

[phoenixpyre]

i have an idea! why dont we get back on topic and stop name calling! YAY!

[Gypsy Eyes]

Honestly, I think that the example you provided looks horrible. It looks rough and like a fourth grader did it.

The whole point of a vector it to smoothly go between lights and darks. Without layers this just (usually) comes out bad. Some experienced graphic artists can do the minimal technique, but not many. Most of the time it comes out looking like crap.

[Ktru]

The whole point of a vector it to smoothly go between lights and darks.

What do you exactly do you mean by this? Are you saying that the point of vectoring is that it achieves gradient like transitions from light to dark?

[datass]

^There's no 'point' to vectoring, it's not like there's this one way to vector and if you don't do it that way, it's not good enough.

[xtrancie]

wow is this a vector war or something? O_O

[Blaqheartedstar]

omg.. this should be closed... its turning into more of an fight then anything else...

bottom line there is NO right way or wrong way to vector everyone has a style of their own END OF STORY

[*StanleyThePanda*]

omg.. this should be closed... its turning into more of an fight then anything else...

It will be closed if it gets out of hand. But right now, I think it's fine.

[Ktru]

omg.. this should be closed... its turning into more of an fight then anything else...

bottom line there is NO right way or wrong way to vector everyone has a style of their own END OF STORY

I don't think it's a fight, more then anything it's a disscussion. Of course there is no right or wrong way it's art. But even in art there is good and bad, and that's what this topic is more about.

[energizerbunny]

Firstly, I would like to say "vexel" is already a combination of "pixel" and "vector" so there's no need to create another name. Secondly, what does desaturating an image have to do with vectoring? I don't know many vectorers or vexellers who desaturate an image before working on it. What do you mean when you say vexel and vectors are meant to look "flat?" Flat means theres no definition, depth, or shadows. Do you mean they are suppose to look like 2-d illustrations? Vector and Vexel are not "styles" in the aspect that they don't have a particular "look" to them. They can range anywhere from relaism to cartoonism.

[*StanleyThePanda*]

^ I think he meant to say "Posterize" instead of "Desaturate"

[*slammin shelby*]

Man did I miss Trish's posts.
Anyway, I prefer the more 3-D looking vectors, to me they look more real and come alive more.
If I was a consumer looking for someone to desgin for me, I would def go for the more real looking design.
I mean, go see Trish's site and Myspace. That's what I would want it to look like.

But I agree, no wrong or right way. Just how you prefer.

[Kontroll]

Hey everyone, there just something that's been bothering me about the forum's ethnic on vexeling and vectoring (which I will call Vextor).

So i'm browsing this forums and I'm looking at all the vextoring of people pictures and I'm thinking to myself gosh these people suck. Why is it that 99% of all the vextor images soo layery? Vexels and vectors are suppost to look flat aren't they?

Maybe you're new to vexeling or vectoring and so you're following the shapes that was created when you desaturate. But it seems like the popular notion of vectoring and vexeling is just to follow the shapes created by photoshop.

I think of graphic design as a form of art. Learning how to vexel and vector is hard because it takes time to learn what kind of shapes you need to make and what kind of opacity the shape should be. To make a good vextor you need to learn the basics ( how to desaturate. how to create shapes, how to blend the layers, etc) after you have that what you do with the vectoring should be up to you. Experiment with the color and shapes to create something different.

Here's a tutorial that I thought was great on vextoring. Can someone else provide their tutorial so I can see what they're doing?

http://www.melissaclifton.com/tutorial-vector.html

let me know what your take on this is

Ethnic? Haha. You mean ethic right? It's just bothering me a little.

[xtrancie]

i tried again. T-T

[Ktru]

Firstly, I would like to say "vexel" is already a combination of "pixel" and "vector" so there's no need to create another name.

vexel is not the same as vecotr. I made the word vextor because i was lazy to type both vexel and vector. There's a difference to what i'm saying and what you think i'm saying.

Secondly, what does desaturating an image have to do with vectoring?I don't know many vectorers or vexellers who desaturate an image before working on it. What do you mean when you say vexel and vectors are meant to look "flat?" Flat means theres no definition, depth, or shadows. Do you mean they are suppose to look like 2-d illustrations? Vector and Vexel are not "styles" in the aspect that they don't have a particular "look" to them. They can range anywhere from relaism to cartoonism.

ya i meant posterize or w/e is the your choice of rendering before you work on it.

Ethnic? Haha. You mean ethic right? It's just bothering me a little.

haha ya

Man did I miss Trish's posts.
Anyway, I prefer the more 3-D looking vectors, to me they look more real and come alive more.
If I was a consumer looking for someone to desgin for me, I would def go for the more real looking design.
I mean, go see Trish's site and Myspace. That's what I would want it to look like.

But I agree, no wrong or right way. Just how you prefer.

Have you seen a Scanner Darkly? They use a vector like style to make their movie, it's not layery like trish's vextoring and it still looks real and good. (BEST ARTISTIC MOVIE YET!). IMO I think the layerly effect is okay but if done in moderation, there shouldn't be concentric shapes for the face arms and body ALL the time. I think trish's vectors are good, it's actually great. The only part that isn't is her skin, they're all concentric and layerly and those part whore all the attention not only because they're a lighter color but the concentric shapes are shouting LOOKY MEE!

[energizerbunny]

Many vector artists sadly don't appreciate vexel art, so I feel it's weird that you should merge "vexels" and "vectors" again on their behalf. It's not a big deal, though.
Actually, many vectorers/vexellers don't posterize or do anything to an image before working on it. Many don't even use a reference.
"A Scanner Darkly" uses rotoscoping I think so I wouldn't consider it the most "artistic movie" out there. Rather than drawing/animating everything from scratch, they basically traced over human frames.*shrugs*
I guess your whole "layery" agruement is a matter of opinions, but I don't think you should say someone's art (ex-skin) is good or bad. Art can't be good or bad.
Do you have any experience in vexels/vectors yourself? In my honest opinion, it seems you just read that tutorial on the Bjork vector and decided to make it your philosophy on vectors/vexels.

This is off topic, but I feel weird suddenly posting in this topic because I'm not an active member. I stumbled across this forum a while back and I decided to take a look at all the design talent so I hope you all don't think I'm butting in.

[*[2]Nekked*]

Ok im back again. I just cant ignore your total butchering of the english language anymore. Do you actually know what the word "concentric" means?

My vectors vary in style, so please stop talking as if i only do it in high-contrast, and even if they arent up to YOUR standards, they seem to be making me enough money. I dont understand why you wont just give this up. Everyone has their own style. No one cares if you like their style or not. It's up to the artist to decide which they want to go. Plenty of people didn't like Picasso. Plenty of people dont like Sagmeister. Then again, a lot of people DO like them.

I suggest you concentrate on your own vectors rather than putting people down for their style choices.

[Ington]

I can't believe how dumb this thread is getting. That's the only word for it. Dumb.

I don't even understand how this argument is progressing. What logic can one have to put guidelines and rules to art? If anything, history shows that guidelines for art almost guarantee their disbanding.

You can't compare one style of vector art with another, and no style of art is wrong. The entire gradient 3D feel is a style of art, not a formula or algorithm.

Furthermore, Ktru, I suggest you don't start to talk about what style of art is 'good or bad', because I doubt that would make for an interesting discussion. Additionally, a style can't be good or bad, only the artist can, and only from the views of individual minds.

Moving on, I believe that 3D and 2D art cannot be compared in regards to vectoring. The entire look of these styles put them in different categories from one another. The styles have their own respective perks for artists seeking a certain feeling or fundamental aspect to their peice.

[Ktru]

Many vector artists sadly don't appreciate vexel art, so I feel it's weird that you should merge "vexels" and "vectors" again on their behalf. It's not a big deal, though.

Hmm i can understand why vector artists wouldn't like vexel art, it's kind of in a way cheap. But it's a lot easier then doing from scratch.

Actually, many vectorers/vexellers don't posterize or do anything to an image before working on it. Many don't even use a reference.

I don't think you're suppost to work from a reference like that. I think the whole part of the posterizing and everything is just to get an idea so you can start off.

"A Scanner Darkly" uses rotoscoping I think so I wouldn't consider it the most "artistic movie" out there. Rather than drawing/animating everything from scratch, they basically traced over human frames.*shrugs*

ya they did, but I haven't seen any other movie like this that's why i think it's soo artistic.

I guess your whole "layery" agruement is a matter of opinions, but I don't think you should say someone's art (ex-skin) is good or bad. Art can't be good or bad.
Do you have any experience in vexels/vectors yourself? In my honest opinion, it seems you just read that tutorial on the Bjork vector and decided to make it your philosophy on vectors/vexels.

Ya it is in itself a very opinionated argument and I have tried vexling, it's not easy but it's not hard either. I've also looked at other tutorials online, ones from deviant art and others as well. I'm not deriving my philosophy from one source and i'm not claiming it's right either, i'm just sharing my thoughts.

This is off topic, but I feel weird suddenly posting in this topic because I'm not an active member. I stumbled across this forum a while back and I decided to take a look at all the design talent so I hope you all don't think I'm butting in.

Doesn't bother me.

Ok im back again. I just cant ignore your total butchering of the english language anymore. Do you actually know what the word "concentric" means?

My vectors vary in style, so please stop talking as if i only do it in high-contrast, and even if they arent up to YOUR standards, they seem to be making me enough money. I dont understand why you wont just give this up. Everyone has their own style. No one cares if you like their style or not. It's up to the artist to decide which they want to go. Plenty of people didn't like Picasso. Plenty of people dont like Sagmeister. Then again, a lot of people DO like them.

I suggest you concentrate on your own vectors rather than putting people down for their style choices.

okay nekked either stay with the thread or leave, lets stop declaring that you're done and then come back cause you feel like it. I do know what concentric means and i'm saying your stuff looks like a bulls eye.

I don't get why you won't leave when you've put your input on this subject, if you're done then leave and stick to your words.

You may not seem to care anymore about this thread but others do. That's why there are other posts in it. SOrry you're not the center of the universe, you don't represent everyone. If you think that way sure, but don't speak for everyone. Further I don't care if people think i like or dislike there style, this is a discussion not a precedent to be settled.

I can't believe how dumb this thread is getting. That's the only word for it. Dumb.

I don't even understand how this argument is progressing. What logic can one have to put guidelines and rules to art? If anything, history shows that guidelines for art almost guarantee their disbanding.

You can't compare one style of vector art with another, and no style of art is wrong. The entire gradient 3D feel is a style of art, not a formula or algorithm.

If you think it's a dumb thread why are you posting it? AGAIN i'm not setting any guidelines to anything. Scan the forums and look at all the vextors, I don't know about you but they they all look homogeneous with few exceptions.

Furthermore, Ktru, I suggest you don't start to talk about what style of art is 'good or bad', because I doubt that would make for an interesting discussion. Additionally, a style can't be good or bad, only the artist can, and only from the views of individual minds.

There is good and bad art, that's why there are these people called art critics. Yes, good and bad art is arbitrary to the artist, but this is on an online forum where people are posting there work. They are looking for opinions and critic.

Moving on, I believe that 3D and 2D art cannot be compared in regards to vectoring. The entire look of these styles put them in different categories from one another. The styles have their own respective perks for artists seeking a certain feeling or fundamental aspect to their peice.

I agree you can't compare apples to oranges. But is that what we're doing when we're comparing vextors to vextors? If you're considering the layerly style as being 3d then sure but that's not the way I'm looking at it.

[*[2]Nekked*]

can you read?

[*mona lisa*]

There is good and bad art, that's why there are these people called art critics. Yes, good and bad art is arbitrary to the artist, but this is on an online forum where people are posting there work. They are looking for opinions and critic.

There is no "good" or "bad" art. Either you like it or you don't. If it appeals to you for whatever reason (message, design, practicality, etc.), great. If not, it's not "bad". It may need improvements but even that can be subjective.

[Ktru]

Nekked' date='Mar 6 2007, 9:14 PM' post='2484356']
can you read?

That's a good question I'd like to ask you. Next time, can you try to use more than 3 words and actually read the reply.

Oh and I was wondering what the whole bs about your first post being the only one and then you comming back and replying with spam is about?Still no answer I see. I'd prefer you leave unless you're going to contribute to the thread. Clearly the wall of text is a daunting task for you to read but i'm sure you can do it!

There is no "good" or "bad" art. Either you like it or you don't. If it appeals to you for whatever reason (message, design, practicality, etc.), great. If not, it's not "bad". It may need improvements but even that can be subjective.

but there is good and bad art, it just the collective opinion at one time is swayed at good or bad. Look at picasso everyone thought his art sucks, but now people stare at it and go wow he's a genius. It is all very subjective, but that doesn't mean it can't be good and bad.

[*[2]Nekked*]

please explain to me what your definition of "spam" is, because i'm sure it's totally different than everyone else's, seeing as how you've been making up your own definitions and words throughout this whole thread. everything i have posted here is in direct relevance to everything you're saying. that's not spam. that's the total opposite of spam.

i asked if you could read because it seems you DIDNT read anything i said in my previous post, and you're more concentrated on trying to get me out of your thread. TOUGH SHIT, HONEY, I'M HERE. And it seems YOU'RE the only one that cant seem to muster a response to anything i'm saying.

but there is good and bad art, it just the collective opinion at one time is swayed at good or bad. Look at picasso everyone thought his art sucks, but now people stare at it and go wow he's a genius. It is all very subjective, but that doesn't mean it can't be good and bad.

right there. you're the only one in this entire thread that thinks the way you do. the actual collective opinion of this forum agrees that you're pretty much wrong. just extrapulate that for a second.


Vectoring is not a genre of art. It is a technique used in art. Like painting. Painting is not a genre of art.

REALISM is a genre. SURREALISM is a genre. CUBISM. IMPRESSIONISM. Figure it out already. And they are genres for a reason. Different people can appreciate different genres. Maybe you only really like one or two. Good for you. In your own words, you arent the center of the universe. The collective opinion of art does not revolve around your own.

I like R&B. I don't like Country. But there are millions of people in the world that like country and dont like R&B.

[Ington]

If you think it's a dumb thread why are you posting it? AGAIN i'm not setting any guidelines to anything. Scan the forums and look at all the vextors, I don't know about you but they they all look homogeneous with few exceptions.

There is good and bad art, that's why there are these people called art critics. Yes, good and bad art is arbitrary to the artist, but this is on an online forum where people are posting there work. They are looking for opinions and critic.

I agree you can't compare apples to oranges. But is that what we're doing when we're comparing vextors to vextors? If you're considering the layerly style as being 3d then sure but that's not the way I'm looking at it.

Think of it as a duty to one's homeland. My homeland is art. When someone defiles or distorts it, to the smallest degree, I feel a need to protect it. I'm posting here because I am trying to protect art from ridiculous commentaries.

It doesn't matter if they all look the same to you. I think most tissue boxes look the same. I think most cardboard boxes look the same. Does that mean that the cardboard used to make them and the processes to make them are bad? If many people like the same form of art, does that mean that its bad? Are you such a non-conformist that the idea of a majority liking just turns you off to something?

I think nothing you said came close to supporting your argument. So far, you have not discussed your reasoning for why so called 'vextors' are bad. In your first post here, you said:

So i'm browsing this forums and I'm looking at all the vextoring of people pictures and I'm thinking to myself gosh these people suck. Why is it that 99% of all the vextor images soo layery? Vexels and vectors are suppost to look flat aren't they?

They're not supposed to look like anything. As [2]Nekked said, they are all just methods to create art. There are 'flat' vectors and vexels, which I have seen a lot on this website anyway, and there are 'layered' ones. And I'm sure there are many more vectorized peices of realism, surrealism, abstraction, etc.

And if you don't think the layered vectors are more realistic than flat vectors, then what are they? Less realistic?

Additionally, critics are respected due to their experience in a certain subject. Critics are not appreciated on Createblog, as you have no credentials, and if you do, you can't prove them. Here, regardless of what profession you've moved into, you are just a member with an opinion, equal to any other member. Don't think you can just blab your opinion about something and have everyone submit to it without supporting yourself with evidence. A critic's evidence is his or her status. You don't have that luxury.

[Ktru]

please explain to me what your definition of "spam" is, because i'm sure it's totally different than everyone else's, seeing as how you've been making up your own definitions and words throughout this whole thread. everything i have posted here is in direct relevance to everything you're saying. that's not spam. that's the total opposite of spam.

3 words responses are spam, it's not referring to anything and you're not directing your response to anything.

asked if you could read because it seems you DIDNT read anything i said in my previous post, and you're more concentrated on trying to get me out of your thread. TOUGH SHIT, HONEY, I'M HERE. And it seems YOU'RE the only one that cant seem to muster a response to anything i'm saying.

Hey i welcomed you in with open arms, you're the one that said

And with that said, I'm done with this thread, as it no longer interests me to continue reading.

Ahem. No offense.

and

And once more, with feeling: I'm done with this thread. This is my last response. Your views were entertaining at first, but now you're just not being very nice.

Clearly you uninvited yourself not me so don't be bringing your attitude back cause really you're starting to bore me with that same song you've been singing over and over and over.

right there. you're the only one in this entire thread that thinks the way you do. the actual collective opinion of this forum agrees that you're pretty much wrong. just extrapulate that for a second.

Seriously explain to me who nominated you as forum's spokeswoman?

REALISM is a genre. SURREALISM is a genre. CUBISM. IMPRESSIONISM. Figure it out already. And they are genres for a reason. Different people can appreciate different genres. Maybe you only really like one or two. Good for you. In your own words, you arent the center of the universe. The collective opinion of art does not revolve around your own.

I don't get why you think i'm pushing my opinion on anyone? I'm equally allowed to express my thoughts just as you are. So really get that whole "I'm right your wrong" thought out of your head you're just a silly monkey that got angry cause i said your stuff sucks. Really if your soo shallow to be offended by such a comment on the internet, you should consider seeking help.

It doesn't matter if they all look the same to you. I think most tissue boxes look the same. I think most cardboard boxes look the same. Does that mean that the cardboard used to make them and the processes to make them are bad? If many people like the same form of art, does that mean that its bad? Are you such a non-conformist that the idea of a majority liking just turns you off to something?

Maybe I am a non-conformist. Maybe i think everything that looks the same sucks, what's it to you? If you're in this to protect art then you too should know that art is about originality and if you're not promoting originality well... I guess you're pretty much into things that are homogeneous ya?

I think nothing you said came close to supporting your argument. So far, you have not discussed your reasoning for why so called 'vextors' are bad. In your first post here, you said:

Okay so let me lay out my arguement for ya.

This forum's vextors= layerly
I hate layerly
So I want to know where everyone's learning how to vector from

or

layerly= non realistic
organic shapes to shade the skin, is
proof?- I don't see people with layerly skin...well none from earth that is.

And if you don't think the layered vectors are more realistic than flat vectors, then what are they? Less realistic?

precisely

Additionally, critics are respected due to their experience in a certain subject. Critics are not appreciated on Createblog, as you have no credentials, and if you do, you can't prove them. Here, regardless of what profession you've moved into, you are just a member with an opinion, equal to any other member. Don't think you can just blab your opinion about something and have everyone submit to it without supporting yourself with evidence. A critic's evidence is his or her status. You don't have that luxury.

Oh but I can blab my opinion without supporting myself. This is a forum and as the artist's luxury he/she has the right to ignore my opinion.

[*[2]Nekked*]

wow. and still you havent really responded to what i've said about vectoring not being a genre of art. it's a technique.


i'm not the forum spokeswoman. just LOOK at the responses you've gotten in your thread. name ONE person that has agreed with you.
pay attention, sweetheart.

ermfermoo is right. you dont support your arguments well at all. you just blab your opinion and expect everyone to fall in line without any explanation. because you "hate" layery vectors is not a sufficient explanation at all. furthermore, no one respects your opinion because we still have not seen any of your work. even if we did, we still wouldnt agree with you. there is no ONE way to vector something, like there is no ONE way to paint something.

i've given you three chances to come up with a response to that. (that vectoring is not a genre of art, but a technique, and people gravitate towards one or two genres they like, under their own accord). So far you've just ignored it. Is it because you HAVE no argument?

[Ktru]

wow. and still you havent really responded to what i've said about vectoring not being a genre of art. it's a technique.

Ya I never disagreed to this statement. I never claimed it's a genre of art. I used a metaphor that made it appear so.

i'm not the forum spokeswoman. just LOOK at the responses you've gotten in your thread. name ONE person that has agreed with you.
pay attention, sweetheart.

If there were people who agreed with me clearly there wouldn't be a need for this thread would there? The huge majority of people on this forum thinks of vectoring like you do. Clearly there won't be many people who share the same opinion as I do.

But it seems as if you're using that statement to imply that i'm wrong? Apparently when everyone who speaks up disagrees with you, means you're wrong. There's no wrong or right to art (surely as you know), so no I won't accept this as me being wrong. A difference in opinion does not equate to being wrong.

ermfermoo is right. you dont support your arguments well at all. you just blab your opinion and expect everyone to fall in line without any explanation. because you "hate" layery vectors is not a sufficient explanation at all.

Silly I didn't expect anyone to "fall in line" with my arguement. I expected people to see the thread, take a look and go " o interesting, something different". Who said I was here to fight to establish a right vectoring style? Furthermore I don't understand why I have to explain why I hate it? My opinion is not a precedent and requires so explaination. I'm not trying to sway your opinion to my side and I really don't care if you disagree. I'm trying to present a different side to it so others can see, not so that everyone will think the way I do.

furthermore, no one respects your opinion because we still have not seen any of your work. even if we did, we still wouldnt agree with you.

No, Futhermore, YOU don't respect my opinion. Don't speak for everyone as you yourself has establish that YOU are not the forum spokewomen. Everyone here has there own hands and can type for themself. They can tell me if they dissagree, not YOU.

there is no ONE way to vector something, like there is no ONE way to paint something.

Seriously do you read? Have I not establish the fact that there isn't one way of doing something? The whole point of the thread is to establish a different way of vextoring. Hence the description "A different take on what it looks like"

i've given you three chances to come up with a response to that. (that vectoring is not a genre of art, but a technique, and people gravitate towards one or two genres they like, under their own accord).

Oh silly, this is why you're WRONG. Read response above for this statement.

So far you've just ignored it. Is it because you HAVE no argument?

No, I ignored it because i didn't think of it as an argument, since I didn't disagree with that statement. But yes, I believe I do have an argument. It goes along the lines of what we've been disscussing. The DIFFERENT ways of vextoring, your look, and the way I like it. Okay to summarize- There is more to vextoring then the style that you do.

[*[2]Nekked*]

im sorry are you just a total idiot then? if you concede that there are different genres of vectoring, then why bother shooting everyone down when they say they like a particular genre that you dont? who f**king cares who likes what genre of whatever art technique? You've spoken your mind and it seems that no one gives a shit about what you say, so f**kin get over it already.

[Ington]

So basically your point is that you don't like those styles.
Is that seriously it? That's what we've been arguing about? How uneventful.

Who cares?

[clarity]

Guys cool it down.

Anyways, I've never really expirience vectoring and vexeling because in own opinion its too complicated for me but for how it looks, does style really matter? Everyone has a unique style, and in my own opinion there is no "wrong" or "right" way to do anything.

[*Uronacid*]

Guys cool it down.

Anyways, I've never really experience vectoring and vexeling because in own opinion its too complicated for me but for how it looks, does style really matter? Everyone has a unique style, and in my own opinion there is no "wrong" or "right" way to do anything.

It's not that complicated. Anyone can do it... it's about as difficult as using tracing paper. You just have to know how to use the pent tool.... *sigh*

These guys are just making it sound more complicated than it really is. All it takes is time...

http://home.nycap.rr.com/jkeal/airship.gif - here's a quic vector that I spent about 1 hour on... more time = looks better... I don't know... I always thought vector overlays were a big waste of time. They take forever, and in the end they ultimately look just like the original. I would rather create something that I made up in my own head. What's the point...

[*[2]Nekked*]

It's not that complicated. Anyone can do it... it's about as difficult as using tracing paper. You just have to know how to use the pent tool.... *sigh*

These guys are just making it sound more complicated than it really is. All it takes is time...

http://home.nycap.rr.com/jkeal/airship.gif - here's a quic vector that I spent about 1 hour on... more time = looks better... I don't know... I always thought vector overlays were a big waste of time. They take forever, and in the end they ultimately look just like the original. I would rather create something that I made up in my own head. What's the point...

i dunno how many times i need to get this point across. vectors ALSO arent restricted to only referenced portraits. if you are USING a vector program and USING geometric shapes/lines to make ANYTHING, its a vector.

[pandamonium]

um replying from the first post,

I used to do that layery thing when i started out with vectors because I thought blending my layers made it look better and besides that I sucked at it. I was new at vectoring so thats what i did to get through but a couple of more vexels later i did less layers and less desaturation.

For me i think that vectors are supposed to look cartoonish and flat in my opinion. cause if you make it too realistic what are you achieving? basically the same picture, but I am guessing they do that to show the complexity of their art work and how much they know in that program. I like it when there are lines and very flat IMO

[Ktru]

im sorry are you just a total idiot then? if you concede that there are different genres of vectoring, then why bother shooting everyone down when they say they like a particular genre that you dont? who f**king cares who likes what genre of whatever art technique?

See, you're still being a self centered conceited little know it all female inu. Don't try to shoot me down with something you think is precedent for everyone's thought. YOU DON'T CARE not everyone. So when you post something, don't talk as if you're talking for everyone rather try speaking for NEKKED. Okay?

You've spoken your mind and it seems that no one gives a shit about what you say, so f**kin get over it already.

Seriously you have mental issues, I suggest a therapist. No one gives a f*ck about what you say either and I'll get over it when I feel like it. You are in no position to be telling me to get over anything, when you are the one that can't seem to leave MY thread.

So basically your point is that you don't like those styles.
Is that seriously it? That's what we've been arguing about? How uneventful.

Who cares?

No it's not just about not liking a style. It's about introducing another look at the vextoring. Were you expecting something huge? An epic battle that would tear createblog? Sorry I think what you're looking for is the Ultimate battle showdown flash.

Guys cool it down.

Anyways, I've never really expirience vectoring and vexeling because in own opinion its too complicated for me but for how it looks, does style really matter? Everyone has a unique style, and in my own opinion there is no "wrong" or "right" way to do anything.

It's not that complicated. Anyone can do it... it's about as difficult as using tracing paper. You just have to know how to use the pent tool.... *sigh*

These guys are just making it sound more complicated than it really is. All it takes is time...

http://home.nycap.rr.com/jkeal/airship.gif - here's a quic vector that I spent about 1 hour on... more time = looks better... I don't know... I always thought vector overlays were a big waste of time. They take forever, and in the end they ultimately look just like the original. I would rather create something that I made up in my own head. What's the point...

Like Uronacid said. It's not complicated at all. It's exactly like tracing something with tracing paper. I apologize if I made vextoring sound like a very hard thing to do. It's as simple as making a square or a circle but the shapes are usually more organic. Try the tutorials, you'll grasp vextoring like nothing. The only thing that slowed me down, was understanding how to use the pen tool, that may scare you off for a bit. But the tutorial I used also has a tutorial on how to use the pen tool if you're having trouble.

i dunno how many times i need to get this point across. vectors ALSO arent restricted to only referenced portraits. if you are USING a vector program and USING geometric shapes/lines to make ANYTHING, its a vector.

Seriously you need to take a chill pill, get some human contact. Learn not to make assumptions off statements, Okay? Thx bai!

um replying from the first post,

I used to do that layery thing when i started out with vectors because I thought blending my layers made it look better and besides that I sucked at it. I was new at vectoring so thats what i did to get through but a couple of more vexels later i did less layers and less desaturation.

For me i think that vectors are supposed to look cartoonish and flat in my opinion. cause if you make it too realistic what are you achieving? basically the same picture, but I am guessing they do that to show the complexity of their art work and how much they know in that program. I like it when there are lines and very flat IMO

I agree, and I think this forum has way to much layery vextors to pass on as starting experiments. Look at the hall of fame
They are really emphasizing the layerly look way too much. Vectors in progress shouldn't look like anything and if it did...GOD i die get scared off my comp looking at that...

Although I think what Uronacid said is true too, many artist like the layerly look beccause it demonstrates some kind of skill in vextoring and in the end they end up with something simliar to the original anyways and so they are very much well a waste of time.

But as this thread has disscussed, to each their own.

[energizerbunny]

Tracing is not equivalent to vexelling or vectoring. Many people create vectors and vexels from scratch and without a reference. How can you trace something that you made from scratch? Anyways, the pen tool is not the only tool used in vectoring. Ever heard of gradient mesh? If vexels/vectors are so easy to make, then why can't everyone make them? Why are companies willing to pay so much for vector artists? Why do people even attend art school if it's so easy?
As for the "layery look" , artist chose to use it because they want to portray "realism". It has nothing to do with skill. In fact, simplicity is probably one of the hardest things to achieve. Maybe the problem is you just haven't seen any wonderful examples of realism.

[*[2]Nekked*]

hahahahaha you think if you use a japanese word, i wont know that you're flat out calling me a bitch?


oh, sweety you really need get over yourself. im not talking for the rest of the community. i've made an observation based on the response you've gotten in this thread. open your eyes and get out of denial already.

Seriously you need to take a chill pill, get some human contact. Learn not to make assumptions off statements, Okay? Thx bai!

"assumptions?"

did you even read what was said or are you just trying to look stupid now? because i guess in your world its okay for YOU to tell people that things with lineart in them arent vectors, but its NOT okay for me to tell people what a vector really is?


and its called REALISM honey, LOOK IT UP.

[HakunaMatata]

um replying from the first post,

I used to do that layery thing when i started out with vectors because I thought blending my layers made it look better and besides that I sucked at it. I was new at vectoring so thats what i did to get through but a couple of more vexels later i did less layers and less desaturation.

For me i think that vectors are supposed to look cartoonish and flat in my opinion. cause if you make it too realistic what are you achieving? basically the same picture, but I am guessing they do that to show the complexity of their art work and how much they know in that program. I like it when there are lines and very flat IMO

I've been in that position; where I think vexels shouldn't look like their irl version all that much 'cause that defeats the purpose, but I've changed what I believe the 'purpose' is of vexeling. I really do think it's just changing something very real to something entirely graphic. Fortunately, that definition fits both the 'flat' and the 'complex' vexels.


Awww, and this makes me miss being active on le account on vexels.com.

[turntabletux]

ktru, you're just an arrogant assshole!

[*Azarel*]

This thread has obviously degenerated into member bashing and personal attacks (that is, if it was anything but that to begin with); thus, I'm closing it since most people seem to have gotten their two cents in.

If you feel that all of you can carry on an actual legitimate discussion without breakin the rules, then please, each of you can individually PM me to affirm that you can, but from what I'm seeing, I doubt that.

Also, turntabletux, this is your verbal warning for member bashing. Ktru, you have already been verbally warned for member bashing.