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

[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.

[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.

[*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.