Welcome to Inkbunny...

To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )

Art Vs. Porn

by Serrano

No, not all of the "art," on this website is really art. That's just a fact. A good chunk of it is simply product - porn produced for the masses, for viewership and profit. Nothing more, nothing less. I have noticed that, with a few minor exceptions, the so-called "artists," on this platform that claim to be struggling and are in dire need of support are all the same "artists," that pump out load after load of that bullshit on a regular basis. And I won't name any names here, but I've noticed even so that some are even less talented than that - they put up bullshit only on a rare occasion, and spend the rest of their free time bitching and moaning to garner sympathy for whatever condition they've decided to cultivate for that day.

"...what I hate even worse is the word support.
Seeking support from friends and family is like having your
people gathered around at your deathbed. It’s nice, but when
the ship sails, all they can do is stand on the dock waving
goodbye."
-Steven Pressfield, "The War of Art"

How do you tell an artist from one of these talentless hacks, though? Well, for one thing, they'll be quite likely to have moderately-to-dramatically overpriced wares because they're so full of themself that they can't bare to sacrifice their weekly spa day.
More-so than that, however, an artist will focus on nothing but bettering their work all the time. They won't be concerned with the individual projects and how they'll turn out or how well they'll be received - they will simply transcribe their idea and send it off to be cashed in, ready at a moment's notice to get started on the next one.
The work itself could be terrible, ugly or grotesque, or each and every image, chapter, video, whatever the case may be, could be a brilliant masterpiece.
None of that matters - what defines an artist is the ideas behind what they create, and their attitude towards their creations.

Viewed:	20 times
Added:	5 years, 9 months ago 08 Jul 2018 11:47 CEST

18 Comments on this Journal

Leave a Comment...

SuperAgro

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

People will never stop arguing on what should be considered art. To some, it is the amount of effort put into a piece that determines if it is art, to others, art is simply the act of creation, and still others don't care about effort and judge based on their idea of what quality is.

To me it doesn't matter if something is called art by some and not by others. To me, art is the act of creating. It doesn't matter though, since it is not going to impact how I work or what I like. Calling something art is as pointless as saying water is wet when in liquid state.

Serrano

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ SuperAgro

Interesting perspective. I'd be one to disagree though, largely because I'm more of a modernist in this respect. If postmodernism is an idea centered around the point that all things deserve to be viewed as art, modernism centers around the point that you have to work for your truth.
Some of the creators don't give half a shit about what they create, and that bothers me a little because for a good portion of the time when I see those creators, they're massively successful because they just so happen to be highly SKILLED in their craft, and they have the persistance of a hard-worker embedded in their psychology (whether it be by genetics or by their up-bringing). They've always been able to draw, color, and/or animate very well, and they use that to their advantage because they know that if they keep it up, they'll retire in style at age 40.
There's a hand-full of artists on this site who actively try to work, who never stop working, who never allow the flu, alcoholism, depression, or whatever other vice you could think of to keep them away from another blank canvas. Those are the artists I find to be most valuable. They didn't start out with that persistence that a hack has, nor were they taught it in childhood - they developed it themselves and taught it to themselves. They have to have taught it to themselves because what's more valuable than something you learn/discover all on your own? If daddy managed to teach it to them well enough, well then what if daddy goes away, or turns into a self-centered asshole after twenty years? Well, then those values will likely turn sour as well. They tend to have a sense of humor about their work, they take criticism with ease and dignity, and they never let their feelings for the day stop them from doing the day's tasks.
"I may have spilled my morning coffee over my business attire, gotten in a fender bender and said something incredibly stupid in front of my boss today, but dammit, I'm still going to produce something." That's the kind of attitude I'm talking about. The entire world could be falling apart before their eyes, but these artists will still be there illustrating, writing, animating, whatever the case may be.

Postmodernism is a very attractive idea, I'll give you that - it gives value to things you never would have expected it to have. Those dirty shoes over in the corner have artistic value because of postmodernism, as does the amount of care gone into making that coffee taste a certain way that you enjoy.
I believe the other idea is even more attractive though, because I'm a believer that aside from one massive stroke of luck, you will never pull off the big score without pain and without persistence, and to believe that you can is suicide. If you put in so much work to an enterprise, it always has potential to be enormously successful because people, your audience, will notice the effort. Put in little details that only some people will pick up on, and in this age of the internet, people will talk about your project more and more, pointing out these tidbits, giving it more popularity, more notoriety, more value. And hell, even if it doesn't get you a shit ton of money and you never even see a single check from what you've produced, it still has value to you because you put in the effort to find your truth, and with a mature attitude, with the ability to have a sense of humor about your work, you can still be satisfied with that.

SuperAgro

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Serrano

In a way I feel weird going against what you are saying because right now I'm building a game using an engine I barely know how to use, and every day I'm in front of the screen thinking about how to make things work and testing my ideas.

My three next hurdles will be, choosing which meshes should be displayed, using mouse picking to figure out what is being pointed at(which also ties into modifying meshes), and path finding. After that, I have the basic framework to actually build the game on.

What I get from your reply is that intention matters to you. For example, you don't like highly skilled artists who draw similar poses over and over and use short cuts to just finish. I actually don't have a problem with this, since it is their perogative to do as they want. So long as no one feels cheated, no harm, no foul.

As for art, I had some training as a kid, and it has always been something i've enjoyed. I'll probably never make more than I already have off it though. I don't really care if I do, because if I'm away too long, I just have an urge to make more, money or no money.

Serrano

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

@ SuperAgro

[1/2] Okay, well I know next to nothing about game design, so I won't touch on that because what I gather from that is that you're working towards something better, which I admire - I just hope that you never stop trying to improve your stuff.

No, I dislike artists that feel like their "style," means something - the artists who believe that their signature alone warrants the attention they get. If I named artists here, I'd probably get my ass blasted to the moon and back, and if I did, I'd be willing to bet you'd immediately understand what I'm talking about, but I understand the confusion because without those names, I basically have to use vastly abstract concepts to get my point across, so I apologize for the following.

While I use terms like "postmodernism," versus, "modernism," I should let you and anyone who sees this know that my understanding of these ideas does not come from a college education (I dropped out), but rather comes from this video and a few google searches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoxqtnI4I4c&ab_chan...
Still, I do think you missed my point. I'm happy to agree to disagree on this because everybody's opinions on what qualifies as art are different; I don't want to stand in the way or pass judgement upon someone for disagreeing with me, and having a conversation is just generally more important.

Anyway, you said that I dislike, "...highly skilled artists who draw similar poses over and over and use short cuts to just finish," which is not correct. Anyone could have masterful technique that permits them to take shortcuts and finish faster, and while I feel that's completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to illustrate (and apparently failing at, lol), I honestly feel like that's more valuable than the opposite - that being taking your time and being super careful with everything - because it makes more time and room for the next project. Conserve your energy wherever you can, I say.
The point I'm making is that what I consider a "good," artist (for lack of a better term), is one that has both a properly professional attitude, and a lot of inspiration. They are always trying to do a good job, obviously, but let's say they make a mistake as a sort of thought experiment.
A "bad," artist would notice that mistake and go back to try and fix it much in the same way a "good," artist would. The difference between them is how they would handle it mentally. The bad artist would let the feelings of, "Wow, that was a stupid mistake, I can't believe I missed that," consume their being for at least a good while, and those feelings would then bleed into other aspects of their life - even while they're simply sitting down to relax for a bit. Worst case scenario, those feelings continue to grow and their situation just gets worse and worse until they spiral out and commit suicide over it. The good artist would go back and fix the error, move on like nothing happened, and possibly even forget that it ever happened in the first place.
My point was entirely about the attitudes these creators have, not about anything physical, tangible, or visible like technique.

Serrano

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

@ SuperAgro

[2/2] Just as well, I prefer to distinguish artists from straight-up hacks because that's the real meat of my argument. A hack is not an artist - they are simply a gun for hire trying to make a business and a profit. Any time you see their artistic work that's actually inspired by one of their own ideas, that idea is either incredibly mundane, or overly depressing. I end up seeing that as an attention-grabber because they want some sympathy and support, but of course, every case must be taken at face value and treated differently. So far, that's just been the vast majority of my experience. These hacks are businessmen, nothing more. I can identify with that mentality because I'd honestly like to make my own business ventures in the furry community as well at some point if I can ever find the time away from working 65 hours a week, so I don't have a problem with people being hacks. I don't know if it's just me or if there are others out there that can notice it too, but I'm able to tell when a piece of "art," is really art, or if it's just made as a product, though. I hate to sound like "UHMMM, you just don't get it, because you need a higher IQ," or some bullshit, but I usually look at a piece, look at how the creator prefaces it with titles and descriptions, looks at their attitude towards the idea, the attitude towards the overall piece, their journals on the side, how they respond to criticism in the comments and put all that together to create one giant picture that I use to tell if they're a hack or an artist, a pro or an amateur, etc.

To simplify all this, I guess what I really have a problem with is those artists who get a swelled head about their work, and who really have no ideas of their own but still act like they're hot shit because they're very technically talented.
A creator is free to do as they please, I agree with you on that. If people feel cheated or not, well, I think that's more to do with the work itself and should also be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Hope this text wall cleared things up a bit 'cuz it's REEEEEEALLY hard for me to find ways to explain this without giving examples. XP

SuperAgro

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Serrano

It did clear things up. There are some who do act that way in the fandom towards their art and fans. Hacks as you say.

Some of what you said did resonate. I use to be too harsh with myself reguarding my skill as an artist, but I've replaced that with the understanding that my skill level is what it is now. Practice can improve it, and later it will be something else. I throw labels on the works such a valueless with the understand that the work itself has no inherant value, and it is the end viewer that creates value in it for themselves only. Of course my works have value to me, the title is less for me and more for viewers to either argee or disagree, and to point out there is no inherant value to the work done.

Serrano

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

@ SuperAgro

Well, I'd also disagree there. All art does have some value, and the "end viewer," doesn't really have a say in that because art is, at the end of the day, purely subjective - I just don't believe just any illustration, song, animation, or story on this platform should be considered "art." I think a better word for what you're describing is, "success," instead of, "value?" That's something that can be measured whether by financial compensation or a view counter, and in the age of the internet, your work will always have at least SOME level of success - it's very unlikely that your work will have no "value," in that sense. That WS thing of yours I saw has value to me and a number of others because we saw and liked it, so I honestly don't see the point of calling it "valueless." If it's an idea you want to put forth, I'd say put it forth with no fucks given, y'know? Some will like it, some will hate it, some will simply appreciate it for what it is.
Just look at Vincent Van Gogh for example - when he was still alive and producing art, nobody wanted to even look at his pieces let alone buy them. That doesn't mean his work is valueless; fuck, we see all of his stuff as masterpieces nowadays.

SuperAgro

5 years, 9 months ago

link

I get the feeling we are talking past eachother. What I've posted online is a collection of digital data, read sequencially such that it places values of RGB in different locations on a display, that people might ascribe value to. There is not much value there without people to share it or consider it. It is always each individual who either find value or not. There is nothing inhereantly valuable about it, but value can be found when people interact with it. If one cosiders it art or not is almost not even important in this context.

In this case, when I refer to value, what I mean is in the sense that someone can take something away from the work. Maybe they like it or maybe they hate it, either way it has become more than just a sequence of digital data to those viewers. Something that could be as worthless as dirt piled on the ground has been given value beyond what actually physically is.

Maybe slopply putting valueless in the title doesn't do a good job of getting the point acorss. It is always people who have created the value. Van Gogh works were considered worthless because people didn't value them in his time. Now they are masterpieces because people value them in our time. Value doesn't come before it's perception, but right along with it. I get the feeling that you see value as always having been there though, and I don't completely disagree. People have also found value in randomly placed paint strokes and splatters. The only thing you need to have value in a work is to have someone find it there, even if it is randomly place splatters. The issue is that once you remove people from the picture all things lose value, since people are the ones that create value. Adding valueless to the title is simply recogizing that there is nothing inherantly valuable about the work, and the only way it can find value is through people interacting with, or personal enjoyment in making it. So putting valueless is a bit of a lie about my interaction in it's creation, since I already found value there. The point of the title is not about my interaction with the work though, but for those who happen to view it.

Serrano

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

@ SuperAgro

[1/2] Again, this all is coming back to the modernism versus postmodernism debate. The way you say "nothing has inherent value," in basically the same way as you said before that everything "has some value," is very postmodernist. The reason why I'd not want you to take this as calling you out on some hypocrisy or whatever is because it really isn't hypocritical at all. Postmodernism is based entirely around the idea that everything is simply equally valuable, not that everything has value, or that everything is meaningless. And, like I mentioned, the way the audience perceives a work is irrelevant to whatever constitutes value because everybody will take away something entirely different from that work, and in the age of the internet, they are free to interact and discuss with others who took something completely different from that work, further expanding their knowledge and understanding. All that happens after the art is created, and you're right about me believing the value of art comes purely from the artist. If the artist is simply leaving the value to be determined by the audience, well then what did that artist even create? Art has intention, right? So what would the intention have been? If there's no intention, then it's not art, and it's simply a product.

I'd agree, we are kind of just talking past each other here, but I think the reason why is that we have different ideas about what art should be. I'm a modernist, you're a postmodernist, and the battle between these two ideas will never end because they're completely counterproductive to one another.

Taking postmodernism too far is very easy: all you have to do is say, "I'm going to put this work out into the world, and everyone will love it." That's a completely irrational belief because you can never make that claim until the work is available to the public. Furthermore, you could say, "I'm going to put this work out there, and everyone will despise it just like they'll despise me." Again, that's blatantly nonsensical without enough information. They're both postmodernist perspectives though, and the challenge we, as people, face with our work (whatever that work may be, both creative and otherwise) is to find that perfect balance between the two, finding the right moments for the postmodern to lead, and the right moments for modernism to push you forward.
Don't get me wrong though, modernism is very easy to take too far as well: all you have to do is say, "I haven't worked hard enough yet, and I won't be happy until I do." In troubled individuals, this idea can fester and grown until they stop dead in their tracks, give up, and sink into a pit of despair, addiction, and otherwise self-destruction.

Serrano

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ SuperAgro

[2/2] You're right, I do believe that value is always there. I believe that ideas - or more accurately, inspiration - comes from a higher realm. We find this inspiration from what seems like nothing; it could be a pretty rock on the side of the road, a face in an old picture, or the mushroom cap of a dildo. Inspiration could come from anywhere, and that's why I think it comes from everywhere. If you've ever heard of string theory, then you'd be aware that it's based around length plus width plus height plus time. You draw a line in 3-d space from when a molecule first comes into existence to the very moment it stops existing, you'd have one unbroken line that intersects with infinitely more lines in infinite directions. That's what I mean by inspiration coming from everywhere - for a brief moment when we get that inspiration, get a surge of ideas because we've ripped a hole in that fabric and have seen all the potential that rock, face, or dildo could have in terms of a creative work. How'd the tear get open though? Well, that's the debate of a god then, isn't it? It's not like we as mere mortal humans could do that at will. If we could, wouldn' we have figured out how to control that at will by now? We've had all kinds of genius be put out by people over the centuries, so why has it still taken us so long to figure that out?
If there are really fourth, fifth, sixth etc dimensions, then just as a thought experiment to keep me going forward, I like to think that one day, after I die, I'll ascend to those planes of existence and experience them. I like to think that we all will, that some may refer to it as heaven or hell with some divine entity guiding us there, I like to think of it more scientifically, that it's more of another world to explore where everything just makes more sense than it does down here on this tiny little spec of a planet.

Anyway, if we (both you and I as well as all of mass society) had better understandings of these broad concepts, we'd probably have been able to make more sense to each other by now, but as it stands, I believe that that's the root of our disagreement on this.

SuperAgro

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Serrano

I'm afraid I don't know how to respond. I don't know if my views are postmodernist, they are just my views. I feel like you have created a strawman of my side of the discussion and decided to knock it down.

I'll show you what I mean. You say I'm arguing for postmodernism, then say this of postmodernism:

"Taking postmodernism too far is very easy: all you have to do is say, "I'm going to put this work out into the world, and everyone will love it." That's a completely irrational belief because you can never make that claim until the work is available to the public. Furthermore, you could say, "I'm going to put this work out there, and everyone will despise it just like they'll despise me." Again, that's blatantly nonsensical without enough information."

I didn't intend for you to come to such a conclusion on my views about art, and I don't know how things came to this. I don't think this is intentionally malious, but do feel more caution should be advised when trying to understand another's point of view.

All that I know about your view is what you have told me. It would be wrong to assume more.

Serrano

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ SuperAgro

Okay, well I was kinda thinking that would be the end of our discussion, but here we are.

It's not about arguing [i[for[/i] or against postmodernism - one idea isn't inherently better than the other. They simply exist alongside each other, conflict with each other, and are complete polar opposites, so that's why I pointed out that the battle between the two will never be over. There's no winning or losing side, there are just sides, and in my opinion, that's the way it should be.

You quoted me on another one of my thought experiments - I thought if I illustrated my point that way, it would help to explain my understanding of these concepts to you, and it was written in the hopes that if I showcased some extreme examples of both sides, the more mediary perspectives would come into better light as well. No, it wasn't malicious by intent, and it was not an assumption about you or anyone.

As for caution, well, we must express caution in everything we do, don't we? To quote Jordan Peterson, "In order to think, we must risk offending someone." I don't know if that was originally his quote, but I heard that from him somewhere on the H3 podcast episode he was on. It's over two hours long, but it's worth listening through to the end.

SuperAgro

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

@ Serrano

You saying one idea about art not better than the other ideas points to the definition of art being squishy and maliable.

I agree with that completely, and see calling something art or not art as a very poor way to discredit or give something legitmacy (depending on the situation). It seems you are trying to delegitimize certain artists on here. I don't know who they are or why they would need delegitimizing. I'm probably completely wrong though, and this is simply an opinon piece from a modernist's persepective on what is considered art to a modernist.

"More-so than that, however, an artist will focus on nothing but bettering their work all the time. They won't be concerned with the individual projects and how they'll turn out or how well they'll be received - they will simply transcribe their idea and send it off to be cashed in, ready at a moment's notice to get started on the next one."
I wanted to look at this more closely, but found myself getting confused as to what it means. Artists can focus on both individual projects and getting better all the time at the same time. They can send it off once it is done to be viewed and reviewed or sold and still feel attached to it. Getting ready for the next one also ties into bettering their work all the time. There is a disconnect in what you said and what an artist can be, and I'm not entirly sure which one you mean to viewed as not artist's traits, because the pronoun they is not descriptive enough.

Serrano

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

@ SuperAgro

Yes, my intention was to delegitimize some artists on the internet because some see it merely as a business venture, others genuinely enjoy it, and others still, enjoy it so much that they treat it as their everyday nine-to-five - my point with all this is that some artists' work ethic makes them more valuable than others, and my intention with this journal was to see who would walk away and then start to read between the lines. Those who are smart enough to do that would come to notice later on if and when they opt to look at furry media in the same way that I do, which I do think is the best way to look at it, that there are ways to tell the difference between a pro and an amateur just by analyzing the personality of the artist themself.

I'll admit that the way I worded that part about not focusing on individual projects could have been better, so I'll clarify what I meant: In order to make a good portfolio, you have to pay attention to what you're doing. If you make a mistake, you go back and make it right. What distinguishes a pro from an amateur is how the individual handles that mistake mentally. Do they brush it off and move on, or do they let that error consume them?
What I should have said instead of, "They won't be concerned with the individual projects and how they'll turn out or how well they'll be received," is, "They will only be concerned enough to fix their mistakes and make their craft tolerable to the viewer, with the keyword being tolerable."
If an individual spends enough time to say that they might be telling themself, "This is going to be awesome!" or, "This is going to cause a big stir," then it would make sense to assume that they're also saying, "If this isn't awesome..." or, "If this doesn't cause a stir," then, "this will be the end of my career," or something else along those lines, wouldn't it?
That's the attitude of an amateur: the over-investment in the success of a work, and the terror and fear of its failure. A pro doesn't think about any of those things that come after the work - a pro focuses only on the work. A pro isn't afraid.
"Good enough," isn't a death sentence.

SuperAgro

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

@ Serrano

Extremely cynical, are we not?

Anyways, I think that point you are trying to make is well explained here: https://www.ctrlpaint.com/videos/expectation-vs-reality

The artists you describe will tend to burn themselves out, except in the situation where they know they can get easy money because they have skill. It is pragmatic for these kinds of artists to seek the easy money, so unless they are shady in their business practices, I don't really have a problem with it. I don't really think many or possibly any furry artists are getting super rich on their art, maybe they make just enough to have a comfortable lifestyle. If they have the skill both with their money and in their craft to support themselves on art alone, that is actually fairly uncomon, even more if it turns out they hate it all.

Serrano

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ SuperAgro

Well, it's not even about the point of being rich. A lot of artists go out of their way to hide their true level of income like most normal people would, and my point wasn't about that; it was about the work ethic. They can't bare to sacrifice their weekly spa day; more accurately, they can't bare to sacrifice their "procrastination time." Which basically is saying, "I'm gonna go wank off or some shit and smoke some weed because the time says I can," when there's really more work to be done.
This is one aspect about that book I originally referenced in the journal that I disagree with. In a different section, the author says, "We don't go home 'til the whistle blows." That works for a lot of people, but I think it's more beneficial to do extra; whatever it takes to get the job done, because if we go home at the whistle but there's more shit to do, that's pretty amateur, isn't it?

Yes, that video does boil it down to its most digestible components: you can't be a pro unless you set reasonable expectations. If you're up for understanding it on a deeper level though, you should really read the book, because it teaches you specific methods to help accomplish that task, and a number of other things like WHY it's important, where genius comes from, and ways you can recognize that you're actually starting to wake up.

SuperAgro

5 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Serrano

Well, humans need down time. There is a difference between "procrastination time" and down time. Work that needs to be done is work for survival, or put differently, the work needed to produce more work. This is going to be a different amount for different people. An example: there are children born into wealthy families that don't even need to think about work and will still end up in a better material position than those who had been forced into hard labor to earn just enough to barely survive. For the rich, there is no whisle and no threat of poverty.

There is always more work that could be done. Maybe that sounds dismissive, but I think it is more about putting things into perspective. There is always more work that can be done, but I've done what I need to so I can work tomorrow. I could keep on going, but if I do, the quality of the work will go down and I'll get less and less from it. It is actually very important to space things for so many reasons, including that doing long sessions tends to lead to losing track of the problems in a drawing. Take even a 30 minute break, and suddenly it is like new and all the problems can be seen again.

I'll bookmark the link and look at it later. Right now I can't get my mind off of the game I'm developing. It is going to take a lot more work to get it running, but I'm cracking away at it bit by bit.

Serrano

5 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 9 months ago by Owner

@ SuperAgro

Okay, you got me there. I think, "procrastination," is a bit harsh, so I'll replace it with, "There should be a difference between, 'down-time,' and, 'play-time.'" In my opinion, that play-time should only ever be on a rare occasion when there's no work that CAN be done. If there's LITERALLY nothing to do, even after one has spent a good amount of time LOOKING for things to do, then I'd say go for some play-time. Get some food delivered, play some games, smoke a bowl, have a wank, that kind of shit.
Down-time is given to you, and you should take advantage of it. If you have the time away from your paying work, use that down-time to do your chores. Budgeting, taxes, whatever the case may be - my point is that it still should be productive, because if you start playing sudoku on your phones, it may be making you better at logic problems, but it takes you out of that hard-hat mindset for just that brief moment.
You're right: some people do need that, and to those people I say, "Well, aren't you a fucking pussy?" There's better things you can be doing with your time, and you're just sitting there with a finger up your ass? Amateur.
Burnout is a thing, but it doesn't have to be. You don't need a thirty-minute break, you don't even need thirty seconds to overcome burnout; all you need to overcome it is a decision and a commitment. Mental exhaustion? Sounds like a marketing ploy to sell opiates, tobacco, and alcohol to me.
I have a problem with people who call out because they don't want to work. They may be tired, ill, it might be raining or snowing, they might have an event to go to, but the bottom line is that they don't want to work. It's unfortunate because there are a lot of "artists," out there who will step away from the easel, or the cintiq, or whatever the fuck people draw on these days, because they don't want to work for whatever reason, and I have a problem with those people... THEY'RE AMATEURS.

Also, #sorrylatereply lol. Didn't have much time to type out a full response the past few days.

New Comment:

Move reply box to top ↑

Log in or create an account to comment.

Help

Information

Policy & Legal

All artwork and other content is copyright its respective owners.

Powered by Harmony 'Gravitation' Release 80.

Content Server: Virginia Cache - provided by Inkbunny Donors. Background: Blank Gray.

The Inkbunny web application, artwork, name and logo are copyright and trademark of their respective owners.