A blatant bash at OOTS

[bopeuph]

I don't know if this has been addressed, or if Rich gave permission:

I came across a rant on poorly-drawn webcomics. Not only is OOTS mentioned (perfectly fine and legal), but the author uploaded an image from the first comic. I may be a lurker, but I know how serious Rich is with people taking his artwork without permission, even when it is of praise. This does not praise. It could just be a joke, but I think it would be best to let Rich decide.

EDIT: Oops, forgot the link:

http://www.comicrelated.com/news/3964/art-in-webcomics

[Reivon]

This is legal under United States copyright law for Fair Use, which allows limited use of copyrighted material without asking permission from the copyright holder for, among other things, criticism.

One small picture can undoubtedly be defined as "limited use."

[Crisis21]

I doubt that the article is a joke as it sounds very well thought out and professional. It also sounds very biased and judgmental which I find highly disagreeable.

Clearly the writer of this article has a very specific idea of how comics are supposed to be drawn, one which apparently matches up with how professional comics are drawn. I find this a very narrow-minded point of view and do not agree with it in the slightest. Had I thought this way upon finding Rich's comic, I would have missed out on a superbly done masterpiece of writing and art that is as grand as any other comic I have ever read.

The Order of the Stick is proof to me that it does not matter what particular artistic medium a comic writer chooses to utilize. What matters is how well they can convey the actions and concepts contained in the comic to their audience. Rich does this superbly and I am all the more in awe of him for it.

I own all six published books of OotS, and I can honestly say that I would not have spent my hard-earned money on what that article is attempting to paint OotS as.

Rich chose his art style very well, and very wisely, and I find I do not appreciate some so-called 'expert' trashing his decision because they do not agree with his choice.

That is all I have to say on the subject.

[Dr.Epic]

This is legal under United States copyright law for Fair Use, which allows limited use of copyrighted material without asking permission from the copyright holder for, among other things, criticism.

One small picture can undoubtedly be defined as "limited use."

I don't think it's plagiarism so long as you credit the source (I've taken enough English classes to know that if you credit it in some sort of bibliography it's not stealing).

As for the article, didn't read all of it. They made some good and bad points. I wouldn't read too much into it either way.

[Silver2195]

Not that negative. She says that "Order of the Stick gets somewhat of a reprieve because at least its creators are trying to make their characters more diverse and colorful."

[Maxios]

I think Rich Burlew is a good artist. You don't seen many people who can make stick figures expressive. He's said before that he just draws it that way because the webcomic isn't really serious. If it was really serious, it'd be drawn realistic.

[Knaight]

She also states that no real comic artist should respect it. Sounds like the sort of person who needs to have a nice, long argument with Ebert concerning artistic theory.

[Crisis21]

She also states that no real comic artist should respect it. Sounds like the sort of person who needs to have a nice, long argument with Ebert concerning artistic theory.

I can honestly say that line killed any respect I had for the article. They are essentially claiming that anyone who respects Rich for his work on The Order of the Stick cannot be a 'real' comic artist. It basically gives the writer of the article an excuse to disregard an opposing opinion since, clearly, anyone with an opinion opposed to their own cannot have an opinion worth listening to. :smallsigh: Personally, I find that offensive even though I'm not a comic artist.

[Sengoku]

I have to write a comment because the writer of that article belongs to the crowd of ppl I hate the most: those my grandfather used to call "arms stolen to agriculture".

Meaning more or less than they would be more useful digging soil than doing anything else, including writing articles.

His point is totally absurd...the fact the artwork is not the same of those who draw does not mean the webcomic cannot be considered valuable.

Aside from the fact Rich told several times he can actually 'draw' like that would-be writer claims to be the only decent way, but he prefers to focus on the drama, the jokes, and the story.

(that also means the readers get more updates because the work is shorter)

As long as Oots has so many fans and readers -not to mention that all of them have access to every existing webcomics-, I'm sorry but no one can claim it's not a proper webcomic lacking anything.

The numbers speak, here and in many other situations.

Since that moron is so fancy to say "...just pay someone with an artistic eye to do it for you because that's the American way" I suppose he should know at least that his own beloved "American way" says that if something is popular, no matter what, where, or how, it actually hits the spot. Enough said.

[bopeuph]

Since that moron is so fancy to say "...just pay someone with an artistic eye to do it for you because that's the American way" I suppose he should know at least that his own beloved "American way" says that if something is popular, no matter what, where, or how, it actually hits the spot. Enough said.

That was one of my favorite parts of the article. Apparently, the American way is also to start something from the ground up and still have the money to hire professionals to do it perfectly right off the bat. But don't tell that to the people that started their successful business with barely two pennies to rub together.

[hobbitkniver]

This guy is insane. Not only his only objective is to flame some comics for no reason, but the three examples he gives are very popular comics. It doesn't matter what you think of the art, they have dedicated fans and I've heard of them. Never heard of Jules Rivera til now though. Cyanide and happiness actually makes fun of their own art.

[Ted The Bug]

I find the article completely obnoxious, but completely legal. That being said, this sounds like a pretty bitter guy who would probably dismiss Calvin and Hobbes as to childlike because it has a stuffed animal.

[Xykeb Zraliv]

I fail to see how hiring somebody else to draw for you is somehow less lazy than using stick figures...

I mean, you know, among the other thirty things wrong with that article.

[Raging Gene Ray]

I've seen this same article before on these very forums. Everyone had a grand old time pointing out how "professionalism" does not equal good art and that good art does not necessarily equal good comics.

The author is obviously trying to make everyone who has a good story but can't draw according to the accepted comic style feel bad. Jules wants them to feel like their comic is crap unless they hire someone...preferably Jules to draw it for them.

That line about how hiring a professional artist is Jules' favorite method because it gets him work is the most honest and credibility-killing line in the whole article.

But using that picture, I think, is limited use and falls under Fair Use. Jules has a right to use OotS to make his point. Even if that point is self-serving and weak.

EDIT: Raging Gene Ray has never taken a single course in Copyright Law. The full extent of his knowledge of the subject comes second-hand from the Nostalgia Critic.

[Bongos]

ah, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. I've made a few Oot's style art graphics, and it is not as easy as it looks. Not just the characters, but the scenery as well. I'm sure there's quite a bit of cut and pasting going on, but there is a lot involved in making the art in an Oots comic. No way should it be compared to XKCD.

[Swordpriest]

Meh, I never viewed any comic as being in the category of art, anyway. Illustration is the best they can hope for, IMO.

As far as that goes, I always look on the OotS as being what their world looks like. It makes it more enjoyable and funny in that way. I mean, if you were somehow pulled through an interplanar rift into the OotS world, Roy's head really would look like a big circle with two eyes and a mouth as the only features, his body would look like a square, and his arms and legs would look like flexible black lines. :smallbiggrin:

I probably wouldn't enjoy the comic a tenth as much if it were drawn to look like our reality. :smallsigh:

[Bongos]

Roy's head really would look like a big circle with two eyes and a mouth as the only features, his body would look like a square, and his arms and legs would look like flexible black lines. :smallbiggrin:

yep, that's what he looks like alright.
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w130/superbongos/3droy1.jpg

[mucat]

Not that negative. She says that "Order of the Stick gets somewhat of a reprieve because at least its creators are trying to make their characters more diverse and colorful."

In other words, she says "At least the author recognizes that my standards are the correct ones, and wishes he could live up to them. I shall grant him a 'reprieve' unlike those others who draw things I do not like without even feeling bad about it."

Obviously, Rich does not wish he drew things this pompous ass likes, so the line is inaccurate as well as repulsively self-congratulatory.

I am not just leaping to the defense of OotS and other "minimalist" comics here. If someone wants to explain in detail why they don't like the work of Rich Burlew, Randall Munroe, and the rest, more power to 'em. It might be an interesting read, and these artists certainly don't need me to defend their honor. But to quite literally say "no one who disagrees with me deserves to be taken seriously"...I can't even imagine what kind of mind would come up with that.


Having said all that, her use of Rich's artwork is perfectly legal and perfectly ethical. A critic or scholar is always allowed to include reasonable-length samples of the work they discuss; how else could they discuss it at all?

[derfenrirwolv]

Yup, this has come up before. Feels like a loooong time ago.

[Ricky S]

I always laugh when people write articles like that. I think they must just be jealous because Rich is popular and they are not. Looking at the success of oots just shows how much people like it and its style. I personally prefer the sticks figures of oots to something more realistic. I think it holds more character than a "realistic" comic would. Funnily enough the three stick comics, oots, xkcd, and cyanide and happiness are my three favourite web comics (in that order).

Why should web comic designers worry about art. They are there to entertain. If they do that with stick comics then so what. Not everything in life has to be art (and I think oots would qualify as art anyway).

[Swordpriest]

yep, that's what he looks like alright.
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w130/superbongos/3droy1.jpg

Heh .... thank you for the chuckle. :smallsmile:

[Dr.Gunsforhands]

This article has been around for a looooong time. I've never actually seen any similar ones, which is kind of sad since we may never get a less biased set of advice or criticism regarding art styles. Then again, that's probably for the best. The world has enough webcomics. We don't need to encourage people to draw more.

(Soon: somebody links me to a more well-thought-out article and I feel silly.)

I did notice a couple of funny things about this article, though. First, it looks like sprite comics are mysteriously exempt from Rivera's ire. Perhaps he and Brian Clevinger went to the same art school?

Second, he doesn't really address the loss of creative control that comes with handing someone a script and letting them make the actual comic in your place. It simply will not turn out the way you imagined or wanted, ever. Even a simple, "Get over it," would have sufficed, but he avoids the subject entirely as though he knew it would detract from the conclusion he wanted.

Also, seriously try to imagine XKCD drawn in a "professional" style with a defined cast of characters. OW.

[Cizak]

Ah yes, this old thing. It's been around for a while, we even had another thread for it a while back.

EDIT: Hehe, love how commentws are disabled. I remember a whole bunch of negative comments last time this got shown at these forums :smalltongue:

[Nimrod's Son]

Hehe, love how commentws are disabled. I remember a whole bunch of negative comments last time this got shown at these forums :smalltongue:
Yeah, her site went mental with people posting negative feedback as soon as a couple of forums got hold of it. People were posting entire essays. I seem to recall she apologised to Randall Munroe on Twitter and then took it back about five minutes later and said she was right all along.

What her article boils down to, though, is "no-mark comic-artist-for-hire thinks hiring a professional artist is the ideal way to make a comic". No great surprise.

[Zeb The Troll]

Troll Patrol: This topic is more suited to the Board/Site Issues forum so I'm moving it there to let one of the Admins respond to the OP.

Note that further discussion of whether or not this is allowed under copyright law is not only not necessary, it is not allowed under the forum rules.

[Crossfiyah]

This article bashes XKCD for its art.

That's like calling Stephen Hawking a moron because he doesn't know how to use a fork and knife.

[Teutonic Knight]

Heh. An article like that and she uses the word "stupider". :smallsigh:

[Killer Angel]

Ah yes, this old thing. It's been around for a while, we even had another thread for it a while back.


Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139953&highlight=jules+rivera) you are. :smallwink:

[Surfing HalfOrc]

I thought I read this article months ago...

I remember a scene in Dead Poets Society in which "The Book" attempted to define a "Good Poem" based on complexity and subject matter... That the more complex rhyme and meter and the more important the subject matter, the "Better" the poem was. Robin Williams (the teacher of the class) said "Excrement" to that definition... Then ripped that page out of the book because it was so wrong.

And that's what I say about the "Critic" that wrote this article. Overly complicated art doesn't make the story "Better," overly simple art doesn't make the story "Worse." OotS is enjoyable "As Is." And Big (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0422.html) Battle (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0452.html) Scenes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0454.html) come off quite well in this format.

[Wargor]

XKCD, however, is unabashed laziness, never even having established a regular cast, let alone a diverse one.

I read this and I actually snorted. What an utterly silly thing to say.

[Obrysii]

Commissioned artwork looks like the real deal because it IS the real deal. It was drawn! By a person! And no stick figures need be necessary!

Lulz.

So artwork is only art when it is paid for.

That definition, however, qualifies Order of the Stick as artwork, as I have purchased five of the six (money's tight, otherwise I'd have the newest one) books...

Looks like this person is just on a high-horse because his/her webcomic isn't nearly as popular as the two stick-figure ones. xkcd and Order of the Stick are both two of the most popular comics I know of - and meanwhile, who has heard of Marsh Rocket?

[pendell]

I haven't read the article; but the person doesn't like XKCD or OOTS because the art style is primitive?

Would this person also have bashed 'Peanuts', arguably the most successful comic strip ever, because it's two dimensional and drawn in a deliberately primitive style?

The fact that comics such as Peanuts and XKCD are popular, while comics such as Mark Trail are not, is a clear indication that realistic art is not a factor in comic success; the ability to tell a story is. I'm sorry the author evidently doesn't understand that.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Robert Blackletter]

Lulz.


That definition, however, qualifies Order of the Stick as artwork, as I have purchased five of the six (money's tight, otherwise I'd have the newest one) books...

Looks like this person is just on a high-horse because his/her webcomic isn't nearly as popular as the two stick-figure ones. xkcd and Order of the Stick are both two of the most popular comics I know of - and meanwhile, who has heard of Marsh Rocket?

After checking out her web comic, i am slight amused that the art work is pretty weak. This person art is no better then many G.C.S.E student that i have seen

[Obrysii]

Oh, I found another diamond:


And even if your comic, but some ridiculous fluke, gets popular, no real artist will respect you (and well they shouldn't).

I'm pretty sure that Rich is well respected by many "real" artists.

This whole thing skirts over the whole notion of "art" - what is art? It's one of those things you can spend entire semesters in college trying to hammer done and you never can reach one finite conclusion. The author of this little article has no concept of art - he/she writes as if there's only one method, one meaning, to art, and anything that deviates from this concept cannot be considered "true artistic talent."

[mucat]

I think they must just be jealous because Rich is popular and they are not.


Looks like this person is just on a high-horse because his/her webcomic isn't nearly as popular as the two stick-figure ones. xkcd and Order of the Stick are both two of the most popular comics I know of - and meanwhile, who has heard of Marsh Rocket?

I'm gonna have to disagree strongly with this point. I really dislike Rivera's line of reasoning. I even think it reflects badly on her as a person, for reasons I gave in another post. But I don't think we can conclude that she's motivated by jealousy; everything she writes could be an honest reflection of her own sense of aesthetics (which is fine) together with an unfortunate belief that anyone who disagrees with her is beneath taking seriously (which is not fine.)

I hear this a lot; any time a less famous person criticizes a more famous person's work, it's immediately attributed to jealousy. That's wrong and counterproductive. A guy who sings blues in a run-down tavern for forty buks a gig and free beer, can and should have strong opinions one which famous singers are geniuses and which are overrated hacks; it's part of being a musician. An unheard-of scientist should have clear thoughts on which Nobel prize winners are giants in their fields, and which are trivial schmucks who were in the right place at the right time; that's part of being a scientist. And a little-known webcomics artist like Rivera should be free to judge which of her fellow artists are great, and which ones she can't stand. It's part of being an artist. (Or just being someone who appreciates art, for that matter.)

That's not jealousy. (Well, it could be jealousy, but we shouldn't jump Miko-like to that conclusion.) It's when she says "nobody who disagrees with me is worth taking seriously" that her credibility falls apart.

[Obrysii]

No, but what drew me to that was when she wrote specifically that stick-figure artists are lazy and no "real" artist will ever take you seriously for it ... that's where my head was scratching.

That's just a vicious attack - it doesn't add to her point, and to me has strong lines of jealousy within it.

[Crisis21]

I agree with mucat. While there is plenty of reason to believe that Rivera is jealous of more successful webcomics, there is honestly nothing in that article that can be taken as definitive proof that she is jealous.

Furthermore, whether or not she is jealous does not necessarily affect her opinion on the matter. I doubt her opinion on what is 'real' art (one I find very shaky and disagreeable) is due to any jealousy of a 'not real' artist's success.

However, I do find it plausible that her disdain for other artists that she considers substandard could very well lead to her being jealous of their success. This does not necessarily mean that she is jealous. It is very much possible to have disdain for a person that is not caused by jealousy. To point out a similar scenario in 'Peanuts', the character Frieda uses the excuse that people are just jealous of her 'naturally curly hair' any time someone disagrees with her. Her reasoning is almost all of these situations is completely ludicrous and probably intended to poke fun at people who jump to the 'jealousy' conclusion all too readily.

[jmbrown]

Opinions are like buttholes, et cetera

I hate the whole "this isn't art... but this is" crowd period. Art is subjective and while there are plenty of things I don't approve of I'm not ignorant enough to say "No, this... this isn't real art because I say it isn't!!"

Comic books have had a long history of overcoming ivory tower art and writing critics. It's people like this who think they're doing the comic world a favor but are in fact acting like hypocrites.

[bopeuph]

A guy who sings blues in a run-down tavern for forty buks a gig and free beer, can and should have strong opinions one which famous singers are geniuses and which are overrated hacks; it's part of being a musician. An unheard-of scientist should have clear thoughts on which Nobel prize winners are giants in their fields, and which are trivial schmucks who were in the right place at the right time; that's part of being a scientist. And a little-known webcomics artist like Rivera should be free to judge which of her fellow artists are great, and which ones she can't stand. It's part of being an artist. (Or just being someone who appreciates art, for that matter.)

You just earned yourself a beer. Feel free to collect if you're ever in the Orlando area. I didn't think "jealousy" when I read the article, but after reading comments here, I wouldn't be surprised. It could be one way or the other; it's impossible to tell without speaking with the author. But your analogies were perfect.

[Mystic Muse]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (No, not that kind) some things that are considered Beautiful or awe inspiring just don't appeal to me. That doesn't mean they aren't completely valid works of art, it just means they don't appeal to me. From what I read in this thread, the writer doesn't get this.

[Rockphed]

I hate the whole "this isn't art... but this is" crowd period. Art is subjective and while there are plenty of things I don't approve of I'm not ignorant enough to say "No, this... this isn't real art because I say it isn't!!"

Comic books have had a long history of overcoming ivory tower art and writing critics. It's people like this who think they're doing the comic world a favor but are in fact acting like hypocrites.

I, on the other hand, have no problem scoffing at something and saying, "This isn't art." However, I normally keep my scoffs to those things you see when wandering through an art museum that can only be called 'art' because they were made by an 'artist.' Things like Grey Panel Number 4, which is just a canvas painted grey and hung on a wall.

I'm currently taking a class on creativity, and the test they use to see if something is creative is whether it is Valuable, Intentional, Novel, and Excellent. Personally, I won't, for the most part, deny something art status because I think it isn't valuable, but I will for the other three. Now, this is not to say that something has to be a great masterpiece, but it should encompass some level of effort, thought, and ingenuity. Those three lead to novelty, intentionality, and excellency when applied to the work, rather than the explanation of the work. Make sense?

[Juhn]

Oh geez, this thing. It's actually built up something of a reputation purely based on just how deeply the author has no idea what she's (or he's; I'm still not sure as to the author's gender, as are a number of other people who've read this) talking about. Also how blatantly she's shilling for artists who work by commission.

This is not a genuine critical article. It's a (terrible) sales pitch.

[Joran]

She also states that no real comic artist should respect it. Sounds like the sort of person who needs to have a nice, long argument with Ebert concerning artistic theory.

Or should read Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" and try again.

One of the truly moving pieces I've read, Maus, had fairly simplistic art.

[Capt Spanner]

I think that this is that really needs saying. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9157244&postcount=33)

[Keld Denar]

I, on the other hand, have no problem scoffing at something and saying, "This isn't art." However, I normally keep my scoffs to those things you see when wandering through an art museum that can only be called 'art' because they were made by an 'artist.' Things like Grey Panel Number 4, which is just a canvas painted grey and hung on a wall.

This reminds me of going through the Museum of Modern Art in Straßburg, France. There was one exhibit in there that was 4 blue squares of differing hues, about 1.5 foot to a side, arranged from lightest to darkest. Me and the girl I was talking to at the time looked at it, and then walked right by. We did spend the next 20 minutes or so pondering the profound meaning of the jagged diagonal crack in the plaster near the picture, where I'm guessing some of the foundation had settled. It just seemed so much deeper by comparison. Now, I'm no artist, and maybe those 4 blue squares have some meaning or recognition that I just can't fathom, but man, it did NOTHING for me.

[Knaight]

I remember a scene in Dead Poets Society in which "The Book" attempted to define a "Good Poem" based on complexity and subject matter... That the more complex rhyme and meter and the more important the subject matter, the "Better" the poem was. Robin Williams (the teacher of the class) said "Excrement" to that definition... Then ripped that page out of the book because it was so wrong.

Heh. Incidentally, that came from a real textbook, with a name change and some small wording. I had it junior year in highschool, and my teacher made a point of showing that scene in the movie, then going to the page it was on.

[Knaight]

Or should read Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" and try again.

One of the truly moving pieces I've read, Maus, had fairly simplistic art.

So did Persepolis, a photo realistic style would have hurt that incredibly. It was heavily stylized, quite simplistic, and easily the most moving piece I have ever read. Or would easily be if not for Maus.

[The Giant]

To answer the original question, the use of my artwork in that specific instance is considered Fair Use; it represents a small portion of the work reproduced for critical or educational purposes. The fact that the criticism is negative rather than positive doesn't change the author's right to use it in that context. If anything, the Fair Use right is more important in situations of negative criticism than positive, as it would be easy to secure image permissions for an article singing the praises of the subject matter.

I'm not going to comment on the quality of the article itself, except to say that it has been brought to my attention several times since it was published some time ago.

I'm moving this thread back to the OOTS forum, because even though it began with a legal question, the majority of responses have long since sidetracked to the quality of the article itself.

[Ancalagon]

Creators, unless your writing is so amazing that readers will ignore your art and go straight for the joke, you don't stand a chance.

I find this section totally funny. Not because in itself but because of the comics it quotes. XKCD is one of the most successful webcomics of ALL webcomics and OOTS is the most famous fantasy-webcomic (the backside of that book I bought said so).

Remember we talk about webcomics where the creators are able to live from the comic. How many webcomic-creators worldwide can do that? A dozen? Two? Three? Surely not much more.

That the comics in question are immensely successful (maybe not in terms of "New York Times Bestseller List" but surely in terms of "Webcomics") it is pretty clear the author of that rant simply had no idea what he was writing about - or at least did not think much about it.
All other issues aside... this part here is absolutely hilarious. No chance at all? Reality seems to differ on that. In contrast, OOTS does not even need the flashy advertisment that "comic related" seems to need.

[Rockphed]

This reminds me of going through the Museum of Modern Art in Straßburg, France. There was one exhibit in there that was 4 blue squares of differing hues, about 1.5 foot to a side, arranged from lightest to darkest. Me and the girl I was talking to at the time looked at it, and then walked right by. We did spend the next 20 minutes or so pondering the profound meaning of the jagged diagonal crack in the plaster near the picture, where I'm guessing some of the foundation had settled. It just seemed so much deeper by comparison. Now, I'm no artist, and maybe those 4 blue squares have some meaning or recognition that I just can't fathom, but man, it did NOTHING for me.

Grey Panel Number 4 is an exhibit featured in the Detroit Institute of Arts. My brothers and I spent much time contemplating why ye heck it, and most of the other things in the room were considered noteworthy enough to display. My guess is that the curator wanted to be able to put them all, or perhaps just photos of the room with them, somewhere as an example of the "soulless era when they were created and celebrated." There are lots of ways to use a solid block of grey, or four blue panels increasing in hue and intensity, but all of them that I can think of require them to set off something else. Whether it is changing the face of a wall to change perception of space or to emphasize the crack in the plaster(which represents man's eternal struggle to change the world often only resulting in expediting its collapse), they can do nothing in and of themselves.

[Keld Denar]

I read your reply, but one thing stuck out


<snip> Detroit Institute of Arts. <snip> "soulless era when they were created and celebrated."<snip>

Yup...Detroit. Grey and soulless. Sounds about right.

[Ignition]

Yeah, I'll let the good Lord Burlew's traffic numbers decide whether OotS is a successful webcomic or not, whether it "stands a chance" or not :smallwink:

Also, "real" art and "real" artists are so rangey that basically everything's art. I can understand saying "I don't appreciate this piece", or "I don't see the appeal", but saying "No one who knows art would say this is art" clearly knows nothing about art.

[Themrys]

After checking out her web comic, i am slight amused that the art work is pretty weak. This person art is no better then many G.C.S.E student that i have seen

May be part of the reason why she dislikes OotS. If you try very hard to be good at something, and are not very successful...and then there's someone who seemingly doesn't even try and is more successful than you are...such things make people angry.

However, maybe I can't compare that to my dislike of Stephenie Meyer. Mrs. Meyer isn't just lazy, she makes mistakes - her figures don't come across the way she intends.

Even if one dislikes OotS, one should be able to see that the stick figures all look like the author wants them to look - there is no evil grin on a 'good' character's face that wasn't intended to be there. For example.

[Heksefatter]

I think that the criticism given in the article is weak. Obviously the art of OotS is not for everybody, but it cannot be described as "lazy." Remember, for example, the battle scenes at Azure City?

And quite honestly, these stick figures are very expressive. To be able to make a comic like OotS, you have to be able to draw well. I do not believe that I would be able to draw OotS after, say, a 3-week course in drawing.

[Ancalagon]

What matters, imo, is scene arrangement. OOTS is very good at that. Even to the point where the actual drawing art becomes obsolete. A concept drawing that has very sloppy art but a good atmosphere will always be better than a concept drawing where the art style is pure awesome but the atmosphere does not really fit.
I think of Ctrl-Alt-Del here, that has pretty good art but usually cannot really, imo, transport a nice atmosphere (curiously, the Etan-the-space-adventurer stories are MUCH better than the main stories, though).
A comic that also, usually, gets scenes right is Goblins. Looking at a new update gives a good impression of the mood of things and where what is.

To see the clear difference between how scenes are arranged, apart from style or everything else, just compare Erfworld Book 1 with the currently running Book 2.

In case of non-story comics (btw, what do the lack of a story or recurring characters have to do with the ART of the comic?), not even the scene arrangement and the progression matter that much.

[Scarlet Knight]

It appears we are refighting the art question that was fought in the 60's with the Minimalism movement. While I disliked Minimalism, the fact that I know about it means that alot of people disagreed with me. Who is right? Is there even a right? Is everything art? If so, why bother?

At least the article served the purpose of sparking the debate of "what is art".

[Ancalagon]

I think it's just another case of "Someone is wrong on the internet". ;)

[bopeuph]

To answer the original question, the use of my artwork in that specific instance is considered Fair Use; it represents a small portion of the work reproduced for critical or educational purposes. The fact that the criticism is negative rather than positive doesn't change the author's right to use it in that context. If anything, the Fair Use right is more important in situations of negative criticism than positive, as it would be easy to secure image permissions for an article singing the praises of the subject matter.

I'm not going to comment on the quality of the article itself, except to say that it has been brought to my attention several times since it was published some time ago.

I just wasn't sure how Fair Use works for comics; I would imagine each panel could be argued as being its own separate piece of artwork. I didn't think the direction of the article has anything to do with the copyright part, but it definitely brought my attention to it more, since you probably wouldn't have given someone permission to use your artwork in an article bashing your webcomic. If it was a high quality article praising you, there's a good chance you would have had no problem giving permission.

As for the whole "what is art" debate, it brings me to the musical piece entitled 4'33" by John Cage. John Cage was well known to use outside sounds to influence his concerts, but as a piece of music, I would say this was a bit far. I joked that the composer probably had a concert to do, and just needed one more piece to fill it out, and didn't do his homework, but fellow musicians would always argue that there was a whole philosophical explanation about that piece. Either way, I would just rather that piece to be performed only with musicians who aren't able to wow an audience with their playing abilities. If I ever end up as a college music professor, and a student says they want to play this in a recital, I might fail them on the spot.

[TheBST]

Author forgot rule #1: The writing is what makes a comic good or bad.

[kyoryu]

People tend to over-value their own skillset - especially the things that they are learning. Someone that is just learning the mechanics of representational artwork will have a hard time seeing value in something that is deliberately minimalist.

While I haven't read her comic, I'd bet it has decent, but not awesome artwork that is getting progressively better. I'd also bet it has mediocre-to-poor dialog, pacing, characterization, and composition.

While I, like most people here, think the article is utter bunk, she does have at least one point, even if unintentional - choosing a stick figure style because you can't draw is kind of a cop-out. Choosing a stick figure style because you think that's what's appropriate for your work, however, is not.

While OOtS uses a simplistic style, the compositional skills, flow, and pacing of the art is spot-on. It's unlikely that someone using a stick-figure style out of inability to do better would be able to replicate that.

[Robert Blackletter]

Author forgot rule #1: The writing is what makes a comic good or bad.

This about covers it! Comic are merely another form of the book writhing art but back to the o.p

Art is what I say it is! Yes you may have a different opinion but it matters not, cos I am right and you are ..... well right as well.

I love art, even stuff like the unmade bed or the 4 grey panel featured above, which always made me feel uneducated, as I see it as bad. There is no bad art or good art, only art, even if I d don't like it.

Have no idea if this make sense as I just drank 1 bottle of wine and 8 beers, dang!!

[Heksefatter]

I would disagree that writing is what makes a comic good or bad. A comic is also a visual medium, so the art is important and forms a major of how the comic should be evaluated. If you can't draw, don't do comics. Though, I should stress, the Giant certainly draws well enough in my book.

[slayerx]

While I, like most people here, think the article is utter bunk, she does have at least one point, even if unintentional - choosing a stick figure style because you can't draw is kind of a cop-out. Choosing a stick figure style because you think that's what's appropriate for your work, however, is not.

While OOtS uses a simplistic style, the compositional skills, flow, and pacing of the art is spot-on. It's unlikely that someone using a stick-figure style out of inability to do better would be able to replicate that.

Well, i'm not sure if i would say that the stick figure style is "appropriate" for order of the stick... i mean, to say it's appropriate would be to say that it really adds something to the comic that would otherwise be lost if the comic was done any other way. And aside from a few art style related jokes, i don't think the comic would be all that different.

Though while i don't think "appropriate" would be the right word to use, I would say that OotS does actually have a very unique style and that's worth something when you consider how many comics look generic or copy someone else's style.

Though i would agree, that when it comes to using stick figures as a medium, the comic really does stand tall... in fact if i recall OotS was once praised for "its use of medium" in one of those webcomic awards (forget if it was just nomination, or if they won)

[Logalmier]

No, No I totally agree with that article. It's clear that Rich is a lazy artist and that his drawing style is horrible. Seriously, if you don't believe me, just look at some of these comics:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0430.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0450.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0688.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0463.html

Oh wait...

Oh, and the same thing with Xkcd. [sarcasm]Yeah these comics really show laziness and bad artwork[sarcasm/]

http://xkcd.com/731/

http://xkcd.com/86/

http://xkcd.com/66/

http://xkcd.com/551/

http://xkcd.com/430/

http://xkcd.com/556/

[kyoryu]

I love art, even stuff like the unmade bed or the 4 grey panel featured above, whic halway mae me feel uneducated, as I see it as bad. There is no bad art or good art only art, even if I d don't like it.

Rob Liefeld would like a word with you.:smallbiggrin:


Well, i'm not sure if i would say that the stick figure style is "appropriate" for order of the stick... i mean, to say it's appropriate would be to say that it really adds something to the comic that would otherwise be lost if the comic was done any other way. And aside from a few art style related jokes, i don't think the comic would be all that different.

By "appropriate" I mean that the art style communicates what needs to be communicated in an attractive, and clear manner, and that it adds to the overall impact of the comic.

I'd say that's true of OotS.

I also think it's funny how both the xkcd and OotS comics posted above convey a greater sense of mood and movement than the supposedly "high art" comic by the article writer. (Yes, I went and looked. No, I wasn't impressed.)

[Crisis21]

I do have to say that Mr. Morgan-Mar who does Irregular Webcomic has what I consider the best rebuttal against the lazy artist stance I have ever come across in this comic here (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/1402.html). Or, perhaps I should say that the accompanying annotation contains that.

The comic is four completely black panels. The annotation is on the nature of art itself with a reference to John Cage's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cage) musical composition, 4'33" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4'33"), a musical composition composed of nothing more than four minutes and 33 seconds of complete silence. It's an interesting read and changed how I viewed art forever, quite some time before I even started reading The Order of the Stick.

[Acero]

Wasn't this brought up a year or so ago?

[Morgan Wick]

Not that negative. She says that "Order of the Stick gets somewhat of a reprieve because at least its creators are trying to make their characters more diverse and colorful."

Clearly the author did not really do that much research.

If that's not fair use, this (http://www.websnark.com/archives/2007/03/not_a_real_conv.html) isn't either.

[Rockphed]

I do have to say that Mr. Morgan-Mar who does Irregular Webcomic has what I consider the best rebuttal against the lazy artist stance I have ever come across in this comic here (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/1402.html). Or, perhaps I should say that the accompanying annotation contains that.

The comic is four completely black panels. The annotation is on the nature of art itself with a reference to John Cage's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cage) musical composition, 4'33" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4'33"), a musical composition composed of nothing more than four minutes and 33 seconds of complete silence. It's an interesting read and changed how I viewed art forever, quite some time before I even started reading The Order of the Stick.

You make a point, however, I still place things like that comic or 4'33" in the same category as "Grey Panel Number 4": interior decorating.

Now, there are lots of ways to perform 4'33", but the only one that would actually be classed as art by myself would be to have a full orchestra doing almost nothing while the conductor conducts.

Now, this is not to deny that it is pretty impressive to come up with something like 4'33", for it is pretty impressive. However, just because the null space is important, most of the time it is also trivial, and thus boring. Empty things, like 4'33" may, technically, be included in a set that also includes things of interest. If you have studied vectors, you might remember that the zero vector has lots of odd properties. Firstly, it is parallel with all other vectors. Secondly, since it is parallel with all vectors perpendicular to any vector, it is also perpendicular to all vectors. As such, parallel and perpendicular lose meaning when speaking of a zero vector. A series of 4 black panels is likewise worthless without context, which that comic lacks without the annotation. If he had preceded it with a comic that lead into his sorry attempt to justify it, then I would let it slide. Make sense?

[Silakka]

Rich draws the comic in the most clear way possible. There's a lot of details, but none that you really need to spot to follow the story. They're just small quirks for the ones who care about such things. OotS would work out great even without the art, just as a written story. How many webcomics are like that?

Some ignorant "art critics" may criticize anything they like, but the fact remains that this is one of the most popular webcomics around, has more readers than most of the critics can ever dream about and has the most solid story of them all. I prefer storytelling over flashy graphics anytime, and this is why OotS is still, after many years, the only webcomic I check more than occasionally.

[Iranon]

Came across it some time ago, found it embarassing to read - narrow-minded, self-serving, advice that can easily lead to a lesser product, a rather unhealthy attitude towards art and graceless insinuations.

An artist would contribute to the creative effort, what she's calling an artist would be an illustrator. Suggesting that language barriers may not be a big deal shows that she means just that, rather than a co-artist.

The author of the story retaining full control over all the nuances in gestures, posture, facial expressions etc. is also something that should not be overlooked. More often than not, the work will feel more real and gripping because some detail will be lost if you hand this over.

[Elemental_Elf]

The knee jerk reaction by many artists when confronted by the wildly popular webcomics like XKCD (and OOTS & Cynide and Happiness less so) is often derision. They feel the 'lesser art style' devalues their own (more traditional) art and makes them wish they 'took the easy route as well.' Of course this attitude fails to recognize that 90% of webcomics is WRITING, not art. Art is just an expression of the universe the artist is creating but with out good writing, the endeavor will never succeed.

The Article's author also fails to recognize that even stick figure art can evolve and grow much more complex and wonderful as time goes on. Look at Rich's work from comic one and compare it to the latest comics. There's a huge difference in styles. Characters have a lot more detail now, as do the backgrounds and props. We can see a similar evolution in comics like Cyanide and Happiness (which has much better character art now) and XKCD (which can look really good when the artist wants it too) (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/falling_asleep.png).

I think all the proof we need that the Article's Author is short sighted and closed minded is by the fact that comments have been disabled. A true writer always accepts criticism, both good and bad.

[Bongos]

Lazy is this comic (http://silenceinthedarknessonq16.comicostrich.com/index.php).:smalltongue:

Of course I don't really mean that, the author has 3 other comics, and the blank panels are kind of the joke of Station Q 16. And it's kind of intriguing how the author manages to create a narrative with just text and the black panels.

[fizzybobnewt]

the guy didn't even read enough of xkcd- there are several recurring characters, like the guy with the hat.

sorry if someone already mentioned that.

[Crisis21]

If he had preceded it with a comic that lead into his sorry attempt to justify it, then I would let it slide. Make sense?

You didn't read the preceding comics in that theme, did you? One of the characters is trapped in a very dark space, and the preceding comics of that theme (remember, it is called irregular webcomic because he has multiple stories that he switches between randomly despite daily updates) had the same four black panels, only with dialogue. Thus, he had every reason to include a comic with four black panels and no dialogue, thus representing the character sitting in the darkness in complete silence for a prolonged period.

[Rockphed]

You didn't read the preceding comics in that theme, did you? One of the characters is trapped in a very dark space, and the preceding comics of that theme (remember, it is called irregular webcomic because he has multiple stories that he switches between randomly despite daily updates) had the same four black panels, only with dialogue. Thus, he had every reason to include a comic with four black panels and no dialogue, thus representing the character sitting in the darkness in complete silence for a prolonged period.

Point taken. I did not see that it was possible to navigate through related comics easily.:smallredface:

[Crisis21]

Point taken. I did not see that it was possible to navigate through related comics easily.:smallredface:

No problem. The comic surprised me greatly and I was a regular reader when it was first posted.

He (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2162.html) did it (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2163.html) again (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2164.html) when he (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2165.html) destroyed the universe, (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2166.html) fading from a completely white comic, (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2167.html) to increasingly (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2168.html) blue panels, (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2169.html) then (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2170.html) to increasingly (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2171.html) red (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2172.html) panels, (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2173.html) then to black panels, (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2174.html) resulting in a second comic of four black panels and no dialogue, (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2175.html) and then panned out from a black panel to show the entire cast from all of his storylines in the afterlife in his longest comic to date and probably the most anticipated punchline he's ever delivered. (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2176.html)

I certainly laughed at it. Art isn't just about medium, it's about delivery. Especially in comics.

[Xapi]

Rob Liefeld would like a word with you.:smallbiggrin:



By "appropriate" I mean that the art style communicates what needs to be communicated in an attractive, and clear manner, and that it adds to the overall impact of the comic.

I'd say that's true of OotS.

I also think it's funny how both the xkcd and OotS comics posted above convey a greater sense of mood and movement than the supposedly "high art" comic by the article writer. (Yes, I went and looked. No, I wasn't impressed.)


You weren't impressed? I couldn't get past the fourth page...

[King of Nowhere]

And by writing that stupid and flaming article he/she could get a lot of visibility for his/her own webcomic. And you're still out there talking about it.
STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!

[Knaight]

I wouldn't say Troll, just delusional. Though if it was a cynical marketing attempt, I'm impressed.

[Haruki-kun]

And by writing that stupid and flaming article he/she could get a lot of visibility for his/her own webcomic. And you're still out there talking about it.
STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!

I'd say he's just your run-of-the-mill Caustic Critic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CausticCritic), not really a Troll. Or else, he wants to be a Caustic Critic.

Then again, one could argue that Critics tend to be trolls by natures. Your Mileage may vary.

*shrugs*

*keeps reading OOTS anyway*

[Knaight]

I'd say he's just your run-of-the-mill Caustic Critic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CausticCritic), not really a Troll. Or else, he wants to be a Caustic Critic.

Considering the example being Ebert, I would assume low end. This guy is no Ebert, he's not even a Yahtzi.

[Killer Angel]

And by writing that stupid and flaming article he/she could get a lot of visibility for his/her own webcomic.

In my case, he obtained exactly the opposite. :smallsmile:

[kyoryu]

I'd say he's just your run-of-the-mill Caustic Critic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CausticCritic), not really a Troll. Or else, he wants to be a Caustic Critic.

Then again, one could argue that Critics tend to be trolls by natures. Your Mileage may vary.

*shrugs*

*keeps reading OOTS anyway*

I think the author is more pathetic than that.

I think they're an individual who has developed one skill (drawing) to a moderate level. The problem is that they now view webcomics as a drawing competition. It's an extremely immature (as in, not seeing the big picture, not childish) view of webcomics.

Because of this, they get frustrated when they don't get the success they "deserve," because they see other comics that aren't "as good" (read: do not demonstrate the same level of technical drawing proficiency that theirs does) succeed.

They literally do not have the tools to understand this.

Their problem is not in what they know, but all of the things that they don't know. Their secondary problem is that they are unable to look at things from the view of the reader - why, exactly, are OotS and xkcd successful? What is it that readers get from those comics that they don't get from this author's? I'm sure they cannot comprehend the idea of using stick figures as an artistic choice, one that even contributes its own challenges to be overcome.

It's like the really intricate prog-rockers who can't understand why the three-chord band is successful. They can't understand why anyone would only use three chords in a song (the Clash deliberately limited themselves in this way), instead of using 18 gazillion. I mean, the prog-rockers play more chords than that in a single bar! And they're playing 128th notes in their solos?

And the vast majority of bands like that suck. Sheer technical ability may be impressive, but actually writing a song that, as a whole, is listenable is a skill that is orthogonal to technical proficiency. Technical proficiency is a means, not an end.

It's a very process-focused, rather than results-focused mentality. It is to be pitied more than ridiculed.

[King of Nowhere]

Or maybe he/she is simply someone who is convinced his opinions are intrinsically better than others. That there is only one truth and they know it. There's plenty of people like that.

[Nimrod's Son]

Jules Rivera is a woman, just to clarify.

[Procyonpi]

This article bashes XKCD for its art.

That's like calling Stephen Hawking a moron because he doesn't know how to use a fork and knife.

This. I've seen the article before, and it's the most pretentious thing in the world. First of all, it totally misses the point that art is supposed to be symbolic, not totally representational. Second of all, one of the author's conclusions is that web comic producers should hire professional artists like herself, which is pretty self-serving.

[Siosilvar]

Ignoring everything else wrong with the article...

Why is the OotS link to the first page while all the others are to the most recent?

[Kingweasel]

Ms Rivera is an artist, and a pretty good one, but her assertion that "real" artists shouldn't respect someone whose art she feels is beneath them is a horrible way to play the game of humanity.

Content is content, whether it's "fine art" or stick figures. Am I really the only one who gets teary-eyed when Roy meets up with his little brother?

That's the power of art--to make us feel.

In this case, Ms Rivera may add another credit to her cv: Writer. Her writing has made a lot of people on this board feel something (and strongly, too!).

[Robert Blackletter]

Ms Rivera is an artist, and a pretty good one,

I disagree, her art as average at best, her comic is what I expect from a 15-16 year old doing it for fun, not someone trying to make a living out of it.


That's the power of art--to make us feel.

In this case, Ms Rivera may add another credit to her cv: Writer. Her writing has made a lot of people on this board feel something (and strongly, too!).

But surly intent must come into it, I may be wrong but she did not intend for the vast majority to disagree, and argue with her (to the point where she disable comments). I am a terrible romance writer, anything I write is full of Squick (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Squick). If i wrote a romance novel and it made people feel ill (you know kinda like twilight :smalltongue:) then you could not call me a Romance Writer with any honesty

[Ancalagon]

In this case, Ms Rivera may add another credit to her cv: Writer. Her writing has made a lot of people on this board feel something (and strongly, too!).

No. A writer does the stuff on purpose. The text there was just... uninformed and narrow minded without any regard for what "art" really is and that there is also "content" transported with the art.
Every hack can put words together to provoke. It would be totally different if the text was written on purpose as it was written - but I highly doubt that fact.

[Robert Blackletter]

No. A writer does the stuff on purpose. The text there was just... uninformed and narrow minded without any regard for what "art" really is and that there is also "content" transported with the art.
Every hack can put words together to provoke. It would be totally different if the text was written on purpose as it was written - but I highly doubt that fact.

That basically what i was trying to say just put a hell of a lot better

[Kish]

In this case, Ms Rivera may add another credit to her cv: Writer. Her writing has made a lot of people on this board feel something (and strongly, too!).
Ah, one of my favorite logical fallacies. And when I say "favorite," I mean "most hated."

It takes no skill to make people angry if you're prepared to be a first-class twit to do it.

[Squark]

^I think that was tounge in cheek.

[Callista]

If OOtS used a more complex art style, a lot of the humor and storytelling value would be lost in the details. Realism isn't the only art style out there.

Comics are primarily a storytelling medium. They're not supposed to be like single-image works of art. If a simple style works to tell your story, then it's just as legitimate as a more complex style. And if you can't tell a story, then it's no good trying to write a comic.

Rich is following a long tradition of simplified images in comics. There's precedent for this. And how detailed a comic is doesn't seem to have much bearing on how good it is, or how many people like it.

Other very popular comics with very simple art styles:

Ziggy (http://news.yahoo.com/comics/ziggy)
XKCD (http://www.xkcd.com/)
Peanuts (http://news.yahoo.com/comics/peanuts)
LOLcats (http://icanhascheezburger.com/) (practically no art at all... just captioned photographs!)
Irregular Webcomic (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/) (photography)

What do these have in common? All very well-done, very popular comics... Heck, even Mickey Mouse started out as a stick figure.

[Logalmier]

I would like to humbly add Pearls Before Swine to the above list.:smallcool:

[Chameleon]

Lots of spelling and grammatical errors. She should've hired a professional writer, IMHO.


But seriously, the entire piece is just hidden advertising. She even links some of her own work at the end.

[Tyndmyr]

Eh, self important reviewers are nothing new. And as usual, they contribute rather little.

Sure, there are a lot of terrible stick-figure comics out there...but OOTS and XKCD are notably pretty well liked and successful. Both also have a distinctive style, even among stick-figure comics. Not the easiest thing to pull off, but you wouldn't confuse one of them for a brand new artist's scribblings in MS Paint.

The exact choice of style is far, far less important than how well you pull it off.

[Kingweasel]

It's true, my tongue was practically boring a hole through my cheek!

As for my appraisal of her artistic merits, unfortunately, I usually only view things as compared to my abilities, which are mostly non-existent.

I completely agree her piece falls directly into the category of "advertorial."

[Bongos]

It takes no skill to make people angry if you're prepared to be a first-class twit to do it.

Indeed, that is the very definition of a "troll", of which there is no shortage of.

[Ancalagon]

In addition, it takes a lot of thinking to write something smart, but basically none at all to write something stupid.
So if you read something stupid what is more likely: Someone put a lot of thought into it to make it appear stupid, but that has a very smart thought behind it - or that it is simply a stupid text that was "just written down"?

[King of Nowhere]

So, we should open a poll :smallbiggrin:: that article was
a) trolling, possibly to gain visibility
b) advertising, because she's telling you should hire her
c) close-minded, she honestly thinks so and don't realize it's just her opinion and not absolute truth
d) all of the above

I vote for d

[Logalmier]

So, we should open a poll :smallbiggrin:: that article was
a) trolling, possibly to gain visibility
b) advertising, because she's telling you should hire her
c) close-minded, she honestly thinks so and don't realize it's just her opinion and not absolute truth
d) all of the above

I vote for d

I'm sorry, King of Nowhere, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one. A better poll would look like this:

a) trolling, possibly to gain visibility
b) advertising, because she's telling you should hire her
c) both a and b, but not d
d) close-minded, she honestly thinks so and don't realize it's just her opinion and not absolute truth
e) both b and d, but not a
f) both d, a, and e, but not b
g) all of the above

I pick g.

[Kish]

d) close-minded, she honestly thinks so and don't realize it's just her opinion and not absolute truth

d) all of the above

I pick d.
You pick which d?

[AtopTheMountain]

You pick which d?

Not only that, but F works out to only be D.

[Logalmier]

Not only that, but F works out to only be D.

Yes. Yes it does. :smallbiggrin::smallwink:

[AtopTheMountain]

Wait... now you pick G? But that means it's A, B, and D, but not A, B, or D. What madness is this?!

[Caleniel]

Yup. Minimalist art is obviously driven by the lacking ability to draw sparkly generic genre illustrations.

Just imagine what the Cubists could have done if only they had had access to the kind of software she recommends.

And xkcd doesn't have an established cast of characters. Right. She is definitely a woman who researches her subject well before publishing. :smallamused:

[Caleniel]

Oooh! I just remembered another example:

Haiku. Written by people who are obviously too lazy to write a proper novel!

[Rockphed]

Oooh! I just remembered another example:

Haiku. Written by people who are obviously too lazy to write a proper novel!

But poetry and prose are entirely different mediums. The proper analogy would be frowning at people who write haiku and claiming they are too lazy to write the next Illiad. As an occasional poet, I will assert that shorter poems with tight meters are much harder to write and fill with meaning than long poems. Meaningless fluff, on the other hand, is doable at any length.

The evil troll spits
Forth plumes of acid and bile
We ignore in bliss

[Lateral]

Hmm... everything I might want to say on this subject has already been said...

except...

TROLL CRAP!
http://www.codeodor.com/images/turd.png

[sabremeister]

This looks like the writer Did Not Do the Research and Completely Missed the Point. Rich can draw "properly", and yet he chose to do OotS in stick-figure style. The title is a reference to the drawing style, so it's not like you're going to be surprised when you see it's drawn in stick figures (I doubt Rich had come up with the "look there's a stick, let's name ourselves after that" joke when he first started the comic). The writer also seems to think that Rich is more than one person. XKCD doesn't need an established regular cast, it's a gag-a-day comic with most of the gags aimed at people with at least a college education and/or an IQ in excess of 125, and, actually, people are going straight for the joke, because that's how it's intended. I don't know about Cyanide and Happiness. (The writer of this article didn't even bother working out how to get to the latest page of Oots, or provide the hompage link to GitP or the comics index page, so it's him that's being lazy.)

Photo comics: Again, he's missed the point about Surviving the World, or just hasn't got the joke (wouldn't surprise me, as he's not smart enough to proof-read and realise he's left the URI for Union of Heroes as the copy & pasted URI for Irregular Webcomic).

[T-O-E]

This looks like the writer Did Not Do the Research and Completely Missed the Point. Rich can draw "properly", and yet he chose to do OotS in stick-figure style.

That's irrelevant as he was talking about the comic, not the author. I imagine the writer of the article would find that worse, that he can but chooses not to (I don't actually agree with this.)


XKCD doesn't need an established regular cast, it's a gag-a-day comic with most of the gags aimed at people with at least a college education and/or an IQ in excess of 125, and, actually, people are going straight for the joke, because that's how it's intended.

This baffles me. xkcd is not complicated, or at least not now. If you check the references, it seems to just namecheck internet memes/sites and generic nerdy stuff. There is no technical knowledge required. It never gets out of its comfort zone or says anything insightful, it just agrees with its demographic and stuff they're likely to be familiar with. So unless you're trying to say lolcats are exclusively made and propagated by geniuses...

[Callista]

Nah, XKCD has had some stuff that you have to know things like Fourier transforms or circuit diagrams for. It's basically nerd humor. Most strips are pretty accessible to the general public, but a few do contain niche humor.

[angroy]

To say that OOTS is rubbish because it takes no effort is nonsense. It took me a few hours to make 6 characters in that kind of style, and they didn't even have fingers! (Might not help that it was on Publisher)
Plus to say that the best way is to get someone else to do it... :smallyuk:
Anyway, I agree that OOTS wouldn't really work in any other way. I love it and it is my favourite webcomic, and anyway, its about the story, not the style, in whatever medium.

[Logalmier]

And yet again xkcd shows how lazy it is by making this comic. Really, anyone could do that. It's astounding how little effort is put in here. (http://xkcd.com/802/)[sarcasm/]

[Haruki-kun]

And yet again xkcd shows how lazy it is by making this comic. Really, anyone could do that. It's astounding how little effort is put in here. (http://xkcd.com/) [sarcasm/]

I think you meant this one. (http://xkcd.com/802/) Permanent link.

The main site's link is already leading to the newest comic.

[Heksefatter]

I honestly think that this review is not worth getting worked up over. It is superficial and displays a lack of understanding. I do not think that the writer is a troll, however; The language is not particularly insulting or inflammatory.

[Snake-Aes]

Re-reading this article today compared to when it was last referenced here, I have to add: Does the author really know the difference between quality within specific standards and quality based on statistics?
Because really...
Art is subjective. Calling a piece of art Good or Bad relies exclusively on the viewer's opinion of what constitutes good art or bad art. Proof of that is the thousands of pieces of music and drawings I see everywhere that are indeed loved by uncountable amounts of people, but I find to be abominable, as do an equally uncountable amount of people.
the very comics the author bashed are proof of that. They disagree with his preferred style, yet sell better than most comics you'll ever see on the web. And you can't even say that it's the story that makes it sell all it does, since their art has a quality all their own. Keychain of Creation is out there to prove that even the simplistic stick figures can be visually stunning.

[Logalmier]

I think you meant this one. (http://xkcd.com/802/) Permanent link.

The main site's link is already leading to the newest comic.

Oops, thanks for catching that. I've edited that post now.

[angroy]

Keychain of Creation is out there to prove that even the simplistic stick figures can be visually stunning.
Ooh, I like that one too!
Thought that one has proper arms now.

Another point I thought of: Everyone likes diferent things. I'm don't really like xkcd, but the fact that many people like it means that it must be good, but in a way I don't apriciate. The author has every right to not like stick figure comics, but to insult them is just very narrow minded.

[NegativeFifteen]

I read the article, that's total bull towards cyanide and happiness. Probably shouldn't be mentioning that on this thread but come on, one of the creators of that comic got a visa into the USA as a great artist.