can I say something

>>7608607 (OP)
There should be an after /ic/ one too, where it's shitty scribbles and frog memes

>>7608607 (OP)
>things that don’t happen

>>7608607 (OP)
top designs are almost unreadable

>go to animation school
>you get taught to make animation friendly designs
shocking

>>7608646
You can animate characters without having to make them simple geometric shapes. Just look at anime.

>>7608623
A lot of animation coming from the west is still essentially this picrel crap, despite all the criticism.
I personally don't think it's animation school (despite the whole calarts meme), but I do find it strange that the animation industry as a whole has almost homogenized visually - people would often criticise the bean mouth criticism by pointing to hannah barbera characters and say "heh, early beanmouth, right?" - not realising it's all one studio and their in-house studio... now ALL studios seem so visually similar it's friggen bland!
The look isn't even bad specifically, it's just that it's too common.

>>7608661
Oh gee, shareholders playing it safe is so hard to believe, must be some Big Nosed plot!
It's just one of the cases of blind leading the blind. Same with webshit design, where everyone just apes stupidest trends, regardless whether it's good or makes sense. "If it's popular it must be good" etc. etc.

Post that one avengers/SU tumbler pic

>>7608624
Depends on what you mean by "readable". If you're saying that you can't tell where the character's head, or arms, or legs are, then you're blind, because all of that is clearly communicated.
If you're talking about specifically WHO those characters are, yeah I have no clue, but I likely haven't watched any of their media.

>>7608682
Recognizable doesn't simply equal "good".
If we're gonna act like it does, then Mr Men has objectively the best designs in history. We peaked with that.

>>7608702
>Mr Men has objectively the best designs in history. We peaked with that.
Has a truer thing ever been said?

i'm glad people are catching up to this, shape language and silhouettes are a terrible meme

Here's your Bouba character, he is not friendly, he is a cheating gambling violet backstabber

>>7608624
I recognize my wife Scanty and those dyke characters from the girl who hates john k

aaaand the one piece third worlders arrived

>>7608661
>now ALL studios seem so visually similar it's friggen bland
thats because there's barely any studios that actually animate, its all shipped off to koreans so they need to adapt their style and storyboarding to be ultra hyperspecific and readable so they dont fuck it up
also gumball is severely off model in that image (and amazing world of gumball is honestly a really bad example to complain about animation aesthetics, its a show that puts a very high amount of effort into representing different artstyles and animation techniques, its just that the main characters intentionally have a "modern" style to represent the current generation)

>>7608760
every one piece design unironically looks like the bottom sillhouettes in op's image

>>7608646
i don't think that's a real excuse given the amount of tools we have available to make complex animations,
japs and gooks don't seem to have a problem with animated something more complex than a 2008 flash animation.

>>7608852
>thats because there's barely any studios that actually animate, its all shipped off to koreans so they need to adapt their style and storyboarding to be ultra hyperspecific and readable so they dont fuck it up
There's some truth to this, certainly, but off-shore animation has been going on for ages, Animaniacs and other Spielberg animated productions were animated off shore, and while those were in Japan, the transition to Korea doesn't perfectly line up with the homogenised simplification of animation art and design - so to me it seems this is almost entirely on the in-house side (the americans) and not the out-sourced side (the koreans).

>also gumball is severely off model in that image
I think you're incorrect here. Is he totally on modal? Nah, his head is thinner, and it's not actually a smile or look he would do - however the fact that almost everyone would never notice that it's off modal shows how on-model it is, and how it's not 'severely off model' (keep in mind it seems to be following the model sheet of early gumball, not the later iterations of the character with the circle eyes).

This isn't to say that Gumball is bad visually, in fact its visuals are great (same with GF and SVTFOE.. SU... well it had nice backgrounds, I guess), but the image isn't to show those shows are ugly or bad, but how the character design and the overall art direction of animation is becoming stagnant.
Shows aren't often "Beanmouth" now (from what I've seen), and yet they're still overly simplified, flat, and more or less one step away from it, and so the criticisms that came from the cal arts/bean mouth argument still stand - which is likely why OP made this thread in the first place.

>>7608661
tfw ya style developes

>>7608932
200 thousand dollars well spent.

>>7608655
>You can animate characters without having to make them simple geometric shapes. Just look at anime.
Yeah like 90% of anime can't even do an accurate walk cycle because it's too costly with their designs. They just zoom to the upper body or heads and have them bob up and down. It's some few big budget animes that even try to make things feel real.

>>7608932
>no дo пicля
how tf do I interpret this??

>>7608995
Anime has a retarded amount of walking/running in their openings/endings though. The reason the camera spends more time with the upper body and head is because showing the characters' expression during a conversation is more important than whatever their legs are doing.

>>7609098
ah yes, the expression
>water droplet
>bacon symbol
>darkened face
>3 slightly different oval "mouth holes"

>>7608661
this image is a decade old you retard

>>7609163
>A lot of animation coming from the west is STILL essentially this picrel crap, despite all the criticism.
The very first line of that post, you drooling incompetent mouth breathing fuck tard.
>but that image is le old
And it is still relevant, moron.

>>7608607 (OP)
It's very funny to me that the people with the most to say about how animation should and shouldn't be done have never animated in their entire fucking lives. I encourage OP to post his animations featuring character designs matching the complexity of the top row.
Shitty "shape language" character designs suck too, I'm just sick of cartoonfags bitching and moaning but doing fuckall about it. Be the change and all that noise.

>>7609129
no idea what your nigger ass is talking about
maybe go back to sharty

>>7609163
here's the current state of american animation in the 2020s

>>7608607 (OP)
sex

>>7609170
>Be the change and all that noise.
I get you, but fans of a medium shouldn't have to participate in making said medium, in order to critique it.
Is the calarts criticism annoying and over done? Yeah.
Is a lot of modern animation applicable to that label... well, also yeah.
And making an indie animation would do little to change anything - plenty of indie animation already have varying and interesting art styles (just look at newgrounds), thus sort of proving the criticism right in regards to studio animation.

Also, of all the mediums to tell a critic to 'make their own', animation is probably the most unreasonable to ask, in my opinion. Even making a videogame is easier.

>some vivziepop furry characters as examples of good designs for animation
lmao. I recognize the style but don't know fully who those characters are, but if they were standing straight like the rest it looks like their silhouettes would be indistinguishable from each other. so those are bad examples of varied designs.
also panty and stocking characters (third silhouette) have easy to animate designs, they do not follow a "tough to animate" formula like most anime (excluding the rare scenes of them in traditional anime style) nor are they overdetailed like vivzie's husk.
btw was this image made by neogeo8man? cuz he chimps out about this subject and likes vivzie's designs.

>>7609198
>fans of a medium shouldn't have to participate in making said medium, in order to critique it.
When you're not just saying "this thing is bad" but instead "THIS is how thing should be done", then I very much do believe you should at least have some experience doing the thing you're telling other people to do. A lot of reviewers I respect have the sense to recognize a flaw vs a practical setback (a bad script vs bad cgi in a cheap movie). One can objectively be done right by anyone while the other realistically can't be done under certain budgets and time restraints. That is to say, I 'get' why shape language shit is so prevalent. It's easy to reproduce and animate and the big wigs want shit they can pump out. Animating characters with tons of bells and whistles is a massive pain and I say that as someone who does that shit for a hobby. I'd kill myself if it was my job.
I think another big issue I have with cartoonfags is how often they'll shit on the actual animators for this trend rather than the higher-ups that they work for. It's by and large the biggest group of ignorant ingrates I've ever seen on the internet. They should be hanged.

>>7609185
the fungies, if it has spontaneous regular show/adventure time humor

>>7609185
>they made a big mouth spinoff
sometimes i wanna kill myself

>>7609170
one of the characters in the top row I'm pretty sure is Scanty from Panty and Stocking. You know, an animated fucking show.

>>7609185
1 looks like it might have soul, and 2 looks acceptable enough. The rest make me wanna tear my intestines out and replace them with famished sewer rats.

>>7609213
Nah, I think it is kinda worth blaming the workers as well on this one. It's not like animating is a desperate job people have to do to pay the bills. They're not a Walmart greeter working for a soulless corp because it's the only job available. It's a nepobaby luxury job. Everyone in animation is choosing to do what they do knowing full well what it entails. The "Disney dream job" bullshit is just enabling the higher-ups.

>>7609629
>hate your job? bag groceries instead!
I genuinely have not even a single fucking clue what you meant by this. I'm starting to truly believe the memes that 95% of /ic/ has never held a pencil.

>>7608607 (OP)
>You accidentally used kiki design language on a character with a boba personality!

>>7609185
>Big Mouth got a spinoff
what the fuck

>>7608607 (OP)
>boba design language on a character with a kiki personality
KHAZAR MILKERS

>>7608607 (OP)
in japan this is reversed

>>7609129
yikes take

>>7609213
>When you're not just saying "this thing is bad" but instead "THIS is how thing should be done", then I very much do believe you should at least have some experience doing the thing you're telling other people to do.
But what about when you can simply point to other work (anime, indie animation, animation from other countries, older animation, pilots, etc) as examples of what you prefer? The customer isn't always right, by as the saying actually goes, they are in matters of taste - and the audience for some time has been saying they'd prefer some variety visually.

This isn't to say I don't get it from the animation industry's side, I used to animate as a teen, but the current stylistic method doesn't even seem that effective in saving them work, and has lost any appeal it should (as an animation) have.

>Animating characters with tons of bells and whistles is a massive pain
I don't think people are even complaining about the lack of 'bells and whistles'. Ed Edd and Eddy is hardly an overly complex (visually) show for example - people are complaining about the lack of variety visually, and how sterile it's making animation feel. Animation's main draw is its visuals, so why make everything look so similar?

Look at >>7609185 's image - Only the first series in that list (not counting monsters inc) seems to have some oomph visually (ironically being closest to the actual "bean (headed) mouth" design, lol), and that's likely because of the unique line work and colour palette the show seems to be using.

Ultimately these artistic changes (or degradations) happened to make animation easier, and I get it, but what's the point of learning to animate and learning how to imitate others art styles, and how to make art more 'animatable', if you're going to forgo that and make everything fit the same cookie cutter visual designs?

>>7608932
I’m so tired of this post
Only nodraws view drawing as a completely efficient process
People aren’t machines that produce in complete consistency and art school doesn’t turn them into a different kind of machine
The artist is still capable of drawing what’s on the left and the right obviously isn’t something that was made in the same amount of time or effort as the left

The only thing changed is their interests in what they want to draw

>>7608661
You talk like someone who thinks magic is real
Look behind the veil and you’ll understand why this happens
Do that much thinking before you post on a board about art critique
>>7609165
It absolutely isn’t
You aren’t even keeping up with modern cartoons, why do you feel the need to keep talking about them

>>7611804
>You talk like someone who thinks magic is real
You're the one spouting this magical harry potter huffle puff bullshit here. How about forming a cogent argument before typing anything, instead of this fanciful non-argument bullshit.

>It absolutely isn’t
>>7609185
???
>But those are different art st-
If you're going to go in that direction, stop, I'm not interested in discussing visuals with a blind or heavily retarded person.

>>7608661
>Primal
>Arcane
>Midnight Gospel
>Kid Cosmic
>Mao Mao
>Castlevania
>Invincible
>Laserhawk
>Hazbin Hotel
>Kulipari
>Monkie Kid
>Smiling Friends
>Justice League Action
>Harley Quinn
>Jelly Stones
>Gremlins Secrets of the Mogwai
>Green Eggs and Ham
>Common Side Effects
>Tuca & Bertie
>YOLO

>>7611804
magic is real doe

animation really does look the same when your only exposure to it are 4 cartoons that ended half a decade ago
>>7611871
>>7609165

>>7609186
Is the right one a vtuber? Why do their silhouettes all look the same

>>7611871
Which one of those is supposed to have good art?

>>7612045
>moving the goalpost

>>7611871
>Adult Swim
Adult swim's stuff is probably among the most visually distinct, and are one of the 'studios' that are willing to explore things visually.
>DC
DC has it's own house style (heavily based on what Bruce Timm did) that it's still using, since before, during, and after this whole 'calarts' stuff.
>Indie Animations
Why the fuck are you including these? Even if they signed with a studio to produce them, they still got to decide the art direction before hand.

>etc.
A lot of what's included is part of the new wave of adult action animation that's been popping up, and which I'm glad to see, but it's a little out of the range of what was being talked about, but you're right those are quite different in look than what I'm criticising - though it does often end up in that gross faux anime art style that's getting just as overplayed and goes back to my general criticism of being visually bland and homogenous.

This all said, it doesn't change that it still feels like a majority of animation coming from western companies still have a stagnant look to them, exceptions don't mean there isn't a trend.
I'd even argue that Mao Mao and Jelly Stones could reasonably be considered part of that homogeneous look we're talking about.
Perhaps it's just a perception thing, and in a few years it really will feel like that this complaint has been left thoroughly in the past, but right now, it does still feel relevant, and shows still do come out with these slop looks.

But I'll concede it was a bit hyperbolic to say ALL animation studios are the visually similar, but I'll stand by my post for its overall point.

>>7612024
Yeah, it'd be really embarrassing to use a half decade old cartoon to try and prove your point...
>Mao Mao
>Release: July 1, 2019 – July 17, 2020
>"Nononono, this is fine because it backs up MY point!"
lol.
Also Steven Universe and Gumball have more coming, so they haven't 'ended', if that's supposed to be a key point to your argument.

>>7608711
Even Mr men have suffered simplification now, they don't draw them in cool shoes anymore.

>>7612129
I miss Mr. Noisy's baller ass shoes. And they turned Mr. Strong into a triangle instead of a square in that 2008-2009 show. Sanrio owns the property now too. What a bunch of nonces.

>>7612111
>DC has its own house style (heavily based on what Bruce Timm did) that it's still using, since before, during, and after this whole 'calarts' stuff.
JL Action and Harley Quinn does not look like Timm’s style at all
None of these are indie

>>7612111
>A lot of what's included is part of the new wave of adult action animation that's been popping up
That’s irrelevant
> his all said, it doesn't change that it still feels like a majority of animation coming from western companies still have a stagnant look to them, exceptions don't mean there isn't a trend.
Fucking midwits love using this phrase, you don’t even know what it means
None of these are exceptions, they are coming from major studios
When does something stop being an exception to you? You don’t even know

>>7612158
>JL Action and Harley Quinn does not look like Timm’s style at all
You've gotta be shitting me. Am I actually debating a blind person?
>None of these are indie
Hazbin Hotel, Yolo and you could probably even include Smiling friends, as their creators are popular indie animators. Like I said, they already set their artstyle beforehand.

>>7612183
>A lot of what's included is part of the new wave of adult action animation that's been popping up
>That’s irrelevant
Now now, include the full quote, you bad faith fucktard.
>A lot of what's included is part of the new wave of adult action animation that's been popping up, and which I'm glad to see, but it's a little out of the range of what was being talked about
I would have assumed that whoever I was talking to would understand I was discussing family content (the bulk of animation) moreso than than animation as a whole or adult animation specifically, bit I assumed wrong - sorry for having any expectations of you. Also, nice of you to just skim over this bit:
>though it does often end up in that gross faux anime art style that's getting just as overplayed and goes back to my general criticism of being visually bland and homogenous.
Was that irrelevant to my point and our discussion of bland art direction of animation too? Fuck you.
>Fucking midwits love using this phrase, you don’t even know what it means
>None of these are exceptions, they are coming from major studios
>When does something stop being an exception to you? You don’t even know
Wow, you're so smart, so tell me, how much of something creates a trend?
And when is there so little of something that a trend ends?
And what do I call something that isn't part of said trend?

Y'know in my post you're quoting, I even bit the bullet and said I could be wrong and it could still just feel like animation is homogeneous from the prolonged period of it, but I suspect you just skimmed and post for whatever you could twist into your little retarded at an argument. So I'll take that back and just say I'm 100% right, so why don't you try biting a bullet instead? Cunt.

>>7608607 (OP)
you know nothing about anything

>>7612377
>You've gotta be shitting me. Am I actually debating a blind person?
are you?
>Hazbin Hotel, Yolo and you could probably even include Smiling friends, as their creators are popular indie animators. Like I said, they already set their artstyle beforehand.
you mean the shows produced by Amazon and Bento Box? You mean the shows produced for Adult Swim?
yeah these are totally underground indie spaces

>>7612379
>I would have assumed that whoever I was talking to would understand I was discussing family content
am i supposed to be able to read your mind before you move the goal post?
regardless of that its still not true. half the shows i mentioned ARE kids shows and there's more
what even counts as "faux anime" and why does it not count when we're talking about non-cal art styles
>how much of something creates a trend?
>And when is there so little of something that a trend ends?
>And what do I call something that isn't part of said trend?
these aren't relevant trends anymore. I'd say when I can find over double of the examples on the contrary then its not really a trend.
>I even bit the bullet and said I could be wrong and it could still just feel like animation is homogeneous from the prolonged period of it
then you're full of shit.

>>7612386
*nearly half
but i guess i will bring up more examples
Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts
Hilda
The Dragon Prince
Carmen Sandiego
Trollhunters
Glitch Techs
Jentry Chau vs the Underworld
Cuphead
Pacific Rim: The Black
He-Man and the Masters of the Universe
Droners
Twelve Forever
Buddy Thunderstruck

>>7612386
>are you?
The same sharp geometric figures that are akin to the work from justice league unlimited by Bruce Timm? Yeah, it looks to be in that similar style, and I refuse to believe that you don't think so either. So you're lying.

>you mean the shows produced by Amazon and Bento Box? You mean the shows produced for Adult Swim?
Again, for the third time, indie animation that have been signed up to be produced at a studio, has their art design already set. You really aren't reading my posts, are you?

>>7612392
>am i supposed to be able to read your mind before you move the goal post?
No, but you are supposed to have basic reading comprehension. If I say "I'm not really talking about adult animation" - what does that leave? You're so clearly in debate mode.

>these aren't relevant trends anymore. I'd say when I can find over double of the examples on the contrary then its not really a trend.
So a third of animation, then, wouldn't constitute a trend?
Was punk not a trend because the majority of all people weren't doing it? Quit trying to change what "trend" means.
But feel free to continue typing show names from your netflix account.

>I even bit the bullet and said I could be wrong and it could still just feel like animation is homogeneous from the prolonged period of it...
>then you're full of shit.
Whoop, you forgot the most important part of that quote anon:
>So I'll take that back and just say I'm 100% right, so why don't you try biting a bullet instead? Cunt.
I'm still 100% right, there has never been a show that wasn't calarts beanmouth, and you should still bite a bullet, because; you lie, don't read what the other person says, are never willing to admit if he was wrong or misunderstood something, and change the definition of words to suit his own argument; so I even if it turns out there isn't a trend of stagnant visual design in western animation (and there absolutely is, because I'm 100% right), there is a trend of you being a cunt.

>>7612489
cont.
Oh, and
>what even counts as "faux anime" and why does it not count when we're talking about non-cal art styles
I really am butting my head against a wall here. Did you think we were talking exclusively about the calarts style? My position is that animation had become homogeneous in look, not that it was still explicitly following the "calarts" style.
What's the point of animation, if every cartoon looks so samey? It's as if there's list a list of art styles that are the one size fits all for every genre.
Doing an adult comedy? Do something that looks like family guy.
Doing mature action? Faux anime.
Doing a children's cartoon? Eh, just mash Gravity falls and Adventure Time together.
It all just looks so samey, and it's rare anything outside of indie animation for me to go "Whoah, that look interesting" when speaking of animation visuals these days - like a Moonbeam City, or Occasionally LD&R,
Or even just go, "huh, that's distinct" - Like a Home Movies, or Archer (which has lost it's unique look), or South Park (which is still very unique visually), or more recently Common Side Effects (ugly, yes, but unique).
I'm not so blind to animation's requirements that I think a studio should create a new style for every show (or move on from their own distinct style), but they should be distinct from their competitors. The lack of care for the visuals, the main draw of animation, is just confounding.

And speaking of the "faux anime" style; that was one of the titles given to that overused 'serious' adult animation style that you find in Masters of the Universe: Revelation, or series by Adi Shankar Animation, etc.
For someone who is touting himself as being very into animation (unlike the regular casual animation fan plebs with opinions, such as myself), you don't seem to be too aware of the discussions and critique surrounding it.

>>7612489
what does it take for a show to be original to you? do characters need to start looking like coffee stains?
cause anyone with eyes could never get these shows confused for one another

>>7612489
>Again, for the third time, indie animation that have been signed up to be produced at a studio, has their art design already set. You really aren't reading my posts, are you?
why does that not count. what exactly do you think the industry is
>If I say "I'm not really talking about adult animation" - what does that leave?
but you didn't say that
>So a third of animation, then, wouldn't constitute a trend?
its not a 3rd though.

stop trying to play some kind of high ground over cartoons you don't watch.
you just fell in love with this narrative and throw a fit when its challenged
want cartoons to look more "unique"?
start supporting the cartoons that are because its clear you aren't watching them

>>7612495
>what does it take for a show to be original to you?
And what does it take for an art style to have similarities to you? How can you not see the clear similarity between those three shows? Again, are you blind?
Similiarity =/= the exact same fucking thing.

>>7612501
>why does that not count. what exactly do you think the industry is
Wait... so I wrote this first:
>Adult Swim
>Adult swim's stuff is probably among the most visually distinct, and are one of the 'studios' that are willing to explore things visually.
And you then thought I was discounting the art of those the categories?... I'm a bit flabbergasted...
Well, I shouldn't be, you don't read people's posts.

>but you didn't say that
>A lot of what's included is part of the new wave of adult action animation that's been popping up, and which I'm glad to see, but it's a little out of the range of what was being talked about
Sorry, should I have said, verbatim, "I AM GENERALLY TALKING ABOUT FAMILY CARTOONS RIGHT NOW, LOL" Sorry, I thought I was talking to another thinking and functioning human being at the time, I should have realised you couldn't deduce through the context clues, the context being what was written, that I wasn't talking about adult cartoons.

>its not a 3rd though.
Yeah, sure buddy. I'm not going to waste my time rattling off a list of shows on netflix, so I'll let you have that hill. I can only give what my perception of the industry looks like. Sorry my personal opinion doesn't perfectly match yours.

>>7612525
>stop trying to play some kind of high ground over cartoons you don't watch.
>you just fell in love with this narrative and throw a fit when its challenged
I enjoy animation, and watch it, and have some opinions on it - that's it. I'm not the one trying to diss others by acting as if I've watched all the animation that has ever been and ever was and acting as if that's some form of clout.
And if I'm so in love with my narrative, and unable to move on from it, why was I initially willing to concede some points? I'm not throwing a fit, you're projecting. I am being rude though, because fuck you.

>want cartoons to look more "unique"?
>start supporting the cartoons that are because its clear you aren't watching them
I do when I have the opportunity to. Do you think I don't watch animation because I'm not listing everything on a streaming service like you? Again with your weird bullshit nerdy elitism.
Your animation watch list is bigger than mine, and while you seem to think I should feel emasculated and ashamed by that, I don't really give a fuck and will still have my opinions.
Also, would a single person's viewership change the industry in the way he desires? Of course not, you're just proud of your spectacularly large watch list - Damn boy, how big is that thing to be acting this cocky?

>>7608623
I graduated with an animation degree and OP's image is exactly what animation school is like unfortunately.

>>7608655
you can definitely animate characters built up of complex shapes but it's not the industry standard in 2D animated western entertainment, which is why animation schools teach students how to design simple characters.

2D western animation wants simple characters that are constantly moving, accurately lip-synced, exactly on model, and rigged. While in anime, it's the exact opposite.
I personally enjoy anime a lot more since animators have a lot more freedom and their work looks more fluid since they don't have to focus on being on model all the time.

>>7612533
>their work looks more fluid since they don't have to focus on being on model all the time.
What do you mean by this? From my perspective, anime looks like it's more strictly on model than non-anime, except when they're doing chibi gags and the like, but serious anime seem to always be on model. Though, maybe I don't quite know what off-model is?

>>7612525
you're implying that said shows are as similar as bean mouth cartoons are to each other. which isn't true and discounting how nice the designs are

i've also whatever we can drop adult cartoons
but i've listed family cartoons that do have distinct styles away from the typical bean mouth stuff you hate. which you haven't saw or just ignore because you love a 5 year old meme narrative

>why was I initially willing to concede some points?
where you though?
> I don't really give a fuck and will still have my opinions.
not much of a fan if your brash generalizations are 5 years to late and easily disproven by a simple look through a streaming service's catalog
but yeah you're right. animation is nothing but bean mouths... when thats all you pay attention to

>>7612526
>Also, would a single person's viewership change the industry in the way he desires? Of course not, you're just proud of your spectacularly large watch list - Damn boy, how big is that thing to be acting this cocky?
damn but bitching does? you clearly aren't paying attention to when they do make a new show with a more distinct style so why should they give a fuck?

>>7611800
Ah so its just that his interest is now to draw pure garbage, got it.

>>7612540
...sigh...
>You: but i've listed family cartoons that do have distinct styles away from the typical bean mouth stuff you hate. which you haven't saw or just ignore because you love a 5 year old meme narrative
>Me earlier: This all said, it doesn't change that it still feels like a majority of animation coming from western companies still have a stagnant look to them, exceptions don't mean there isn't a trend.

>You: where you though?
>Me Earlier: Perhaps it's just a perception thing, and in a few years it really will feel like that this complaint has been left thoroughly in the past, but right now, it does still feel relevant, and shows still do come out with these slop looks.
>Me Earlier Again:But I'll concede it was a bit hyperbolic to say ALL animation studios are the visually similar, but I'll stand by my post for its overall point.

>You: you're right. animation is nothing but bean mouths
>Me Earlier: I really am butting my head against a wall here. Did you think we were talking exclusively about the calarts style? My position is that animation had become homogeneous in look, not that it was still explicitly following the "calarts" style.

>Final Quote from myself: You really aren't reading my posts, are you?

>>7612541
>damn but bitching does?
Hmm, let me just check where this is... Oh yes, a thread for voicing complaints about current animation art on 4chan. Where else would I complain? Do you think I go around talking about this on the reg?
But it's nice to know you think I'm so important that my sole viewership holds such sway - What power I hold!

Anyway, I'm sick to death with talking to you, there's no point in doing so with someone who doesn't even read what the other person has written, and no point arguing with someone who's only goal is to 'win'.
I hope this masturbation session you had during our back 'n forth was as awful, and that you tore the skin on your dick.
Take internet crown faggot, I'm tapping out.

>>7612556
Exactly
It’s much a different statement than “woah he transformed from learning something”

>>7612570
The trend ended
Animation only seems homogenous when you aren’t paying attention to the whole picture
Or maybe when you consider that these shows to look similar >>7612495

>>7611800
>The only thing changed is their interests in what they want to draw
Bet also their gender identity changes during art school. Nothing to see here! All coincidence!

I cannot comprehend how someone can defend or even like art schools and the ensloppening.

>>7611804
show me the output of CalArts today!

oh..

>>7613949
If only Richard Williams took those teaching gigs. He could have written a book and not finished a film if he was a teacher, damn it!

>>7613944
tumblr more likely

>>7613944
What do you think school is
Did you learn everything from your life from yours?
Did your wizard teachers literally mold you and your classmates from clay

>>7614655
It says a lot about educators today that people cannot even imagine schools that actually help you.

>>7614658
That’s not what this is
There has never been a time in human history where school had absolute control over someone
You treat education like like certain books literally are cursed text that magically change who you are
No anon, you’re not gonna mutate into a bug monster because someone taught you about bees

People’s outcome aren’t from a single interaction

>>7614000
The first part and the second part of this image have fuck all to do with each other.

>>7615324
I really don't care about this conversation...

But, books/teaching kinda do that, it's pretty disingenuous to suggest they don't. I don't think it's a spicy take to say that internalizing information changes the way you think. Or that the behavior of your peers affects the way you behave. People are really neither as rational nor individualist as we'd like to think we are. We don't teach kids to avoid peer pressure because people aren't liable to adopt obviously harmful beliefs and behaviors based purely on external influence.

>>7615328
"kinda" isn't the same as "they turned out this way because they went to a school!"

peoples actions are a results of the forces around them yes, but it takes more than an interaction with a professor to make you choose what you want your art to be like. expecting that to be the case robs the nuance of what kind of influences can make an artist who they are. the kind of nuance only nodraws don't understand
these are adults we're talking, not children who never tried spicy food

>>7615358
I really wouldn't lump college students in with adults.

And remember, these are artists who want to do industry work and use industry standard practices. These aren't people looking to be outsider artists.

>>7615326
The First Part:
>Mostly about Richard Williams' exacerbation that art school no longer teach solid understandings of the fundamentals, particularly in figure work.
>"They would rather decorate themselves as living works of art - and that's exactly what they do."
The Second Part
>None of the art shows a understanding in the human figure
>Several of the pieces of art are clear Examples of that ending quote from the first Part.
You, a retard:
>"The first part and the second part of this image have fuck all to do with each other."

If you're not going to read it, don't comment on it.

>>7615374
>I really wouldn't lump college students in with adults.
don't be dense. they are capable enough to know what they like. this isn't a discussion on wisdom or experience, its just taste
>And remember, these are artists who want to do industry work and use industry standard practices. These aren't people looking to be outsider artists.
why does that make a difference. if the industry is to blame then that's even less of the school's fault

>>7608661
I'm noticing that in all the discussions regarding Pixar's new film Elio, there are a lot of comments about how they hate how it looks, and those who are naming it also call it 'bean mouth'.
So I guess it's still relevant, at least for pixar.

>>7608661
That occured because studios were prioritizing timing and sacrificing everything else as budgets get more fucky. So everything gravitated back towards rubber hose and the bouncing ball.


Thankfully it stopped but we're in the transitionary growing pains as the retarded crony-hired directors have to deal with learning new techniques. Outsourcing is extreme, so the feedback and interations are disjointed. AND everyone with pull keeps sticking their fingers in the pie to ask for changes constantly, like happens in all film post-digital now. It is getting better but it's so damn slow.

itt: fags who think complex motion is worth simplifying design fight with fags who think complex designs are worth simplifying motion.

who's this hazbean

>>7608661
Sugar's style is very distinctive and cool, is only simplified for tv.

>>7612495
Are we ignoring every DC animated movie? This on is from the Tomorrowverse

>>7619898
not really ignoring, just sticking to tv shows

>>7608623
That literally happen in most art schools.

>>7608607 (OP)
My memory of art school was a private school full of people smoking like chimney (students and teachers alike), being told that we should mimic the style of Pixar or Disney to get a job, being told we should be thankful they hired some literal who with no teaching experience to teach us art, and then having them constantly jerk off the two guys who, in 30 years of schooling, actually managed to land a job with their low grade toilet paper of a degree they gave you.
I also remember budget cuts, lots of budget cuts.
It was not worth 4000€ a year.

>>7620189
you believe everything you read on the internet?

>>7620207
No, I've been to one, so did my friends, and our experience have been pretty similar.
Unless you pay for a good school, and those are usually pretty selective for entries, you get a degree which sole value is being used to wipe your ass, and the skills you're taught aren't very useful unless you've never drawn in your life before.

>>7608623
It's pretty accurate actually.
Unless you go for some elite art school, which isn't cheap, they're complete dogshit and desperate to make a name with one of the big animation companies, and the only way to do it is teaching you how to draw Pixar/Disney style.

>>7608623
5000€ a year and the very first day they told us they'd teach us how to draw in Disney style so we can go and try for a job there.