Subject or Quality?

[SirRob]

When I'm browsing FA, every so often I find an artist that draws some really high quality art. But then, I find that I don't really like what the person draws, and so I move on. On the other hand, sometimes I find an artist who draws stuff I like, but could use improvement. I've noticed however that I'm more likely to watch that person. I guess I'd rather see average art of things I like rather than exceptional art depicting stuff I don't like. And, you know, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this is a pretty common thing. Like, how adult art seems to always get more views than clean art. So now, I'm left to wonder- is the subject of a piece of art generally more important than its artistic value? Should an artist focus more on what they draw rather than how well they draw? What's more important to you guys?

 

[LizardKing]

No one likes awful art, but a really detailed and flawlessly executed picture of an obese pikachu shitting itself is still a picture of an obese pikachu shitting itself.

I'm not sure about being exactly equal, but certainly both are important.

 

[hedgehog_of_fareuthyrr]

Story of my life OP. Just like their artwork that doesn't contain things you don't like. I'll probably do that sometime.

 

[Butters Shikkon]

Actually i find the subject and quality to be about equal in a piece. Although prehaps quality is a bit more vaulable since even people with no interest in a subject can admire the craftsmanship that went into such art.

 

[SirRob]

Actually i find the subject and quality to be about equal in a piece. Although prehaps quality is a bit more vaulable since even people with no interest in a subject can admire the craftsmanship that went into such art.

Good point. I think, if two pictures representational of subject and quality, respectively, were placed side by side and I had to choose which one was better, I'd probably choose the quality one because it's, well, higher quality. But I wouldn't necessarily enjoy it more, which I guess is more important to me.

 

[Percy]

They're equally important, and kind of interconnected.
You can't exactly have a quality picture unless you have good subject matter, but a good subject won't work too well unless it has a high enough quality.

 

[Ouiji]

You're right this is a hard question. I am leaning toward subject being more important though because I end up watching people with subjects that I like. If they're quality isn't the best, I watch them as they improve. If they're quality is already amazing, even better. I add favorites based on quality and subject matter. Their is more to it than this, but this is basically how I feel.

 

[Zoetrope]

Subject isn't all that important to me. Quality is nice, but I have found styles I enjoy from artists you wouldn't consider 'high quality'. Unfortunately I cannot vote on this poll.

 

[SirRob]

Subject isn't all that important to me. Quality is nice, but I have found styles I enjoy from artists you wouldn't consider 'high quality'. Unfortunately I cannot vote on this poll.

I originally had this thread as 'Subject or Style', but I felt like they were too similar to each other. (I really wanted to use that too 'cause it rolled off the tongue better) Style's like this thing between subject and quality. Like, if a guy draws characters with big eyes, that's a style, right? But it's also a subject (big eyed characters), and also has a certain level of quality.

You're right this is a hard question. I am leaning toward subject being more important though because I end up watching people with subjects that I like. If they're quality isn't the best, I watch them as they improve.

Mm, actually that's a big reason to watch someone for the subject instead of quality. The person drawing that subject will inevitably improve over time (as long as they keep drawing), and personally for me it's very interesting to see how their style develops. The same goes for high quality artists, but there's always a point where their art kinda evens out, so you probably won't see as much improvement.

 

[Zoetrope]

I originally had this thread as 'Subject or Style', but I felt like they were too similar to each other. (I really wanted to use that too 'cause it rolled off the tongue better) Style's like this thing between subject and quality. Like, if a guy draws characters with big eyes, that's a style, right? But it's also a subject (big eyed characters), and also has a certain level of quality.

I consider the subject to be just that. A car. Or a human. Some people draw cars with big eyes, I don't consider big eyed cars to be a style.

 

[Percy]

I originally had this thread as 'Subject or Style', but I felt like they were too similar to each other. (I really wanted to use that too 'cause it rolled off the tongue better) Style's like this thing between subject and quality. Like, if a guy draws characters with big eyes, that's a style, right? But it's also a subject (big eyed characters), and also has a certain level of quality.

Subject vs style is probably much more debatable.
On one hand, you can have a person who likes a specific type of content. On the other, you can have someone who prefers a specific type of style, rather than care about what the content is.

 

[SirRob]

I consider the subject to be just that. A car. Or a human. Some people draw cars with big eyes, I don't consider big eyed cars to be a style.

So if I edited your avatar to give it bigger eyes, that would be a change in subject but not a change in style? What about if I made the lines bigger, would that be a change in subject? I know it sounds silly, but I do think the two kinda mesh together and can't be defined as completely separate things. At least, that's the conclusion I came up with when I decided to change the topic of the thread.

Subject vs style is probably much more debatable.
On one hand, you can have a person who likes a specific type of content. On the other, you can have someone who prefers a specific type of style, rather than care about what the content is.

Do you think so? I figured this would be debatable because there's more of a division between subject and quality. Of course, I'm not opposed to expand the topic to include style, so if you wanna discuss it, then that's totally fine.

 

[Zoetrope]

So if I edited your avatar to give it bigger eyes, that would be a change in subject but not a change in style? What about if I made the lines bigger, would that be a change in subject? I know it sounds silly, but I do think the two kinda mesh together and can't be defined as completely separate things. At least, that's the conclusion I came up with when I decided to change the topic of the thread.

I think the subject of my character would still be 'robot' if you changed the shape of her eyes.

I think style, subject and quality are all different, but that's me.

 

[Unsilenced]

They're both important, but I'm going to throw in my hat for "subject" because a photorealistic drawing of something I don't give a fuck about is still something I don't give a fuck about.

 

[Calemeyr]

Valuing subject over quality is the main reason why many furries (and sperglord fanboy internets people in general) have a lousy taste in art. "If it's got furries in it, it must be good!" and "go away icky human art." We see that all too often. Valuing subject over quality is the reason why really nasty things wind up in some art. Also, the quality of a picture can be afftected by the subject. If the subject material is too obscene, too ridiculously disgusting, I don't care how well it's drawn. It's still fetish schlock. Same goes with any form of mass media. I don't care how good the visuals in a anime are. If it's about a bunch of high school girls who look like infants and act like an otaku's waifu (complete with perverted the-legal-age-there-is-13 otaku fanservice) it's still shit.

So yeah, content and quality are linked: while it is important to try your hardest with art and not get lazy and draw x for x's sake, it is also important not to squander talent on troglodyte-level culture subjects. Also, what is it with the internet nerd fascination with rape fantasies? You see it with otaku waifus and childhood cartoon character violations by furries, among other people. That subject matter has got to stop. That certainly is not "quality" material. As for style...I dunno, style is subjective. Drawing bugs bunny being violated is objectively terrible.

 

[Ricky]

Quality, for sure. Subject can be a motivating factor but if it's shitty art it's still shitty art.

Besides, I like some of the more fucked up art.

It makes me laugh.

Also, what is it with the internet nerd fascination with rape fantasies?

That's not an internet thing. Rape has been around for a while.

Drawing bugs bunny being violated is objectively terrible.

True. Buster is way hotter ^_^

 

[SirRob]

I think the subject of my character would still be 'robot' if you changed the shape of her eyes.

I think style, subject and quality are all different, but that's me.

But a car with big eyes would still be a car, too.

 

[FlynnCoyote]

Both, but Subject over Quality for the same reasons as Mentlegen Cat up there.

 

[Mittens]

I've thought about this a few times before and for me, I'm going to say subject. If I like the subject, then the chances are I'll like the image overall, regardless of the quality.

 

[Fallowfox]

Hmmm, I don't know. Like it has been mentioned before the two aren't necessarily separate things.

Today I was trawling through images by artists and photographers and stumbled on an image called 'silence after a kneecapping', photographed in Derry, Northern Ireland.
In that instance I had already responded with heated disgust and shock before even seeing the image. The subject matter is therefore perhaps a prejudice we hold over the illustrative value of an image.

 

[Saellyn]

To me, they are both extremely important. If I had to choose I would say subject over quality, but it would be a pretty close thing.

 

[Fallowfox]

It should be noted that 'quality' is if anything even muddier and more changeable than subject matter. The technique used to produce an image of one subject matter may not work for another.

 

[Dreaming]

I voted that both were equally important. But I dunno, I would've said subject would draw my attention, but the quality would really hold the interest.

 

[Tao]

I like cute pictures of cute things. Mostly of me. Or candy or a water bear.

 

[Tabasco]

Since I'm not an artist, I don't notice all the little details and distinctions of someone's art that might set two very similar pieces apart when it comes to quality and technical skill. I can't really admire it to the same extent I would something that makes me think, excites me, or tells me a story.