• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Death Battle Season Ten Discussion Thread (1) (All-time Death Battle Spoilers Alert)

SlendVeny said:
That isn't how the concept of objectivity works. Those are subjective based on a perception of things being diseased. Good art doesn't even have to look good, and bad art can look great.
Click to expand...
Can you explain exactly what do you mean by "Good art doesn't need to look good"? It seems self-contradictory, since that's the requirement to be good art. To look good.

Either way, if art is "Subjective" then an effortless doodle I made in three minutes should be considered good art. A banana taped to a wall would be considered good art. There would be no point in learning more about how to draw, since art is subjective.

If art is subjective, why people go to school, train for hours just to improve? "Art is subjective" is pseudo-intellectual bull crap. There is objectivity to art and beauty.
SlendVeny said:
Cave paintings are good, basically anything can be. Idk about this instance though.
Click to expand...
But most cave paintings aren't even considered good by the standards of most people. They're art, but they're not considered good art.

Even then, most people would agree with me that ZUN's art isn't good. It is a guilty pleasure for a reason. He had what, 20 years, longer than I've been alive to dramatically improve on his art, but it's clear he isn't putting effort to improve his art skills. ZUN is probably too busy killing his neurons with alcohol.
 
Deidalius said:
Yeah, it has a charm to it.
But since he hasn't improved dramatically in 20 years of drawing, I'd still say his art sucks. I mean, who draws for 20 years and doesn't improve dramatically? (Inb4 "He improved a little bit so you're opinion is disregarded!")
Click to expand...
His art actually got worse, his PC-98 era art looked cute and charming, now it just looks kinda bad lol
2-Th04reimu.png
 
Last edited:
Loh67867 said:
His art actually got worse, his PC-98 era art looked cute and charming, now it just looks kinda bat lol
2-Th04reimu.png
Click to expand...
What a diet of drinking alcohol 3 times a day does to a MF
I agree. His PC-98 art was decent and looked better than some of his windows era art, but that can be attributed to how pixel art tends to look better than traditional art. That can be attributed to how pixel art is easier to make look good if you're a novice. Take me for example, I don't train my art skills because I am lazy (A kettle calling the pot black), but my pixel art drawings look a lot better than my hand drawn/digital art due to how easy it is to make a decent pixel art drawing when you're a novice.

That being said, when you compare the art ZUN makes between windows era games with each other, you start to notice things like how he started shading less, characters gained faces that are too similar to each other and the drawings are less colorful and more plain. Nitori might be the best example of this. See how less colorful and detailed she is now?
ActfGOR.png
3aeCGBo.png
My suggestion and easiest way and most reasonable way to solve this problem: I lock ZUN in a room for 30 days with no alcohol. He will be forced to train his art skills with YouTube videos. I'll only give him crayons and pencils. He will improve in no time.
 
Deidalius said:
Can you explain exactly what do you mean by "Good art doesn't need to look good"? It seems self-contradictory, since that's the requirement to be good art. To look good.
Click to expand...
That's not why people like art. Art is about emotion and symbolism and shit. There's a reason people care WHO made art. Even if it looks the same, the art by the original guy is better than the art of someone who copies that shit.
Deidalius said:
Either way, if art is "Subjective" then an effortless doodle I made in three minutes should be considered good art. A banana taped to a wall would be considered good art. There would be no point in learning more about how to draw, since art is subjective.
Click to expand...
Art isn't about what "looks nice." A banana taped to a wall could be banger art depending on the wall. If someone tapes like 50 bananas on the wall in a fun pattern, that can be great art.
Deidalius said:
If art is subjective, why people go to school, train for hours just to improve? "Art is subjective" is pseudo-intellectual bull crap. There is objectivity to art and beauty.
Click to expand...
Objective by what standard? Who sets that? You're being anti-intellectual here, and forgetting what intersubjectivity is.
Deidalius said:
But most cave paintings aren't even considered good by the standards of most people. They're art, but they're not considered good art.
Click to expand...
A bunch of people consider Garfield to be good art, I don't trust the majority.
Deidalius said:
Even then, most people would agree with me that ZUN's art isn't good. It is a guilty pleasure for a reason. He had what, 20 years, longer than I've been alive to dramatically improve on his art, but it's clear he isn't putting effort to improve his art skills. ZUN is probably too busy killing his neurons with alcohol.
Click to expand...
I don't care at all about this specific art, I care about this "God hath ordained true art to be as such" mentality.
 
SlendVeny said:
That's not why people like art. Art is about emotion and symbolism and shit. There's a reason people care WHO made art. Even if it looks the same, the art by the original guy is better than the art of someone who copies that shit.
Click to expand...
I admit that emotion and symbolism can improve art, but it relies on beauty to be good. Anyone can make art with a deep meaning, have it based on emotions and have a lot of symbolism. Someone could make a simple stickman drawing about how their girlfriend left them or something. But if it is ugly, it is bad art. Even if we use emotion and symbolism to measure the quality of art. ZUN isn't good at conveying deep emotions through his drawings.
SlendVeny said:
Art isn't about what "looks nice." A banana taped to a wall could be banger art depending on the wall. If someone tapes like 50 bananas on the wall in a fun pattern, that can be great art.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. Art is about things that look nice. It is also about many other things but denying that beauty is related to art is wrong. And no, I am not talking about taping multiple bananas to make something else. I am talking about what's considered to be modern art nowadays, taping a single banana to a wall. How is that beautiful? It isn't. It's lazy and ugly, therefore bad art.
SlendVeny said:
Objective by what standard? Who sets that? You're being anti-intellectual here, and forgetting what intersubjectivity is.
Click to expand...
It's objective by the standard of the majority of people, the group of people it tries to appeal to, by what ZUN's art tries to be and convey, and professional artists. Also, throwing new words you read on the dictionary yesterday doesn't make your case better.
SlendVeny said:
A bunch of people consider Garfield to be good art, I don't trust the majority.
Click to expand...
Garfield achieves what it tries to do, ZUN doesn't. It is the art style of an artist that spent years trying to improve his art skills. It is good at what it tries to do. Garfield is also not an eyesore.
SlendVeny said:
I don't care at all about this specific art, I care about this "God hath ordained true art to be as such" mentality.
Click to expand...
I am not basing my standards of what is objectively good art on God or anything similar. There has to be a level of objectivity to art, or else literally anything can be "Good art"

There is a reason why people spend years trying to improve their art skills. You still haven't answered why people spend years trying to improve their art skills if everything is "Subjective".
 
Deidalius said:
I admit that emotion and symbolism can improve art, but it relies on beauty to be good. Anyone can make art with a deep meaning, have it based on emotions and have a lot of symbolism. Someone could make a simple stickman drawing about how their girlfriend left them or something. But if it is ugly, it is bad art. Even if we use emotion and symbolism to measure the quality of art. ZUN isn't good at conveying deep emotions through his drawings.
Click to expand...
Art is about conveying emotion. There's a reason photography is art and a mountain isn't.
Deidalius said:
You're wrong. Art is about things that look nice. It is also about many other things but denying that beauty is related to art is wrong. And no, I am not talking about taping multiple bananas to make something else. I am talking about what's considered to be modern art nowadays, taping a single banana to a wall. How is that beautiful? It isn't. It's lazy and ugly, therefore bad art.
Click to expand...
Wow, haha, modern art bad, what a witty and original take. The banana on a wall is meant to be satire, you're literally meant to go "why is this art?" Some of it is just corposlop a rich dude donates for a tax write off though.
Deidalius said:
It's objective by the standard of the majority of people, the group of people it tries to appeal to, by what ZUN's art tries to be and convey, and professional artists. Also, throwing new words you read on the dictionary yesterday doesn't make your case better.
Click to expand...
It's literally not objective. It's that in the SUBJECTIVE OPINION of a lot of people. I'm not going to engage with your arguments if "big word bad TwT" is one of them.
Deidalius said:
I am not basing my standards of what is objectively good art on God or anything similar. There has to be a level of objectivity to art, or else literally anything can be "Good art"
Click to expand...
Literally anything can be. ART IS A METHOD OF COMMUNICATION. If there was an objective standard that made art good, someone would have made the best piece of art already.
Deidalius said:
There is a reason why people spend years trying to improve their art skills. You still haven't answered why people spend years trying to improve their art skills if everything is "Subjective".
Click to expand...
They develop their art skills so it looks how they want it to, and sometimes, so other people like it more, and think it's better IN THEIR OPINION. I honestly think there is no chance you'll change your mind on this, so there's not really a point in trying to communicate this. I'll leave you with a fun experiment. Change the colors of something and ask like a hundred people if that or the original is better, then do it again. See if there's an "objectively correct" color combo.
 
I was about to reply and continue the argument. But IDK. Maybe I should just agree to disagree and go back to gaming and throwing my controller against the wall.
 
TMaakkonen said:
Multiverse as a concept is a nice idea to make crossovers, but by now that horse is zombie at this point.
Click to expand...
The way MCU and Mortal Kombat went about them, made people get fed up with the multiverse concept, i think only Invincible does a good job, but its cuz its from a time it wasnt a mainstream idea, hell even 90s spiderman did it but was done good, unlike modern takes on it
 
BlackDarkness679 said:
The way MCU and Mortal Kombat went about them, made people get fed up with the multiverse concept, i think only Invincible does a good job, but its cuz its from a time it wasnt a mainstream idea, hell even 90s spiderman did it but was done good, unlike modern takes on it
Click to expand...
TMaakkonen said:
Multiverse as a concept is a nice idea to make crossovers, but by now that horse is zombie at this point.
Click to expand...
Pretty much
As a concept it's fine but like every other idea it's without proper it gets stale and tiresome
 
BlackDarkness679 said:
The way MCU and Mortal Kombat went about them, made people get fed up with the multiverse concept, i think only Invincible does a good job, but its cuz its from a time it wasnt a mainstream idea, hell even 90s spiderman did it but was done good, unlike modern takes on it
Click to expand...
TBH I feel like its mostly MCUs fault. MK and others are aping MCU here.
 
ZeNoviceArtist said:
Click to expand...

1. A vocal version is pending for this work.
2. It leaves only "Vengeful Voyage" (Chihiro Rokuhira (Kagurabachi) vs Frieren (Frieren: Beyond Journey's End)) as the unreleased video teased in January 2024.

TMaakkonen said:
TBH I feel like its mostly MCUs fault. MK and others are aping MCU here.
Click to expand...
Should I mention DCEU briefly mentioned the multiverse with intertwined timelines and merging points?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jasonsith
  • Locked
Death Battle Season Eight Discussion Thread (2) (All-time Death Battle Spoilers Alert)
554 555 556
Replies
22K
Views
1M
JustSomeWeirdo
JustSomeWeirdo
Back
Top