How to learn good taste?

>>3064525
taste is something you either have or you don't. you don't learn it

is this really something you should worry about before you even reach technical proficiency?

just draw what you wanna draw dude tf

The fuck nigga?
Everyone likes different things. There must be something that inspired you to start. Stick with it, save stuff in your inspiration folder, keep drawing.

For some people your pic related is outstanding, and there's nothing wrong with it. Draw what you like.

Aside from the mistakes in that image, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Yeah it's generic sexy woman shit, but there's a market for that and as long as you enjoy doing it, who cares

File: 1491636471988.jpg (673KB, 1171x1300px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 1171x1300px

>>3064530
If it satisfies a share of the market I dont care, there will always be dumb people out there who eat up anyone's shit. I had people loving my early stuff but looking back at it now the subject matter and aesthetics are horribly cringy, skills aside.

I know there is objectively good taste and I want to know how to get it.

I think it's primarily a matter of maturation. An artist I know went from doing Spawn fanart on deviantart to becoming a successful and exquisite fine artist working in oil.

A ton of artists feel pressured to do what they think will sell or draw attention and don't really follow their own voice. And a lot just don't have taste at all. But this is a good thing. It means the art world will never be saturated with tasteful art.

>>3064530
>>3064528
t. bad taste

OP's pic is horrible

>>3064540
I didn't say I liked it, I said someone out there will think it's beautiful, no problem with that. Like >>3064537 said stop thinking about what will get you most attention and do what you love.

>>3064525
lame people make lame art.

>>3064540
I don't care for it either, but again, who gives a shit?

If you enjoy doing it, that's all that matters.

>>3064534
>I know there is objectively good taste and I want to know how to get it.

Good tastes comes from a good concept executed in a style that is unique and appealing. Technical abilities have little to do with it, and only serve to help better execute whatever style it is you enjoy working in.

The OP image is bad taste because -
Style: The style is generic airbrushed digital art.
Concept: The concept is some awkward mashup between a generic, "sexy" woman and a flamingo.

Together, these two things make for a piece that is ordinary and lame. Sure - there's some technical proficiency in drawing the figure, but there's not much beyond that.

Of course this shit is all relative and really arbitrary, but style & concept are the two things that I think determine the tastes of an artist.

Good taste comes from consuming a lot of other art and taking inspiration.
The key is to try out everything. If you only draw from a lot of the same kind of art and never branch out, your taste stagnates and never develops.

>>3064525
why do you faggots think everything can be learned?

>>3064526
That's crab mentallity

Copy the old masters line for line.

>>3064651
because OTHERWISE, it CAN'T

File: 41eb72fcb0efee2b7ee7a36934552387--old-paintings-babies.jpg (39KB, 500x476px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x476px

>>3064695
but a lot of them had bad taste too

>>3064525
Assume what you like ?

>>3064716
open your miiiiiiiinnd
open your miiiiiiiiiiinnnd

Spend time around people that you consider to have good taste, ask them what they like and mentally break down those things while figuring out what makes them good in their eyes.

Although the reason why you see people with highish technical abilities drawing shit like that is because they are probably just having fun with it, they know they can do well enough so why not kick back and draw a bird with tits once in a while; or maybe it's just their fetish.
Just focus on worrying about your art content when you get advanced enough you feel satisfied but are noticing you still only have 3 people who follow you and all of them are furries in diapers and you earn no money from it.

File: july-19-2017-1.jpg (697KB, 747x1000px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 747x1000px

hard to explain. i was just born with it

>>3064660
better than cuck mentality

>>3064525
there are 2 main methods to not having "bad taste"
1.draw only the most benign, uninteresting shit possible so no one is offended or disgusted or just generally uncomfortable with what you draw
2. draw so well that other people start liking what you like, even if it is objectively "bad taste".

File: ukilasxedfsy.png (680KB, 990x990px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 990x990px

>>3064525

How do you even measure "the right taste?" Is it having the same taste as the biggest group of people? Or is it about appreciating certain values that artwork should have?

But the group who thinks that the artwork should have a certain rules is definitely smaller than the first group I mentioned so how can it be right either?

>>3064525
I think recognizing what is bad is easier when you know more about drawing and art. If I was younger I'd think that OP image was well done yet there being something off about it that I can't really criticize. Now I can tell the artist heavily re fenced the woman and barely referenced anything else, all badly done really; bad sense of gesture form and composition. This guy that made that pic hasn't mastered his craft in the slightest, he just fooled artistically illiterate people into thinking he's good. You need to do art more, OP, so you can recognize when bad artists trick people because a cheesy subject like this CAN be done masterfully and it'll be done in good taste at that point.

Honestly? Mastery + shit taste is one of the best ways to make actual money. There's a reason why Kinkade drew the same glurgey over-detailed house picture and why sakimichan draws the same super-saturated portraits over and over and yet continue to rake in that dough. Turns out most of the rest of the world has pretty shit taste, too.

Good taste will get you respect when you hit master level, but bad taste's more likely get you that paper.

Caviar's great but everyone eats peanuts.

Objectively good taste? Start studying design, graphic and otherwise. There's a lot of staples and hard fact there that someone who only focused on technical skills and rendering would miss. It's all applicable stuff - easy compositional tricks (steelyard principle, asymmetrical balance, rule of thirds, etc.) how to lead the eye, color theory, etc. etc. Start paying attention to things that stand out and are accepted as 'objectively good' and try to pick them apart. What things did the artist do to get that effect, and can you apply them to your own work? Mastery of lighting is a huge one if you're an illustrator.

When /ic/ does studies, it's usually focused on and construction and rendering, but people do old master studies for more than that. They're trying to grock what these guys did to become masters in all respects.

File: a0b8e9e6-7e20-47c4-9aac-315bd194e715.png (2MB, 1280x1741px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x1741px

>>3068712
Then you keep applying what you learn to your own work (mindfully, you're aiming to understand it not just throw it in to see if it sticks) and fake it til you make it.

>>3064525
You came to the wrong place.

>>3064525
but thats actually quite nice, surreal and dreamy, it seems you really dont have good taste

>>3064525
i don't know, but i suspect /ic/ will ruin your taste

>picasso? no thanks! give me sachimochan don't you see how big he draws the eyes? beautiful

File: coonley-playhouse-glass-original.jpg (36KB, 368x364px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 368x364px

You either have a sense of beauty or you don't. Something like psychedelics can help refine that by accenting the beauty in the world around you, but you have to be receptive to it in the first place. Post something you like, OP.

File: 9277c5a0b22101041e014717a640af7b.jpg (666KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 1200x800px

>>3069172
it seems you're really a faggot

>>3069187
uh huh, isnt it your bedtime kiddo?

>>3069184
Not from my experience, psychedelics are toxic for developing taste. They definitely have an effect on it though. They generally make you less discerning and critical and start loving everything without judgement, this is the opposite of a refined taste.

>>3064525
once you have the technical abilities... taste is just a matter of fashion/trend.

You could do something that people would not like right now, but they liked it in 1700 and will like it again in 2175. It's the same fucking thing but in different eras people will like it more or less.

So basically if your interests/taste fit with what other people in 2017 like, then they'll say you have good taste. If if's more what people liked 50 years ago, or what people will like in 100 years, then they'll say you have bad taste.

The question from this point is whether you want to do what interests YOU, or what will interest others/will sell.

>>3064660
No, it's a fact.

>>3066555
>Just focus on worrying about your art content when you get advanced enough you feel satisfied but are noticing you still only have 3 people who follow you and all of them are furries in diapers and you earn no money from it.
What did he mean by this?

>>3064525
is it done specifically to get you a boner?
is it logical?

if those two then yes its tasteful.

>>3064551
>>3064543
There are many things which are evil and yet are pleasing. The true nature is good taste is not opinion nor appetite, but judgment which is a certain wisdom in distinguishing what is good from what is bad. If you will match two artists, one who concerns for what is timeless, moral, with the end of the good, and another whose art is a manifestation of the philosophy surmounting to "just do ya thang" you will clearly see which one will be more likely create tasteful art and which one is likely to err; for there are many ways to miss a mark, and to hit a mark at least requires deliberation, or an extremely fortunate, unreliable accident.

>>3064553
Do not do this. Being frivolous is not the way to good taste.

>>3064716
the solution to this is simple. avoid copying from those which you instinctively know to be awkward or bad. if you can already separate the awkward artists or works from what you will study out of old masters then you are in the right track.

>>3064527
There are plenty of artists who have good taste without technical proficiency.

>>3064543
>It's good because at least one person (maybe) likes it
Is this seriously a real opinion?

actually having a good or bad taste its a thing, i suggest you could start reading books and doing some brainstormings, thats a nice way to start i think but im a still a beginner in my case i need to keep draw, draw and more draw

Things which are not in good taste:
Anime/cartoon
Porn/fetish
Fashion
Furry
Pop culture/fan art
Caricature
Digital
Acrylic
Propaganda illustration
Urban sketching
Internet meme
Web comic
Photo copy/photo realism/hyper realism
Celebrity portraiture
Political cartoon
Avant garde art
Fantasy/fairy art
Wildlife art
Pet portraiture
Blue collar art
Textbook illustration
Motivational poster
Parody
Found object sculpture
Consumerist art/consumerist-influenced art
Rococo architecture/decoration
Modern architecture

Many more.

>>3071720
Seems like we found the guy with the worst taste ITT, boys.

>>3070485
Nice reading comprehension. I swear most of you post shit just to start meaningless arguments.

Things you dislike have an audience, crater to the things you like.

for the most part, it's subjective. However there are certain things that appeal to the masses. So if you want to appeal to the taste of them, draw that shit. If you want to draw what appeals to your tastes, draw that. It's simple.

File: 1463837445451.jpg (244KB, 1846x1212px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1846x1212px

>>3071720

>digital
>acrylic

>>3071720
you completely miss the point. each one of those categories has examples of both good and bad taste in it.

File: disdain for plebs.jpg (33KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x600px

>>3072155
No, I understand what the point is. It's not difficult. I have made my own point which you have missed.

For all these if we assume them in their idea or form, there are still forms of art that by nature are superior and more tasteful. Good taste is inherently about discrimination in view of what is best. It is easy to say that for any arbitrary art form there is a good and a bad which is bound by the form of that art. But to what degree do we carry this? If we make an example of a logical extreme, you should also say that of works made of shit, there is shit art made in good taste and in bad. Why does it matter when there are greatly superior forms?

People are either dishonest that they can distinguish whether something is done rightly or wrongly according to its form, yet will not use that same discriminating faculty to distinguish whether the art form itself is base in nature. Or they are capricious that they do not actually care if it is, so long as they go according to wherever their own erratic impulse incline them towards. They do not care, that is, until their art ideals comes under attack and injury, in which occasion they will say it is just as good as any, which, in saying so rather than reflecting inwardly covets the honour which is rightful to whoever purposefully strives for what is honourable and good.

>>3073041
You sound like you have utter garbage taste, so you rely on liking what is widely regarded "superior" to fit in and pretend you have taste. You're also too afraid to actually post an example of what you deem good taste because we all know it's gonna be a generic as fuck renaissance sculpture or some fine art painting literally everyone knows of, probably by Repin.

>>3073050
You are just grasping at straws. Prove my points wrong instead of guessing things you wish were true about me.

>>3071720
>>3074813
>>3073050
Better post a list of things that are in good taste.
Because depending on the criteria that you choose most of the paintings are fanart/propaganda (portraits of kings, politicians etc), they were supposed to carry a political message and their makers aimed for hiper realism. What about all the depictions of legendary creatures and gods from antique?
Also:
>digital
>acrylic
Is too stupid to even reason with.
Btw: you forgot to list rulers, erasers, mechanical pencils, colored pencils and pastels and everything that isn't oil, graphite or charcoal.

File: C7zbDFmU8AA-Ye9.jpg (127KB, 669x960px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 669x960px

>>3071750
>Taste isn't important because #YOLO
Why are you even talking about reading comprehension. OP's inquiry was about how to develop good taste. Bad things are liked by large numbers of people because bad taste is common and good taste is the exception.

>>3071720
Aren't you that anon who only posts highly rendered charcoal drawings of old man knees?

File: Mad Crab.jpg (90KB, 783x634px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 783x634px

>>3064660
As a crab i feel offended about what you just said.

>>3064526
not true

taste is something you get after absorbing as much art as possible. Somebody who is into movies will develop taste by watching a fuck load of movies, and realizing the shitty gimmicks and tropes that some movies have, and slowly developing good taste after realizing what's good and what's shallow bullshit.

You're not born with taste, you have to get it. Somebody with shit taste is basically somebody who has never watched enough movies or listened to enough music or admired enough art.

If you don't watch enough movies, or listen to enough music, or read enough books, etc you're gonna have shit taste

>>3075291
I'm glad people like you exist anon

>>3074881
Just because you can find some similarity in some sense does not mean they are the same. Could you really compare the value in taste of some Pokemon fanart to mythological painting as your would statement implies? Maybe in a world where a super hero action figure is comparable to a marble sculpture of Perseus. Maybe a satyr play is also just a furry fanfic! There is a reason why you will not see what you described in results when you search for "fan art." No one considers portraits of kings as "propaganda illustration" in nearly the same way as those of the 20th century either. Although I am certainly not ruling out a lot of old master paintings as bad taste. I was explicit in listing it as illustration as well; it is not even art, and it is of deliberately low taste and class. "Hiper realism" refers to a modern art movement coming out of photorealism and photography. There is no reason to extend the meaning of words to the degree that they lose their essence.

>Better post a list of things that are in good taste.
Why? My points are not about me. It would have just distracted people from my points and they will make it about me so they can seize the opportunity to bash me over their offended feelings. As you have any way.

>>3074813
>Prove my points wrong instead of guessing things you wish were true about me.

You made no points you retard. You listed a bunch of shit you think is in bad taste without making any argument whatsoever. Why do dunning krugers like you always confuse their opinion with facts?

File: 1496512924468.jpg (599KB, 1800x2400px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 1800x2400px

If you have enough self-awareness to spot bad taste, even if you do it, it will be a conscious choice, so I wouldn't worry about it, OP.

Here is an artist that draws like hell, keep getting BETTER and her art just gets SHITTIER by the day.

From humans and questionable monster bits, to EVERYONE LOOKS LIKE GANON.

Name's fydbac in case someone cares.

>>3076780
The points in the other comment, you retard. The comment that prompted someone to guess things about me instead of addressing anything that was said, you retard. If that was you, you're even more retarded than otherwise. Learn to follow conversations, you slow-minded retard.