Ha! It's the Internetz. EVERYTHING invokes ire. I digs your monkeys and the haters can choke on bananas, as far as I'm concerned! Euphemism! On the latter part!
lol Less slogging and much more like hop-skipping through with imaginary lolli in hand. It's a real treat to look through your art while bearing witness to your personal progress and getting to know a TLIID bro better through his creations. Onwards to the next folder!
Controversy! Monkeys! What more could you want! To clarify. I decided to make a noise chimp, because I thought it would be cool. I made him point because I thought it would be funny. An afterthought, that's it.
I personally find the idea that somehow this constitutes plagiarism laughable.
I don't think it really looks anything like the FG monkey in the end. Unless Seth MacFarlane decided to give it tribal tattoo arms in an episode I missed.
That said I appreciate the comments, nice to see debate alive and well on DA. But in the end
"if it doesn't have a tail it's not a monkey Even if it has a monkey kind of shape If it doesn't have a tail, it's not a monkey, it's an ape"
There really is no shortage of idiots on the web... With your pathetic excuse for logic, I could just as easily say that any time a super hero wears a cape, he or she is "copying" any given cape-donning super hero previously drawn. The only reference to Family Guy is the pose. Change your tampon and get over it.
please calm your testosterone, little boy. And relise that it is only simple observance and a comment. I mean to offense to the artist at hand. They did a nice job on the piece, I was only stating that the said piece was similar or reminded me of something that I had seen before. Nothing is original anymore your right I agree with you there. But please do not slander anyone for their observations, it is childish and mean. Thanks for the comment, and have happier days on deviantart! Relax, it's suppose to be fun!
Hell, hardly even the pose. I've never seen the FG monkey make that pose. All it is, is the POINTING of a finger. Jesus. Don't believe me? Image Google "Family Guy Evil Monkey" and you'll see plenty of images of the monkey in his trademark pose. Christ. It's unfortunate that your artwork and my own suck Nadasulaki, but at least I don't go around taking my jealousy and frustration out on another's piece, just because he's getting recognition for something that plainly deserves it.
So what you're saying is that every sketchy, rough, and "incomplete" pieces of art is a Gorillaz rip off? If you're going to critique something, you might want to utilize that itty bitty brain of yours, instead of spewing out undeserved hatred. Seriously man, calm down.
No, I'm saying that every piece of art that mimics the Gorillaz art style (of which sketchiness, roughness, and partial incompleteness are only SOME of the characteristics) is a Gorillaz rip-off.
And rather than trying to put a damper on criticism using name-calling and insults, you might want to use some facts of your own.
You might also consider the fact that this topic (or at least my replies to it) had been dead for a considerable while before you decided to get antsy over it. It's done, and my opinions and observations don't change the results of the contest.
Which, by saying "So glad someone caught that!" means that the concept was there to be caught. Intentionally. If he hadn't meant to design this after someone else's character, he would have said something more along the lines of "Oh, you're right!" not "Haha, yeah, bingo."
That is essentially, in my opinion, artistic plagiarism. And since he won based off of a stolen concept, I have an even bigger problem. This artist was credited and even awarded for a piece whose concept is not their own.
Alright well I just looked up this evil monkey, and besides that fact that it's evil, and that it's a monkey, I don't see any similarity.
I just think it's really rude for people to attack contest winners, and you know what, in my opinion, there's a big difference between copying something and being inspired by it. Because to me, it seems like he thought "Oh cool, maybe I'll make my own evil monkey character like the one in family guy."
I think that it's such a generic concept, evil + animal, that he can't be criticised for this.
Well then I guess in your reasoning, since you can simply be "inspired", there will never be any acceptable criticism due to the fact that there will eternally exist the possibility that it was intended to be original.
Not for anything, but if you go to school and submit something with higher than 30% similarity to something else (be it art or a paper) then you get nailed for plagiarism. Trust me, I know. I wrote a 100% original paper, but because a similar one already existed, I got accused of plagiarism. I'd never seen the other paper before in my life, but in the real world, intention is irrelevant as opposed to result. I was the one at fault.
Mind you, not reading an obscure philosophy paper is significantly easier than being oblivious to a popular and pervasive cultural trend.
There's also the fact that the artist right out admits to the design. He gets all this credit, and the source of the inspiration isn't even addressed. Plagiarism today encompasses theft of ideas as well as literal expression.
Gorillaz art has a distinct exaggeration and animalistic quality. Most of them resemble (well, wouldn't you know it) monkeys/gorillas. If you'll check this ([link]) you'll be able to note the near-exact nose and mouth designs/tendencies.
Then there's the Family Guy reference. See above posts for that.
If this artist had cleaned up his lines, it would have resembled the above artwork even more. But it would have also looked more professional.
And as soon as "awesome" is defined as more than "oooh, pretty colors! EVIL MONKEY!!!" then I might consider calling it awesome myself.
It's art. If this is a serious artist, they'll be able to handle some harsh criticism. Goodness knows they've had enough praise for their "awesomeness". I'm just pointing out a few things that, given the opportunity, could be remedied to make the piece better.
Unfair: no. Comments are enabled for a reason, and the artist didn't specify that he/she didn't want criticism.
Rude: only if you don't believe in constructive criticism.
Constructive... how? I'm all for critique. But how about telling him to blend in the colors better? Smooth over the jagged edges of the lineart? Erase lines where they cross over? Possibly add a background to enhance the image?
I have no problem if you think it needs improvement. But all I got from your comment was that it looked rough and unoriginal. The only reason I think it's unfair is that you make it sound like it's the artists fault that he/she won.
Ok, you're getting criticism confused with instruction. Criticism tells them what could be improved. Instruction tells them HOW to improve it. The idea behind Criticism is to get the artist to discover a means of their own. Instruction is pretty much simple brainwashing to create yet another mindless copy-cat amongst the flood of copy/paste artists that already exist.
As for the rest, I've put in my two cents, I've contributed my opinion (which seems to be largely unwanted - after all, how dare I break the status quo?). Since everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I actually gave a reason for mine, there is nothing left to discuss. I'm sorry if you think I'm coming across as mean. That's an issue you'll have to get used to through life; people have a tendency to be real and ignore their ill-conceived misconceptions.
I'm just pointing out a few things that, given the opportunity, could be remedied to make the piece better.
which sounds like instruction to me. Except you didn't. Sorry if you didn't mean it that way. I'm not here to pick a fight with you. I for one couldn't care less who was in the finalists. However, I was a bit confused by your comments and sick at the lack of sportsmanship that has been going about. I apologize if I took it out on you.
My intention was merely to point out something that could be improved. I didn't mean to sound like a bitch, even though that typically is the way I come across (regrettably). I get sick of people giving mindless compliments without seeing both the pros and the cons of a piece. No matter how good a piece, there is always something that can be improved. That's the nature of art. I have to play devil's advocate usually for the criticism to come out. It causes arguments and such, but this is the price of going against the grain n.n;;