File :-(, x, )
Has no one posted this yet? Anonymous
>> Anonymous
Pokemon?
Misty?
>> Anonymous
'Bout fuckin' TIME for some fanservice
>> Anonymous
>>700948
Latest page on a webcomic called Misfile. Has nothing to do with Pokemon.
>> Anonymous
>>700948
Ash, but not from Pokemon
>> Anonymous
>>700950

Why in god's name would people want fanservice for art this fucking horrible?
>> Anonymous
This is horrible art? pencil drawn =/= horrible.
>> Anonymous
>>700962
True, but anatomy + stale facial expressions + really fucking bland backgrounds = terrible.

Obligatory sage for western shit GO!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
Somebody other than me reads Misfile?
>> Anonymous
I read Misfile also, Anon. To be honest, the sideboob from two pages ago was better than censored full-frontal. Still a good comic, though
>> Anonymous
>>700967
>>Hello my fellow fri/e/nd. Everything has to be realistic. No such thing as style needed. Have a good day, sir.
Oh, okay
>> Anonymous
>>701007
Are you blind? Just look at those fucking ugly faces, goddamn.
>> Anonymous
>>700977
I read Misfile too. I like the story and the characters and the shit that goes on. But the art is subpar.

Loving Naked Ash though...
>> Anonymous
I love Misfile! read it every day. Nice to know some other anons like it.

The story is interesting, and funny, and the characters and their interactions are always good.

The only thing that annoys me is when it gets all "dark" and into the angel conspiracies and stuff. Since only a page a day comes out, for 3 days of a week to be backstory I don;'t care about... makes me impatient.
>> Anonymous
This comic is made of riceboy racing and cocktease failure.
>> Anonymous
>>700916
Looking Code Lyoko eyes there...
>> Anonymous
I thought shitty art was forbidden on /e/.
>> Anonymous
i read misfile too. The art isn't that good at times, but there is much worse on the internet.
>> Anonymous
I see /u/'s cancer has spread to /e/

what's next? relationship posts?
>> Anonymous
So much hate for this comic. o.0

And for all the haters out there, by webcomic standards, the art is pretty good, and the guy pumps it out DAILY. Pretty impressive if you ask me.
>> Anonymous
>>701213

Wow, he can pump out half-assed pencil scribbles on a daily basis. What a fucking miracle worker.
This thread is making me lose faith in humanity.
>> Miss Kitty ?
ITT people with no comprehension of what constitutes good or bad art.
>> Anonymous
>>701246
You don't appear to be taking any side or teaching any lessons, so I must assume that you have no comprehension of what constitutes good or bad art, and that you're aware of this shortcoming, and that you joined this thread because you just wanted to fit in and be with others who you believed shared your opinion?
>> Anonymous
Whether or not the art is good, just read the comic before you judge it - there's a lot there, hours of guaranteed enjoyment.
>> Anonymous
There needs to be less random angel shit and more development with the fag realizing he's basically fucked and he's a girl forever.
>> Anonymous
>>701500
No there's not, you moron. People know what a shithole it is because they DID read it.

I really tried to enjoy it but this is the only formula it follows.

-Start: Omigawd Ima girl
-bitch bitch bitch
-tiny yuri fanservice people still squeal over
-bitch bitch bitch/problems
-slightly more yuri fanservice people squeal harder over
-bitch bitch bitch
-CAR RACES WOOOOAH
-DEMUNS AN ANGULS AND SHIT
-bitch bitch bitch
-fanservice to keep people watching but still only a cock tease


The problem is if this shit ever goes anywhere Chris won't have anything to keep people reading.

The only reason I stopped reading was because I held out long enough for ash to get a girlfriend and then they fucking broke up. That's when I knew it wasn't going anywhere.
>> Anonymous
oh, this is just horrible!

my cat can draw better, and I don't even have a cat!
>> Anonymous
>>701528
stop bumping it already, retard
>> Anonymous
bumping to piss off sagefag.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
I am absolutely appalled by this tragedy known as "art"

Its so bad I want to kill yaoi obsessed fangirls.
>> Anonymous
sageing to piss bumpfag off
>> Anonymous
I love it when I discover webcomics like this. It just means that if this stinking pile of shit has readers, my comic will be a gigantic fucking success.
>> Anonymous
stop posting shit, guys
>> Anonymous
Saging for whatever the fuck the OP is. So on top of the bad art in general, what's going on? Are we supposed to be getting a sense of drama 'cause she's naked and vulnerable?

Probably, but then it's being played for fanservice. Look at her pose, and the "panel" layout. OH DAMN SHE NAKED AND ALL FRONTAL LIKE UNDER THOSE ARTISTICALLY DIAGONAL PANEL BREAKS, FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP.

Clearly we're dealing with the work of a consummate professional.
>> Anonymous
>>701614
It looks like shit, there's no doubt about that. But complaining about the concept of fanservice on /e/? What the hell, man? Are you on crack?
>> Anonymous
>>701622
No no, see, fanservice is fine. Badly-drawn, anatomically-whacked (BREASTS DO NOT NATURALLY FORM THEIR OWN CLEAVAGE OKAY KIDS), ham-handledly blatant dramatic-context fanservice is shit.
>> Miss Kitty ?
>>701431
I realized after I closed the window that I didn't make it clear which side I was on, but I didn't care.

Too many people here that are expecting 100% perfect fucking realism in their art, and this is 4chan for fucks sake. It is called an ART STYLE you stupid fucks. I can point to many comics(american.. japanese.. anything.. name it) that are not anatomically correct. Pretty much.. oh.. NONE OF THEM ARE. Realism does NOT equal good art.

Shut up and enjoy the story and pictures. Don't enjoy it? Shut up anyway.

Either way just shut up.
>> Miss Kitty ?
Also, I can assure you that anyone bitching is 1. trolling and 2. has never actually attempted to draw in their life. 3. never actually bothered to learn anything about art ever.

Go back to fapping to idiotically huge tits and figures no real woman would ever have a chance of attaining.
>> Anonymous
>>701870
>>701871

Not a bad attempt at trolling, but it lacks that extra touch that means so much.

6/10
>> Anonymous
>>701870
You have got to be a troll, but I can't help but reply.

Anatomy is extremely important in any style that isn't completely abstract. Good art exaggerates or enhances realistic anatomy, you don't blatantly draw something that's not correct. If you draw six fingers or put the hands on the wrong way, it's not correct anatomy.

The art in op's pictures is absolutely horrendous. The face looks like that of a troll, there are no flowing, feminine curves on that supposedly female body, there is a magic cleavage stuck on there, and the guy couldn't portray depth if his life depended on it. It's awful in every way.
Also, I do have a lot of experience drawing, since I've been doing it for 8 years (two years professionally).
>> Testament !b75c4gy2IQ
i have one thing, and one thing only to say
to each their own!
>> Miss Kitty ?
>>702069
You hate it so much but you are the one not saging?

Yeah... I'm such a troll. I'm sure you are completely innocent in every way.

Being on 4chan must really piss you off. I mean, a site dedicated to a style that isn't meant to be realistic in any way. You must like pain a lot.
>> Anonymous
SHITTY FUCKING ART IS FUCKING SHITTY
>> Anonymous
Ash does it for me, I dunno.

Seen a lot worse on this site. Example: almost all porn of Jesse from pokemon and most porn involving Cowboy Bebop.

And that stuff is rare too, not daily made.
>> Anonymous
>>702114
Who said anything about realistic, you retarded troll? Seriously, it's not possible to be as fucking stupid as you. Would you say a 5 year old's stick figures are great too, because they're not trying to be "realistic"?
>> Miss Kitty ?
>>702335
You're completely right! I apologize. I'm just cumdumpster who was blind to the truth. I'll go back to the kitchen now.
>> Anonymous
>>702114
There's a difference between unrealistic and total shit.
>> Anonymous
>>702335
I can tell good stylized art from bad stylized art, and what you have presented here is not good. Ecchi art can take a lot of liberties with anatomy and style, but if you can't draw to begin with and don't know any anatomy, stylization isn't going to cover your ass.
>> Anonymous
Sure looks like a human female to me.

Saging because there isn't much ecchi of misfile apart from the comic itself.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
WHY THE FUCK IS THIS STILL EXISTING
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
"Unrealistic anatomy." This criticism only ever happens in western art threads on these boards.

Posting pics in a discussion thread.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
MODS DELETE THIS SHITTY ART
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
What this really means is that the art is not japanese enough. Take Misfile for example. The hair sheen and huge eyes are anime enough, at least one male character has the body structure of a girl (the goody-goody angel, forget his name), but the bodies are not stick figurines, the characters do not wear clothes with plastic hearts all over them and outlandish hats, and the main characters are victims of "magic" instead of practitioners of it like every weeaboo magic girl power suit show.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Also the main character does not have a pet cat. All this makes Misfile unrealistically drawn.
>> Anonymous
I can't help but wonder why so many people are defending this shit, considering /e/ is usually extremely negative towards western attempts at weeaboo art, even if it's good.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
OK DELIBERATELY SEEKING MOD DELETION BY BREAKING OF RULES.

SAGE-BOMB COMMENSE.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Misfile isn't going to win any awards for art direction, that's true, but the apart from some general framing issues and inevitable plot holes regarding magic or whatever the character act believably and consistently enough, and the girls are pretty fiercely hot.
>> Anonymous
>>702423
What the fuck are you talking about? Is that an attempt at sarcasm?
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>>702423
>>702428
OMG WTF GET THE FUCK OUT GO TO CRITIQUE WITH THIS SHIT
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
OUT WITH YOU
>> Anonymous
>>702434
So, you like generic humor, mixed with a bad attempt at generic anime style? And that's fiercely hot?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>702430
There's like 3 people, including me, who like this stuff.

And about 3-4 people who are being driven absolutely insane by it.

This constitutes a war on 4chan, apparently.

I like the comic, and its different enough from most reposts here that I'm contributing.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
KILL THIS THREAD WITH SAGE

for the LOVE of all that is /e/ DESTROY THIS THREAD
>> Testament !b75c4gy2IQ
omg what the hell are you people on?
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE FUCKING SHIT, DON'T FUCKING LOOK AT IT AND STFU, OR GTFO!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I realize the fact these characters are ~16 and actually look and act their age is a huge turn off to the ronery folks around here.

But by no means am I saying you must stop with your awful Card Captor Sakura threads.
>> Anonymous
>>702443
Are you completely blind? Can you honestly not see how bad this is? This guy actually draws worse than I did before I started taking drawing seriously. It looks like every other 15 year old's attempt at drawing anime.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
But that seems to be the way it goes here. Even /co/ thinks Alpha-Shade, which is beautifully drawn, is "unrealistic." And they're supposed to be the non-lewd American art board.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
EVERY TIME...

YOU POST>>702443ANY MORE I'LL REPORT THEN BOMB SOME MORE
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>>702454
>>702452
>>702451
>>702447
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>>702454
>>702452
>>702451
>>702447
>>702443
>>702434
>> Anonymous
>>702452Are you completely blind? Can you honestly not see how bad this is?

Nah, don't see it.

To give a concrete example, I am less turned on by:
>>701543
>>702437
and especially
>>702444

then I am by misfile pinups.

>>702438
>>702432
are pretty hot though.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>702451
>>702454
Right. You're batshit insane. You consider this shit realistic? A generic story about a guy who switches genders and an angel guy with an attitude, is realistic. We dislike it for not being fantastic enough? Seriously, how fucking stupid can you be? It's like he's taken the worst from anime, crapped all over it, and people apparently like it.
But yeah, I guess down to earth stuff like Genshiken is popular because it's not fantastic enough! Because all anime fans only like CCS!

Jesus Christ...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>702459
Forgot my pic. At least pics are being posted now instead of just text, so that's nice.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
THIS IS NOT ARTOWRK/CRITIQUE

GET THE FUCK OUT
>> Anonymous
>>702459
I really don't have words. I mean.. how? You hate well drawn art, and like amateurish shit. You're like the anti-christ of art.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>702461Genshiken

That's good, but I never seen sage bombing of bleach threads for unrealism. Yoruichi alone! Though she is also fuck hot.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>702463THIS IS NOT ARTOWRK/CRITIQUE

Take your own advice buddy. Somebody posted misfile, there were 40 posts of text crapping on it, including you, then I started posting pics.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
Sage goes in the e-mail field... destroy this thread

Nyoro~n
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
>>702466
every time you post more I'm reporting it.

Eventually a mod will ban me and you.

keep /e/ clean! POST ACTUAL ART, NOT THIS SHIT
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>702464I really don't have words. I mean.. how? You hate well drawn art, and like amateurish shit. You're like the anti-christ of art.

I like hot women, no matter how "amateurish"ly drawn. That's why I come to /e/ and /h/ and /d/ and so forth.

I notice most of the counter-art being posted is colored and shaded. Is that what makes it attractive to you? I can fap to lineart if the girl's hot and fairly mature.
>> Anonymous
>>702466
>>702470
No one ever said anything about lack of realism, you goddamned cunt.
We're talking about exaggeration and stylization. You don't even know the basics about what you're talking about!
You can exaggerate realism. For example, the Hulk can have correct anatomy if he's drawn by a good artist, even though he's bigger than a real person.
The same goes for anime. You play around with proportions.
The shit you're posting has mistakes, which is different. Things look bad because the artist doesn't know how to draw.

Still, I don't expect you to ever grasp this, since you're quite possible the dumbest fuck I've ever come across in my 11 years on the net. I don't even understand how you have the mental capacity to use a keyboard.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>>702466
>>702470

GET OUT... AND STAY OUT
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
GET
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OUT!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>702475keep /e/ clean! POST ACTUAL ART, NOT THIS SHIT

Eh, most of /e/ is reposts.
>> Anonymous
>>702481
There are rules against posting bad western art. If the mods weren't cunts too busy fapping to CP, they'd have deleted this thread long ago.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
DO what the image shows AND GET THE FUCK OUT
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>702477You can exaggerate realism. For example, the Hulk can have correct anatomy if he's drawn by a good artist, even though he's bigger than a real person.

This would be good info if we were drawfags and/or found the Hulk sexy.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
GET OUT
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
fuck off and die
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>Still, I don't expect you to ever grasp this, since you're quite possible the dumbest fuck I've ever come across in my 11 years on the net. I don't even understand how you have the mental capacity to use a keyboard.

And there's no reason for personal insults just because I find western-drawn tomboys to be sexier than aquiline elves with huge jugs, even if those jugs are nicely colored and shaded.

Seriously, you seem to be freaking out.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>>702497
you make me SICK...

GET OUT
>> Anonymous
>>702497
Yes, I'm freaking out. It's like trying to have a discussion with someone on acid, where the rules of the real world no longer apply.
In fact, I think you are on acid, if you consider a bunch of bad pencil scribbles attractive.

One thing I've gotten out of this discussion though, is that morons like you are going to make me fucking rich. I can make a comic with a much better story that's a million times better drawn, so I'm bound to be a gigantic fucking success.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>One thing I've gotten out of this discussion though, is that morons like you are going to make me fucking rich. I can make a comic with a much better story that's a million times better drawn, so I'm bound to be a gigantic fucking success.

Please demonstrate!
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
>>702507
consider the work I am doing to destroy what argument and the quality of posts we have here. Its an easy task to destroy what credibility the posters have and the MODS to have to clean up /e/.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>>702513
YOU HAVE NO SAY IN /E/ FUCKTARD, YOU HAVE NO QUALITY AND NO CONTINUITY TO DEMAND SUCH RESPECT
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
this is art, your shit is not. get the fuck out...
>> Anonymous
>>702516
You got one thing right, you are destroying the quality of /e/.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Because the way I'm reading you is that you're an uncharitable basement dweller of some small art skill who has strong visceral reactions against art styles that you try to justify by calling lack of effort lack of skill, but yourself are so undisciplined and/or unimaginative you have produced little of note, and can only critique, both because of your interest, but also because of meanness.

You remind me of kids in my English classes who called "Catch 22" a shambling wreck of a book. Then I proofread their essays...
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
DESTROY! EXTERMINATE! DOWN WITH SHITTY ART!
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
>>702524
compared to OP's post, the quality of shit I post is better than this... Infinitely better
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>702487

do want source
>> Anonymous
>>702524
Fuck, is that you Vinny?
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
FUCK MODS LOOK A SAGEBOMB!! DELETE BAD THREAD
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
... and their essays were far more amateurish than what Misfile is. SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME MAN HAS ASKED HIMSELF... five paragraph structure, loosely fitted around parroting from class discussion.

But that is neither here nor there. Anyways I'm running out of these pics; as I mentioned there's not a lot of them.

Coincidently Casterday you should consider posting some attractive pics of a single theme in your own threads, so people can have a good time saging you should they feel like it.
>> Anonymous
>>702518YOU HAVE NO SAY IN /E/ FUCKTARD, YOU HAVE NO QUALITY AND NO CONTINUITY TO DEMAND SUCH RESPECT

Won't put up, won't shut up.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
You want to compare art?

FINE! lets compare your art to some of the best we have in here!

Your art is hand drawn, pencil/pen works, has some format to it. It may be considered art but it's SO disproportionate and lacks continuity and depth, it also lacks sheer quality in design, head-to-body ratio, continuity of draw design, Even Chalo's artwork, whose a fucking FURRY draws better than this, but his art is BANNED from here. The eyes, the faces, the horrible body styles, COLOR and so many massive failures in the artist him/herself should quit before he damages more eye sockets and whatever is left of your BRAIN CELL with his/her bullshit.
>> Anonymous
>>702537
Are you actually trying to say you're an English teacher? I very much doubt you can be of legal age if you're reading this tripe.
>> Orpheum
     File :-(, x)
Gordon's beard does not approve of this thread!
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>>702537
I want you to compare this to your art you are posting and tell me which is SUPERIOR?
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>>702541
Your damn right I fight for what is right in /e/ and these drawfags flooding shit in here is NOT THE /E/ WAY
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>702542FINE! lets compare your art to some of the best we have in here!

There you go again. This isn't a competition Casterday. I myself can't draw worth a lick. Most people can't. Perhaps that's why they don't come screaming into threads bitching that the stuff posted isn't as good as THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST

>>702543Are you actually trying to say you're an English teacher? I very much doubt you can be of legal age if you're reading this tripe.

Students of English often edit other student's essays as "explorations" of form. Really all it does it make good writers feel good and bad writers angry.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
for GOD's sakes a janitor should be cleaning these boards!
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>>702552
>>702552
LOOK THIS IS NOT ARTWORK/CRITIQUE, WE NEVER INVITED YOU HERE.

Every singe post I see that you make posting SHITTY WESTERN ART IS A BANNABLE OFFENSE BY ANONYMOUS-MOD.

I literally am about to come in to irc channel and report this fucking bullshit.

AND NO ONE ELSE SEEMS TO CARE ABOUT QUALITY?!
>> Anonymous
>>702552
There are certain standards people hold. Most of the stuff posted in /e/ isn't all that great, but that shit you're posting is way under par.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
They should make you a mod Casterday, you'd make an able administrator.
>> Anonymous
>>700916

gb2/ic/

Seriously. Get the hell out
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>>702558
I'd ban you for this and if you ban evade I'd repeatedly ban, or, to extreme levels, ban you permanently from /e/.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>702556LOOK THIS IS NOT ARTWORK/CRITIQUE, WE NEVER INVITED YOU HERE.

Not the one critiquing. I think everything here is fine and dandy, I just like some more than others due to attractiveness and/or familiarity with characters.

>>702557There are certain standards people hold. Most of the stuff posted in /e/ isn't all that great, but that shit you're posting is way under par.

From an artistic standpoint I agree with you. But it's a misfile topic, there's not a lot, its fairly original, and as Casterday has screamed again and again, this isn't an art critique board. So I'm posting this subpar, but still attractive, near-porn.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
>>702569
just stop posting this shitty western art and I will stop.

Its the facts: YOUR ART IS SHIT.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>>702569
Look, You have zero TASTE in art...

I want you to go in /c/ and post this and see how far you get.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Pretty much out though. Most recent comic.

You may now stop raging and go back to posting Viletta or Battle Programmer Shirase loli or whatever it is you guys like now, unmolested by the presence of a separate active thread you hate.
>> Anonymous
ITT: Same person posts art from Misfile and then insults himself and the art.
>> Anonymous
>>702569
The quality is below what is allowed in /e/. Furthermore, western amateur art is also not allowed. If the mods were around, this would have disappeared yesterday.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>>702585
actually we post QUALITY images of Misty and her co-horts, rather than you BUTTUGLY SHIT ART
>> Anonymous
>>702581
God, Casterday, you're getting more pathetic all the time. I don't want to agree with you even if you're on the right side of this argument since no matter what you're always throwing some self-important bitch fit. Go post in another thread, hide it if you don't want to look at it.
>> Anonymous
>>702591The quality is below what is allowed in /e/

I'll keep that in mind next time I see deformed chibis posted.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
"Now children, this is what we call shitty artwork.>>700916

Dont post this or Casterday will sage bomg you"
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
>>702595
Excuse me but Hiding behind the skirts of other posts is not my style.. I'm loud, Obnoxious, and pissy when SHITTY WESTERN ART IS POSTED
>> Anonymous
>>702593actually we post QUALITY images of Misty and her co-horts, rather than you BUTTUGLY SHIT ART

Not always!

Mods should prepare for a deluge of quality reports from the Weeaboo Anatomy Action Squad.
>> Anonymous
>>702593
Deformed chibi spotted. That didn't take long.
>> Anonymous
>>702585
Man, that face at the bottom of that page made me laugh so fucking hard. Looks like Kermit with Down's
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Good God SHUT THE FUCK UP
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
>>702599
I reported all the posts he made. Eventually a mod will have to come in and delete this whole thread
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
I hope to god that drawfag gets hit by a car.
>> Anonymous
>>702605I reported all the posts he made.

You're talking to the same person. I was being sarcastic.
>> Anonymous
>>702598
At least you're honest about it, but you aren't a fucking moderator here, and I have no idea why you think you are.
I don't like the art in this thread, so what?
/e/ - Ecchi

1. Only softcore nudity is permitted. Hardcore images should remain on the hentai board.
2. Ecchi material is suggestive and often times cute, however, it should not be mistaken for the cute board.
There is no condition 3 "it's bad". Stop acting like a fucking child.
>> Anonymous
/e/ used to be one of the more cordial boards. /a/ must be overflowing.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
>>702609
YOU...

Shut the hell up. YOU were not here when Anonymous ## MOD clearly said in one godly post "western art is forbidden and a bannable offense".. Its an unwritten law, which Mods have clearly stated exists.
>> Anonymous
>>702443
>There's like 3 people, including me, who like this stuff.
>And about 3-4 people who are being driven absolutely insane by it.
>This constitutes a war on 4chan, apparently.
>I like the comic, and its different enough from most reposts here that I'm contributing.

From where I've been sitting, the OP tossed up one page wondering why we weren't *already* fapping to it. It sucks. It's bad. That's why. And we said so.

But then some fans came in and tried to explain how this shit was *good*, with failed arguments and red herrings and strawmen, all of which have been shot down repeatedly.

FYI, every other pic from Misfile that you posted has been better and hotter than the OP.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
     File :-(, x)
If any p/e/rverts here agree that shitty art is absolutely horrendous and ruins the quality of /e/, I dare them to say "no it does not I like that art"

For fuck's sakes if this art is clearly quality I might as well give up on /e/ and let you all face the conequences
>> Anonymous
>>702617
The argument as I understand it - to clarify what you wrote - is whether it was good enough to post, on a slow-moving image board providing fapping material of drawn women/girls for free.

If everybody on this board went horseshit crazy over shit they didn't like - or only reposted the best stuff from purely japanese sources and threads sat here for weeks at a time - this place would be miserable. Like this thread.
>> Anonymous
>>702619
I can't say whether Misfile is "worthy" of /e/ (although 4chan's rules again Western art would forbid it, but I don't necessarily agree with them). But I would say that the OP isn't worthy of being an OP.

What I've seen is people saying it's bad. That happens in threads with bad art. Get used to it.

Then I also saw people saying that we only think it's bad because we hate western art, which is wrong. And that we demand realism, which is wrong. And that we hate pencil art, which is wrong. And that we can't appreciate style, which is wrong. And that we're sexists who think Miss Kitty shouldn't be allowed to think for herself because she claims to be a female on the internet, which is wrong.

Every argument I've seen stretch this thread out has been started by Misfile defenders who can't accept that we don't like the OP (some people disliked more than just that one), until other people just wanted this trainwreck to go away. You have done the most to improve this thread out of anyone, by posting actual good Misfile pics.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
>>702625
wat?

*facepalm*

are you kidding me?

you both can GET THE FUCK OUT
>> Anonymous
>>702625
Fair enough. I still hold to what I said about western, anti-loli bias here; but of course this is 4chon.

Perhaps my liking of Misfile is related to how I actually like teasing pics of hot amateurs more than I like video of Blondie Q. McAngel getting nailed by 10 penises in /hc/, or even airbrushed centerfolds from Hustler. So maybe I just like sloppy amateurism for its own sake and others don't.

But others do - thus the threads started on it - and I don't report half the threads over in /hc/ because the fapping material there isn't to my liking.
>> Casterday !!Tf4hX9zOMIO
>>702635
/e/ was built off quality good art, not the shitty fucking stencil/pencil and paper art.

Go to /ac/ for that shit.
>> Anonymous
>>702635
What the fuck are you on? I don't like professional porn either, but that has nothing to do with this shit. It's badly drawn. We're attracted to anime girls because they depict attractive girls. If the artist is so bad that he can't properly depict an attractive girl, and gives her three elbows, sausage fingers, a body like a log and two left feet, how the fuck can you find that attractive? Maybe you belond in /d/.
>> Miss Kitty ?
>>702416
Pretty much exactly the issue.

It isn't KAWAI DESU NEEEEEE ^_^ EH NEKO BAKA-SAN?!! for them. So that makes it the absolutely WORST THING ON THE INTERNET EVER.

Get a fucking grip. No, it isn't the best art ever in the history of ever, but it isn't bad either. Get over yourselves.
>> Miss Kitty ?
>>702644
You like attractive girls.. on /e/. Horribly unrealistic depictions of women?

And the only criticism leveled at misfile is that it isn't 100% real to life "hey is this a photo?" quality?

OH YES THIS THREAD MAKES SO MUCH SENSE.
>> Anonymous
>>702660
No, it is quite bad. This falls under the shit that someone did in their spare time.

If I posted a little home made fan art. Even if it was better than the OP drawing by a small degree, I would get banned rightfully so.

Just because this shit is on a webcomic doesn't make it special or good.
>> Anonymous
>>702644... gives her three elbows, sausage fingers, a body like a log and two left feet, how the fuck can you find that attractive

An excellent, sober question that's totally germane to this thread.

After imagining your question to be about attractiveness, I'd say: mostly its in the face, musculature and posture.

There's a guy posting a Witchblade thread above this one, and an Aisha/Outlaw Star thread below. Go bother them about liking "unattractive" pics plz.
>> Anonymous
I can't believe people are still biting for Troll Kitty.
>> Anonymous
>>702660
Look, you dumb bitch. The majority of art posted on /e/ has nothing to do with your retarded stereotypes. In fact, Misfile is closer to that stereotype than most of the other stuff posted here. There's a ton of stuff that has nothing to do with "kawaii", or whatever the hell your retarded little brain thinks anime is about.

>>702663
Again, no one has said ANYTHING about realism. Not a goddamned thing. People have pointed out that it's badly drawn. It has mistakes. I know you're severely mentally retarded for not understanding this, but please.. try to focus a bit. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DELIBERATE EXAGGERATION/STYLIZATION AND NOT BEING ABLE TO DRAW.

Bigger/smaller muscles than real life - style
Varying proportions or level of detail - style
Bigger or smaller eyes, noses, mouths - style
Use of angular or curvy lines to depict anatomy - style
Consistency in every picture/frame - style

Being unable to depict depth - inability to draw
Inconsistent proportions from frame to frame - inability to draw
Hands that look like they belong to a lego figure - inability to draw
Crude, uneven lines that make bodyparts look completely flat - inability to draw
>> Anonymous
I like misfile as well. Art isn't awesome, but it's far from shite, and the story is fun with some fun cocktease in too.
>> Anonymous
>>702689
Goddamn it.
>> Anonymous
I grew up believing that taste is just a matter of personal preference. Each person has things they like, but no one's preferences are any better than anyone else's. There is no such thing as good taste.

Like a lot of things I grew up believing, this turns out to be false, and I'm going to try to explain why.

One problem with saying there's no such thing as good taste is that it also means there's no such thing as good art. If there were good art, then people who liked it would have better taste than people who didn't. So if you discard taste, you also have to discard the idea of art being good, and artists being good at making it.

It was pulling on that thread that unravelled my childhood faith in relativism. When you're trying to make things, taste becomes a practical matter. You have to decide what to do next. Would it make the painting better if I changed that part? If there's no such thing as better, it doesn't matter what you do. In fact, it doesn't matter if you paint at all. You could just go out and buy a ready-made blank canvas. If there's no such thing as good, that would be just as great an achievement as the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Less laborious, certainly, but if you can achieve the same level of performance with less effort, surely that's more impressive, not less.

Yet that doesn't seem quite right, does it?
>> Anonymous
I think the key to this puzzle is to remember that art has an audience. Art has a purpose, which is to interest its audience. Good art (like good anything) is art that achieves its purpose particularly well. The meaning of "interest" can vary. Some works of art are meant to shock, and others to please; some are meant to jump out at you, and others to sit quietly in the background. But all art has to work on an audience, and—here's the critical point—members of the audience share things in common.

For example, nearly all humans find human faces engaging. It seems to be wired into us. Babies can recognize faces practically from birth. In fact, faces seem to have co-evolved with our interest in them; the face is the body's billboard. So all other things being equal, a painting with faces in it will interest people more than one without. [1]

One reason it's easy to believe that taste is merely personal preference is that, if it isn't, how do you pick out the people with better taste? There are billions of people, each with their own opinion; on what grounds can you prefer one to another? [2]

But if audiences have a lot in common, you're not in a position of having to choose one out of a random set of individual biases, because the set isn't random. All humans find faces engaging—practically by definition: face recognition is in our DNA. And so having a notion of good art, in the sense of art that does its job well, doesn't require you to pick out a few individuals and label their opinions as correct. No matter who you pick, they'll find faces engaging.
>> Anonymous
>>702686There's a ton of stuff that has nothing to do with "kawaii", or whatever the hell your retarded little brain thinks anime is about.

Says the board with 15 Strike Witches threads.
>> Anonymous
Of course, space aliens probably wouldn't find human faces engaging. But there might be other things they shared in common with us. The most likely source of examples is math. I expect space aliens would agree with us most of the time about which of two proofs was better. Erdos thought so. He called a maximally elegant proof one out of God's book, and presumably God's book is universal. [3]

Once you start talking about audiences, you don't have to argue simply that there are or aren't standards of taste. Instead tastes are a series of concentric rings, like ripples in a pond. There are some things that will appeal to you and your friends, others that will appeal to most people your age, others that will appeal to most humans, and perhaps others that would appeal to most sentient beings (whatever that means).

The picture is slightly more complicated than that, because in the middle of the pond there are overlapping sets of ripples. For example, there might be things that appealed particularly to men, or to people from a certain culture.

If good art is art that interests its audience, then when you talk about art being good, you also have to say for what audience. So is it meaningless to talk about art simply being good or bad? No, because one audience is the set of all possible humans. I think that's the audience people are implicitly talking about when they say a work of art is good: they mean it would engage any human. [4]
>> Anonymous
And that is a meaningful test, because although, like any everyday concept, "human" is fuzzy around the edges, there are a lot of things practically all humans have in common. In addition to our interest in faces, there's something special about primary colors for nearly all of us, because it's an artifact of the way our eyes work. Most humans will also find images of 3D objects engaging, because that also seems to be built into our visual perception. [5] And beneath that there's edge-finding, which makes images with definite shapes more engaging than mere blur.

Humans have a lot more in common than this, of course. My goal is not to compile a complete list, just to show that there's some solid ground here. People's preferences aren't random. So an artist working on a painting and trying to decide whether to change some part of it doesn't have to think "Why bother? I might as well flip a coin." Instead he can ask "What would make the painting more interesting to people?" And the reason you can't equal Michelangelo by going out and buying a blank canvas is that the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is more interesting to people.

A lot of philosophers have had a hard time believing it was possible for there to be objective standards for art. It seemed obvious that beauty, for example, was something that happened in the head of the observer, not something that was a property of objects. It was thus "subjective" rather than "objective." But in fact if you narrow the definition of beauty to something that works a certain way on humans, and you observe how much humans have in common, it turns out to be a property of objects after all. You don't have to choose between something being a property of the subject or the object if subjects all react similarly. Being good art is thus a property of objects as much as, say, being toxic to humans is: it's good art if it consistently affects humans in a certain way.
>> Anonymous
>>702487

sause
>> Anonymous
So could we figure out what the best art is by taking a vote? After all, if appealing to humans is the test, we should be able to just ask them, right?

Well, not quite. For products of nature that might work. I'd be willing to eat the apple the world's population had voted most delicious, and I'd probably be willing to visit the beach they voted most beautiful, but having to look at the painting they voted the best would be a crapshoot.

Man-made stuff is different. For one thing, artists, unlike apple trees, often deliberately try to trick us. Some tricks are quite subtle. For example, any work of art sets expectations by its level of finish. You don't expect photographic accuracy in something that looks like a quick sketch. So one widely used trick, especially among illustrators, is to intentionally make a painting or drawing look like it was done faster than it was. The average person looks at it and thinks: how amazingly skillful. It's like saying something clever in a conversation as if you'd thought of it on the spur of the moment, when in fact you'd worked it out the day before.

Another much less subtle influence is brand. If you go to see the Mona Lisa, you'll probably be disappointed, because it's hidden behind a thick glass wall and surrounded by a frenzied crowd taking pictures of themselves in front of it. At best you can see it the way you see a friend across the room at a crowded party. The Louvre might as well replace it with copy; no one would be able to tell. And yet the Mona Lisa is a small, dark painting. If you found people who'd never seen an image of it and sent them to a museum in which it was hanging among other paintings with a tag labelling it as a portrait by an unknown fifteenth century artist, most would walk by without giving it a second look.
>> Anonymous
For the average person, brand dominates all other factors in the judgement of art. Seeing a painting they recognize from reproductions is so overwhelming that their response to it as a painting is drowned out.

And then of course there are the tricks people play on themselves. Most adults looking at art worry that if they don't like what they're supposed to, they'll be thought uncultured. This doesn't just affect what they claim to like; they actually make themselves like things they're supposed to.

That's why you can't just take a vote. Though appeal to people is a meaningful test, in practice you can't measure it, just as you can't find north using a compass with a magnet sitting next to it. There are sources of error so powerful that if you take a vote, all you're measuring is the error.

We can, however, approach our goal from another direction, by using ourselves as guinea pigs. You're human. If you want to know what the basic human reaction to a piece of art would be, you can at least approach that by getting rid of the sources of error in your own judgements.

For example, while anyone's reaction to a famous painting will be warped at first by its fame, there are ways to decrease its effects. One is to come back to the painting over and over. After a few days the fame wears off, and you can start to see it as a painting. Another is to stand close. A painting familiar from reproductions looks more familiar from ten feet away; close in you see details that get lost in reproductions, and which you're therefore seeing for the first time.
>> Anonymous
There are two main kinds of error that get in the way of seeing a work of art: biases you bring from your own circumstances, and tricks played by the artist. Tricks are straightforward to correct for. Merely being aware of them usually prevents them from working. For example, when I was ten I used to be very impressed by airbrushed lettering that looked like shiny metal. But once you study how it's done, you see that it's a pretty cheesy trick—one of the sort that relies on pushing a few visual buttons really hard to temporarily overwhelm the viewer. It's like trying to convince someone by shouting at them.

The way not to be vulnerable to tricks is to explicitly seek out and catalog them. When you notice a whiff of dishonesty coming from some kind of art, stop and figure out what's going on. When someone is obviously pandering to an audience that's easily fooled, whether it's someone making shiny stuff to impress ten year olds, or someone making conspicuously avant-garde stuff to impress would-be intellectuals, learn how they do it. Once you've seen enough examples of specific types of tricks, you start to become a connoisseur of trickery in general, just as professional magicians are.

What counts as a trick? Roughly, it's something done with contempt for the audience. For example, the guys designing Ferraris in the 1950s were probably designing cars that they themselves admired. Whereas I suspect over at General Motors the marketing people are telling the designers, "Most people who buy SUVs do it to seem manly, not to drive off-road. So don't worry about the suspension; just make that sucker as big and tough-looking as you can." [6]
>> Anonymous
I think with some effort you can make yourself nearly immune to tricks. It's harder to escape the influence of your own circumstances, but you can at least move in that direction. The way to do it is to travel widely, in both time and space. If you go and see all the different kinds of things people like in other cultures, and learn about all the different things people have liked in the past, you'll probably find it changes what you like. I doubt you could ever make yourself into a completely universal person, if only because you can only travel in one direction in time. But if you find a work of art that would appeal equally to your friends, to people in Nepal, and to the ancient Greeks, you're probably onto something.

My main point here is not how to have good taste, but that there can even be such a thing. And I think I've shown that. There is such a thing as good art. It's art that interests its human audience, and since humans have a lot in common, what interests them is not random. Since there's such a thing as good art, there's also such a thing as good taste, which is the ability to recognize it.

If we were talking about the taste of apples, I'd agree that taste is just personal preference. Some people like certain kinds of apples and others like other kinds, but how can you say that one is right and the other wrong? [7]
>> Anonymous
Well, I have to take back my assessment. Thanks to Troll Kitty, this crap thread has gotten more responses than most quality threads get around here.

Quality, successful fuckery, I admit it. Rating revised to 10/10.

Another proud day on 4chan.
>> Anonymous
The thing is, art isn't apples. Art is man-made. It comes with a lot of cultural baggage, and in addition the people who make it often try to trick us. Most people's judgement of art is dominated by these extraneous factors; they're like someone trying to judge the taste of apples in a dish made of equal parts apples and jalapeno peppers. All they're tasting is the peppers. So it turns out you can pick out some people and say that they have better taste than others: they're the ones who actually taste art like apples.

Or to put it more prosaically, they're the people who (a) are hard to trick, and (b) don't just like whatever they grew up with. If you could find people who'd eliminated all such influences on their judgement, you'd probably still see variation in what they liked. But because humans have so much in common, you'd also find they agreed on a lot. They'd nearly all prefer the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to a blank canvas.
>> Anonymous
I wrote this essay because I was tired of hearing "taste is subjective" and wanted to kill it once and for all. Anyone who makes things knows intuitively that's not true. When you're trying to make art, the temptation to be lazy is as great as in any other kind of work. Of course it matters to do a good job. And yet you can see how great a hold "taste is subjective" has even in the art world by how nervous it makes people to talk about art being good or bad. Those whose jobs require them to judge art, like curators, mostly resort to euphemisms like "significant" or "important" or (getting dangerously close) "realized." [8]

I don't have any illusions that being able to talk about art being good or bad will cause the people who talk about it to have anything more useful to say. Indeed, one of the reasons "taste is subjective" found such a receptive audience is that, historically, the things people have said about good taste have generally been such nonsense.

It's not for the people who talk about art that I want to free the idea of good art, but for those who make it. Right now, ambitious kids going to art school run smack into a brick wall. They arrive hoping one day to be as good as the famous artists they've seen in books, and the first thing they learn is that the concept of good has been retired. Instead everyone is just supposed to explore their own personal vision. [9]

When I was in art school, we were looking one day at a slide of some great fifteenth century painting, and one of the students asked "Why don't artists paint like that now?" The room suddenly got quiet. Though rarely asked out loud, this question lurks uncomfortably in the back of every art student's mind. It was as if someone had brought up the topic of lung cancer in a meeting within Philip Morris.
>> Anonymous
"Well," the professor replied, "we're interested in different questions now." He was a pretty nice guy, but at the time I couldn't help wishing I could send him back to fifteenth century Florence to explain in person to Leonardo & Co. how we had moved beyond their early, limited concept of art. Just imagine that conversation.

In fact, one of the reasons artists in fifteenth century Florence made such great things was that they believed you could make great things. [10] They were intensely competitive and were always trying to outdo one another, like mathematicians or physicists today—maybe like anyone who has ever done anything really well.

The idea that you could make great things was not just a useful illusion. They were actually right. So the most important consequence of realizing there can be good art is that it frees artists to try to make it. To the ambitious kids arriving at art school this year hoping one day to make great things, I say: don't believe it when they tell you this is a naive and outdated ambition. There is such a thing as good art, and if you try to make it, there are people who will notice.
>> Anonymous
Notes

[1] This is not to say, of course, that good paintings must have faces in them, just that everyone's visual piano has that key on it. There are situations in which you want to avoid faces, precisely because they attract so much attention. But you can see how universally faces work by their prevalence in advertising.

[2] The other reason it's easy to believe is that it makes people feel good. To a kid, this idea is crack. In every other respect they're constantly being told that they have a lot to learn. But in this they're perfect. Their opinion carries the same weight as any adult's. You should probably question anything you believed as a kid that you'd want to believe this much.

[3] It's conceivable that the elegance of proofs is quantifiable, in the sense that there may be some formal measure that turns out to coincide with mathematicians' judgements. Perhaps it would be worth trying to make a formal language for proofs in which those considered more elegant consistently came out shorter (perhaps after being macroexpanded or compiled).

[4] Maybe it would be possible to make art that would appeal to space aliens, but I'm not going to get into that because (a) it's too hard to answer, and (b) I'm satisfied if I can establish that good art is a meaningful idea for human audiences.

[5] If early abstract paintings seem more interesting than later ones, it may be because the first abstract painters were trained to paint from life, and their hands thus tended to make the kind of gestures you use in representing physical things. In effect they were saying "scaramara" instead of "uebfgbsb."

[6] It's a bit more complicated, because sometimes artists unconsciously use tricks by imitating art that does.
>> Anonymous
[7] I phrased this in terms of the taste of apples because if people can see the apples, they can be fooled. When I was a kid most apples were a variety called Red Delicious that had been bred to look appealing in stores, but which didn't taste very good.

[8] To be fair, curators are in a difficult position. If they're dealing with recent art, they have to include things in shows that they think are bad. That's because the test for what gets included in shows is basically the market price, and for recent art that is largely determined by successful businessmen and their wives. So it's not always intellectual dishonesty that makes curators and dealers use neutral-sounding language.

[9] What happens in practice is that everyone gets really good at talking about art. As the art itself gets more random, the effort that would have gone into the work goes instead into the intellectual sounding theory behind it. "My work represents an exploration of gender and sexuality in an urban context," etc. Different people win at that game.

[10] There were several other reasons, including that Florence was then the richest and most sophisticated city in the world, and that they lived in a time before photography had (a) killed portraiture as a source of income and (b) made brand the dominant factor in the sale of art.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that good art = fifteenth century European art. I'm not saying we should make what they made, but that we should work like they worked. There are fields now in which many people work with the same energy and honesty that fifteenth century artists did, but art is not one of them.

http://www.paulgraham.com/goodart.html
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>702714"Well," the professor replied, "we're interested in different questions now." He was a pretty nice guy, but at the time I couldn't help wishing I could send him back to fifteenth century Florence to explain in person to Leonardo & Co. how we had moved beyond their early, limited concept of art. Just imagine that conversation.

Your professor was right. The paitings of the middle Renaissance differed from the medieval and antiquated visual arts in that painters began trying to depict realism over iconography.

The Sistine Chapel is certainly more artistic than a blank canvas, but its not significantly more artistic than, say, the Hagia Sophia or the Bayeux Tapestry.

15th century Italian realism isn't the pinnacle of art, unless that's what you want to paint. If you train in form instead of theory, you because a technician, like some of the lesser Renaissance artisans who didn't innovate like Michaelanglo or Leonardo did.

Pictured is Heironymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, also from the Renaissance period, which uses self-made and early Christian icons.
>> Anonymous
It's funny about this comic... It seems so relatively innocent, like it's written by a 15 year old white girl with imagination but no sense of adventure. Except for the random nude ash scenes.
>> Anonymous
GODAMN SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD IT'S FUCKING STUPID AS FUCK