#what if I just went not only having an inconsistent artstyle but I was also inconsistent with like

[haven-gum-rockrose]

Ugh the shitty thing about drawing book characters is that you have to decide what they look like before you draw them

[crazysodomite]

i see a ton of issues with 'creativity' in art online spaces on social media... not just the 'adoptables' community or whatever but it's REALLY bad in there. and i think i know why... man it's hard to structure my thoughts...

'originality' is actually extremely narrow in art spaces specifically on social media. people get extremely fixated on having an 'original art style' but at the same time all art is being funneled into 1 specific way of making it. and when someone DOES go outside of the norm it becomes their 'thing'. their 'brand'. read: what sells their art/gets them popular.

a few examples: so many posts on the internet complaining about hating drawing lineart, having to redo the line 100 times, etc.

lineart is immediately suggested for beginners and most art is based on lineart first, which makes some people hate art. and they end up thinking doing it any other way is 'wrong' or 'too difficult'. beginners feel like they must make their art like this. sketch > lineart > color fill > shading > detail. when in reality you really don't have to do any of this at all. your art can truly be anything and anything that you hate about creating art can just be removed from the process. am i making any sense? i think i went through this process too. i started out doing lineart and i fucking hated it. i couldn't initially realize that painting is the easiest and most fun way for me to do art. because most art advice on social media (how most people nowadays try to learn i think) is aimed at this specific way to do it.

we aren't giving advice on how to explore art and creativity but only how to make your art most appealing...

same thing with smaller stuff like not being able to do the second eye in art. you don't even HAVE to make your art symmetrical. you can obviously desire that result but i feel like some people aren't even considering the possibility. and this isn't just because people are just lacking in creativity. if your art is 'too weird' and 'not pretty' 'outside of the norm' you will get bullied and made fun of viciously. your art can only venture outside the norm if it's still appealing. and most people aren't up to taking that risk because a few horrible words about a persons art can end their desire to do it completely!!! am i making any sense. when you venture and see art outside of what's popular on social media it's like your eyes are wide open...

and then, when someone does venture out of the norm in a creative and appealing way, it suddenly becomes 'their brand' and if someone creates something remotely similar to it, it's considered 'plagiarism' and drama and harassment follows. it's MY THING to draw this in that way. you can't get inspired by it. it's MY BRAND.

so we come to the conclusion of people trying to claim ideas as their own only and try to make profit out of it. and attack anyone who threatens 'their thing'. the endless battles over adoptable markings and palettes. the 'style theft'.

the 'my artstyle is so inconsistent'. it's okay to want to feel like your art is truly your own but the reality often is that. 'i need a concrete style so people expect this one specific thing from me and will pay for it' which obviously there's no blame in people trying to make money but the way it affects artists is just horrible.

the 'artist branding' thing is really fucking bad in adoptable spaces. if you're an 'in demand' artist a lot of attention is paid to your art not because people really enjoy it but because it has trade value. and even really gorgeous designs from people are looked over and devalued because they're not a high trade value artist...

im tired of trying to make my art appealing and popular instead of what i like to do. and im also tired of people not being able to appreciate art outside of it's most appealing form and calling ANYTHING outside what appeals to them bad or boring or whatever the fuck. i can really say more but i have trouble structuring my thoughts...

Mommy needs cigarettes 🚬 i just ranted on facebook.

[unityrain24]

Saw your tags about Star Wars, it seems Star Wars stans and modern MCU stans are two peas in a pod. :/

im not entirely sure which tags you were referring to, because i have reblogged several starwars posts with Tags, but honestly, the mcu and starwars really are two peas in a pod. And im honestly surprised there isnt more comradery/comparing between the fandoms

both started out as, while definitely not "high art" or anything, legitimately good enjoyable films, with relatable characters the audience could feel empathy and compassion for, exciting new powers and places, fun and adventurous stories, and more, which instantly became beloved classic that people thought about with nostalgia and pleasantness. And they were and by people who cared and the people who watched them were compelled to care and create communities.

But then both franchises saw a shift, from making films from a passionate and moneymaking point of view, to purely making films from a moneymaking point of view. While star wars saw this happen with the franchise being picked up a few years after to make sequels, the mcu's shift happened more gradually, since there was no time in-between making movies.

now, while i would not consider myself a StarWars Fan, my sister and cousins most definitely were, so i had to watch basically everything in order to keep a conversation with them (not that i didnt enjoy it, i quite liked it and all the lore, it just didnt hold the special place in my heart that thing i consider myself a Fan of do). I've watched the movies, the clone wars series, rebels, the mandalorian, etc all the way through. It's been a while since i was keeping up with everything, so forgive me for not having quite a comprehensive understanding and opions of it as i did say, 3-4 years ago lol.

But the starwars sequels are a lot like the latest phases of the mcu. While i cant remember if they explicitly go against any prestablished canon like the later mcu phases do, they definitely go against the spirit and point/purpose of the original (and even prequel) films.From what i remember, the sequels also had went through several different directers and had direction and script changes and was a whole mess, so even the three films were sort of inconsistent or at the very leat felt oddly-thrown together (<-i may be wrong on the specifics of that its been a while. but it was something along those lines). Also like the later phases of the mcu, they relied a lot on the "nostalgia factor" with not only easter eggs but bringing back old ideas, concepts, plots, even characters, since it "worked so well the first time," when really what the "first time" did was think of new things, present old things in new ways, and tell make art from a place of passion, community, and connection, rather than a "whats the least i can do to make the most money" mindset formula (a point brought up a lot by @therese-lokidottir on many of their recent mcu critiques).

Starwars, unlike the mc, did have a brief period of "redemption" where it looked like the franchise would be saved and given back to the hands of people passionate about starwars, stoytelling, and film, with stuff like the final season of clonewars, the mandalorian, and a few other things. That was a great time to be a starwars fan. I wasn't even a fan, and it was kind of magical for me. But now it seems like they are back of the capitalist art-destroying path, hard. They have been pumping out series after series after series (once again going for the "nostalgia" thing, bringing back the clonewars artstyle, several beloved characters, and more), but it all feels so hollow. The stories feel more like they are just putting in a whole bunch of "wow, thats so shocking" and sewing them together with "hey i loved that character!". The costuming and makeup is absolute trash. The worst by far is hera (an alien character from the animated Rebels series, showing up live-action in Ahsoka). It is hideous. I have seen cosplays of her better than what the actual multi-bullion-dollar corpoation disney with all the best resources put on that screen. The costume looked like it was from spirit halloween, the makeup looked patchy and strange, they left out simple details of her design, and all the colours were Off. Examples:

Hera in Rebels:

Hera Cosplayers (x and x):

Hera in the Ahsoka Series: (it is like. seriously disconcerting to me)

and again, the costuming was not the most pressing point. Its actually relatively low on the list of points of everything bad with current starwars. But its good for a visual example. My sister and my cousins loved starwars. Passionate. Ahsoka was one of my sister's favourite characters. She couldnt even get though a full episode of ashoka. I havent heard anything new of starwars from our cousins, either. And we see eachother relatively often. I havent watched a new starwars thing in like... forever now. And it seems like neither have they. And not because they got sick of starwas, i can tell you that. They got sick of the new starwars being pumped out and shoved down their throats where the only things that resembled what they had loved were twisted into something else. Which, at least in my experience, is far, far worse than if they just ended things ubruptly and unfairly. At least mutilated corpse can rest.

The mcu's decline was, again, more gradual, like boiling a frog. Thor ragnarok is where i would probably pinpoint the beginnings though. I didn't like it at first, because it was out of character, sort of reversed elements of the character's well-developing character arcs , narratively picked on some characters more than others, etc. But, it was still a well-beloved film by many, in-universe explanations for why the characters, arcs, and plots were so different could be plausibly thought up, it was fun and unique, and i could make myself ignore the bad parts and focus on the good and enjoy it for a while. But by the time the loki series came out? There wasnt even any of that anymore. No passion. No community. No love of art. No respect for the previous artists and their art, that the new makers were supposed to honour and continue. While ragnarok's morals of the story could be a little iffy at times (attempting to critique colonialism/imperialism, but falling flat because mocking loki for dismantling it; making jokes at points of the film where it was a little inappropriate), the loki series was straight up horrifying. Perhaps most noteably, fucking. GLORIFYING AND EXCUSING/SYMPATHIZING FASCISM??? and labeling genocide as a "necessary evil?" (though, once again, that was not the only immoral "moral" the series preached). Disgusting. And the MCU is pumping out way more films than starwars, and seem far deeper in the money-lust trenches too.

either way, both are suffering and both are bought by disney (and oddly, both keep giving more and more screentime to the fascist characters. but at least starwars isnt romanticizing it like the mcu is...)

and it hurts so much when something important to you is taken from you, and twisted, and ruined, and its mutilated corpse is hung up on string and paraded around as a puppet before your eyes, and burned into your mind even when you finally tear yourself away. And then swarms of people thinking your ridiculous for caring so much about something so unimportant, and others defending the very monstrosity that did this.

But its not ridiculous or silly or inferior to be attatched to a fictional character or fictional world or fictional story or whatever. They can provide comfort, and ways to explore and understand and even come to terms with yourself (or even others!) (and can be especially important coping mechanism for mentally ill people!). And art is a such an innately human thing, for us to express ourselves, and communal art (like film!) is a tradition across humanity and time!

And with the whole thing with people these days defending/denying what capitalism is doing to art, and denying the notion that art has any influence or effect on "real life"... why are these such absurd concept to you, that you liken to some crazy conspiracy theory? Are you really so blind as to not see it happening before you? Is the blindfold over your eyes really so soft it feels like nothing there? They say a bird who doesnt know its in a cage thinks its free. These people seem to think that drastic, unfair, unjust, immoral, inequal changes and systems are only things of the past. And often, the past doesnt feel real. Dinosaurs and the roman empire and some genocide in some faraway land in some faraway time can at times seem just as unreal as mythical creatures and stories. And even if such terrible things were to happen now, surely theyd be able to see it coming. But things like this dont change in an instant. They are gradual. Like boiling a frog. You dont notice. And even if things arent the worst they can be, and never become the worst they can be, they are still bad. Things arent required to be certified the worst of worst in order for change to be allowed to happen. The worst of the worst isnt even a thing.

Our art is being taken from us. We are being overworked and underpayed. Our whole lives are dictated by how "valuable" we are. Our environments are being polluted and decimated and our planet is becoming more and more inhospitable. Racism and queerphobia and ableism and more are taking lives. And none of those things are at the very worst they can be. They could all be much, much, much worse. But we shouldnt just sit around and be grateful its not worse and do nothing more, nor should we deny anything is wrong at all. If you had cancer youd want to do what you could to get better. If you If broke your leg youd do what you could to make it better. Even if you just accidentally cut your hand or finger while chopping vegetables, youd bandages it up. We always should try to make things better.

We deserve to have our art continue to be art. Just as we deserve all the much more pressing areas of our lives to be better too

Anyways, marvel and starwars really are two peas in a pod. And that pod is with other pods, and the plant those pods share is film. Or perhaps even art as a whole. The mcu and starwars are just really good examples of whats happening right now, because not only does it feel like perhaps its hitting them the most, but also because since they are such large franchises, you can really see and document the progression of whats happening with each instalment.

two peas in a pod :( <3

[thehealingsystem]

Hey natewantstobattle fandom, I think there's something we need to talk about with the new v1r@l music video

It is highly likely (honestly it obviously is) that the art found in the video is AI generated. Now, this isn't me accusing nate of anything, as there's a possible chance that he is simply not aware of it being AI art. He's an artist himself (albeit a musical one), I doubt he would be in support of such theft, and he was smart enough to call out the whole NFT scandal as well.

When I first watched it it had stuck out to me that the anime artstyle found in the video seemed out lf the ordinary, but I brushed it aside automatically. I went to go see who created the art, and noticeably the only thing they had linked to was a video producer

I normally don't question give hearts when it comes to crediting, so I assumed that the person who made the video must ALSO be the one to make the art. But from observation, that must not be the case

This is not a company who has workers of different skill sets, which one could possibly be digital painting. This is one person, from the looks of it, who uses AI generated artwork. Looking at their website, there's a section exclusively for digital art. While these certainly do fit the common AI generated artstyle, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was, they don't have any inconsistencies and errors that AI art may hold, so no proof there. BUT there are certainly errors found in the music video itself that no one other than an AI 'artist' would make. My apologies if I don't point out all of them

0:38 - The boy's head resting on a vaguely shaped, stubby, backwards hand. It was no distinct structure to it, the fingers look half cut off, and no one in their right mind would twist their arm and hand like that to rest on it

1:08 - Nitpicky but this guy has the WEIRDEST hair texture I've ever seen. The parts in the light do not match the shaded parts of the hair. They're like...odd blotches of fire

2:38 - There's this out of place hood-headphone cord. It looks like it comes out of and goes to nowhere behind the old man, and attempts to be a headphone wire and a hood strap at the same time

2:57 - It may not be obvious at first but the girl's sleeve is not correctly attached to or shaded in with the rest of her shirt. Like. Just look at it

(Note: A person has said that there's one scene in which a character has five and a half fingers, but I haven't been able to spot it yet

The video also noticeably tries to hide the hands A LOT, whether that be blurring or cutting it out entirely. Considering the mistakes we've already found with the hands, and AI art commonly not being able to get hands to look right, it's very possible it was purposeful)

Now, more about what I said in the beginning about Nate possibly not knowing:

Another thing to point out is that give heart has worked with this producer before. But the past videos that were made by them don't seem to involve any AI art at all

Nate's cover for "The Day." The art found in it is from the manga/anime My Hero Academia, created by Kohei Horikoshi. This is art that obviously can't be stolen and taken as one's own

"A Taste of the Flame," Hazbin Hotel song by Shawn Christmas. This time, there is an actual person behind the art in the video and rightfully credited in the description

A normally trustworthy video producer, who is not even open about admitting that they use AI art (not stated anywhere on the business site). So, this is my good faith assumption that Nate is not aware of this. He has a team of people for his videos, and considering is personality, it's very likely of him to overlook what this mv consists of. I don't know him personally, obviously, but considering how he presents himself in his content, past opinions, and the definitely normal behavior of wanting to believe in the best of someone you're a fan of, I don't think he would support the use of AI art. He's an artist who also doesn't like his work being stolen, and I can imagine if there was (and oh dear god if there already is) an AI that generates music scrapped from him and other musicians, he would not be happy.

There are other possibilities if he DOES know it's AI. One being that he doesn't know that AI art steals art from other artists, and the second being an AI that takes from fully consenting artists. I 100% doubt both of these

If he truly does not know, I will be pretty relieved. But I will still hold him accountable for negligence on his part. It's his channel and content, and even if he overlooks some of the stuff in it, he still has full control of what gets posted there and is responsible for it. I won't be as upset, but he should've known better to not let this fly and investigated more on this VERY overtly suspicious artwork

Okay, now getting to the main point and what you should take away from this; we need to be letting Nate know what's up with this, bring it to his attention or at least ask him of what AI art is doing in this video (whether he supports it or not). Because it's important for us to know, AND if this truly was done without his support/consent, he NEEDS to be aware so he can fix it. I'd rather have no mv for v1r@l rather than one that promotes art theft

TL;DR: NateWantsToBattle's new music video for "V1r@l" consists of AI generated art theft, we don't know whether he consented to this decision or not, and as a community should let him know

[technicalgator]

To Volpestarks,

I've seen a few older posts regarding this blog, but I decided I'd pull together some evidence and make my own post and conclusion about it. @volpestarks , while you have shown in the past to be an incredible artist seen mostly on your ArtStation and old, buried tumblr post and other social media accounts, I fear you have let AI almost completely take over your art, and you vaguely claim you use AI in your art, but downplay just how much you use it. Be aware that this isn't "cyberbullying" as you have claimed in the past, but an honest conclusion I have come up with based on the evidence I have gathered.

Let's begin with your ArtStation, found linked in this lovely art piece you had made almost 6 years ago.

(Source)

Directed to your ArtStation, we see the bulk of your art, your neat, expressive artstyle and textured brush strokes. Yet taking a glance at your posts, one "art piece" painfully sticks out...

(Source)

On the top row, the farthest to the right, you have posted a portrait you claimed to have drawn that looks very different from the rest of your art. On top of that, many artist like myself will also notice that the style in particular looks very similar to AI generated images, known as AI "art". Let's take a closer look.

(Source)

It seems you claim this as your own work, a "gift commission" for a friend. Additionally, you then promote yourself, saying you currently take commissions. Looking at the date this was posted, this was approximately posted not too long after some very different art you created of different head shaped characters in greyscale, perhaps you experimenting with your expressive art style.

The art piece you posted after the one above is back in your similar style, a beautiful perspective sketch of a city.

(Source)

Notice how this is not only posted a little after your last post from above, but how the style and overall technique is completely different. On top of that, you also tagged the software you used, and what this art piece is about.

While it isn't a crime to generate "art" with AI, blatantly claiming it as your own work when it is vastly different than a piece you posted not too long before, as well as after, is pretty disappointing and not a good look in the art community at all. This was the first, and unfortunately not only, red flag that caught my attention.

-

Now looking at your Instagram, it's clear you have dabbled pretty heavily in making AI generated pictures. For example, I will use this post where you created some AI generated images in what seems to be a collab with another Instagram account.

(Source)

Here we can see AI generated "art", the telling signs of this being generated is things like the anatomy of the arm, the random mirror in said girl's arm, and overall minor things us artists have come to point out in generated "art". While you don't outright claim to have made it, it's just more evidence that you have dabbled in AI generated art quite frequently. - Now moving onto tumblr, where people have seen the most of your art, as well as pointed out your inconsistencies.

I want to start off with this post you made yourself, and take a look at what you have to say about these inconsistencies.

(Source)

Right off the bat, the first bullet point is a clear indicator that you use AI. While it is, as you claim, not prompt based like most AI generators, AI is prominent in your art. While you don't specify how much AI you use in your art, from the examples I went over before, as well as what I will go over, in my opinion it's pretty blatant. You have proven to be a talented artist, as you have art posted from before AI art was available to the general public. However, unless the AI generator you are using has stated that its database is comprised of data gathered with the permission of artists and other creators, you are participating in the act of using stolen data. Yes, you are indirectly stealing artist's hard work to fill in your own work then claiming it as your own, if that is not the case.

You then have this comment, the only comment under this post, as you have replies restricted on every one of your posts across your blog.

(Source)

After going through your tumblr, Instagram, ArtStation and even old TikTok account (that seems to be no longer available) I did not see a single Timelapse nor Step by Step you claimed to have planned to post. While yes, you have no obligation to share these, and I'm sure you're very busy, it's odd you haven't found the time in a little over 6 months to post just one Timelapse or Step by Step. As an artist who only uses Procreate, I know the program quite well, and that it's only a few button clicks to export a Timelapse! If you're not sure how or it has simply slipped your mind in your busy schedule, here's a link directly to the Procreate Handbook!

Before I list my own gathered evidence, I would like to shoutout those who have already done so. Some have even reblogged straight from your art posts and of course, they were ignored.

especiallyhaytham and gronnulv

bunabi

And any others who talked about this. You are not alone.

Following these claims of people pointing out some very telling flaws in your art work (flaws usually common in AI generation), instead of addressing them or even disproving them by showing us proof (like those Timelapses and Step by Steps you planned to post) you either ignore them or act like it's a personal attack.

(Source)

You seem to defend yourself by claiming it's harassment or "cyberbullying" instead of proving us wrong, which to me is a telling sign. You also have multiple posts defending yourself, or claiming your art is "your art", but you never have proof to back it up. While you have demonstrated in the past you are a talented artist, why is it so hard to show your work now after having a sudden, major art style change with small flaws commonly seen in generated art? - One of your posts that caught my eye, as a fellow Mass Effect fan, was this piece.

(Source)

While on the surface this looks nice, a few moments of observing this piece is all that is needed to notice some pretty significant flaws. The hat on the Shepard's head is completely wonky. Now, I'm not an expert on hats, but that hat is incredibly deformed from the bill to the hat itself. Next, the man's arm seems off like it's been dislocated, and even fractured in multiple places the way it bends at displaced joints. Behind the orange cat is a blurred, orange and black stripped mass. Is that a part of the cat? If so, is it a large abscess? A mutation? Does it need medical attention??

Another example is this post you reblogged not too long ago, which I'm assuming means you're still proud of it, or at least claim it.

(Source)

Again, this looks appealing on the surface, yet there a quite a few flaws. AI generators have never been good at replicating hands, and it seems like this poor dinosaur is no different. Look at it's hands; 4 crooked fingers on the left, 3 fingers and two thumbs on the right?? A wonky snoot and bumpy underbelly? If you claim you draw, even with the aid of AI, I would have at least fixed this poor dinosaur's anatomy before posting this. - So I've proven you use AI, and you even claim so yourself, yet the way you state so makes it seem like it plays a minor role. You've proven yourself to be an artist, so why not fix the AI's mistakes? If you won't put the effort into fixing the generator's mistakes, how much effort, if any, are you putting into the art piece itself? What is your process?

Well, based on these two photos, it seems you do draw, but then you let AI transform it into something completely different, and despite these vast generated differences, you still claim it as your own.

(Source)

Does this look vaguely familiar? Doesn't this city, this perspective, look familiar? Doesn't the character almost look photoshopped in with the light outline surrounding them? Well, here's the original image.

(Source)

I thought so. Here is your original artwork, a beautiful city perspective I stated earlier, now ruined by the overused "assistance" of AI. I'd argue that these images are barely the same, the color theme and perspective somewhat the same. Yet, despite the vast, generated differences, you claim it to be your own artwork.

This is disappointing. Over your career you seemed to have developed your expressive art style, something unique and beautiful, and yet when AI "Art" Generators reared their ugly head, you decided to chose it over your own art.

You have chosen to use a program, a database filled with your fellow artist's stolen hard work, for your own gain because it was easier and simpler to you.

It's one thing to use AI for references and ideas. AI is a wonderful tool to use, but it should stay just that. It should not replace your art.

Claiming it as your own, despite it being vastly different than from what you have drawn, is diabolical and quite the low bar.

We aren't saying Ai is bad, nor is it bad to use in your art. What we are saying, however, is if AI is this prominent in your art, it is a false statement to claim it as your own art, and even misleading when you promote for personal gain like commissions.

I'd love for you to reply to this and either prove me wrong, correct me, or say whatever you see fit, a response from you regardless would be awesome.

But if I am blocked or ignored by you, I will be sad and disappointed to realize that those actions by you would only prove me right in my conclusion.

[fangirlsovertoomanythings]

Bluestar

Alrighty!

Favorite thing about them: She's a fairly well-written character, despite the inconsistencies in personality she has, especially after she died and became a StarClan cat. She enjoys being a good mentor, tries to be a good leader, but at the end of the day she thinks too highly of herself to realize when she's wrong or has gone astray. I also find her religious crisis a bit too relatable, but I won't get into it haha

Least favorite thing about them: Other than the personality inconsistencies after she died, there is also the fact that, when she was alive, the writers never knew what they wanted her to be. A good, selfless leader? A harsh, egocentrical leader? A caring mother, or a hardened warrior who has lost too much? It got so bad that I don't know anymore what exactly I remember her as. The woman ignored Fireheart's warnings, then instead of resigning when she felt she could no longer lead, she was irresponsible and kept her position, worsened Brightpaw's PTSD, left Fireheart practically alone, and almost went to war with WindClan for no damn reason? What the fuck Richard

Favorite line: I don't remember the exact quote, but the moment where she regains a bit of her awareness a little before she dies and screams at the dogs before attacking them and falling to the river. Not really a line, but this moment was an entire vibe

brOTP: I don't think she had anyone as close as a sibling other than actual siblings, so no

OTP: As much as Oakheart and Bluestar is canon, I prefer Bluestar and Yellowfang. They are two mothers who had given up on motherhood and watched their children grow up away from them, not to mention the fact that they are two very motherly figures to Fireheart throughout his journey. When Yellowfang shows up at the camp, if I remember correctly Bluestar starts treating her less like a prisioner and more like a guest once she discovers her identity as ShadowClan's doctor (of course, that includes political reasons aswell, but she respects her). They are also seen a lot around each other after their deaths, and their spirits often banter about prophecies and all of that. They're a couple to me, man

nOTP: I don't have any, unless someone ships her with Fireheart, in which case: NO. NO. NOOOOO

Random headcanon: I'm not sure if it's canon or not, but she's the sort of mentor that doesn't take it easy even if it'd boost your self-esteem. Even in your first fighting challenge, she's already giving her all even if you barely know any fight moves. She thinks it's fairer this way, because her apprentices will face far more experienced warriors in battle; and when her apprentices are able to immobilize her or even accidentaly hurt her during training, her praise is earned and the apprentice feels that because the woman was NOT faking her loss.

Unpopular opinion: I don't know if she deserved to go to StarClan all that much, honestly. Though I understand her reasons, her later years as leader were awful to the point where her irresponsibility forced Fireheart to break the Warrior Code to protect the clan at least on one occasion. Her irresponsibility also indirectly caused the death of Swiftpaw and the permanent injury of Brightpaw, and nothing is going to erase that fact. As much of an asshole that is Thistleclaw, he wasn't a bad mate to Snowfur and as far as Bluestar's Prophecy lore went his biggest crime was being unecessaringly violent, and that was the only POV we had until Spottedleaf's Heart came out. I don't know, man, I just don't think this woman deserved StarClan at all. If Frecklewish can go to the Dark Forest for "not grieving the right way", how the hell is this cat in Kitty Paradise?

Song I associate with them: Stand in the Rain - Superchick. The first animation/edit I saw of hers had this song, and now it's permanentely printed in my brain.

Favorite picture of them: I can't SAVE IT, but it's one in the older artstyle where she's in attack position in the middle of a bush, her big ol' eyes looking at the audience. Creechur

[elyvorg]

How (not) to draw Kaito in left profile view: A Kaito Fanartist's Lament

If you're familiar with my blog, you'll know that I've drawn Kaito a lot. And contrary to apparently a large proportion of this fandom, I actually enjoy drawing his ridiculous hair! Usually. From a lot of the more commonly-used angles, it has a very distinctive shape to it which I find fun to get down.

But from certain angles? Not so much. In particular, it is not a coincidence that none of the drawings I've done of Kaito have ever been composed such that he's in a left profile view. Because I am not at all comfortable with drawing his spiky fringe from that angle. The rest of his hair is still fine - it is always very UP, just draw a lot of spikes going UP and you can't go too far wrong - but his fringe, from this angle, is a Problem. Here is a chronicle of my adventures in trying to figure this problem out.

First, let's look at some sprites of Kaito from the angles that give his hair its most distinctive shapes, in order to get a sense of the shape his fringe is "supposed" to be.

Front:

Pretty straightforward, and pretty consistent between the sprites and various illustrations drawn from that angle, give or take a spike or two. Kinda downwards, about as far as his nose or mouth for the longest spikes, and also pointing about 45 degrees to his left.

Right 3/4 view:

Also pretty straightforward and consistent between different depictions. I personally consider this the most distinctive and iconic shape of Kaito's hair, so if any angle should be considered "correct" and the thing to use for reference in case of inconsistencies, I think it should be this one. Note how from this angle we can see more than we could from the front that his fringe spikes not only point to his left but also outwards from his face at least a bit. They do not fold back around to the left side of his face towards his left ear.

Right profile view:

This still seems fairly consistent with the other sprites we've looked at so far, at least as far as one can tell considering that his fringe spikes are partially hidden behind his face and pointing away from the camera. All of them are fine to look at, because any awkwardness in foreshortening of the spikes is mitigated by the fact that they're pointing away anyway, and they're not getting in the way of his face from this angle. There are however slight inconsistencies here between the different depictions of this angle, in exactly how far outwards from his face his fringe spikes are angled, and how long they are.

I personally like drawing Kaito from this angle a lot and have done it a bunch of times. It's pretty surprising to me to realise that the official artists almost never have (this was basically all I could find; that third one is some merch something or other from the wiki using what should be his opposing Debate Scrum sprite but for some reason the actual one they use in the game is a mirrored version of his left profile view, grumble grumble).

Left 3/4 view:

Now we're getting into possibly being a liiiittle more inconsistent with the other angles. At this point his fringe spikes should probably be pointing a little less downwards and to the left and generally more towards the camera than they actually are. Not that I blame the artists for not drawing it that way, though, because foreshortening is hard, probably especially when it's spikes. Nonetheless, these are still all quite consistent between different depictions of him from this angle, so getting his hair to look right from this angle is still fairly simple as you just need to copy this basic shape.

(The arrows are pointing out something else of note, namely the only downwards-pointing spikes in Kaito's hair that aren't on his fringe, which are only found on the left side of his head. Illustrations of Kaito from an angle that should have these spikes visible are incredibly inconsistent on whether they even exist or not, so while I personally choose to include them in my depictions of Kaito's hair whenever relevant, I think it can be considered equally correct not to do so).

But now for the left profile view, which for some reason has been used in official drawings way more than the right profile view despite the fact that even the official artists clearly don't have a clue how to keep it consistent, as we are about to see. There are a few different approaches they can take.

The Too Backwards:

On its own, aesthetically, this looks fine. But that's not the angle that his fringe spikes go at at all! This is incredibly inconsistent with his hair as seen from most other angles, particularly the right 3/4 view, in which clearly those spikes are not going to end up anywhere near behind his left ear. The spikes are very straight and should not be bending around his forehead to point backwards like this.

The Too Short:

This time, the spikes are probably angled about right; mostly downwards, maybe a bit forwards, any “leftwards” would be pointing into the camera from here and so not visible, and not doing any kind of wrapping backwards around behind his ear. But if you look at any of his regular sprites, the spikes are meant to be long enough to be down about as far as his nose or mouth. These barely go down past his eyes... which has the incidental benefit of keeping his eye unobscured. As it happens, the Too Backwards approach also incidentally results in mostly not getting in the way of his eye. Hmm. Starting to sense a pattern here.

The Too Forwards:

Now this is a novel idea! Only one regular illustration in the whole game uses this approach, such that I had to dig into the closing arguments (which I otherwise left out of this because their art style is a bit different anyway) to find another similar example. This overlaps with the Too Short approach a lot in terms of angle, but these spikes are longer while still not blocking his eye from view. But maybe in doing so they've ended up pointing just a little more forwards than they really should be? The one on the left here, while seeming closer to correct than the rest we've seen, still looks a little off to me. (Maybe it’s just that there isn’t even attempt to foreshorten and imply they’re pointing into the camera.)

So if none of these are quite correct and consistent with the shape of Kaito's hair as seen from other angles, what should it look like? The best way to be sure is to take an image of Kaito from the right profile view, flip it, and then redraw the hair spikes to be on the near side of his face while keeping the silhouette the same, since that should be the same from either side. So I went and did this both by tracing one of the official right-profile sprites, and then with one of my own drawings of Kaito from a right profile view, and...

look at this ridiculous doofus how does he even manage to see anything that's approximately 45 degrees to his left (he probably doesn't)

...here we have the problem. The shape that Kaito's fringe is probably supposed to make from this angle blocks his eyes to varying degrees depending on exactly how you're angling it within the realistic bounds that it could be at. The Too Forwards approach kind of has the right idea but is probably exaggerating the forwardsness just slightly to avoid having that happen. I suppose it depends on which right profile image you use for reference, since they're all slightly inconsistent between the tiny handful of official ones that even exist.

I can try and do the anime artstyle cheat of having the eyes be visible through the hair anyway, but that's usually only forgivable because the fringe of hair blocking the view is probably thin enough that you'd be able to kind of see their eyes through it regardless. Here, though, there's such a large volume of foreshortened spikes in the way that I don't think one can reasonably get away with this. If the point of an art piece were to obscure Kaito's eyes and therefore his expression, then this particular angle would be great and incredibly useful. But otherwise, if he's supposed to be expressive? Eeehhhhhhh.

Leaving us with a conundrum of either drawing Kaito's hair correctly and how it should look from that angle but awkwardly obscuring his face in the process, or drawing something that leaves his face perfectly visible and readable but very clearly isn't consistent with what his hair is doing when he's seen from any other angle. This is also not even getting into the part where foreshortening is hard and I'm not sure how well I managed to do that when trying to draw the spikes "correctly"; they still don't look like they're pointing into the camera as much as they probably should, but how do you even???

So, to sum up, and to give the advice that I myself have been following all this time: how best to draw Kaito in left profile view?

Don't.