/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4718204]

How can you tell if a piece of art has soul or is soulless?

[Anonymous No.4718210]

If the artist learned from Vilppu, their art automatically has soul

[Anonymous No.4718213]

You just can.

Which is to say it's basically completely subjective and based on arbitrary personal criteria that most people aren't even conscious of.

'Soulless' is a pretty useless critique for that reason, though I think it's a nice compliment to say it has soul. It's just not very actionable.

[Anonymous No.4718220]

>>4718204
Totally meaningless way of making a comment on whether or not a certain person likes something or not.
If I like it=soul.
If I don't like=no soul.
Recent version of "you don't understand, it's too deep & meaningful 4U".

[Anonymous No.4718221]

>>4718204
It has soul if the artist is Eastern, and is soulless if the artist is Western.

[Anonymous No.4718225]

>>4718221
Utter bollocks.

[Anonymous No.4718233]

>>4718221
\thread

[Anonymous No.4718244]

>>4718220

That's most of it but I'm not sure if it's all of it.

There's art I like that feels kind of 'soulless' and there's 'soulful' art I don't like.

It's definitely closely related to subjective taste and is generally meaningless, though. At least, it doesn't really give you any information.

[Anonymous No.4718249]

>>4718204
Post a pic and I will tell you. You may not posses the skill of soul judgement but I do.

[Anonymous No.4718254]

I think soul is the secret fundamental. It’s esoteric in a way, but an anon on another thread basically said that soul shows best when the creator is comfortable while he’s creating. Essentially, the more familiar he is with the subject matter and more skill he has, the better the results when he’s in the ‘zone’.

[Anonymous No.4718281]

>>4718249

[Anonymous No.4718309]

>>4718204
The intent.
If a piece is made with confidence because the artist/creator simply wanted it, it has soul.
If it’s created with the sole purpose of getting likes and to impress others, soulless.

[Anonymous No.4718329]

>>4718204
You look at it. With eyes.

[Anonymous No.4718336]

>>4718281
Soulless

[Anonymous No.4718393]

>>4718204
has intent, tells a story, evokes emotion, speaks to you, is sincere, doesn't feel artificial or empty

[Anonymous No.4718511]

>>4718204
Most art that tells a story, or show love for the subject matter have soul. You can see it in the lines.

[Anonymous No.4719775]

>>4718204
Soul to me is when a piece of art is greater than the sum of its parts. It is the most important fundamental in any art form because it is able to evoke in the viewer feelings of happiness, sadness, lust, comfiness, and even more abstract or material feelings such as making the viewer feel like they're really standing on a painted dock as the ocean mist falls gently on their cheeks; for example.
Simply, it just means you like something if you think something has soul.

I'd like to think that most artists have the ability to put soul into their work simply because most humans have been blessed with that very nature. It's not something beginner artists should worry about or find ways to boil it down to a mathematical equation. When it comes to soul, I think the biggest barrier is lacking the skill required to put their thoughts onto the canvas or having so much technical knowledge but not enough courage in their passion for art that they focus entirely on making a cold, rigid
piece because they've beaten into themselves that the practical fundamentals are something you learn first and style way, way later.

[Anonymous No.4719813]

>>4718220
Wrong. There are many artists that I like who’s art is pretty soulless

[Anonymous No.4719868]

>>4718220
Wrong. Soul is the passion from the creator which seeps through a piece, and it can't be simply a lukewarm passion for art - it must be a burning passion for the very piece that is being created in that moment.

[Anonymous No.4719899]

>>4718221
10/10 would m'lady again desu

[Anonymous No.4721575]

[Anonymous No.4721589]

>>4718254
I do believe you can subconsciously feel when an artist had pleasure / fun drawing something or not.

[Anonymous No.4721590]

>>4721575
This is so posted as soulless that it got a soul on its own.

[Anonymous No.4721595]

>>4721575
this is so bad, it hurts my eyes!

[Anonymous No.4721867]

>>4718204
It's a buzzword invented by retards to describe an emotional reaction they have with a piece. It's completely and utterly subjective and depends on the viewers' preferences, don't listen to any of these pretentious retards.

[Anonymous No.4723003]

>>4721867
Soulless response, only a ginger would say such a thing.

[Anonymous No.4723014]

>>4723003
not an argument

[Anonymous No.4723035]

>>4723014
Yeah it's a statement not an argument, well done. Brainless as well as soulless it seems.

[Anonymous No.4723042]

>>4723035
>resorting to ad hominem
You have yet to prove that soul is a thing, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.4723048]

>>4718204
does it have a meaning? does it have an expression? are the colors nice? Can you immerse yourself in it?
Or is it some tatoo of joker in a stiff position with an insanely boring expression?

[Anonymous No.4723050]

>>4723042
soul: the quality of a person or work of art that shows or produces deep good feelings.

Work of art exists, deep good feelings exist. Therefore...

[Anonymous No.4723082]

>>4723050
>Work of art exists, deep good feelings exist
I didn't deny that
>produces deep good feelings
So subjective? Like I said? post an example

[Anonymous No.4723085]

>>4723082
If it's subjective it exists for someone.

[Anonymous No.4723090]

there's always thing that make a piece objectively soulless like photobash and traced models if they show in the work

[Anonymous No.4726448]

>>4718204
If you like it, it has soul.

[Anonymous No.4728837]

>>4718221
>It has soul if the artist is Eastern, and is soulless if the artist is Western.
what if I am eastern european?

[Anonymous No.4728859]

>>4718221
Asians don’t have souls tho. It’s in the Bible.