'You live in opposite world or something?';

'another nodraw rage bait thread';

'>>7144461
1. Search Riot Games art directors. Moids get all the high positions.
2. Search famous mangaka. Most are moids.
You are retarded.';

'>>7144468
Look at the actual art of the art directors and most of it is boring slop.
Also there are plenty of famous female mangakas. Aside from Akira Toriyama, most male mangakas aren’t the best artists.
All of that is irrelevant anyway, the question was if women are naturally better artists, not businessmen.';

'>>7144476
>art director, mangakas = bussinessperson LOL
Name famous female mangakas with hit mangas. I bet you need to google them. Neck yourself retard.';

'>>7144482
nta but do you not know fucking Sailor Moon';

'>>7144483
What's the author name? You don't know. The same for Inuyasha author. Female mangakas are not famous.';

'>>7144482
Fullmetal alchemist
Sailor moon
Ranma 1/2';

'>>7144485
I don’t know a single mangakas name because I’m not an loser otaku. I know the work, which matters infinitely more.';

'>>7144489
>>7144490
Cope. Eveyone knows the name of authors of Dragonball, Berserk, One Piece, Naruto, Vinland Saga, Vagabond, etc. Male mangakas make better mangas, and tell better stories. They are infact better artists.';

'>>7144461
It's probably like this, where girls are on average better at art than women, however in the outliers, only men reach the highest levels';

'>>7144485
>female mangakas are not famous because you can't tell their names from the top of your head
That's just a straight up bad faith argument

I can't even tell you who the mangaka for the shit is like are and they're probably all male';

'>>7144508
Iron deficiency is a bitch.';

'>>7144513
>bad faith
Name female "Old masters" on par with Michael Angelo, Rembrandt, etc
Spoiler, you really can't
Name 1 femoid that mog Ruan Jia.';

'>>7144461
*yawn*';

'>>7144513
Not them, but I know of Naoko Takeuchi and Ryoko Kui. I can't remember anyone else, including men, because there are too many syllables involved in a naming system I'm wrecked on. This is a pissing contest anyway. Do you like the fucking manga art? Neat. That's all that should really matter. A ton of mangaka use pseudonyms and shit anyway, leaving their sex as a blank TBD.';

'>>7144499
> Berserk, One Piece, Naruto, Vinland Saga, Vagabond
Only shonentards know the names of those mangaka';

'>>7144526
Shut up roastie fujo.';

'>>7144521
There were no female old masters because women were barred from ateliers. Any noble woman that could get her hands on art supplies matched or surpassed most of the artists of her day.
Ruan jia is a render mongoloid, who cares about his shit?';

'>>7144528
Keep crying, spic.
Anyway the thread wasn’t about manga artists or old masters. It was about how /ic/ is filled with /begs/ that get mogged by 13 year old little girls on twitter';

'>>7144530
>moving the goal post.
LOL. /ic/ is only good for collecting resource, everyone knows that. Moot point bitch.';

'>>7144508
Yeah, it’s probably like that, but I think the gap between the averages should be wider.
The average female artist is upper-mid, while the average male artist is upper-beg.
The top female artists have a power level somewhere in the mid-pro range, while the top male artists are master-pro breaking any scouter that scans them.
What stops women from reaching the upper echelons?';

'>>7144532
I’m not moving the goal posts I’m getting your brown ass back on topic.
>Looking online
Read the OP, you utter philistine
And don’t bring up Moot (pbuh)';

'>>7144521
So, is Gentileschi totally unknown?
>name one moid that mogs ruan jia
Nigga i dont fucking care about your yt streamer ecelebs
>>7144529
>uuuhm women were literally cattle
look at this other fucking retard

holy shit you fags need to shut the fuck up';

'>>7144536
>women were cattle
Where is that implied at all you silly billy
Ateliers did not let women work and study under them. There may be a few cases I don’t know of throughout hundreds of years of history, but the rule was that no girls were allowed. Ateliers were mostly populated by the sons of artists anyway.';

'>>7144538
Did your american college feminist teacher teach you that?
fucking hell zoomers really believe women didn't exist outside of the kitchen 500 years ago
>b.b..b.b-b-b-but they b saying it be like that
but it wasn't';

'>>7144539
>no examples
ofc.
I’ll give you another chance before I ignore your posts. Name one historical female artist that apprenticed in an atelier.';

'>>7144461
They have some sort of advantage, just think back to your primary and high school days in art class, the stuff the girls drew was always leagues above what us boys were drawing.
But I think it evens out in the later years since men seem to have an easier time accepting and applying feedback while women seem to prefer to stick to their style and just keep refining it over the years.';

'Think like this
If women were never "allowed" to pursue art, why the are the majority of artists nowadays women?
If anything, only RICH people could pursue art back then, gender wasn't a criteria, and rich women didn't need to go into ateliers, they would just pay someone to teach them at home in their own studios without having to deal with the masses and poor people.
The majority of people back then were not rich, so they didn't have the luxury to pursue art.
>>7144541
>no example
Ok, where is yours? Where is your undeniable proof of your statement?
Your brain vomit can simply be discredited by reasoning and applying historical context.
Don't fucking play that shitty retarded game with me, tranny.';

'>>7144542
Insightful anon';

'>>7144461
I think there’s no significant difference, but women “seem” better because it’s more socially acceptable for them to draw. Boys are often pressured to be more practical and are told art isn’t something you can make a career out of. Boys that take on art at a young age are likely to have some sort of defect. Autism or faggotry usually. They don’t pick up on the social cues necessary to see it isn’t a hobby productive for socializing or obtaining perceived masculinity. It’s less frowned upon in women, so non retarded girls are more likely to start practicing young. Women also eat more likely to gain friends and identity from drawing.';

'>>7144461
>there seems to be a lot more women posting great art than men
I disagree, It seems about equal to me.
>Female artists get out of the /beg/ phase much faster, are more consistent with their art
Could be true, women mature more quickly than men, so I would be surprised if this helps them in art.
>are more varied with their styles
Disagree
>aren’t massive coomers
I see as many women drawing coom art as men, but many draw essentially 'themselves' in these images, which I find more degenerate. Also, if the women aren't turned on by such things, I'd say it's worse, as they're taking advantage of men in this case - it's something of a sleazy con, I can't find the correct words to express why though.
>and are generally more soulful.
Completely subjective. Almost entirely, all the artists, modern and otherwise, all the artists whom have the most impact on me tend to be men. Even when it comes to modern art trends - the last artist to REALLY leave a splash and be copied to death was Jamie Hewlett, though loish has had some impact too, not nearly as much though.

That said, I still like many female artists, here's an picrel by Fiep Westendorp.';

'>>7144546
Because they were eventually allowed to pursue art professionally. What a stupid question. Times change.
No one was stopping women from drawing at home.
The people pursuing art historically weren’t rich noblemen. This was back when art was considered a craft. Their patrons were the rich and powerful. The rich had no need to work professionally as artists because they didn’t need the money.
You’re so fucking dumb.
Learn history you pleb.';

'>>7144546
>he thinks rich cunts pursued art when they can just get somebody else to paint whatever they want for them
Hello, retard department?
Yes, Anon is on the loose again.';

'>>7144461
>women
>in 2k24
those are trannies.';

'>>7144558
>No one was stopping women from drawing at home.
And there you go, you fucking retard.

You wanted to disagree so hard you end up agreeing.
What's next, women couldn't pursue art from their homes and NEEDED to have a patron because women were litcherarry kept as pets by le evil nazi patriarchs?

This isn't even about history and if you went outside once you would know how people live, you fat ogre.
>>7144559
>outing himself as poor this easily
Fucking plebeian.';

'>>7144461
>looking online
you mean on social media? of course you'll find more women achieve success
women do it for likes. men do it to achieve greatness';

'>>7144530
>spic
you know blacks like anime, right?';

'>>7144566
Idk if you’re a lobotomy victim or if you were born this way, but you are hillbilly stupid.
This started off by the statement of there being no female old masters, because all old masters originated from ateliers, which did not allow women to apprentice under them. Maybe your vision just turned red right after you read that, because right afterwards I said that any noble woman that could get their hands on art supplies could match the artists of their day. But making art from home did not make any of these hypothetical women masters. This is back when artists had to make their own materials, which is information you had to be taught or figure out yourself. Combine this with these women being unlikely to be commissioned, their art did not influence anyone. It was not seen, it was not studied, it was not preserved. No one gave a shit about their art.
No one can be considered a master if no one else cares about what they make.
These women would be put in a category of their own today, but they would not be lumped in with the old masters because they never achieved that type of recognition in their lifetime or even for hundreds of years after their deaths.';

'>>7144583
But calling anon a nigger would be racist uwu';

'No. Women are just more likely to do anything else with their lives except manual labor, men will go lift 10 ton oil drills with 15 other men while getting soaked in oil for $300k a year. Women won't. So more women do art but is it good?
No.';

'>>7144461';

'>>7144626
>better than half of /ic/
not like this…';

'>>7144566
all of your posts are absolute retardation
kill yourself you fucking brainlet';

'>>7144638
>better than half of /ic/
hmm nyo';

'>>7144461
My sister draws better than me while younger too yet both are lazy to make actual projects so ig that's one thing in common';

'>>7144461
To answer your question: no.
There are great female artists and great male artists. It's not really fair to compare the sexes before the 20th century, because art was at most times and in most places not considered an acceptable profession for women (although certain genres of painting were considered appropriate for women to practice as a hobby starting at least as far back as the 18th century in the U.S. and western Europe).
I do think, if you were to study the mass of work produced by women and men over any given period, you would find marked differences in style and subject matter. For example, women are more likely to focus on faces, clothing and accessories than on the nude figure and its anatomy/musculature. Also, how many women do caricature? Can you even imagine a female counterpart to Frank Frazetta or Mort Drucker?';

'>>7144461
>Is it because women get obsessed with drawing their husbandos and brute force their way into becoming skilled artists or something?
It's partly that, and partly male socialization disincentivizing boys trying to make art. Generalizing a little (a lot), during middle/high school, you start to see parents pressuring boys to either go into STEM fields or sports, and art is constantly demeaned as a "lesser" activity. Additionally, most male friends don't care about art, so there's less opportunity to bond with this.
Another thing worth noting is that women are expected to look much more put together than men, so the socialization of young girls focuses a lot on aesthetics (think of makeup, hair, and fashion). This, in turn, leads to a lot of girls that have an interest in drawing to use the skills they've already learned in making things look pretty and applying it to make "better" art.
Idk, just my two cents.

>>7144533
>What stops women from reaching the upper echelons?
Structural sexism, probably.';

'Will I be a better artist after I finish my transition?';

'undefined';

'>>7144757
ic is the black horizontal line';

'>>7144482
Q Hayashida
Demizu Pozuka
Riyoko Ikeda
Haruko Ichikawa
Koyoharu Gotouge

>>7144521
Females were barred from art schools for most of that era, although there were some outliers.';

'>>7144489
Rumiko Takahashi also made inuyasha and urusei yatsura!, kinda insane for an author to have not 1 but 3 iconic long running series.

adding to the list while I'm here

demon slayer
blue exorcist
blackbutler

>>7144461
I disagree, genuinely feel like men and women as groups of artists are on average equal but my guess is men have higher rates variability of untalented/autists and geniuses, women have both too but at lower rates leading to the skewed feeling that women are better because of all the male plane fetish artists on da

but honestly most people are average and all of us need to work hard to reach the far end of the spectrum of skill so I would focus more on drawing instead of male/female

>>7144553
you seem chill anon, wishing you well';

'>>7144765
made me laugh';

'>>7144521
>Name 1 femoid that mog Ruan Jia.

Karla Ortiz mogs him, but there's no reason to single her out because only a complete philistine would even issue that challenge.';

'>>7144608
>you are wrong because my schizophrenia says you are
>no one gave a shit about women artists works because they just didn't ok?
>hehe ur redarted n stoopid
i google female artists of old and get 20 billion results


>no one gave a shit about their art
>BECAUSE THEY WERE LE WOMEH
All your art knowledge is what normies regurgitate so it doesn't surprise me you reason like an effeminate seeking validation in the victimhood of a whole gender to feel better about yourself. That's your whole argument.
No one was ever stopping women from pursuing anything and being in an """atelier""" didn't make the master.

You might as well simply projecting your own failure as an artificial cunt on the memed history of women in the arts.
>b-b--bbut if no one care about their work they can't be considered a master
Money is and was always the game, faggot.
Is the mona lisa a masterpiece? It's a fucking doodle but it's memed as one because it attracts and generates money.
Da Vinci was considered a fucking faggot and a beg his whole life. Van Gogh was considered a schizo retard his whole life.
Artists were always considered """"MASTERS"""" after their deaths because it would sell shit.

Post your work and shill your blog already, faggot.';

'>>7144808
me too

>>7144461
damn op
you’re spot on, for me.';

'>>7144508
didn't even look at what you said chart was too hawt';

'>>7144526
>Berserk
>shonen';

'Really? I thought it was the opposite. When you take a look at the beginner level, there many more women than men.';

'>>7144461
Women tend to have better colours and sense for it, but man tend to be more competitive and put in more effort.';

'>>7146417
I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw it, it seems there's plenty of company down here at this level of degeneracy.';

'>>7144521
Your ignorance is showing.';

'>>7144978
nta but what type of mental illness do you need to have to become like this';

'>>7144765
Hearty kek';

'>>7144461
I'm betting it's just a number bias. There are probably a ton more women artists than men so you mostly see art by them. Men probably run a wider spectrum as well, like with IQ. There are more actually retarded men than retarded women, but there are more genius men than women. We take up more important occupations in society though so there are just less male artists in general.
>verification not required';

'>>7144461
The amount of barely skilled female artists out there making bank is common. They are like Kim Kardashian, but less pretty, less skilled at marketing, because women don't need much skill to create drama, women are designed for drama.
Then you have highly skill female artists who are being pit against algorithms of the slutfest. Occasionally you will see one of them rise to the top. My favorite is still sakimichan, she literally carve out an industry for many artists to follow. The rest of the skilled female artists tend to be doing niche arts, cute functional art, and they make a decent living. It's easier for pretty women to be female artists because they just have to wear less clothe and post their art together. Sex sells.';

'>>7144533
Lack of neuroticism and less egoic disturbance probably contribute a lot, as well as socialization. Men have higher instances of neurotic traits and obsessive tendencies in general. Combined with the IQ distribution (more girls are average, more boys are often in extremes of either stupidity or genius comparatively) it makes sense that a particularly intelligent and neurotic male would dedicate more to the craft and reach the upper echelons.

I don't subscribe to the theory that everything is structural or systemic oppression, but I do think socialization plays a part. Girls are generally encouraged to beautify both themselves and the environment, a boy that starts talking about beauty is going to get beaten (in turn creating more neuroticism, so if he does persevere despite the pressure he's probably going at it hardcore.) Art is an effeminate thing culturally -- being inside all day, doodling, collecting pictures, obsessing over colors, wanting to be "seen" all the time. Just listen to artists give each other compliments, it's woman speak through and through.

Paradoxically in my teaching experience males are the hysterical ones in most art spaces. Women just seem to shut up and get on with it, boys have massive fucking meltdowns and get ego identified with art to an extreme degree.

I have a phd in internet bullshit, and I theorize the reason for this is because creative men are inherently sublimating their sexual, procreative drive into their art. Their art is literally an extension of their being, and perceived as a kind of child or representative of them fully. Women, having more awareness of their body's capacity to carry and nurture actual life, don't tend to identify with their creative labors in the same 'primal' way, so the male artist seems to manifest the worst traits of femininity.';

'>>7144521
Why will female artists need to be on par with the old masters? They just have to show a little ankle, a little skin, or in today's context wear less clothes. Post beside their art and they immediately get resources.';

'>>7144461
>Why can’t we compete, bros?
Why are you pretending to be a man?';

'>>7144572
>women do it for likes.
>men do it to achieve greatness
/thread';

'>>7147483
Both do it for women.';

'>>7144707
>Can you even imagine a female counterpart to Frank Frazetta?
I know nothing about fantasy art but Boris Vallejo's wife (Julie Bell) is more or less that right?
Boris taught her how to paint and he's God tier.';

'>>7147490
Why will there be a female version of frank frazetta when female artists are not interested in that kind of art?';

'>This thread';

'>>7147578
Don't be surprised but the worst critics of women tend to be women. Women are designed to be that way, think for a second, why do you think women celebrate fat women? Yas, slay queen, body positivity! Because those fat ugly women are no longer a threat to those normal women.';

'>>7144461
yeah, ive more or less observed this myself. color, composition, anatomy, and just sheer variety. More skilled men just fall into artstation slop while the women and transmascs just get more soulful. Genuinely frustrating knowing i just dont see the world the same way, cant appreciate ugliness or simple variety. I feel incredibly empty when i try to draw when i think about it but what can you do';

'>>7147578
Women are always having discussions about men, and men about women - the opposite sexes are obsessed with each other, who knew?';

'>>7144707
i know you wont count it but jeffrey catherine jones';

'>>7147585
> generalizes a few cases to literally billions
Solid claim. As rational as most women, I see.';

'>>7147879
I don't know if it's true that women are sabotaging each other, that seems a bit conspiratorial to me, but it's a known fact that women are harsher on other women's appearances than men are, and it's known that women dress up more so for other women than men.
So it's rather strange that women's 'beauty standards' are always blamed on men, when it's really entirely women who reinforce these things.';

'>>7144461
>Is it because women get obsessed with drawing their husbandos and brute force their way into becoming skilled artists or something?
literally yes';

'>Are women naturally better artists than men?
yes and no. I think they have it easier making beautiful artworks and getting gud technically, which I think has to do with not having testosterone and therefore not thinking about cooming all day and the brain fog that comes from cooming, like most men do.
That said, there are no female geniuses in any field, mainly in art, even after 100 years of feminism. Don't get me wrong, there are (a few) great female artists, but their work never has the intellectual depth and SOVL of male artists. Look at any popular female artist atm. Loish is probably the biggest one. What does her work mean? what does it say about the human experience? it's all cute slop. and then again... so was KJG, but gooks and chinks are also mainly souless. Save for the Japanese.


>>7147578
You people never have any cohesive argument and just resort to calling us: "incel". You are the same as racists who will say" nigger" when asked why blacks are bad or inferior lol.

>>7144468
>1. Search Riot Games art directors. Moids get all the high positions.
2. Search famous mangaka. Most are moids.
precisely, it's all slop. kek


>>7147483
very true. Women work well within systems. Men usually create those systems.
>ie: impressionism, renaissance, modernism etc etc
Also, there will never be a female Van Gogh, who just went into the fields and painted. never posting. Never sharing his work. His pursuits weren't earthly, material pursuits.';

'>>7144818
>Karla Ortiz
>mogs Ruan jia
nta, but you are delusional. Picrel.
She only gets noticed and hired because she's a loudmouth yapping woman, non white, and super far left commie democrat, which gets you hired by Commiefornia jews to make goyslop capeshit. cope harder.';

'>>7147906
>You people never have any cohesive argument and just resort to calling us: "incel". You are the same as racists who will say" nigger" when asked why blacks are bad or inferior lol.
You take that back! Overwhelming majority of racists can support their ideas with well thought out arguments, statistics and studies; comparing them to roasties who respond to everything emotionally is just hurtful.';

'>>7147888
>that women are harsher on other women's appearances
Yeah I'm confident this is true, and that women are harsh even with themselves

>So it's rather strange that women's 'beauty standards' are always blamed on men, when it's really entirely women who reinforce these things.
The modern fashion is basically what used to be prostitute outfits.
> Noo but I'm free to dress like a literal prostitute, u no tell me what to do
And then
> Why do aaaalll men only think about sex???????
The sour fruits of le sexual liberation.

Anyway, gotta draw';

'>>7144542
>they have some advantage
Yeah. They can marry/date a guy for money. Now Mike Rowe says get your ass in the septic tank.';

'>>7144461
>Looking online, there seems to be a lot more women posting great art than men.
Forgot to address this on my post here >>7147906, but that picrel explains why. The majority of female artists will use their bodies, their image to gain attention online, and to get people to look at their artwork.
We are at the peak of the incel/male loneliness epidemic, and besides, males have always found attractive a (pretty) woman who has masculine intelectual pursuits,instead of being another #foodie #travelling #netflix dumb bitch like. So women online have a significant advantage online and posting themselves is a great way to "get the foot in the door". And hey, some of them are skilled,not denying that, but people are more likely to click and browse trough their profiles when they see a cute girl with booba on the profile pic

>Female artists get out of the /beg/ phase much faster, are more consistent with their art
success breeds success.';

'>>7147935
This is also true. It's harder for men to pursue an artistic career, because even today, we have to be the bread winners in order to even attract a partner. Women can fuck around way more and become a freelance illustrator, because their betabux partner will always be there to cover for her.';

'>>7147906
I wish I was pretty so it'll work for me. Sadly when you're an ugly woman you only get rape threats. It's mroe convenient to pretend to be a man.';

'>>7144461
> get out of the /beg/ phase much faster, are more consistent with their art, are more varied with their styles
I mean, when boyfriends/husbands are funding their entire life by doing actual work, of course women would have more time to improve and produce art.
> Aren't massive coomers
Pretty sure there are female coom artists.
> Is it because women get obsessed with drawing their husbandos and brute force their way into becoming skilled artists or something?
As opposed to guys obsessively drawing their waifus? Wouldn't brute forcing it work for men, too?';

'>>7147888
Why do you beautiful skinny women always celebrate fat ugly women. They are there to contrast and is no longer a threat. Yes eat more, body positivity lmao';

'>>7147924
Women who dress like whore get treated like a whore, baww wahhh Why men down bad sex craze simp coomer!';

'>>7144461
>Female artists get out of the /beg/ phase much faster, are more consistent with their art, are more varied with their styles, aren’t massive coomers, and are generally more soulful.';

'>>7146417
I want to impregnate chart-chan';

'>>7147906
>moids
ywnbaw. if real fish, opinions dropped';

'>>7144461
No, a trained male artist will always be better than a trained female artist.
You know why there are so many female artists who made a career out of it? Because there was zero pressure on her at all to be a bread winner or money earner at all ever in her entire life.
Every female artist I know lived off her boyfriend for YEARS before being able to make a living... then bailed immediately when she could earn her own money and be a whore. It's easy to put hours and hours and hours into drawing practice when someone else is working full-time to support you while you get to draw all day and rub your pussy on twatter talking to all the other cunts and building a community that promotes you.';

'>>7144818
And my benis mogs karla :D';

'>>7144461
Maybe because we’re encouraged to do more crafty, hands-on activities as children whereas boys are pushed towards sports and the like? I’m a girl and I’ve been drawing ever since I could hold a pencil. I’m lucky to have had an encouraging family. Comparing to my elementary male peers, who I remember being more “rough and tumble” and not interesting in girly art activities. A lot of it is on a socialization level. But it’s also interesting to consider how we’ve culturally shifted on that point- men used to be able to have a job that was just “artist” and paint chapels and shit, where women had to stay home and make baby jumpers or whatever. Women also tend to be more interested in fandom spaces that encourage fanart and especially ship content.';

'>>7144508
This applies to basically every career out there. Hell, even iq scores are like this. Females on average score higher, but the top and bottom scorers are all males';

'>>7149214
no

you people are retarded

Women first of all score lower on average unless you cook the numbers, by 5 points, but secondly, even after that the remaining difference is in the bell curves' height, not placement. Women never score higher in their bulk, ever. They tend towards the mean more, while men towards the extremes

learn to read fucking graphs and stop relying on foggy memories of wrongly interpreted graphs.';

'>>7147906
>>7147906
"100 years of feminism" and STILL there are idiots that make posts like this with collages like that. Wouldn't "women being unable to succeed except as online prostitutes" CONFIRM that the problems feminism is trying to address are still rampant after all this time?
There's only a few pics on this fraudulent collage that even approach thottery. most are normal selfies of girls who happen to be cute. what's the problem? instagram as a website is like a cutesy photo diary for your dumb ass day, this is the intended use case. if you want to see cold hard portfolios, go to artstation.
Selfies are not prostitution, and "even now, women are STILL useless unless they sell their bodies to male greed!" doesn't refute the need for feminism, it reinforces it.
The inclusion of the second tweet reads as bitching about how women should go back to being slaves because oh my god they post selfies. This doesn't reinforce the argument.
The third twitter post is typical moid seethe. "It went over my head, so it sucks." Maybe a little bit of "I'm threatened by the wit and eloquence." Not the attitude of a winner.

"cute slop," a completely arbitrary designation. is the simple pursuit of beauty and personal expression not a worthy ideal to strive for? who says it doesn't "mean something?" if you have a vision in your head and seek to realize it, that's good enough. "slop" implies the artist doesn't give a shit and churns it out passionlessly. maybe it doesn't click with YOUR taste/art goals.

there will never be a "female van gogh" because there is only one van gogh. every artist has individual perception on this world. their capacity to express their creative vision has nothing to do with being male or female.
anyway YOUR art will not get better and more valuable from dunking on female artists online.';

'i think its about the same, but they have an easier time selling their works due to having tits.';

'>>7148017
Could be because they're just trying to be a good person. A lot of the weird political problems currently are done with good intentions, but you know the old saying...
It seems more likely than some big brain play by hot girls to keep their friends ugly, and make other girls ugly too.

>>7149253
>most are normal selfies of girls who happen to be cute. what's the problem?
While some of the images there are definitely just normal selfies, a good portion there are clearly made to draw eyes to them for their femininity. Whether they're flirtatious, or because they're trying to look like a glamorous model, they're drawing eyes using their body and are doing so with intent.
This is immediately recognisable, and denying it by saying 'most' of them are just 'selfies' feels disingenuous.

Granted, there ARE normal selfies there, and the author of the image is conflating using 'feminine wiles' to attract attention, and being self absorbed by drawing yourself a lot - these are two quite different things.

All this said, is it really a bad thing if women use their femininity to attract attention and get more eyes on their work? I'm don't know, but at the very least, it feels quite sleazy.

>"cute slop"
I can agree with you there, it's completely subjective, and so what if women like drawing in a particular 'cute slop' style? Why is it worth less than other simple/abstracted styles? It's just being derogatory against women's art for the sake of it.';

'>>7149279
There's like mutiple pics of the same gigastacy (big tits in top right area) flaunting it. If she's the one who made the picture of the sphinx, she's very good.
There's a blatant porn artist deliberately targeting the lonely coomer demographic, even dressing in doomergirl cosplay.
Maybe another girl crouching in a very slightly provocative way (green shirt)
So that's three, maybe four if you count the other coomer artist even though she's not being immodest herself.

To my eyes, pretty much everyone else is just a normal girl who happens to be somewhat attractive.
There's also filler like the meet the artist meme which men AND women participated in. A flash in the pan fad to market yourself as an artist that LOTS of artists were doing doesn't really support the argument.
Surely if this phenomenon was so pervasive the collagemaker could have filled it up with artists thotting to get ahead, but they could barely find two girls.

Furthermore, most of the people on this collage are genuinely skilled. You don't get skilled without putting in work. You could be the most attractive guy on the planet getting laid every night, that doesn't affect your drawing skill.
Even if you were using some feminine wiles to get attention, that's just a marketing tactic. There are others. Male artists have no trouble marketing themselves. Consider that you could DRAW cute girls and take advantage of the same instinct men have to click booba.

What the collage really shows is that a woman can be talented and skilled and not antagonizing anyone, and moids will just call her a whore anyway, chalk her success up to her looks, devalue her work for no reason (ie. soulless), etc.

>captcha: YAPS';

'>>7149253
What the other guy is referring to with "cute slop" is art that has no goal other than to validate the emotional security of any given person, to project outward something which is meant to reinforce their emotional state and their ego. There's nothing "wrong" with that art, however it is some of the most bare and basic types of expression, being mostly made up of fluff other than actual matter. Hence the term "slop" being used in relation to it.';

'>>7144461
I don't think that they are naturally better, but I do think that, for women, it's more acceptable to be an artist, to be "artistic", than it is for men.

That's why we see:
1. More women in general being artists
2. More women at the mid level

Thing is, this acceptance bites them in the ass at higher levels, they, unlike men, can choose to let it stay as a hobby, while men, in general, are more prone to say "fuck it" and dedicate their entire lives for the stuff. That's why we see more men in career drawing (and other arts) than women.';

'I won't deny that there are female artists using their bodies to advertise themselves, but you guys are really blowing it out of proportion. The truth is that a lot of artists make and female prefer to not state their gender, or make a passing reference as a comment or in the description. The reason why people notice this more in female artists is survivorship bias';

'>>7149684
wise anon
checked out the def of survivorship bias and that’s a perfect description. none of the online female art friends i’ve had have ever mentioned their gender in any way. you only find out way later or something if their main email’s linked and includes their first and last name and you read first name’s mary or something. before that their name’s just a nickname based off their username to me for ages. i like it’s this way';

'>>7149453
He didn't call "self-affirming ego comfort pics" cute slop. He called Loish's art cute slop and stated no female artist has ever risen above that level.
You don't have to love it. It can be a little thin for me too. But I think it's inarguable that Loish's art is visually interesting and she's extremely skilled. She makes the human form flow like water in a way that looks effortless and stylish, that shit is harder than it looks. I don't see how a picture of a girl themed around a plant or exploration of a visual concept/composition is supposed to "validate emotional security" or "ego." Many of her works are moody or mysterious or evocative and draw you in through strong imagery alone. He's writing it off as meaningless pretty nonsense because many of the pics can be summarized as "random cartoon girl with a plant" and ignoring all the strong technical underpinnings that make the pictures work. Art doesn't necessarily have to "say something about humanity" to be worth something. It can have value for expressing something about the creator, communicating a vision or idea, raw aesthetics alone, sheer impact, or technical competence. Despite how "simple" they might appear, if you broke down loish's pieces you could learn a lot.
The man is saying "sure female artists can be skilled, but it's all pretty slop, empty and meaningless. they have never achieved intellectual depth or sovl because they can't." A completely arbitrary determination. Is technical skill not intellectual depth in itself? Are still lifes also slop because they're just boring shit like bread and flowers on tables? Is painting a beautiful sunset landscape slop because it doesn't "say something about humanity?" is leyendecker slop because he just painted shit for magazines and ads? He is conflating personal taste with objective value.';

'>all the retards saying sailor moon
Literally carried by the anime
Same for Ranma and FMA.';

'>>7144530
Just the kind of girl I like';

'You bitches better be back at drawing. Stop being immature, stop immediately and go back to kitchen or your drawing station, or wherever shit hole you are in and start cooking. Motherfuckers be whining about which gender is a better artist than just becoming the better artist that you so deserve to be. Stop procrastinating and start doing what you know you need to do, you guys ought to know by now this is a fucking /beg/ trap.';

'>>7144546
>they would just pay someone to teach them at home
Their husbands would pay someone*
Fix'd
Anyway, you'll never be a woman, trannoid, stop simping. Women are better begs, men are better pros. That's it';

'Women are simply better at coloring. Theres no debating this fact. Men, on the other hand, are better at virtually everything else.';

'>>7147466
>sakimichan
can we get back to racism instead of misogyny?
sakimichan is Asian, that's why she mogs /ic/ and white people in general';

'>>7149833
>Literally carried by the anime
Just like Dragon Ball Z,
and Beserk,
and Trigun,
and Naruto,
and Pokemon,
and Yu Yu Hakusho,
and Konosuba,
And any other property that ever got a popular anime adaptation... right?';

'>>7144461
one way or other, women are just more conscientious, more tolerant of doing repetitive activities, and are less prone to having a billion shitty shallow hobbies - so they draw more, and get better faster.';

'>>7149279
>All this said, is it really a bad thing if women use their femininity to attract attention
Not sure, some women do, others religiously avoid posting face, yet others are frumpy, and use art to draw an idealized version of themselves.

That being said, male artists don't market themselves this way, not because they're morally superior, but they are not marketable. "Oh look I'm a hot guy and draw pretty pictures" is not something that gets clicks on the internet.';

'>>7147906
true valuable art is created by suffering. in modern age women are simply not allowed to suffer because the world is handing them free help all the time.
>"wahh I got sexually assaulted!"(a man asked me to sex and I said no and he moved on)
is the biggest suffering a woman today can go through';

'I see a whole lot of talking and not a lot of walking. Men vs. women drawing showdown, who's in.';

'>>7150231
> mine is bigger';

'>>7150236
trannies are automatically disqualified';

'>>7144461
>Are women naturally better artists than men?
yes
only a seething permabeg moid would disagree';

'>>7150160
This is the sort of thing I’d overhear at lunch in middle school';

'>>7150265
Good argument, here's mine: No, and only a retard would disagree.';

'>male artists
lol';

'>>7144533
>What stops women from reaching the upper echelons?
Male preference dominates the entire planet. Men control the narrative, literally and figuratively. They will dominate the upper role when they kill off all men, which will never happen.';

'>>7144499
Not everybody
I know miura and toriama.. the rest are a mystery to me';

'>>7144461
>>7147585
>>7149804
>>7150265
>>7150388
ywnbaw';

'>>7144461
This board is weird. A while back we had this thread in reverse where everyone was saying women are too dumb to learn to draw.';

'>ctrl+f Beatrix Potter
>0 results
I think her art is neat, it's the perfect way to draw anthropomorphic animals without any of the furfaggot stigma. Watercolour use makes me nut too. I don't know if it's true but I read that she used to dissect dead animals to study anatomy.';

'>>7150388
>male artists
At least they're easier to clean up after than Female "Artists".';

'>>7150545
This is the only some people on this board can talk to women.';

'>>7150545
It's all social engineering. Wake up and smell the grass.';

'>>7144461
not necessarily.
women tend to be better at coloring while men tend to be better on a technical level like object rotation and perspective.
but people can also learn how to strengthen their weaknesses';

'>>7144461
"Know what we're gonna call this? 'Self-Portrait'!"';

'>>7147578';

'>>7150545
Are you saying we're not a homogeneity? Blasphemous! How dare any one of us have a differing opinion!';

'>>7144461
every person does art differently

>>7144461
>Female artists get out of the /beg/ phase much faster, are more consistent with their art, are more varied with their styles, aren’t massive coomers, and are generally more soulful.
No. That's wrong in every way. Women aren't varied at all, are coomers when it comes to gay art and stay in /beg/ mode just as long. There is only one difference which takes the cake:
If they look good, their art is seen as good also. Look at it: There are barely any women who can resist shoving their face in front of the camera instead of their art. If that's not good enough, they shove their ass in front of the camera. The simps will do the rest.

Women that only want to do the art and show it off have to stroll the same path as their male counterparts.

There's this woman on YT that wears baggy hoodies and a ton of pearl-shell makeup with styled up hair who can do pretty decent and good art. Remove herself from the vids and there wouldn't be a quarter of views and followers.';

'>>7149253
>CONFIRM that the problems feminism is trying to address are still rampant after all this time?
Except... they are the ones suing their bodies for monetary gain, not the "pAtriArcHy" lmao
>most are normal selfies of girls who happen to be cute
doesn't matter, they still have power in the sexual market place, meaning, incels will still click and browse their profiles.
>"cute slop," a completely arbitrary designation. is the simple pursuit of beauty and personal expression not a worthy ideal to strive for? who says it doesn't "mean something?" if you have a vision in your head and seek to realize it, that's good enough. "slop" implies the artist doesn't give a shit and churns it out passionlessly. maybe it doesn't click with YOUR taste/art goals.
literally picrel.
check picrel and tell me this isn't Ai tier souless "cute slop". The entire argument is that women make pretty, aesthetic artworks, but for some ODD reason, 99% of the times is always shallow like themselves.
>"b-but women aren't shallow vapid creatures"
go outside. Go to any city in the west and look at their visage covered in 10 different pigments while they stare at their phones.This is factual. I wish it wasn't.
>there will never be a "female van gogh" because there is only one van gogh
this one flew over your head entirely. We are talking about GENIUS.Not individualism. No genius can become like other previous geniuses, because he wouldn't be a genius at all. A genius paves the path forward. A female artists have never done that.
>YOUR art will not get better and more valuable from dunking on female artists online.
it does. It makes be aware and sharper. Detect the holes in the market. Women can't make the artworks men can because they are childlike. But regardless, I'm simply calling them out on their bullshit, beucase they are the ones who want equality. Well, I want equality too, so maybe stop posting your tits online whore.

>>7149269
facts.';

'Life is one big hustle no reason not to use what you have to get what you want. People complaining are just mad they can't compete and the where everything is fair and just doesn't exist.';

'>>7149253
I can smell your pussy from here. Go wash.';

'>>7149253
> their capacity to express their creative vision has nothing to do with being male or female.
This isn't the problem. The problem is that males are socially encouraged to think with their crotch. Men will "naturally" "reward" women for showing their tummy, wearing a short dress, emphasizing their bosom.

Let's not pretend for a second that the overwhelming majority of women are innocent when doing so... Even repeatedly posting pictures of oneself is an abnormal behavior.

In "amoral" societies, sex sells. There are good reasons as to why people used to be stricter regarding those matters a few centuries ago. Not that they were always smart about it either.

The point is, the observation is true, it's a common pattern. But you're somehow right in saying that it's no excuse to seethe on women for one's own failure. Plenty of male artists make it, because they're skilled. And some male artists do play the same vanity card ("look at how bbiiiiiiggggg are my biceeeps loooool").

> women should go back to being slaves
Taking care of kids and of a home isn't more slavery than having to chop wood regardless of the weather, beating metal all day, being forced to war and whatnot. It's such a distorted point of view. Women haven't been as mis-treated in the past as feminists wants us to believe.

It's true that they weren't much on the front page. But, they've been responsible of raising the next generation at a critical period since forever:that's far from a menial task. And since they've basically stopped doing it, the world's going to shit.';

'>>7154098
>>7154069';

'>>7153944
>women are shallow
Then why is your mom so deep';

'>>7153510
https://youtu.be/QZSljuVmzpo?feature=shared&t=3423';

'>>7144978
>Is the mona lisa a masterpiece? It's a fucking doodle but it's memed as one because it attracts and generates money.
How does someone as angry and retarded as you function? Can you even name Leonardo (da Vinci means "from Vinci" retard) paintings other than the Mona Lisa?';

'>>7146417
made me mega kek good job w the draw';

'>>7144468
>Search Riot Games art directors. Moids get all the high positions.
That's more due to woke DEI quotas than talent though';

'>>7150545
Wasn't it something to do with
>women are good at making art look nice but the technical aspects are full of fundamental flaws
Femoids are living AI artists lol';

'>>7144461
Men have zero incentive to make great art. Women have several incentives to make great art.';

'Women don't really suffer, they have nothing to say.';

'>>7144461
Men just don't feel as deeply as women do. They never will. They're simply incapable and will never be able to grasp raw emotion, let alone express it.';

'>>7154781
All the greatest poetry, novels, music, movies, and works of visual art, have been made by men. Every piece of romance of ever taken in that actually had any bite to it was also made by men - a sign of how much men think and feel for the women in their lives.
What's a piece of romance that women women have made? Fucking 50 shades of grey? Shallow shit, where the man is always of the highest cast, there's no actual romance, it's all self indulgent wish fulfillment. Women don't actually think about men, they think about how themselves, and only think about men in so far as what they get out of it.

You could bitch and moan and say that women weren't allowed to make art, or whatever excuse you can come up with - but even if you limit it to the last 100 or even just 50 years, it still rings true that all the greatest, most emotionally touching, and romantic, works within that time have all been created by men.
Show me a piece of work, made by a woman, that truly shows her burning love for her partner... I can't think of one.
Men are cursed with the burden of loving something that doesn't care or feel for them, and only tolerates them, if not outright viewing them in contempt.
So no, I don't agree that 'men don't feel' and 'women feel so much' - because I FEEL it's quite the opposite.';

'>>7154818
a lot of words to say that you don't read bro';

'>>7154819
>Men just don't feel as deeply as women do.
I addressed this, by asserting men feel more. You're the one who didn't read. Is two paragraphs too much, whiny faggot?';

'Didn't a woman make Full Metal Alchemist?
I liked Full Metal Alchemist. It felt like it was written and drawn by a man. I honestly couldn't tell.
>>7149846
Yeah but the people here WANT to die.';

'>>7154105
guess read more carefully?';

'>>7149854
There is actual scientific evidence of this as well. Women can parse and perceive a greater range of colors by default and with artistic training their color perception is even more refined. The reasons are evolutionary; women spent more time looking at plants, seeds, berries, etc when foraging and nature selected for fine detail and color discrimination. Women notice subtleties more than men, who tend to recognize the broad strokes and discard the rest.

This is why women artists tend to produce a lot of nuanced, subtle colors in their work, and generally tend to work with less saturated colors. Men are drawn to intense saturation because their color perception is limited, they need it loud and overt. Women can detect tinier nuances, so they tend to navigate the color world with more finesse and less brutalism. The strange paradox of this is that men are biologically incapable of understanding or appreciating those color choices because they lack the capacity. To men, most women's work just looks superficially pretty, but to other women, those works are rich and highly engaging with a lot of visual stimuli that male brains cannot detect, even with training. It is a hardcoded biological limit on the visual cortex itself.

On the flip side, women don't appreciate what men do well either, such as geometry, advanced construction, perspective, and other math based spatial awareness modes. In much the same way boys recoil from the grossly pink and insipid aesthetic that characterizes their mothers and sisters, etc, girls recoil from the stupidly loud and animalistic silliness that represents the boys, and neither can see or understand the value in the other.

There will never be peace or understanding between the sexes, nor should there be. Chaos drives evolution. Lust requires a degree of hate, fear and disgust for the 'Other,' otherwise there would be nothing to sublimate into the erotic desire for union with the opposite.';

'>>7154844
Inuyasha is also by a woman.';

'>>7154864
>This is why women artists tend to produce a lot of nuanced, subtle colors in their work, and generally tend to work with less saturated colors. Men are drawn to intense saturation because their color perception is limited, they need it loud and overt.
Dude, any artist in history that has painted skin, and there's many men down that road, must have developed a great handling of subtle, low-chroma colors.

> In much the same way boys recoil from the grossly pink and insipid aesthetic that characterizes their mothers and sisters
Picrel; also as far as I remember, young princes in Europe used to weak pink at some time. Blue jeans used to be for slaves, and tiny skirts for prostitutes.

> girls recoil from the stupidly loud and animalistic silliness that represents the boys
I can't count how many young girls I have saw in my life who were playing football and trying hard to mimic boy's attitudes.

> The reasons are evolutionary
Evolution theory is pretty, but it's still a theory, and from what I understand, what is understood by the general public is grossly wrong to the *current* status quo on the matter.';

'>>7144546
its all made up, thats why';

'Women poop more than males';

'>>7156128
This man makes a great point.';