'>>453973
I would guess there to be some cocktail of reasons.

>for one, gd is quite s competitive field. technically it isn't that difficult to do, which makes unique ideas and esoteric techniques somewhat valuable. that makes many artists overly protective - especially if they are mediocre one-trick ponies.
>then, of course, like 60% (or more) of people posting aren't actually interested in gd, but kinda self-centered twats - hoping to squeeze out something for themselves (fonts or even requests. how many didn't even use google before creating a new thread? have you looked at the condition of the fonts-thread?). not necessarily an inviting precondition for people who know shit and are interested in actual conversation...
>and lastly; the arts infamously tend to be left-leaning. so the public image of [here] won't help recruit a lot of people either. actually working grown-ups don't have much reason to waste time with the uneducated semi-nazi neet's that think they know it all...

probably many other reasons as well. but these will likely be a part of it.
since children tend to draw (instead of *design*), most of them probably populate ic instead.';

'>>453980
Thanks for the effortpost. Your image sums it up basically. With imageboards (and forums) slowly dying I guess one should look at emerging communities at places like X or (premium) Telegram/Discord groups.

>for one, gd is quite s competitive field. technically it isn't that difficult to do, which makes unique ideas and esoteric techniques somewhat valuable.
What do you mean with that/can you tell more about that? Graphic design techniques themselves are not that hard? I am pretty strong on concepts/ideas but am underdeveloped on actual techniques except for the few niche/leftfield techniques I developed which results in a sort of feminine splatterbrain expressiveness (but no concrete marketable output). I have never heard anyone say that techniques in general are "not that hard". This is refreshing to read because I might be overestimating it.

>that makes many artists overly protective - especially if they are mediocre one-trick ponies.
Hmm. Why would anyone (of those people) show their work here (for free) if it gets stolen in the end? I would keep it to myself too

>/ic/
I prefer drawing over design (still like both) but the fact that that board is orange makes me not want to come there and leaves me stranded on this dead place. Same goes for /i/ obviously.';

'>>453981
>technique
yeah, well. *in comparison to other professions* the basic techniques are relatively easy to acquire (in today's landscape), I'd say. for 98% of your problems there is *tons of tutorials* to watch. imagine being a nurse and during the first week having to look up what heparin is or how to insert a catheter... designers can pretty much look shit up whenever they need it and the tools are solid.
>also: designers are naturally used to working with the pc! even "historically" they obviously spend a lot of time online. thus they discovered the possibility of creating educational content relatively early on. there is *a lot* of gd content to consume!
I know of actual students watching online courses with their actual teachers at actually not so bad schools (lol!). the original things they do learn at school is approach and mind-work.

in my opinion the distinguishing factors at this point are discipline (read: true interest), taste and *usable* creativity - all of which you have to realize at amounts that keep things enjoyable and sustainable for you.
I really do think that having a set of esoteric techniques to be a distinguishing factor as well. but honestly, being able to learn new techniques quickly while being reliable in taste seems overall more useful to me. ¯\_( ツ )_/¯';

'>>453983
Again, thanks. That makes sense. I guess I should apply some more discipline to get through those free courses/tutorials.
Talking about discipline, do you know the book War of Art? It is a nice book about the process/grind of being an artist, the Draftsmen podcast has a nice episode on it. (Might be more applicable to me though)

>usable creativity
Can you define this? Makes me think of marketable/sellable art that actually makes one leave the (pity) state of the starving artist and actually get a proper career. Or are you going into deeper territory? (High art/fine art/making the esoteric exoteric)';

'>>453985
thank you! no, didn't know that book, but I probably listened to all episodes of draftsmen. I love Marshall!

>discipline
weird topic. I think there are many different approaches to keeping a habit alive. not an expert on this myself.
my guess is that you have to find some setup that is natural enough to you so that continuing feels normal.
but I am not sure. people have various opinions, I think? no easy answer. maybe you have ideas to share?

>*usable* creativity
sure!
I mean something like *whatever you are able to handle*.

imagine a race car with 1000 hp.
it could obviously be crazy fast with that potential! that is your creativity.
but you need all these other components like gear, suspension, good tires and a solid downforce (and some experience?) to make actual use of it.
otherwise actually decent lap times are more of a fantasy.

so, which combination of these components exactly? honestly, depends on you and the track you are going for!
there is a lot of room for experimentation and individual solutions. fine tuning is about maximizing force to ground. not all cars are the same.
much creativity but crashing every bend might in total actually look like less creativity than a mediocre one that one can actually consolidate.
that is what I mean by *usable* - the part of your creativity that you can actually manifest into something, that is usable to you.
>sometimes dreaming big is fine, but you also have to find realistic solutions with realistic processes in between ;)';

'>>453973
all the little design discords ive ever seen are typically run by some mediocre fivrr cunt that pumps out trash and no one calls them out cuz the ban hammer and people who joind the server either suck just as much or have nothing to say and shit in their pants
but i guess lot of discord servers are like that';

'Why do you want a community. What do you want to achieve.';

'>>453981
>places like X or (premium) Telegram/Discord groups
desu I think bluesky will probably be the next thing for artfags';

'>>454001
This.
GD requires working with other people if you do it professionally but otherwise it's not really a "community" thing. Even when you work with others on a " team" in a pro setting those interactions are often highly competitive to downright adversarial.

Some of that is by design (no pun intended) since that kind of thing can push people to do their best work, but in general the field rewards people with strong individualistic visions who can articulate them to people who are uninterested, unconvinced our outright hostile and win them over.

Everyone's a critic and a big part of developing your skills is learning how to take unrelenting criticism and look at it objectively to see if it might be of value...and if it is, apply it without losing your individual perspective.

Exposure in a group setting can be helpful, but that's not really the same thing as a "community" and the ideas of cooperation and some duty of mutual support that that term implies. You want something more like a focus group where there's little implied value to any one perspective and you can sort out trends to see where your ideas strengths and weaknesses lie.

Even then, focus groups don't just take anyone and tailor the group to establish *some* experience that makes them worth hearing...if they're looking at toothpaste they expect you to have teeth, and try to weed out people who think brushing your teeth is a scam...or that work for their biggest competitor and have an interest in invalidating the effort.

There's some really knowledgeable and helpful anons here but so many useless trolls that its hard to have a real conversation or to get any real sense of trends.';

'>>453986
Will comment later. Enjoying the weekend';

'>>454031
chad choice.
have a great time!';

'>>454039
>>453986
A bit of a long weekend but here it goes:
Yeah, it is a good podcast, I did not expect graphic designers to listen to it too, but it makes sense. This is the episode in question: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4QnDG5NvYA7O5PWNfa9LpF

I do not agree with everything he says, like the endgoal being less important than the process. Both are important, but if you have low self discipline and too much stars in your eyes then this is a good book to set you straight and get you into the grind with a realistic/grounded vision.
>no easy answer. maybe you have ideas to share?
I can only give general advice but if you want something that applies to you as an individual then I can't help you because there are too many variables/I don't know what works for you. For me it has always been a gnawing desire to express the visions I have in my head and whenever I actually manage to succeed it feels really good. But raw desire is hard to manage and highly inconsistent, that is kind of why I like that book.
>but you need all these other components
This is why I also lift, meditate, manage my sleep/diet and try to develop more logical/left brain skills so that my machine/hardware/masculine part of me can manage more of my artistic feminine explosions of idiocy. I like the way you put it. I am a highly irrational being (relatively speaking) so balancing more with the rational can ironically get me to express more of my visions. I hope this helps?
>much creativity but crashing every bend might in total actually look like less creativity than a mediocre one that one can actually consolidate.
Yeah, that is me. Burnouts often. Less now.';

'>>454239
yeah, I too think that process AND result are important!
in dynamical systems theory there is the idea of the critical point (at which phase transition occurs).
liquids are highly chaotic. they are movable and entropy increases in them quickly until homogeneity is reached - at which point potential energy is lost. the result is stale/dead.
crystals on the other hand are highly ordered. so much so that no piece of it can easily be moved. the rigid lattice structure won't allow for any mobility, making it inept for life as well.

complexity is an emergent property that arises inbetween these two extremes:
at (or close to) said critical point, from which the system is allowed to spontaneously lean into any of the two states, if it so chooses. (through control and action)

you can find this idea "unity of opposites" everywhere - even in most (all?) religions and spiritual schools; yin yang, syzygy, hieros gamos,...
the higher level control mechanism is constantly being confronted with having to consider the lower-level drivers (which are mulishly pulling towards one of the phase states).
a multi-agent system with you at the steering wheel.

>this is where we find the human predicament.

another illustrating picture:
to most people it is intuitively obvious that politics should be centered! because that is the point of maximum potential.
if the system heavily leans in one direction then it naturally becomes increasingly difficult for it to transition into another "state of matter" (pun semi-intended).

---

all of this is to say that these 'dichotomies' like *result & process*, *rational & holistic*, *masculine & feminine* are nothing but perceivable agentic forces within you, which the higher order control system that is your consciousness is being asked to unite.
they just *appear* to you as contradictory extremes, when actually they are part of the same thing: a principle that keeps you on track.';

'>>454246
That answer is more scientific/esoteric than expected, but appreciated. I will ponder about how to make this meta POV of yours connect to concrete actions.';

'>>453980
>This guy thinks leftistS equals being "working grown-ups".

LMAO';

'>>454588
>and lastly; the arts infamously tend to be left-leaning. so the public image of [here] won't help recruit a lot of people either.

childrens books tend to be quite digestable for the inexperienced reader. maybe try one of those?';