"Poorly drawn" as a complaint against an image.

Based on discussion from this thread, I figured I should make a a new one about the relevance, in the context of whether or not to remove an image, of how poorly drawn the image was.

I think my perspective in that thread was somewhat misrepresented. It's not so much about not liking an image *

as about not seeing much evidence of effort or skill in it. It is not a matter of opinion so much as of assumption. There's a difference.

Now, whether or not evident skill or effort should be relevant to addition or removal of an image, on the other hand, is an opinion, but I would think our standards set aside at least some relevance for that. Otherwise, as I pointed out in the other thread, what would stop images like these◊ from being used?

Now, this isn't to say it should be a one-size-fits-all approach either; for some tropes, an image being poorly drawn may even be an advantage in using it for the page. I am simply saying that how lazily and/or unskillfully an image was drawn should not be dismissed as irrelevant.

edited 29th Dec '11 7:40:52 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

It's not that "poorly drawn" is an invalid complaint, exactly. It's that "poorly drawn" is a matter of opinion.

edited 29th Dec '11 8:09:52 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

I agree with Rodney. "Poorly drawn" is a subjective opinion even if you try to factor in skill and effort, because some simplistic drawing styles can be done well without much of either.

The only preventive measure we should take is to demand a certain level of quality for troper-drawn images, which are already rare. If the "poorly drawn" image is from a published work, chances are (1) there are people who think it is okay, and/or (2) the suckitude of the image is deliberate and serves some purpose.

And from there, just throw the image to the suggestions bin and see how people react. If it's awful and unclear, it will generally be refused. Otherwise, it proves that some people don't see the problem you're seeing. Because of that, practically speaking, "poorly drawn" is almost irrelevant.

edited 29th Dec '11 8:55:36 PM by Catalogue

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

Here's basically how I see it in regard to starting new threads based on it: Aesthetic stuff is irrelevant as long as the image is clear. Style only matters if it hinders the comprehensibility of the image. If the only complaint is the art style, it's not worth the trouble.

Although when we're considering replacement images, I see no reason not to consider personal preference, as it typically comes to a vote anyway.

Reaction Image Repository

Exactly.

I think that's a very good way to sum it up

I think aesthetic stuff is very important, and I'm absolutely willing to pick an image that is less "clear" if it's better holistically. For example, I'll pretty much always take a single-panel image that conveys the trope most of the way over a two-panel image that can comprehensively explain it given zero other context.

Off the top of my head, for example, this image◊ from the I Call Her "Vera" discussion might technically show the trope more clearly than this one◊, but the latter image is just so much better at setting the mood, and the former image is, frankly, ugly, with a weak focus (the eye is drawn to the guy's face, hat, and hands, not the gun) and transparently-kludgy editing.

Or for the No-Holds-Barred Beatdown thread, I'd definitely this◊ one-panel image is better than the one with the extra panel◊ because the additional speech balloons, while they help clarify the trope, are distracting and unnecessary, and draw attention away from the action. (Also, it's poorly-edited again, with a big black bar in the middle rather than a clean integration of the panel frames—this happens often with two-panel images.)

There's also this◊ image that was suggested for Be Careful What You Wish For. Someone suggested adding extra panels to make it more clear that the guy is unhappy about getting his wish, but I think it's brilliant with just those two and the rest is implied.

None of this has anything to do with the art style, of course, and I certainly wouldn't support "ugliness" as a reason to pull*

. But it's the principle of the thing. I am in favor of aesthetics.

edited 29th Dec '11 11:40:56 PM by troacctid

Rhymes with "Protracted."

My opinion is that aesthetics should only matter in the choice between two (or more) equally clear and illustrative images.

Of course, that still doesn't solve the problem of subjective opinions (for example, someone might really hate the style of DC comics), so it's not really getting us anywhere.

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird

I value style highly.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

I think it's dangerous to value clarity too highly. If left unchecked, it's too easy for images to start suffering from Viewers Are Morons syndrome, trying too hard to explain every aspect of the trope without any help from the rest of the page.

---

I mean, editing in a fake speech bubble? What's the point of that?

Rhymes with "Protracted."

For me there's a threshold in an image's explanatory value, and after an image passes this threshold other considerations can come to play.

The I Call It "Vera" one I think is not a good example, however.

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

Again, it depends on what order of magnitude of either you're talking about. Both OOTS drawing and AGLP's former page image involve very little of either, yet OOTS obviously takes more of each to draw than AGLP's former page image did.

... as in, drawn by tropers? What if something from a published work was drawn by a troper?

1. That does not mean future readers of the page will.

2. Sometimes it does serve some purpose, but no such purpose was stated in the other thread for AGLP's image.

... seriously?

... come to think of it, I can think of one trope for which its incredibly crappy drawing style would be an advantage; Complete Monster. The trope is severely decayed, so perhaps the image should reflect that. XD

edited 30th Dec '11 6:11:53 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

"...yet OOTS obviously takes more of each to draw than AGLP's former page image did."

No! Wrong! And irrelevant!

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

Japanese Teeth said it best: it should be, first and foremost, clear. Effort and difficulty is irrelevant.

It counts as "published". I meant that as a measure against overeager tropers submitting their own unpolished artworks.

Yeah that doesn't mean that, but I don't see how we can/should do anything about that. For all our efforts in Image Pickin', that doesn't mean that future readers will find the final result appealing.

The image eventually loses. See, generally, democracy works. That's why there's no need to put down images with vague criteria like "poorly drawn", as images that are truly awful by the average standard tend to not win in the end.

Uh, yeah? I find this very bizarre, are you saying that, "Ooh, let me rule out some images whose art style I dislike beforehand, lest careless forum members will choose it anyway against my better judgement"?

If you think the art is awful, just note it and let it proceed as usual. If people agree with you, they will count that as a con.

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

Clear first and foremost, but that doesn't make effort completely irrelevant; for two images of near-equal clarity, other factors like effort may be worth taking into consideration.

I never claimed we need to anticipate everything. I'm simply suggesting we take into account that future readers might not notice things we do, things like "this was deliberate Stylistic Suck." If I had to guess, without context, I might have thought that the former AGLP image was added by a vandal.

And if I hadn't stated why I felt the need to replace the image, I would have either made no thread or would have made a thread with no stated reason for replacement, and either way, the Dexters Laboratory one might not have been suggested.

Strawman. I don't pretend to have that kind of authority in the first place. I was simply pointing out where dismissing laziness of drawing as irrelevant leads us.

edited 30th Dec '11 10:21:11 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

My stance is, we are free to consider factors like effort and craftsmanship, but I don't see this as a special attribute worth discussing/treating separately.

If you think an image is poor in that regard, you count is as a strike against it. Some others may agree with you, and they therefore judge the image weak. Some others still may not see the problem you're seeing, and so they don't consider it as a flaw.

Everything is within the boundaries of our usual processes.

edited 30th Dec '11 10:32:50 AM by Catalogue

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

That's what I mean: when clarity and aesthetics clash, we go with clarity. There's nothing wrong with wanting a picture that looks nice, but there's obviously going to be a gray area there because everybody has a different take on what "aesthetically pleasing" means; a picture that I think looks great might be considered ugly by other posters.

The fact of the matter is that the purpose of the images isn't to look nice; it's to illustrate the trope. There's nothing wrong with making it look nice, but I don't think that should supercede making the image demonstrative. If two pictures are comparably illustrative, then we can choose by aesthetics.

And we technically do have a standard for image quality: if the quality compromises the clarity of the image, it's a no go. In the case of the All Girls Want Ponies image, it's part of why we started looking for a new one; the scribbly style made the gender of the person hugging the pony unclear.

I should also note that I don't necessarily oppose the idea of replacing otherwise illustrative images with equally illustrative images that look better, but we're in the midst of trying to clear out the Image Pickin' backlog, and we want to focus our time and effort on removing or replacing images that are actually bad, not images that work but aren't as nice as they could be.

So no, aesthetics aren't irrelevent, but I think clarity trumps it most of the time.

edited 30th Dec '11 3:36:53 PM by JapaneseTeeth

Reaction Image Repository

You can like or dislike an image for any reason. Any reason. It's got too many blue pixels? Pfft, crap.

But you can't pretend that's an objective criticism.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

Are we done here? I think we are, but I figured I better ask before locking.

Locking for several reasons:

1) It's not about a particular image — it's about general wiki policy and practices. Therefore it's not in the right forum — it should be in Wiki Talk rather than IP.

2) There's no consensus that it's even a problem.

edited 8th Feb '12 10:40:36 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.