Personally, I find it to be nuzzo. The way he shows every little curve of a female body without it looking overdone or gross just looks incredible!

This is not necessarily the same question as your favourite artist; while I haven't seen anyone beat nuzzo in terms of skills, I can still list a handfull of artists I'd rather fap to.

So what's your thoughts :3

Nuzzo is one of my favorites, but for me, it's Kenket, hands down. :-)

post #1999393 post #2003174 post #2038477 post #1624872

post #1622801 post #1622794 post #1613030 post #1612721

It doesn't matter whether one of her pieces is watercolor or acrylic, digital or traditional, anthro or zoomorphic, lewd or family friendly. She understands the medium, the subject, the anatomy, and the principles and elements of design. Nearly every piece is outstanding.

Ratte, clearly.

Just try to find someone else that can put pure emotion and feeling into artwork better than her, I guarantee you wont.

She's also a good storyteller.

I don't really think that there is such thing as "most skilled" artist. There is plenty of excellent furry artists who are very good in their own ways, but each has their own strengths and weakneses.

kahen_kilon_vittu said:
I don't really think that there is such thing as "most skilled" artist. There is plenty of excellent furry artists who are very good in their own ways, but each has their own strengths and weakneses.

He's asking for an opinion.

Also, I LOVE Ratte's work. She's another artist who is in my top five, for all the reasons mentioned above!

CCoyote said:
He's asking for an opinion.

That was my opinion.

I don't have an absolute favorite but I'm slightly more partial to Pixiv artists or artists that draw stylistically anime-ish characters. Artists like Taracod who can convey a story or emotion just by imagery alone. Knows how to make natural and urban places look pretty. No dialogue.

post #1754417 post #1754000 post #1754391

post #1754432 post #1754406

It's just difficult for me to really say. Lighting color, character design, subject matter, and detail are all considered. I find that most of what I favorite to be really good. Perhaps ocassionally even surpassing Nuzzo levels of good.

I hear photonoko is real good. Though I hear that artist was tired of the fandom and wasn't doing anymore works. Sadly, some artists never take off even though I find their style appealing.

post #1846734

Though, I am a big fan of Kanedas work

Also some new emerging artists that I like who I can't wait to see more of what they can do!

post #2031335 post #2032263

There are so many dazzling artists, it's unfair to select just one.

I can't answer this question only because "skill" can be interpreted in countless ways.

There are too many talented artists for me to even consider naming just one of them.

Not sure how one would judge something like that.. For the best at least. It's pretty easy to see... less than good art or better than average.. But trying to find the best, as in the very top, better than all the rest? Don't know about that.. Even before factoring in art style etc.

I've always been a fan of Dr. Comet.

Imo, TSAP, Notbad, DarkNatasha.

Those are the ones i can name off the top of my head :3

Skill isn't a sliding scale. Every artist has strengths and weaknesses; an artist will be stellar at one task and lackluster in another.

LoneWolf343 said:
Skill isn't a sliding scale.

That's not actually true. Among artists there are objective, measurable standards of design by which skill can be measured, that is, placed on a scale of how much talent the artist demonstrates in a given piece.

Without these, there would be no way to compare da Vinci to Michelangelo or Seurat to Pollock. There would be no way to say objectively that a single artist improved or progressed over time.

Art isn't as subjective as viewers here seem to think. Standards do exist.

CCoyote said:
That's not actually true. Among artists there are objective, measurable standards of design by which skill can be measured, that is, placed on a scale of how much talent the artist demonstrates in a given piece.

Without these, there would be no way to compare da Vinci to Michelangelo or Seurat to Pollock. There would be no way to say objectively that a single artist improved or progressed over time.

Art isn't as subjective as viewers here seem to think. Standards do exist.

Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that.

LoneWolf343 said:
Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that.

I mean, this is not actually under question by anyone who has seriously practiced visual art. It's a thing that becomes obvious when you do the work. The literature on art merely formalizes it.

In other words, promoting subjectivism is (to any serious artist) a tacit statement that you are ignorant. The motivations for doing so appears to divide mostly into 1) spiteful glee in tearing down others, and 2) a tyrannical insistence that everyone 'just get along', since comparing artist's works obviously results in hurt feelings.

Artists who are similar in overall competence can certainly have differing strengths, such that it's hard to say 'this artist is better than that artist'. But people reliably prefer particular kinds of art over others, and this isn't mere snobbery, it's that it fits their brain better.

If you can't differentiate between skillful and unskillful art in general, that is a property of you, and not a property of art.

savageorange said:
I mean, this is not actually under question by anyone who has seriously practiced visual art. It's a thing that becomes obvious when you do the work. The literature on art merely formalizes it.

In other words, promoting subjectivism is (to any serious artist) a tacit statement that you are ignorant. The motivations for doing so appears to divide mostly into 1) spiteful glee in tearing down others, and 2) a tyrannical insistence that everyone 'just get along', since comparing artist's works obviously results in hurt feelings.

Artists who are similar in overall competence can certainly have differing strengths, such that it's hard to say 'this artist is better than that artist'. But people reliably prefer particular kinds of art over others, and this isn't mere snobbery, it's that it fits their brain better.

If you can't differentiate between skillful and unskillful art in general, that is a property of you, and not a property of art.

Man, you two are laying a beatdown on someone other than me, someone who seems to be saying things I didn't. Boy, that person sounds really dumb.

LoneWolf343 said:
Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that.

I'm an artist, with formal training and a career in art and graphic design. What are your qualifications?

savageorange said:
I mean, this is not actually under question by anyone who has seriously practiced visual art. It's a thing that becomes obvious when you do the work. The literature on art merely formalizes it.

In other words, promoting subjectivism is (to any serious artist) a tacit statement that you are ignorant. The motivations for doing so appears to divide mostly into 1) spiteful glee in tearing down others, and 2) a tyrannical insistence that everyone 'just get along', since comparing artist's works obviously results in hurt feelings.

Artists who are similar in overall competence can certainly have differing strengths, such that it's hard to say 'this artist is better than that artist'. But people reliably prefer particular kinds of art over others, and this isn't mere snobbery, it's that it fits their brain better.

If you can't differentiate between skillful and unskillful art in general, that is a property of you, and not a property of art.

Well stated. Thank you.

LoneWolf343 said:
Man, you two are laying a beatdown on someone other than me, someone who seems to be saying things I didn't. Boy, that person sounds really dumb.

You said:

Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that.

in response to

That's not actually true. Among artists there are objective, measurable standards of design by which skill can be measured, that is, placed on a scale of how much talent the artist demonstrates in a given piece.

Without these, there would be no way to compare da Vinci to Michelangelo or Seurat to Pollock. There would be no way to say objectively that a single artist improved or progressed over time.

Art isn't as subjective as viewers here seem to think. Standards do exist.

I interpreted that as you scoffing at the single basic idea which CCoyote expressed: 'There are objective standards in art', and implying that they only believed that because it was convenient for them.

If there is another interpretation that I could reasonably have taken, you are of course free to enlighten us as to what it is.

Some draw well, but it is fun for the moment, then I forget it. So much for drawing skill.
But Hyruzon's imagination makes his trash truly memorable.

How do you weigh all the attributes that fall under "skill" against each other? What is this method to assess artists, if y'all don't mind elaborating?

I'm an amateur when it comes to art, but I can talk about technical design problems, something that also involves the comparison of dissimilar traits. Engineers can come up with a system to find an answer reliably (for what that's worth) and objectively (within the context of the system), but the conclusion doesn't necessarily correspond to Real World Fact. We do it cause a decision has to be made, bullshit or not. So it's surprising that there's a solid way to compare da Vinci to Michelangelo or Seurat to Pollock.

Anyway, my favorite is moyamoya_kuroi.

post #1879458 post #534054 post #1977196

They've been doing this quite a long time, went from this to this (2012 -> 2019)

post #376214 post #2054258

Engineers can come up with a system to find an answer reliably (for what that's worth) and objectively (within the context of the system), but the conclusion doesn't necessarily correspond to Real World Fact.

Aside from going over more, higher quality, data when building your model, how could anyone hope to do better than this, in terms of objectivity?

Index said:
How do you weigh all the attributes that fall under "skill" against each other? What is this method to assess artists, if y'all don't mind elaborating?

I don't mind giving more information at all, but the answer isn't a short one. In fact, in my degree program, it took at least three classes to cover this stuff: Two-Dimensional Design, Three-Dimensional Design, and Color Theory. And those are on top of little bits picked up here and there while learning various media and while studying art history and surveys―literally making comparisons among the artwork done by the Masters.

Having said that, a few of the elements of design that are taught (along with how to use them to maximum effect) are line, shape, color, form, texture, value, and space. You can look at works like van Gogh's "Starry Night," Hopper's "Nighthawks," or Hokusai's "The Great Wave off Kanagawa" and identify -- objectively -- how and why they demonstrate mastery over these elements. Conversely, if you've had this training, you can also look at a work of furry art on here and explain why it doesn't meet those objectives and how it might be improved so that it does.

Art is partially a question of whether you like something and why, which is subjective. But it's not just subjective, and that's why a person can objectively look at various furry artists (or the old Masters), compare their bodies of work, analyze them, and clearly express why you think one is better than another.

tbh i would like the arts more than the artist, you know, sometimes the art has different stuff you like and not,
and, maybe they are the best around, but they maybe are just a little bit tad over the top...

has seen artist like that, if they arent smirky having their asses too high and are too good for you to talk or saying something bad about your commission, they have high standars for OCs [like, "yours seems to be copying this and this, i cant work with it"], are picky, or just their prices are high af that nobody wants to ask them for a comm. tho, aside of that, my fav artst are quite a few, buuuut, Sindoll deffinetly, and ZeroGravity666 [havent seen his arts there tho, but damn, he draws and colors so damn amazing] PlantPenetrator, Boogie [Porkymans Draws, dunno how he says them tho] tbh i would never like to know if these or other artist are mean or had criticize something too bad and so up their own ego, is like, watching your hero being bad and doing something that you would feel so sad you go and destroy all stuff you had from them. is like broken a dream. for me, everyone has a diferent style that they would need to be sharing first place :3 [and no, not me, i have too much to learn still]

Skilled is an unfair metric imho. But personally, my favorite artist in general is commissionsbyj. Their old art is great, their new art is a skillful and powerful maturation of the old.

I couldn't care less about having the most refined techniques. It's what you do with them that matters. Like movies, it's not all about how many tricks of the camera, special effects, or super advanced CGI that make them spectacular _ it's the nebulous combination of that, but more importantly writing, screenwriting, and acting.

That doesn't make less emotive art (generally porn for example) or dumb yet entertaining movies worse, merely different.

Fwiw I'm not an artist. Most of my judgement is based by subjective feel. "Feelings" evoked > how much technical skill you throw into an image. It's why I can appreciate some rather less technically adept porn (or just art in general) on this site if it's more novel or applies interesting ideas. Everyone works differently though.

Skill is definitely more something artists are concerned with, since a well developed skillset works out to your ability to do the artwork you are trying to do (whatever kind of work it is) more or less reliably. Although IMO commissioners should also be concerned with it.

It certainly shouldn't be directly conflated with appeal.

I feel like the content OP suggests they may not have actually meant skill, even though the question as stated was about skill.

I always loved the work of Michele Light.

https://e621.net/post/index/1/michele_light

I just love how good the ladies look thought i always wanted him to stray a bit further from just pinups.

My devotion to @ruaidri will never end...

post #2749505 post #2925018 post #2827709

But it is not "just" because these animations I give as example... you will see that his capacity of expression, comes from making hundreds of drawings (each absolutely identifiable as his work, at first sight) that show that level of mastery in expression, mostly facial and anatomical - postural.

Another great artist, is @carrot, with his unique monochrome style, that is impressive to me...

post #2281427

post #1089548

Besides, @carrot has this channel in which he presents his way of working, and most importantly, his Philosophy of Art...

https://www.youtube.com/c/CarrotTalks

I would say, that I admire him as much as I admire @Kenket and her partner, @BlackTeagan.

------------------------------

However, something that I regret, is not to have in E6 more art of my Godess, Roz Gibson. I am trying to summon enough courage to go to the Olympus of FA, and humbly ask when could be expected a re-edition of her works, like "The City of Ice" or "Blacklight".

=(.

(In the meanwhile, I bump good threads like this)

Can't really say there's a most skilled, but I definitely have a few favorites. Carrot, ECMajor, and Personalami to name a few.

Just finishing to read the whole thread now...

I myself just a "furry user" of E6, and I have also never taken any artistic education... but I believe, that a mastery that "shows" it is difficult to come from just "talent" (although talent and inclination is necessary)... people goes to renowned schools, in France or Italy for example, and spend years with Masters learning the basics and secrets to be a real competent artist.

Not a furry artist, but I believe this Mexican professor is an example o what I say...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EDaZj-jUg

(Instant magic)

This question is rather loaded because 1.) It assumes that talent is linear and measurable so that it is possible to be the "most" talented, and 2.) it assumes the listener has had sufficient experience with the entire fandom enough to make such a determination. Despite being a rabid consumer of online furry art for decades, if I have discovered as much as 10% of artists out there, I would be surprised.

Now, if you ask me who I think is the most talented of artists that I've seen, I would say veramundis. The man has a way of expressing form that is damned rare among digital painters of any persuasion.

/wait, I've commented in this thread before.

Appart from "talent" - and I repeat that I am not an artist or received an artistic education - then there is off course the simple question of "personal taste".

In these other thread some users also list their favorite artists.

(Mine is particularly long).

https://e621.net/forum_topics/20392

Meesh is a pretty skilled artist. Definitely has talent.

poontang said:
Meesh is a pretty skilled artist. Definitely has talent.

I think this artist is good, I agree.

And... one that is also very interesting, is... savageorange. And really find very interesting also his / her participations in this forum. Think have very much (under the sleeve) to say about art and phillosophy of art.

Not claiming that these are "the best" artists (I don't know) but I can say, that they are good, and I like them very much.

omega lioness

post #2986200

jcm2

post #2944900 post #2944909

zenoclaw

post #2668992 post #3117864

alsares

post #2702580 post #2301039 post #2514903

hoot

post #794405 post #632729 post #1975589

truegrave9
(so extensive that I had it difficult to find my favorites).

post #2571628 post #2968710 post #2319537

kalahari

post #2670437

katnay

post #2641166

alasurth

post #2554110

corrsk

post #2446200

tales foxdale

post #1633822

----------------------------

I could say, that I have shown not even... 2% of the artists that I like in E6, a random sample of my list of favorites.

Just a small sample.

Null-ghost, Takemoto Arashi, Ooyuki Benten, Caraid, Meesh, I can think of these for now. Furry bara is my favourite.

It's hard to say, I'm not particularly interested in professional artists.
I think Aliscik or Blockman3.

EDIT: Nobody mentioned Silverfox5512, that's a surprise. I thought they were popular.

I wanna be on someone's list one day, Dood!
◠‿◠)~★

For hyper-realism, checkout the work of Eupharrow. I love his work. And as was mentioned, Meesh is great as well.