Oh jesus, I'll have to get onto this sometime as well in the week when I'm on my break :D

What fun!

Also, they're missing whiskers.

This is just his art style. His characters are drawn in a cartoon style, not a realistic one. If you don't like that way he draws, there's nothing wrong with that. You've gone past constructive criticism and just become insulting

>>13945

This is your only warning: we don't like people trying to whiteknight for Naylor around here.

Naylor's art has flaws; whether you want to acknowledge them or excuse them out of "style" is your choice, but realize that we see the flaws, we acknowledge them, and we'll rip them apart however we wish. Don't like it? Door's to your left, have a nice day.

Let me make it clear that I find Naylor's political opinions to be very offensive and I don't have a high opinion of him, but I do like his artwork. I am not trying to be whiteknight for him. I'm only defending his art

>>13947

That's nice and all, but you're going to have to do a lot more towards defending his art than saying "it's just his style" if you want any of us to take you seriously.

>>13945

there's a difference between style and then making a mouse look more like a cat than a mouse

look at how elizabeth looks in early Better Days, now look how she appears in OL, especially when compared with her family. she has mutated into a cat-mouse, instead of just being a regular mouse

that isn't style - thats inconsistence art

I tend to think of his artwork as a kind of furry anime. Most characters in anime/maga tend to share most of the same facial features and many look like they could be twins. I also want to point out that his artwork actually shows more detail than many syndicated comic strips. It certainly isn't realistic, but it's obvious that realism wasn't what he was shooting for.

>>13951

>I also want to point out that his artwork actually shows more detail than many syndicated comic strips.

I swear, you're just trying to troll us now.

>>13950

:(

>>13951
>I also want to point out that his artwork actually shows more detail than many syndicated comic strips.

Naylors art dated 2005 and younger showed more detail than the crap he churns out today. Your coment only proves you have lacking taste in art.

Anime art carries a trend style with it. Naylor is just lazy and draws everything as cats.

>>13951


ROFL if Douchey McDouche ever heard his art called Furry Anime he'd explode. Which would be awesome.

I honestly think the mice you're drawing look more like ACTUAL cats. The narrowish face and cleft upper lip makes me think cat.

>>13951

You haven't noticed in "Original Life" how every character has the same facial expressions, heads face the same directions, mouths look like pentagons, paws have deformed into mittens, people speak into mugs and Fisk and Liz seem to have been getting younger? Nice.

>>13927
This page bugs me so much, especially panel 3; it looks like Fisk is very surprised by the side of Elizabeth's head.

>>13960
don't forget the stump feet in http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3575153

>>13927

How did you fail to redline that last panel where it looks like Elizabeth is sporting a straight jacket.

LackLuster, that's a little below the belt isn't it? I know that he's taken a simpler approach to his work and I've been following his work for over a year. I've also seen a lot of artists change their style and I'm sure you guys have too. I'm honestly not trying to troll, only stating my opinion's on Jay Naylor's artwork. I have to ask whether you guys would be so critical of his art if Jay wasn't such a Republican, conservative, preachy jack-ass?

When his new comic started, I did notice some changes, not all for the best, especially how everyone's face pretty much looks the same and the lack of detail in their hands and feet. I have to say that the characters, especially the kids, look much cuter this way. The redline artwork looks... less-endearing.

>>13945

>>13947

>>13970

>>I have to ask whether you guys would be so critical of his art if Jay wasn't such a Republican, conservative, preachy jack-ass?

Yes, because that's clearly the only reason he gives us to be critical of his art.

Clearly, there's nothing wrong with the art, so we only make fun of his political beliefs.

...Dumbass.

>>13970

>>13970

>I've been following his work for over a year.

Yeah, some of us have been following his work for a lot longer than that. And we've watched his style degrade so far that even when he produces something halfway decent, we still want to rip it apart WHILE we say it's halfway decent. (Yes, some of this is probably spurred on by the fact that it's Naylor doing the art, and some of us truly dislike Naylor as a person, but that's not the point.)

The attached picture is one of Naylor's older works. Sure, it's nothing mindblowing or anything, but I find this to be a better image than a lot of what Naylor's done recently. I would love to see Naylor draw this exact same pose now so you can see the comparison between his old work and his new work.

Aeriese, let me just say, that you are truly the definition of a CUNT:

Cannot Understand Normal Thinking.

Now...

>>13927

I'm afraid that I do have to agree with the CUNT on at least one thing: some of these "corrections" are clearly a matter of you imposing your personal style on Jay's personal style. Jay makes numerous artistic mistakes, but as far as the way the species are drawn, the mistakes are because he's not being internally consistent, either across the species or with individual characters.

There isn't a "right" way to draw furries. Them not being more animalistic isn't a mistake, it's a style choice.

Now, the fact that Fisk's head changes shape a few times, his height varies, and he seems to be hovering ghostlike behind Elizabeth instead of actually taking up space behind her, THOSE are art failings.

>>13970

>>I've been following his work for over a year.

That's about how long I've been using alcohol to burn the memory of dating him out of my soul. Er, wait...

No seriously, I've watched the man toil for HOURS every single day, and this is what he comes up with? It's kinda scary and very disappointing that all that time he was holed up "working" brought about such half assed results, ever changing appearances of reoccurring characters, and NO BACKGROUNDS.

Just to play devil's advocate.

We don't harp on any other artist for their artistic flaws. I mean, over in the Damnit forum, I don't see a whole lot of criticism. I don't even think we're ALLOWED to criticize the art in the Club Stripes thread.

Setting aside Naylor's political views, here's the general reason why I think we harp on him over other artists:

1) His art has been degenerating. His laziness and shortcuts are piling up. So he's devolving as an artist.

2) He screams people down/bans them for offering even the most constructive criticism. Therefore, we take DELIGHT in criticizing that art HERE where he can't stop it.

To offer an example, there is another artist whom equally was harped on because of 1) his douchebaggery and 2) his art style: Bernal. Every time a new piece of his went live, he'd get dragged through the mud because, like Naylor, he wouldn't allow criticism (by locking himself into a paysite with no forum).

Unlike Naylor however, Bernal doesn't draw any of his characters anymore. And, like Naylor, his art (before he stoped making it) degenerated poorly. Compare his early sketches to his later high gloss 'churned out for paysite' shit and it's clear to see the awfulness.

Naylor, unlike Bernal, hasn't sued anyone and thus we can keep TALKING about his art and POSTING his art. And unlike Bernal (who is just an asshhole), Naylor's political views are added on TOP of his lackluster art and refusal for anything but lickspittlism, making a perfect trifecta for our glorious hate.

If Naylor's political views were all we cared about, we'd also be jumping up and down on RHJunior. No, we also care about his art.

>>13945

Lazy is as lazy does. For someone who's drawn as long as he has and who can draw the sexual organs in such intimate details, there's little excuse for him not to be able to draw a decent hand or track eyes so they are looking at what they are supposed to be looking at. His attention to detail is misdirected, because I'm assuming he's capable of doing it if he were paying attention.

Jay has the ability to be a very competent artist, when he wants to be or if there was a real reason for him to be. People don't demand his art to be better and they accept it's degrading in the excuse for speed, so why should he bother.

Besides, it's not like he'd ever accept unconstructive or constructive criticism about his work anyway. He'd just tell you you're wrong and ignore you (but I see he's started moving the eyes off the forehead in profile views, so that's a small victory).

>>13982

>We don't harp on any other artist for their artistic flaws. I mean, over in the Damnit forum, I don't see a whole lot of criticism. I don't even think we're ALLOWED to criticize the art in the Club Stripes thread.

This is something I want to actually address now that I have the chance.

With /dammit/, we're trying to keep the board as free of drama as possible. While you're free to express distaste with an image - it's been done in the ClubStripes threads before - we prefer that in-depth art criticism (or criticism of a particular artist) goes over in /hugbox/ so that those who wish to discuss is can do so without annoying those who don't.

Now, that's not to say that you can't do any art criticism over in /dammit/. We're fine with you doing that, actually. But we don't want a ClubStripes thread turning into a "bash Gideon" thread, which is why we normally direct that sort of thing over to /hugbox/ when it appears that it's going in that direction.

>>13982

I have and continue to harp on Meesh's eye thing as well as when he gets lazy with the backgrounds such as a the four-walled brown shower with no apparent door.

>>13927

it's a cartoon.

... Stop feeding the fucking trolls.

>>13987
You say that as if it's a good excuse.

Alright, I thought this might be a good debate but it's broken down into insults and accusations of being a troll apparently because I don't completely agree with everyone's opinions. Thanks to those of you who can discuss something without using name-calling.

>>13985

indeed, and we do rip on a few other webcartoonists in /caw/, but few have so perfectly complimenting flaws as naylor

>>13982

indeed, i guess you could break it down like this

cigarskunk has the political dramam

RHJ has both political drama and crappy art (although his art style is at least fairly consistant and shows a little improvement over time)

bernal has drama and shitty art

naylor has shitty art, drama AND politics. perfect trifecta of lulz

>>13995
We're not calling you a troll, we're saying you're kissing Failor's stupid ass way too damn much.

>Alright, I thought this might be a good debate

You lie.

>>13995
>>Thanks to those of you who can discuss something without using name-calling.

CUNT whose board do you think this is to be thanking people for how they carry on?

>>13951
>I also want to point out that his artwork actually shows more detail than many syndicated comic strips.
I have three reasons why almost any given syndicated strip is better than this crap.
1. Backgrounds. This morning, while I was reading the comics, I paid special attention to them and noticed that all but two of the ones that I read have some form of background. Most of the time Naylor can't even half-ass a background.
2. Plot development. Granted, a lot a strips have one-off jokes, but the ones that have an actual story going, or when the others have an arc going, actually resolve their plots in a timely manner. Is there anyone here who can actually say who wrote that love letter?
3. They print every day. All of the above stuff, and they still have to crank out one comic per day, and an extra large version on Sundays.

>>14003


Yeah given the time constraints of actual professionals. Compared to Naylor who literally has all the time he wants since he can't be fired even if he misses a dozen deadlines....added on to the fact that he does NOTHING ELSE.

Yeeeeaaaah...

>>13957

I...I want to know his drawing routine. There's no way to write that and not have it come off as creepy, I know.

But a window into the professional craft o' Naylor? Does he really sit for hours? He seems like a "get up, watch TV for two hours, surf the Internet, draw a hand, take a smoke break" sort of artist.

>>14009

Unless he's changed, and somehow I can't see him changing, he'd sit at his desk for HOURS... I mean long, long periods of time, and work. Talk radio would be on, and an IM program, but he'd be working and working... and all we get is stumpy sadness.

>>14013

He sounds like a fun guy. What exactly convinced you to move in with him again? Dude's gotta have some hella charm, being all short and wirery and all.

>>14018

Everything he said did NOT = everything he did after the move in was done. It was like he was a completely OTHER person. It was creepy. It was all "oh yeah I like _____ too, and I'm into ______ and I feel _________ and we will ________"
and none of this ever came to be, it was all talk.

>>14024

So, he lies.

Wonder if he's doing this to markhale..

>>14025

Given his track record with women? Most likely.

Does Markhale have an actual website? Or twitter/lj/FA/whatever? Because we've so far heard NOTHING from HER.

>>14033

i'm tempted to imagine that naylor somehow keeps her offline as much as possible

if he can keep us away from her - then he can make her last longer before she questions her choice of being with him

>>14033

She does have a Twitter account and a FurAffinity page, both under the username "mahrkale".

I'm incredibly tempted to post links to this board on both of their shout pages on FA. Markhale first, as a warning to her.

>>14050

I don't really think it's our place to do that.

>>14013

Really now? That's just shameful.

>>14050

I think the only thing I'd ever do to interact with her would be to give her a condolence card at a con. Hur hur.

>>14050
Actually, that's how I found this place. Some hilarious whiner:
Quote: "This site {link} has been posting your sketch blog pictures for free and I think it's (wrong and immoral? I forget.) because the rest of us are paying for it"

And so I lol'ed and found this site, had an awesome time in the few hours before someone, probably Naylor deleted the guy's post.
:)

>>14065

The funny thing is, to try and bitch at us or try to get us to take down his pay content, he'd have to acknowledge our existence. Which he's repeatedly proven that he just can't do.

>>13982

"He screams people down/bans them for offering even the most constructive criticism."

Actually, I'll be damned, he hasn't banned me or talked to me like I was a moron for some of my opinions on his artwork. It was kind of funny to hear him defend the lattest "website banner" image he uploaded however on the various errors I noted.

>>14065 So, rather than just edit out the link he deleted the guy's post who was trying to help him. Yup, that sounds like classic Naylor.

At least someone's trying to make mice look better. Thanks. :)

>>13927 actually looks better to me.

>>13927

Instead of making them look like their respective species, you really just made them all look like lions.

Poorly drawn lions.

>>14960

meh better than Naylor

>>14731
you apparently don't realize the irony of this statement. naylor, instead of drawing his characters to look like their respective species, draws them to all look like cats.

>>13927
Oh shit, Lions! get in the car!

>>15303
>:3

>>15430