Someone in the comments of that Genzoman hate post is getting offended and asking what’s the difference between taking shots at beginner artists and ripping apart artists like Genzoman.
Here’s the difference, friends: Genzoman is a professional. He makes art for a living, has put a lot of time and effort into his craft, and clearly has the understanding of how things are supposed to look but actively chooses to ignore this for Liefield-esque anatomy and lazy shortcuts (see: copy-pasting weapon models, using default photoshop leaf brushes, NEVER DRAWING FEET).
He should know better. By putting himself into the eyes of a consumer base he has opened himself up for reception, and that reception can and will be critically harsh. Art is not a sacred thing that should always be met with “you did your best! uwu”
A beginner artist does not know better. They are not paid by large corporations to produce something, and they do not have large followings of impressionable people thinking that their mistakes are good reference material. There is a very large difference between taking shots at someone just learning the basics and someone like Genzoman and I’m a little disappointed some people can’t see that.
Genzoman is 100% aware of how he draws. People have come to him before giving him advice and criticism and his reactions are always the same. He gets up in their faces and rudely proclaims what a seemingly fantastic artist he is and that he draws specifically in that “style” because people pay him to do it.
He’s been drawing this way for over 10 years and has not adapted or changed his style. He’s not a beginner. He’s a stagnant, lazy and frankly awful artist who uses hypersexualized bodily proportions in an attempt to distract the more shallow minded consumers and big businesses who use hypersexualisation to sell a product.
I mean you can tell he’s probably a seemingly decent artist when he gives men a wide variety of body shapes and faces, but when he draws women, they all have the same big-eyed, small nosed features with the exact, same body shape and wet-silk clinging to their crotches for seemingly no reason. That’s not a beginner’s mistake. Beginners’ mistakes are shown on all aspects of their work in some form, not just the body of one particular sex.
And don’t even get me started on how he bastardizes the concept of texture mapping. Yes, it’s a shortcut most professional artists use in the business. However, most actually work to blend the photograph into the image and not just put a bit of GLOW on it.
A “squick” was a trope or topic that made the reader deeply uncomfortable, even might cause anxiety or intense emotional reactions
Everyone’s squicks were personal and diverse, and it was considered polite to say, “sorry I can’t read this because it squicks me, but you have fun in your corner doing what you doing”
Can we bring that back and reserve “trigger” for MI people who mean “if I see this I will have flashbacks and dissociate for hours”
I wasn’t aware this concept had fallen out of fandom. Seriously, bring it back, it’s useful as hell.
Key to the concept of “squick,” as it was first explained to me lo these many years ago, is that it is not a value judgment. If I say “mpreg is gross,” that’s a negative statement about mpreg (and, by extension, about those who enjoy writing or reading about it). If I say “mpreg squicks me,” that’s a value-neutral statement about me and my emotional reactions and how they affect my enjoyment of fiction.
And, as OP says, it does not carry the implications of intensity or trauma that “trigger” does. (Although I will point out that a trigger doesn’t have to cause flashbacks or dissociation. There are people a lot better qualified than I am to talk about that.)
Yes, yes, yes please to all of this!
squick: Something that makes you go “ewwww” and wish you had never seen/read it. Something that makes you deeply uncomfortable. Something you’re not interested in reading/seeing/thinking about, ever.
trigger: Something that you associate with/reminds you of a past trauma (mental, emotional, or physical) and therefore triggers your personal reaction to trauma (be it flashbacks, panic/anxiety attacks, unhealthy behaviours, a crying jag, whatever).
Please, please, please don’t use them interchangeably.
I may have reblogged this before but it’s worth doing again: such a useful concept.
This needs to be seen
That’s a really good set of definitions.
Although it is possible for some people, depending on what their issue is, to experience one thing as both a squick and a trigger depending on context/treatment/their own mental state at the time of reading/viewing that thing/linking a previous squick to a later trauma. So I wouldn’t jump down someone’s throat if they, say, called something a squick and then said they were triggered by that thing at a later time, ‘cause things change.
me: *can’t find wow player*
me: here goes nothing
me: *cups hands around mouth* [Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker]
wow player: DID SOMEONE SAY [Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker]
me: there they are
