Connected But Not Connecting?

I love the trance genre of music and all it's subgenres. It's pretty much a dreamy, heavily rhythmic type of electronic music, if you didn't know, but that's a whole other topic altogether.

I'm always a sucker for Armin Van Buuren. He is one of the most well-known and talented Trance music artists. His song "Alone" featuring Lauren Evens is just as majestic as any well made Armin song can be, with beautiful vocals and exquisite arrangement. As someone constantly pushing for more respectable POC (People of Color!) representation in media, I was so happy to see a brown woman chosen to do vocals in a genre where this is rare. Plus a highly talented one to boot! I listen to this song frequently for it's haunting but powerful sound...however, part of me cringes upon hearing it(and watching the video).

Choreography is beautiful, as is the overall video. No, my issue lies with the message, which is highly ironic in that the video and music was shared and created via the very thing being spoken against. Here's a link to the lyrics for those of you too devoted to your music to listen to mine. The visual message is clear, even without hearing the song.



On top of this song, a few months ago, I came across a collection of illustrations by artist Jean Jillien, via post made by Azurea. This collection could serve as a sort of illustrative visual for Armin's ballad of anti-technology.

Both song and artwork support the, as someone else put it, "technology is bad, fire is scary..." sort of skeptical mindset. Someone on the post of illustrations wrote an entire shpeal about the issues of this mindset in a comment(here(tw: heavy cruse words)), and I want to elaborate on what this blogger stated, as well as adding my own points.

Believe it or not, there is an answer to this "obsessed with technology" issue that is pushed as so problematic today, as mentioned in that comment. It might surprise you if you think technology is an issue. I knew the second I felt an itch to talk about this topic, this would be a lot of chatting, so prepare yourself for a lot of reading. I am not going to be talking about things like robots, AI, or microchips or anything of that nature. Just internet and social media-related topics.

Of course, this is all my opinion on what I've seen and what what said in that post.

"Why the split views?"

It does seem a bit strange, but when you think about it, the answer is quite clear. We are dealing with five different generations here. Not all people in each generation shares the same views, of course, but I am talking about how each generation views technology/internet as a whole in general. Also, I am speaking of each generation as they are now in the year 2015.

Firstly, you have those of the Silent Generation. This is your grandmothers and great-grandmothers. They often side with the Baby Boomers who are your grandmothers and for some, mothers. People of both these generations are the majority of riders on the "internet/technology is bad and ruins genuine human connection" thought train. It is understandable, however because they grew up sans technology and so did most of their children. 

Moving on, you've got Generation X. These are, in general, your current mothers and fathers(becoming grandparents slowly as of now). People of this generation (mid 30s to mid 50s years of age) tend to be less harsh on technology, but many still hold that anti-tech mindset, especially if it was instilled upon them by their parents/grandparents or older siblings.

Lastly you have those who are known as Millennials and the current Generation Z, collectively ranging from anyone just being born now to those in their early 30s. Unfortunately many times, these last two generations are the ones at the blunt end of the stick (and no, I'm not just saying this because I'm a Millennial). Growing up with technology either growing along with us, or as a constant in our childhoods, it has become a stable of our lives. We are often the ones who have the anti-tech lectures and criticisms pushed in our faces. We are often the ones who get the "get off the computer!", "You should go out and make real friends" or " video games/internet/etc are the reason no one in your generation(s) can truly connect in real life" type of comments.

Sorry to burst your little anti-tech utopia bubble, but those are lies, here's why:

Without further adieu, here is Problems With The Anti-Technology Mindset Via Armin Van Buuren Lyrics.

Quote #1: "Everyone's connected but no one is connecting, the human element has long been missing."

You hear so many people say "dating sites are stupid" or "I prefer meeting people face to face instead of screen to screen" or "you can't meet someone genuinely if it's online". The problem with this is that a majority of people saying this only have met people via dating sites or large scale social media sites and don't know much else about the internet. Sure they visit a few sites from time to time, comment on some articles or posts, but they are missing something important. Like what, you ask?

Unfortunately, and contrary to the expectations of many in older generations, most large scale social media sites and dating sites do not harbor as many kind, genuine, or realistic people as one might hope to find. It doesn't mean there aren't any there, but rather means it's so many people from so many places with so much variety, there is not a genuine feel of community. And with dating sites in particular, many use them as ways to cheat, scam, and harass. People join 3 or 4 dating and social media websites and because of the lack of community, they assume the entire internet is this way. It's like walking into a shady bar in a popular but rough side of town and expecting to meet only wonderful people. While you will meet a few, chances are the majority will be broke down, creepy,  shady folk who might smile in your face (or not) and then stab you in the knee when you aren't looking (or maybe when you are). Just like the internet, there is always a danger of meeting the wrong people.

Quote #2: "Everybody needs to know somebody who cares. Just a friendly face you can trust to be there. Are you afraid to be known and not be a stranger?"

This quote of the song is, specifically, cringe-worthy to me. It's saying everyone needs a true friend and someone they can know and trust, which is very true, but it is implying that you cannot get this type of relationship with someone via technology and you have to connect with people in real life, because people aren't their real selves online, go anonymous, etc, which is straight bull. While it is true people utilize the chance for anonymity, it is not the rule of the internet. Many people (namely just in the older generations) are missing some very important parts of the internet that are a large reason as to why so many people use it. What are they you ask? I'm going to use that word community again.

Reason #1- 

So you are into woodworking. Avid collector of I Love Lucy merchandise. Or perhaps you are just a lover of antique books from roughly the Tutor era. In any case, we all have some hobby or interest that we collect/create/habitually watch/or just generally obsess over. For centuries people would have local clubs (or divisions of clubs in their local area) for these things, special groups, meetups, and events dedicated to whatever the obsession or hobby is. If you didn't have this, however, you had to opt to either go at it alone, or join forces with two or three random people whom you'd met locally and usually by chance. 

What fixed this? That's right. Internet. With internet, you suddenly became able to make a blog, group, club, or internet page on a site about whatever thing you're passionate about, and anyone from anywhere who enjoys the same interest could connect with you. You can geek over how cute Lucy and Ricky are with 30 other people in 20 different countries at the same time, all connected via an I Love Lucy fan group. Together you become a community. The friendships forged via internet based on interests can be, and often times are extremely sacred, special, honest, genuine, and real. People who were once the only person in their general vicinity now know a plethora of others into what they are into, some even in their own city, unknowingly! Some people don't have a hobby or aren't particularly into a show, movie, video game, singer, etc. Luckily, with all the groups of fans (or "fandoms" as they are often called) and clubs, you can easy find something new to be passionate about.

Reason #2- 

This doesn't just go for internet, but things like the self-checkout in stores(as included in the collection of illustrations), automated cashiers and other self-serve automated service machines of the like. This fact is not always considered: Some of us weren't blessed with the social interaction skills of Oprah Winfrey. For some it is a minor inconvenience and just makes us a little uncomfortable and may be able to overcome this fear in time. For others however, it is a part of Anxiety Disorder and they may have a number of severe side effects, from throwing up to passing out to going into shock if social interactions are made. 

Not all can just "grow up", "get over it", or "learn to deal with it". It's a disorder; not a personality quirk.

These automated machines and internet itself are ways for those suffering social anxieties (of any degree) to still function day to day and connect with others. It can aid in taking down the barriers so that everyday things such as buying groceries, dinner, taking out money, or messaging a co-worker, teacher, or friend can be done with little to no issues.

Reason #3- 

I was born in the year of our Lord 1994 and grew up with technology growing up along side me, as did many 90s babies/early 2000s children. Mine was the first generation to grow up using computers in elementary school as a teaching aid. I learned a lot of math, science, art, and history facts from computer games, interactive lessons and activities. I learned a lot of things, more than my teachers could ever tell me, just from Googling topics, reading articles, posts, doing research and utilizing the digital library that graces the information superhighway. This does not mean the technology is smarter than us, or that it can teach us more than what is taught traditionally. It means that information shared by other teachers an be learned by using technology as a tool.

Reason #4- 

Then there are those who take photos of themselves OR their food religiously.  I can understand being a bit aggravated if they constantly post selfies with arrogant captions. You open your social media app and their face or plate of food is always the first thing you see in your newsfeed.

People(many times females) are often told by those who encourage it, to love yourself, find who you are and love that person, be the real you, etc. For some people the way they show this love for who they are is by capturing it in photographs. Perhaps taking photos of their food (or pets, or car, or whatever) is their way of, not so much showing off, but trying to connect and find approval or even make a reminder to themselves of what makes them happy in their own life.

Despite that, they are ridiculed by these same "encouraging" people, for posting selfies or whatever they enjoy capturing(again, usually females).  Of course, this is no excuse for someone to be self-centered, but you never really know the reasons why someone does a thing.

Reason #5-

This might be the most obvious positive about technology, and people praise it when they need it... but tend to forget it when they talk about how awful technology is. You live in Oregon and your mom lives in France. You have close cousins in Wisconsin and a best friend staying in Ireland for school. Long ago, you had to write letters which took months to arrive, or send telegrams. 

What used to take 3 months to mail, now takes seconds to send. You can have a dinnerdate with your mom and best friend at the same time during a Skype session, or call your cousins for free even though they are halfway across the country. Soldiers can talk and see their worried wives and sad children who miss their father. People can even be interviewed for jobs or recruited for projects by video chat or email. Companies can connect to other branches of their offices, other companies, etc.  Teachers can offer interactive lessons on college courses, art tutorials, or anything, to students through the screen. Long distance couples can watch movies together or have dates. The list goes on.

In a long-winded, heavily worded way, all I am doing is explaining what this image so expertly expresses:

Quote #3: "Where is the life? Where is the feeling? Is anybody out there, is anyone listening? Is anyone left in this whole world, or are we alone?"

People look at things like the internet and often have this mindset that it takes away some human quality. I just can't understand this view. Whenever I message or get messaged by someone, whether anonymous or not, I know I am talking to another person. I am conscious that it is another living, breathing soul operating the other keyboard, and honestly this is not a hard thing to remember. 

I know, I know. The song isn't quite talking about that here, but I had to say that as it is a common thing people spread negativity about. 

What this chorus line is actually referring to is that when you are talking and conversation with those online, you are neglecting and ignoring the people right in front of you...which is, again, straight bull.

The truth about the anti-technology mindset is a lack of self control.

Here's what it all comes down to. 

Not all of the Silent Generation or Baby Boomers (or others in post generations) are anti-technology. In fact, a vast number are convinced to try social media, internet in general, and other technologies and some have a hard time grasping how it works. Others grasp how it works a little too well and become addicted to social media sites and other websites or apps. Constantly, they feel the need to check in on their friends or make random posts. Then, recognizing their addiction, they shame the technology as if it were the root of their problem. 

In reality, the real root of the issue is their dependency or lack of self control. Some of them crave social interaction(but don't know where to get it other than sites like Facebook or shoddy dating sites), others just become addicted to reading about other's lives, updating about their own life, or a number of things. 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying technology doesn't cause issues, because it has. It isn't perfect and we shouldn't constantly rely on it, no. However, people forget the internet and other tech is neither inherently bad or good. These are tools which can be used for positive posts or negative vendettas. 

At the end of the day:

If you keep checking your phone every 5 minutes, even when you are supposed to be sleep, if you miss what's going on your own life because you are distracted by posts about other's lives, if you can't stop binge watching movies and tv shows for days on end and shelter yourself away, if you ignore reality to live in the digital world, if you choose to use a dating site as a medium to cheat on your spouse... that is not technology's fault. 

Drawing With No Hart

   Much of my childhood was spent at the library. Of course, I wasn't much for reading novels or books, but I was obsessed with "how-to" and drawing instruction books. Like every other Millennial child in the early 2000s, I found myself reaching for a Christopher Hart book the majority of the time. 

They were written in a language I could understand, had nice pictures, and just seemed to be everywhere. Ask any 90s or early 2000s baby who Christopher Hart is, and if you get an answer, it'll be one of praise. Even if you had asked me just a few years ago, it would of been the same. The older I got the more I drew. It became my primary tool for communication and much more than a hobby. I decided I wanted to go to school for art and I am currently majoring in illustration (with a minor in art history). However, I had some artistic mistakes and bad habits that took a long time for me to shake (some I still do every now and then). One day while looking through an old Christopher Hart book I still had, I realized where many of my bad habits were formed. 

Recently I was watching an interview video of ol' Chris and I scrolled down to read the comments. It saddened me to see how many "He is my favorite artist!" and "I grew up with his books and love them still!" comments were made. So many young artists view(and viewed) his books collectively as a sort of artistic bible. You might be asking some questions right about now.

"What makes this guy so bad?" 
 Well if you have a good eye for art, you probably are able to see the issues with his art itself. However, that is just the tip of the iceberg. He is also sexist(as well as some other things), cock blocks creativity, and is pretty arrogant. 

"Okay but if you are learning a different art style, his books can still be good to get your feet wet, right?"
Christopher Hart certainly knows how to make money. I'm not sure how many "how-to-draw" anime and manga books he has, but I'd wager it's enough to fill a 9 year old weeaboo's backpack. The problem is, he knows nothing about anime, manga, or the variations thereupon. He makes up terms and art genres (like "realistic cartooning" or "Kawaii manga") that either make no sense or just don't exist.

 "Okay, so he makes crappy art books. He is an artist just like you but more successful so stop being jealous." 
Here's part of the big problem. He is not just an artist. He is a teacher. He is supposed to be teaching people (namely children) easy ways of picking up his trade. However, he is not good at this, goes about it the wrong way, and it is quite clear he doesn't really care about the students he is teaching. So this has nothing to do with jealousy; I respect the man's business tactics. This is about the content he creates.

"So he isn't the best teacher. You can still look at the pictures and get a good visual on how to do certain things." 
Unfortunately this doesn't help. Most of his books, he only drew a few pages and the rest were drawn by artists he commissioned to do the illustrations. They are not credited in the proper way (only in the back of the book, in fine print if at all) and he will often post their artwork from the book on his own Deviantart or Facebook accounts, as if he drew the art. True, he owns the work, but he is posting it on sites and presenting it as if it were his own drawings.  All of this aside, many of the artwork featured in his books (either drawn by others or by him) includes unnecessary or just plain inaccurate information. I understand that if he did not draw the artwork, it isn't his fault but he hires the other artists, and he still uses their art for the diagrams in his books.

Let's look at some examples. 

This is a page from one of his books in which he is trying to explain foreshortening. While the muscles overlapping is a true and fine point to make, the hand on the bottom figure, pointing toward us is incorrect. It is shown as smaller than it should be (even smaller than the hand pointing away) when it should be the biggest hand seen. 

In this image from his human anatomy book, he shows that women's breasts are made of muscle and not of tissue and fat (like they actually are).


This image made by electrical-socket is pretty self-explanatory. She states "I stumbled across this gem of a page where not only is the eye treated like a 2D object[…]but apparently the pupil juts out like some kind of eye nipple. I fail to notice my pupils jutting out. Pretty sure they’re holes. Like, there’s that iris bulge (which I failed to include on my 'yes’ doodle, please forgive), but my pupils quite definitely go IN."

 

In this one you can see just how lazy the artists he hires can get. If you focus your eyeballs on the bottom left female with pink hair, you will  see text beside her, stating that while she is flying in that position "we shouldn't be able to see the legs or feet at all" which is utter bull. You should be able to see both of her feet, if not just her butt and back. The only way you would not be able to see her feet or legs (or back) is if she had enormous wings or her hair was so big it obscured everything behind it. Telling young artists lies like what's on this page helps them to be lazy, take short cuts, and ultimately creates bad habits that are hard to break later on (trust me on that one).


And these gems below are from his "Drawing Vampires" book in which he showcases the intricate workings of drawing vampires.. I'm just going to leave these here and you can decide for yourself if they're worth your time to look at.

Okay. Now that you have seen some of the artistic and more technical issues of his work, time to move on to the next issue. He stifles creativity. He often tells you "Don't do this or your drawing will end up [something different from the usual]" in his books. The thing is, this narrows the consideration and creativity of the artist reading and lets them know they can't customize the drawing as much as they may like to.


While explaining how to draw a specific character (from a movie, or show, etc) with a specific personality means they might wear or do only certain things, when you are drawing a random figure or character, one should be able to draw them however they like. 

Take for example, this festive anime girl. The artwork was not done by Mr. Hart, but another artist he commissioned. However, he did write the dialog and if you read the bottom left text, it reads "Sometimes an outfit's theme is so strong you almost have to give it preordained colors[...]there is still room to maneuver[...]a green outfit with white trim suggests a slightly elfish theme but still communicates the spirit of joy and winter. Just don't make it plaid."

Seems innocent enough, but think about it! He is saying you can only draw an outfit one way and that is the only way to communicate what it is. I happen to know this outfit would look adorable and Christmasy even with neon pink plaid! Of course it isn't in the colors or pattern all the time, but presentation and style of the clothing.

If Christopher Hart truly wanted to help others improve upon their work, he would say things to support their creativity and encourage them to try different things. There is nothing wrong with experimenting and especially when it comes to artwork. 

Throughout all of his books(at least the ones I've had) he often explains overused archetypes of characters with very narrow, limited explanations (this type of character can only be this way, this type of character has to be this way, this other type of character must do this...). This type of thinking is not just harmful to the artwork, but character development as well. Instead of explaining retired and overused character tropes, he should be inspiring and teaching young artists to create their own unique characters.

"Okay, so he isn't a great teacher, that is understandable. He went to art school, not to be a teacher. You also said he was sexist. How so?"

Glad you asked. 
This man is one of the most passive-aggressively sexist artists I know. I'd put him right under Rob Liefeld. He is also biased against bigger bodies and people of color...but more on those in a moment.

As a kid, reading his books you probably didn't even notice the sexist undertone of most of his explanations. I'm going to quote a few pages in his "Cartooning For The Beginner" book.

• "Dramatic cartoon women are used primarily as attractive lead characters, evil witch-types, and mothers. When drawing a leading lady, remember that while the realistic-style man's face has lots of angles and facial details, her face should be simple, with a softly curving outline and slightly protruding cheekbones."

• "The windblown ruffled hair, gives this attractive character a racy feeling, as do those heavy eyelids and full lips."

• "Notice the very limited angles of the face--only the cheekbones protrude, and only slightly."

• "While a realistic-style cartoon women's features can be drawn lightly, with little detail, men's features are bolder, and therefore are drawn in greater detail." 

Let's talk about these quotes. These are by far not the worst ones of his sexist statements in books, but you can already see what I mean, I'm sure. He puts emphasis that all women whether in cartoons, comics, or animated features, MUST be sexy, MUST look attractive, and then he often goes on listing things that you should not do otherwise it would take away their "attractiveness". 

Here are some more sexist quotes/pages from his other books:

From "Drawing Cutting-Edge Comics":

• "With male comics characters, you can mold their bodies into many different shapes, producing a wide range of cool characters. It's not so easy with women. Women in comics are, by and large, attractive--even the villains. Especially the villains! 

• "You can't draw a brutish woman, or you'll loose the attractiveness, therefore the changes rely less on body types and more on pose, costume, and attitude." 

• "Start with a pretty character. She's great looking, but seems unaware of her own beauty. In comic books, that's what prevents her from being as sexy as she could be."

Reading the text in the green box above, you will see he is implying artists who do not draw "the most attractive-looking ladies on the planet" are striving to be the ones who can... as if that is an important part of being a comic book artist (or any artist). Also "then if you want to stick 'em in space suits to fight aliens, be my guest." I'll let you think about that one on your own.

This next one is a two-part attack on women, showing how to turn a "regular women...into a seductress". This first page shows the "regular woman" already pictured in a skin-tight crop top, caked on make up, and the idealized "sexy" body. Somehow by shortening her skirt, showing more cleavage and letting down her hair, it's called an improvement. The pages read, "By merely altering the posture and clothing of a female character just slightly, you can turn a mortal man into a quivering pool of jello[...]Loosening the hair makes it more carefree and gives a suggestion of recklessness[...]Now the hair cascades over the beautiful uplifted shoulders[...]she stops traffic with a single glance."

Translation: All female characters should be made as sexy as possible and used as props to entice your male characters and give you and your readers something to lust at.

 
Another page from the same book is below, showcasing the "classic heroine body". The problem isn't that Chris Hart has characters like this in his books or that he supports characters like this. The issue is that he pushes this type of female character as one of only about 5 or so female character types you can have. He is saying "the heroine character must look like this, or else no one will know she is the heroine!" which is so harmful. Not to mention, all of these particular characters were drawn by (the late) Al Rio who could only draw one bodytype and one face for females. 

The page below reads, "She's also 8 to 10 heads tall, but in most cases will have a smidgen of extra length due to her high heels[...]and don't overlook this fine point:Her shoulders should be wider than her hips[...]wide shoulders and wide hips connected by a narrow waist are extremely sexy[...]her legs can be muscular but they should also be sleek and shapely."

Firstly, 8 to 10 heads high is monstrously tall(something like 6ft 4in!), and most women aren't that big. Secondly, all of this discourages you from diversifying your heroine. It is forcing the idea that the hourglass shape, high heels, long hair, and the classic American white girl look is the only true sexy look a woman can have, and that a women HAS to even be sexy. Even the anatomy examples below the height chart are all suggestive, pinup girl poses.

From "Superheroes And Beyond":

• "The long, sinewy shape of the muscles keeps her looking feminine, despite the added height; don't give her short, bulky, bodybuilder muscles." 

•  "Athletic Female Figure: Always show a thin waist line with wide hips, which give her sex appeal and make her physique powerful. Small, boyish hips are no good on female characters." 

• "Comic book action heroines don't promote the unhealthy thinner-is-always-better image so prevalent in other media." 

The last quote from that book made me laugh. He is saying women in comic books aren't drawn as skinny stick girls, which is true, but that doesn't make it any better. Women in most comic books (the examples he is speaking about) are typically shown having the stereotypical hourglass shape, most times to the extreme, which is just as bad, unrealistic, unrelatable, and overused as the "thinner-is-always-better" image.

Here is a scan from this book:

Scans from other books(via):







From "Manga For The Beginner" and "Drawing Vampires":

• "Keep your female characters pretty, even when they're outraged. Concentrate on their beautiful eyes."

• "When drawing the female profile, think "soft curves". Don't get too pointy[...]never give her a thick or pronounced brow."

• "Part of the appeal of female vampires is the conflicting feelings they provoke. Unlike the men, the women have to be attractive enough to be enticing, while still very, very dangerous."

I've not an idea what book this came from,but below is another example of his sexist views. "A large rib cage is important in creating an attractive character, but you should omit the rib muscles. Trash 'em.[...]women's hips are wide to allow them to give birth; and they look even wider because of the contrast with the narrow waist. Don't give her superdefined abs, unless you're trying to purposefully gross someone out."

Yes. He actually wrote that. Seriously.

"Okay, so he is pretty sexist... but you also said he is racist and fatphobic? How is that?"

Well.. I'm not sure if he is or not, but he has been conditioned to sort of think that way. So I don't believe he would say he doesn't want black people buying his books, or that he would bad mouth a heavyset girl... but some of the things he writes in his books support this type of thinking. Christopher Hart probably isn't actively sexist, prejudiced or phobic but has an unconscious bias, from years of being taught the wrong thing. He tends to generalize EVERYONE he draws into character tropes and certain mindsets and that is where he goes wrong.

In his "Cartooning For The Beginner" book that I have, on page 125, he is talking about drawing heavyset characters. On page 18 he is talking about necks.

• "FATTER=CARTOONIER. Adding a lot of weight to a character will stretch and fill out the body to the point where you'll have to go back to a more cartoony construction. The fat body is best drawn as one large, malleable form."
• "HEAVYSET PERSON: No neck at all!"

I understand where he is coming from and for most kids it is easier to take a basic round shape and add limbs, a head, and a face to it... however, he fails to mention that this is not the rule. These things are not artistic law, may only occur in certain, specific cartoons, and it is not definite. A young artist will grow up, remembering this and might not stop drawing heavyset people this way and then wonder why they aren't any good at drawing heavyset people.

Another example is a page posted to his Deviantart from his book Cartoon Faces.

This page shows two women of color (or WOC). Of course I don’t have the book and I am sure this isn’t the only page with “unusual hairstyles” on it but the fact that he chose to make/post this particular page alone says it all. A few things to note…. 

 - Since when is black or any non-white hair considered unusual?

 - what part of that hairstyle makes it Egyptian?

 - Calling non-white hair “unusual” and “eye-catching” in this way is no different than how racist people called people of color(POC) “exotic” or “strange”, and objectified/fetishized these things for centuries.

Going off of this, while there are people of color included in his books, he often has a majority of white characters and everyone (namely females) have the idealized "sexy" white female body type.

______________________________________________

So there you have it.

If NONE of this stuff I just posted has made you dry heave and use your old Chris Hart books as kindle for your fireplace, then hopefully the things I say last will. It's a fact that Christopher Hart cannot take criticism. I can understand getting a little temperamental about art you made and love and someone semi-insulting it while telling you how to improve it, but even people politely pointing out anatomical or technical errors get shunned and blocked from his Deviantart "site" as he calls it. 

Some people would argue that if he didn't ask for critique, why give it to him. This is a good point... if this were in the real world, at an art event, or some sort of panel or exhibit. However, he posts his work to sites like Deviantart and once posted they are meant to be subject to critique, criticism and commentary from other artists, whether good or bad. That is the whole point of posting to an art site like Deviantart.

• This is one conversation he had about his foreshortening illustration (the first image I showed in this blog post) 

• This is collection of replies he has said to others.

• When he got a letter he wasn't feeling.

• After claiming he "changed" his ways or responding rudely to people.

So after all of this, if you still stand by Christopher Hart, then that is okay. He is a professional artist. He knows the technical side of sketching, he knows how to construct a character in the technical sense(shapes, action lines, expressions, etc), and gives the right advice about tackling one challenge at a time, the types of careers an artist can have, and getting needed materials for drawing. He is also a good business man and knows how to get the most money for his work. He knows the struggle of growing up as a young artist, and how it feels going into art as a career.

However, I beg of you to not see him as the drawing guru, and to not take his word as law. Be smart, and cherry pick the good advice from his books. In fact, just don't buy his books at all and you won't have nearly as many headaches.