I agree that what is HQ is subjective. To me it just means that the artist has enough practice to develop their own style. It doesn't matter what style they draw in, it just has to be something that I would be proud to show off if I bought it. Honestly we really don't need it as a label since people can see for themselves if something is HQ or not. Putting HQ is just a way to bet people to look at stuff.
I've been seeing the term "High Quality" on a lot of characters/art requests and stuff, and I never really understood exactly what it meant. Admittedly, this is the first proper art community-focused site I've been on, so I'm relatively new to the term despite being an artist myself. Maybe it's got an established definition somewhere that I just haven't seen.
To me, HQ indicates the art of someone who could be selling their stuff as professional commissions (good anatomy, composition, lighting, etc), but I see it used more often to refer to really complicated character designs, specifically adopts drawn in an anime-esque style. What makes something HQ? Is it the super-thin lined style I see most often? Is it, like I've been thinking, the artist's ability to draw something "sell-able"? Is it simply the level of completion (ie, lines, colors, shading, background/atmosphere)? Is it something else? I don't get it!
Plus, seeing art divided into LQ/MQ/HQ (although I admit I don't see much art advertised as "medium quality") seems like it could be really discouraging, especially for artists who might just be getting started or who have a nontraditional style.
What do you think of when you see the term "High Quality," and why? And if you're an artist, how does it make you feel?
Preemptively; if you end up discussing this, please be civil!
i guess when i hear HQ i expect clean lines, perfect anatomy, clean colours, professional level cartoons or realism :0
then again i see super sketchy art and think damn that's some good HQ shit so it's subjective and comes down to style ultimatately for me
When I see the term "High Quality," I'm generally expecting a finished and clean piece. To me this means that something is lined, flat coloured, shaded and well looks like someone finished it. Anatomy, composition and the like don't really mean much, I'm more concerned with colours being within the lines, no white spots in corners, smooth lines, etc. I agree with the above posts with it being a subjective label. It's ultimately useless, what you deem as high quality is up to you and you don't need someone else telling you what's good or bad when it comes to buying art/characters/etc. If you like the art work and think it's good, then it's high quality to you
High quality for my artworks means: Good sense of light and atmosphere, no anatomical errors, clean lineart (or clean rendering if its a lineless piece), and a big resolution to ensure no quality loss in details.
HQ is, of course, subjective... but to me the term is less about clean lines/colour and more about holding a good concept of anatomy, lighting, design, ect. HQ artists should have an above-average understanding of these concepts, whether or not they are toting clean/finished pieces. Just my $.02 as a professional artist who prefers to embrace their sketchier work. ;)
Edit: I kinda answered the question wrong.... lemmie try again lol
To me, High Quality art is something that is polished and obviously took effort and skill. If it's traditional, something that was scanned in nicely and not just photographed with a potato in low lighting. Digital wise, all the things mentioned above. Most importantly I think it means the character and art should be aesthetically pleasing.
previous answer:
I've noticed more recently that "HQ" is starting to mean "only art/designs by these super popular artists"
Medium quality I think is more like... artists that are actually quite good, but don't have that super big following or super obvious style
Low Quality is something I would only say about things like those batches of 100 cats on a base where each one is about 50 pixels and colored in a hurry.
whenever is see hq used, i'm always underwhelmed with what they are describing... i feel like the term is mostly used by mid-tier artists in an attempt to get more attn? but it kind of has the opposite effect since artists who get business never really use this term, they just let their art speak for itself. (as they should! quality it subjective, what I consider amazing art someone else might find awful. by labeling your art/adopts as a higher quality you're basically setting yourself up to look worse in many people's eyes)
High quality to mean means something along the lines of something really well designed with great art. Such as the designs of Zone, WhiteNick on DA, Pixel-latte, larighne on DA, and Painted-Bees.
Most times I see HQ in titles and I immediately ignore them because it's LQ or MQ at best.
This is a really interesting topic to read responses on; I'll definitely keep up with this thread.
Not sure if I'm out of the loop on this but here's (seemingly) an outlier take from me: when I see quality denoted in artwork I immediately assume it's referring to file quality such as size, DPI, file type, etc. Things that effect print and sell-ability. When working with clients in my experience that has always been the shared meaning of "this artwork will be HQ", and things like style and art skill are assumed from the examples given.
That being said it doesn't surprise me for it to take on other meanings as well, even if I've never run into it myself
EDIT: forgot to answer how I feel: for my own personal meaning I feel completely neutral, for some of the other meanings I'm seeing it's a little disheartening. I think that all styles are of equal quality (e.g. anime illustrators aren't better than semirealistic illustrators and so on).
HQ, to me, means the work looks good. No missing colouring (like tips of the hair when filling etc), a good grasp on their own style; i can't say "good grasp on anatomy" 'cause people's styles override that. Generally just a good piece of work.
A lot of you all explain why I see HQ in titles, click on an image and think "This is not High quality to me, it's got anatomy problems!"
A lot of them have cleaner styles, but I'd far prefer a sketchy piece of an artist that's very well-versed in anatomy over a cleaned and lined artwork of someone who does know some anatomy but you can tell there's something not right. Paws, hands and wrinkles in clothes are what I'm still trying to master - and they are what I look out for in artworks that are high quality to me!
I don't know how, but even with stylistic art you can kind of tell which artist has a good grasp of anatomy.
Say, with this artist I just found today: https://toyhou.se/Ponko/art Even on their chubbier chibis, you get the feeling they knows how legs work, and how to draw paws, where do limbs go in mid-movement and what movements looks natural! And if you go down their page - I was right. Some of the less stylistic and chibi artworks are on point with their anatomy.
Since I considered myself medium quality - I'd say HQ art has to be done by people who has a better grasp of shading and anatomy better than me. Makes things easier for me!
How does it make me feel: Typically amused and disappointed since it's typically used by artists that has some grasp of anatomy and shading, but they aren't that good - yet.
When I hear high quality, I think it has to be probably visually appealing composition/color/thematically wise and/or need to have basic understanding of anatomy/shading but doesn't need to be professionally done to have both. Abstract art can be visually appealing without the need for anatomy or cohesion and I think people more see the appeal of an impressionist painting compared to a paper bag... sure you can claim both are art, but one is more memorable (not in the infamous sense) compared to the other. Yet again anything can be art despite skill quality but to most people it matters what impact it has on the viewer to be high quality, that's how I see it having studied art for 8 years.
As for how I feel about high quality and how it impacts me? I work in the art industry so i'm not really going to call myself a low quality artist at this point cause that might make me look bad on a professional level haha (i'll be modest and say my work is good enough) but I don't think its an insult to say someone's work is sub par or low quality, as long as you explain why and especially for people who are new to art.