So lately, I've seen lots of people (not me, tho it's happened before) have their art dismissed in one go by someone saying, "okay cool whatevs, now ADD SHADING".

Now, I've got nothing against shading in principle. Lots of people do it, and it can look great. Also, I'm okay at shading by hand, in pencil (probably the easiest way to do it). What I'm less keen on doing, especially considering my lack of a tablet, is to add shading digitally. In my case and given my drawing style, it doesn't add much to the drawing compared to the time it takes.

Lots of people who do shade have a) tablets and b) software that varies brush strokes by pressure applied on the tablet (such as Photoshop, and recently the GIMP). I do not have these things and I'm not in a hurry to get them.

If you like to do shading, that's fine. I've done it digitally once or twice, and to me it was wasted effort considering the time invested. I'd rather be certain of the line art, personally. Lots of people out there try to hide the awfulness of their line art by slapping some second-rate shading on with Photoshop later, and here's a hint: it doesn't work. Still, if lighting does become important to a scene, I will consider adding shading, because in such cases it does actually add something to the scene.

But there's a difference between liking shading and being a member of the Shading Al-Qaeda, where people spend all of five seconds looking at a piece, notice that it's not shaded, and give forth the opinion that the piece is without any merit whatsoever until it's shaded, do it my way or you have failed as a human being, MORTAL.

Just to make that clear, so I don't offend the wrong people: if you've said: "This would be even cooler if it were shaded," then that's fine. Your opinion, I respect that. If, on the other hand, you've said: "Fool! You have failed me! What is this unshaded filth you dare pander as art?!" then I'm talking to you here. And I have this new concept for you: it's called the cartoon. You may have heard of it. In fact, go look at some of those things right now. Go and watch some Looney Tunes or something.



Back? Notice the lack of shading? "Ah, but that's because it's animated and shading would slow down production. However, those who don't shade their still images do so only because they are lazy, or unskilled, and not REAL artists like me." Oh? Well, go look at some of the popular comics around the world, which are mostly European for some reason. Go and read some Tintin, Asterix, and Lucky Luke, if you know what those are (and if you don't, I weep for your non-existent childhood).







These comics are internationally known and respected. Notice the complete and utter absence of character shading, even on most of the covers. WHERE IS YOUR SHADING NOW?? MUHAHAHAHAHA!!



Ahem. So yeah, I hope this makes my point sufficiently. You like shading? Great, awesome! Bully for you. Have fun. But I, on the other hand, don't care about it. It's nice, but it's not something I care enough about to invest time in. If your issue with my art, or anyone else's, is that it's worthless because it's not shaded, then how about you grow up and realize that not everyone has the same goals in life as you do.

That's it from my side. Now go out there and bring joy into the world ... whether it's shaded or not.