The Metaesthetics of Twitter Art

There are very specific trends of form for Twitter artists in the business of depicting women. Following the great exodus of 2018, freelancers would bubble with the platform’s native inhabitance. These forms would have their enemies: feminists, trads, even in fighters within the art camp itself. There’s usually a general pattern which occurs on Twitter when people do battle. The side of modesty fixes the art, and the pro-artists make fun of them for fixing it. What the pro art side is doing here is chasing extroversion. They embrace sexy time, and the antis abstain from it. It’s even in the terms of the debate: "If you don’t like what we draw you are an anti, anti female beauty; we are pro female beauty". The problem here is the assumption that female beauty is relegated to what they have to offer. The way they see it, if you can’t eat the forbidden fruit which they provide, you can't possibly have a sex drive at all. In truth, It’s not that I don’t like fruit, it’s just that I prefer the ones which aren’t rotten and crawling with maggots. There’s a fresher tree if you don’t have the inner workings of an objective normie. Let’s apply this rule to some classic Twitter drama and see what happens. 

The side of abstinence in this debate was the side of realism. To them the problem was that the forms were offensive to actual women, but that if art were compatible with reality it couldn’t be condemned. What the defensive did in response was to take this rule and use it against them. By their logic, if the form could be found compatible with instances of reality, repping it should be safe. This argument pretty much ended the debate, burying the drama as Antis ran off with their tails between their legs. But i’m digging this corpse up to do what they never could, set the record straight and establish a new aesthetic doctrine. We know that all people on Twitter care about is how close to reality something is. It got to the point where people were actually looking up the official measurements of cartoon characters. 

This whole thing wouldn’t have been as complicated if people were capable of understanding what stylization in art is. There are dimensions beyond just flat VS thicc. 

Either way, people use logic to justify the legitimacy of their art. What this argument fails to understand is the principle of stylization. It is not the case that a piece of art is worth only however close it is to reality, otherwise people would just take pictures. Stylization is the translation of formless spirits into different artistic formats. 

The format may change but the spirit stays the same across it’s different manifestations. To put it simply, the particulars of reality do not mean a rat's fucking ass when it comes to drawing art. The same applies to loli: according to some wiki, a character might be 300 years old—the problem is, they aren’t, they’re a bunch of pixels on a screen; with the same pixels you can depict anything you want—the question is why did someone choose to make what resembles a child, and why are they obsessed enough to make stupid arguments in its defence? You cannot fall back on “she said she was 18” for a character you yourself drew. And before anyone goes back to “the pictures aren’t even real bro.” Ok, fine, excepted, now why are you obsessed with them? 

When it comes to women, you can prop up comparisons between art and reality however you want, it just depends on what constant you are trying to uphold. I call these underlying consistencies Metaesthetics. There is a source energy which cannot be seen, but manifests in different ways. The form may change but the underlying spirit stays the same. If you aren’t working with stylization, all you can do is take different components of reality and stitch them together—typically resulting in a generic skinny body applied with mass. The metaesthetic there is quantity. Once you have not an underlying spirit, but a petrified quantity, the imprint can only be increased by such quantity, if not breast size than in detail; all you can do is polish with further degrees of detail and realism—realism—the bane of stylization. 

The detail of Twitter art is flat, spanning across the whole piece, as is logical to them. Detail is not concentrated where it need be to express what need be expressed. To them, you can’t have too much detail, so the whole piece receives it evenly, giving off this flat appearance without any diversity of emphasis—all is steamrolled. Stylized art is actually more realistic in being closer to the actual essence than more realistic art is to reality. 

Different forms of female anatomy can be interpreted one way or many, the question is which interpretation, or Metaesthetic do you want to steer  towards. If you were fetishizing Megamind you could eventually find odd weirdos who fit the bill to justify your art. 

—but people with big foreheads can be interpreted to manifest Megamind just as far as they can Sting. The difference between the two is that one is cohesive as part of a whole and the other is a stitch up of different components, brought together by some faggots conviction of logic. 

For weebs this would be a mix of cartoon children, traces of real breasts, whatever gimmick is going around or anything else which doesn’t work in the same place. In the same way, a nice figure can be interpreted through stylization just as easily as it can as a draw from the oddly specific anatomy Twitter artists are exclusive to understanding.

(Twitter art style)

 —and just as with women, if you tell people with big foreheads that Megamind is what’s hot, they will do their best to replicate it. Women will resort to using v-tuber models in order to do so. 

The only reason this goes on is because to numales, a woman with nice tits is only worth as much as their closeness to the corporately favored ideal of Mass. A well shaped body may be easily outshone by any cartoon robot with more skin. It’s entirely their decision wether female beauty draws in spirit from form or the mass which they paste onto everything. You don’t have to do water balloons every-time just because of a picture someone found. 

The whole point of art is stylization is to transcend the generic. I thought they were supposed to be the cultured ones, but seems like most of the time all they can comprehend are the same generic baby faced weirdos. 

It’s not like you are resigned to draw in a certain way because of some anatomy book. The only people they’re going to impress with that are art professors. As an artist you have the freedom to emphasize any interpretation of reality you want. If the interest was there, most of Twitter might look proportionally like something from Shantae, and who’s gonna say the designs in that are prude just because they don't do water balloons?—concentrate shape instead of mass. You can draw nice tits without making them flatly sagging. Unlike the art processor the online freelance can potentially sway to one interpretation as easily as you could another depending on who’s interested. With that in mind it begs the question, why are they so desperate to rationalize these proportions in particular. 

To be honest it’s partly because it doesn’t take much to set them off, and their impressionable minds will fixate on the first thing they come across. Their sexual awakening is whatever they happen to come across first. After that one anime came out, they fixed on it and argued tooth and nail to justify the specific proportions at hand which happened to be swaying them. The other reason goes back to group’s history. 

The ancestry of the Twitter artist is a mix of nerd, furry, edge-lord, and social justice idealism. Do not forget where they originally hailed from. Their homeland was the creed of pronouns and new genders. The same tradition was continued into the culture of Twitter art: "My fetish is feet, my fetish is kids, this is my identity and I want to be respected for it." ("Dude it’s called NonCon, don’t kink shame") Fetish, identity can be considered akin in narcissism to the doctrine of different pride flags. 

The same culture had its own tradition of anatomy back in the old country. Icons of nerd culture may be toned and sprite-like, but chances are the people drawing them aren’t. 

In millennial art, the aspect of being a nerd which likes quirky aesthetics is dominated by the aspect of being a nerd which means being fat in real life. Both are of the same origin. What we see in Tumblr art is the two as they clash. 

These celebrations of ugliness would suffer the meme savvy of trolling campaigns headed by proponents of beauty. Art would be fixed, from dysgenic copes to un apologetic health, all to the frustration of those physically low. What the pro-art camp of old was doing was idealising fat geek friendly physiques and calling people intolerant if they didn’t like them. This obnoxious renegading rendered it forgivable for their enemies to quell them in the name of objective beauty. The losers of the discourse were demanding a tall order, and those on the defence simply weren’t giving them any. This was the state of play, but somehow, and I don’t know how they did it, but someone in the politically correct camp found a way to turn the tides of culture in their favor with a new method. Having nice hips or big tits isn’t the same thing as being fat, but it is aesthetically reminiscent.

This was the genesis of “i’m not fat, i’m thicc,” and by that logic, anyone else who’s attractive is only so in spirit of the same fat.

To them, all feminine charm could only be reduced in essence to different degrees of quantity, just not in the form of obesity this time. To them, different body types are defined not by shape but size, in a scale leading from flat to thicc. By this rigid science, being into archetypes less then amazon doesn’t mean having a taste for aesthetics, it meant being part of a gimmick for small tits. Your preference isn't a form of itself, it’s just lower down on their scale of value. 

All was reduced to gradient and value, as code to a computer, and you cannot grab a number in tactile intimacy. The term itself, thicc represents a gradient of worth, whereby beauty is measured of quantity—the age of Mass had begun. Like servants, memes descended amidst pubescent teens to celebrate the triumph of the low after Mass’s victory. Now the tables had turned; now if you didn’t like ugly art, you were the puritan; no longer were they the ones fattening attractive characters to modesty, now, their old enemies were slimming thicc characters. In the past pros would abstain from drawing beauty in their art, while the antis would extravert it. Extroversion was redefined to fit the low. 

Now if antis wanted to fix ugly art they would have to do so with a reduction, becoming those to abstain. They were the triggerers and anyone who didn’t like it, the triggered. This is why they fix on the forms they draw religiously, and condemn anyone who doesn’t like it obsessively. It's their weapon against the physically fit.

This is why even when it comes to the spiky sharp aesthetic of their own nerd culture, regardless of what stylisation they’re working with, their method of physique is maintained. 

That is why it seems so out of place, it’s not for the sake of artistic integrity, it’s a cope for tumblr goblins. The problem here is that, mass was never the definition of attraction in the female body, it was shape, otherwise everyone would just have a fat fetish. 

What people cretinously call skinny thicc is this shape. For some reason they cannot contemplate that shape is what it is which defines this attraction, instead comparing it to different measurements of mass. 

You can see the gradual transition from the Tumblr art style into the culture of Twitter art. They were in substance the same body positive SJWs.

This adamant consistency which seems out of place on teen-looking anime girls is just a holdover from a cope to honour the physically rejected. What you’ll notice is that when artists try to downgrade characters to be more modest they always minus shape to render flatness, be this in bare or sagging forms. Nerds are just continuing the tradition against bold designs, this time calling people who don’t like it prudes. As they smoothed attractive characters to modesty, so to do so they smooth to render bodies *lewd—as the zoomers like to say. 

Both are aesthetically flat in form, baron and devoid of diversity; it’s the absence of shape, in the same way undesirability is the absence of power. That wild effect of the feminine upon men was murdered by goblins and replaced with something safe for consumerism, in sleek shiny aesthetic not unlike an iPhone. It makes sense, given that it’s a spiritual product of the people flattening physiques during the tumblr age. 

Fat chicks within the nerd camp can identify with Twitter art as an extension of themselves. The horror of this imperialism comes about when you consider that women of the nerd cast who happen to be well built have to end up grading their bodies in familiarity to Twitter art if they don’t wanna be prude. Under this mentality, the tallest poppies are cut down to be equal with the lowest in familiarity to the universal ideal of mass. 

By men, their bodies can only be perceived of worth in relation to standard of bloated inflation. The archetype of the becky is religiously encouraged by numales to to interpret themselves only in draw from bloated inflation, and no amount of anatomy rationalisations are making up for that. 

…also fat chicks are not curvy. The state of a curve is meandering—that same shape is what forms illustrious figures. It seems the thiccer characters are drawn, the less of a curvature is actually depicted.

All you care about is size. This medium deserved a better class of artist. It's not about the tiddy size, it's about the tiddy shape.