Heh, just as we talked yesterday on IRC about cultural shock (it wasn’t about you, it was about something else, but seems fitting )
I think there is both a bit of different approach - that Krita has secondary goals - and the fact that there is a lot of different subjects talked about.
For example I personally do see bad art as bad art, and yeah people can talk how it is still art, but it looks bad.
Second of all, regarding the website: when you first open the website, all artworks are good. If you go to features, there are three seconds, Features - which again consists of well-done art, although this lineart, while well-made, I’m not a fan of - then there is Gallery which points to https://krita-artists.org/c/artwork/l/top so I guess you can’t complain here, then there are those interviews. I checked it myself and… well it doesn’t really look all as bad as you portray it?
That’s the last 9 interviews. Just from the thumbnails I can see 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 being high quality and I don’t think you’re talking about them, are you? 1 and 7 are a bit more amateurish in my eyes, while 4 and 5 are more in the middle range - I checked that 5 image and it’s actually better than it looks from the thumbnail since there is good anatomy, quite nice colors and everything, and 4 is really going in the right direction, a few years and they will be a professional too if they don’t already work as a comission artist (I haven’t checked, but really, I wouldn’t be surprised).
So in my eyes out of 9 thumbnails 5 (the majority) are high quality, 2 are medium and 2 are amateurish. Considering it’s “interviews with Artists” - which you can read as “interviews with users” - I think it’s a good thing. If there were only bad artists there, yeah, maybe it would give that impression, but half of it shows good art and the rest of the website showcases good art, too. Because Krita is free and available for everyone, quite a large portion of the userbase is amateurs, and interviews reflects that. They do not show the “target audience”, they just show the audience.
Also keep in mind those facts:
- Krita doesn’t have anyone responsible for or expert in marketing. We have a webmaster, we have developers, manual writers, user supporters, but no one for marketing or PR. Just nobody came up who decided to help Krita team out. (And still, Krita is thriving recently ).
- Krita is mostly dismissed because it’s free, because of this fallacy “if it’s free it’s not good”. I think that might be a much more important fallacy to fight, although as I said, not a PR person…
- You can use a program that doesn’t consider you a target audience and be completely happy with that (Like people using Krita instead of Gimp for photo editing because Krita has non-destructive editing and color management, or for visual effects because of the high bit depth). The downside is that it probably won’t make new features for you. In Krita case, I’m not sure if it’s applicable - Colorize Mask, for example, saves time for both kindegarten kids (if they only can use it) and professional artists.