Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Source
not provided yet
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
No description provided.
_-_well then…
Apparently the DS audio guide at the Louvre lied to me…
This is the wrong way.
What’s the right way? Here.
That redlining I linked to 1) was a critique of a guy who is a professional artist, 2) contains a critical third step where the anatomy problems are corrected but retains the original style (the final step is a complete overhaul, but it’s still fairly close to the spirit of the original), and 3) is a genuine improvement over the original.
This is not a proper red-lining. This is some pretentious dick saying “My drawing is better.” Does the original have problems? Certainly. Is the redraw better? Not really.
In fact, the very first “redraw” of this I saw (too lazy to find link; it was a gif) really was an improvement.
It wasn’t made to be anatomically accurate, it was made because a lot of people like boobs.
So he drew boobs.
Wow… I got you just in time:
This piece doesn’t use the arc of the spine, the misplaced shoulder blade, or many of the other errors pointed out for effect.
In the specific case you refer to, the rest of the body remains as it should and it is only distorted in very specific fashions which can be attributed to style rather than he just having drawn the piece and then going “oh fuck, I need to fix this shit”, which is entirely possible.
I can’t comment on it because I don’t have the necessary art history schooling, but your counter-example does nothing to negate the errors.
Anatomy of that was skewed on that painting for a stylistic reason.
Stylistic reason for skewed anatomy on this pic: boobs.
that vest is also somehow skin-tight, despite being above her loose shirt. . .
Half of any piece of art is the viewer’s perspective, so even if you don’t agree with the viewer’s perspective, it is useful to know how they see.
It isn’t, by the way.
Overinflated needs not have anatomy errors and this one has them aplenty. I hadn’t even noticed the “Destructive Tits” part until you mentioned that he draws oversized for fun.
No matter how oversized, that back is very wrong and does nothing to enhance the visibility of the breast (so that’s an anatomy error), the collar bone is kind of needed for the boobs to even exists (another one), her arms are at odds with themselves and each other (again), and I’m still working on it, but I think the boobs might be significantly different in size depending on how you analyze the position of the shoulders in reference to the back.
All in all, sure, draw for fun, but that doesn’t stop the criticism from being right.
The criticisms are valid, the points are best expressed through redlines, and if you suddenly think that it is bad, well, shows how much you fucking know.
It bears repeating: IF YOU ARE AN ARTIST, THIS SORT OF SHIT IS WHAT YOU NEED TO IMPROVE.
That said, the second drawing ain’t much of an improvement in the mechanics, while the stylistics remain equally valid in both cases.
Yeah I suppose that’s true. Sorry if my original comment came off a bit douchey. It was not my intent.
Now, if that was simply because the artist redrew it (and the air of superiority that brings) then I agree entirely. That was self-defeating and pretentious. But that doesn’t seem to be the issue here based on most of the comments.
Glad to hear I wasn’t the only one to notice.