/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3581141
>I am speechless because of all the assumptions about my private life and by how mad you sound. You can have your opinion dude, but there are certain ways to express them. I'm not sure why you are so mad at me for posting here.
The thing that pisses me off about you phony experts running around with the Dunning-Kruger explanations about who they are is this: >>3580815
A garbage explanation to someone who's enthusiastic about drawing something pornigraphic, who's clearly an amateur but is willing to learn, only for you to come along and offer some of the most idiotic, dumbfounded and vomit-inducing critiques about their work, giving them absolutely NO CLUE on what to work on, but the buzz words you "commercial illustrators" use are CLEAR and PRESENT. You'd much rather have someone work on their lighting and put boxes around their characters in order to show them how proportions line up with boxes.

Here's another gem from your Rule 34 garbage gallery. How many boxes did it take for you to draw on that ATROCIOUS midsection for the cat dickgirl with the black hair, because if it worked for you, it sure as SHIT is going to work for someone who's barely starting out. And you've been doing this for THREE YEARS, your words, not mine: >>3581215

The only success that exists about you BBC Chan, is the success in your own mind, flaunting your mistakes around like a modern day Rob Liefeld.

Your (relative) success is just that. Relative. Considered in relation or in proportion to something else. But that something else, is absolutely nothing. But you keep giving out bullshit critiques to make you sound important, to make you sound cool as if some god descended from the heavens to speak truth about the way art should be created—Lighting, Perspective, and THEN anatomy. In that order, bestowed upon us by the GREAT BBC Chan, whose world revolves around BOXES.

Clearly.