/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2133472
Well that was full of shit, ease up the butthurt part. You clearly want to focus on the story itself and that's bit harsh based on only one image.

About the plants, try Hedera Helix. It uses it's aerial rootlets to cover surfaces, not only towards light. Here the quantity wins over the quality. It grows basically anywhere, it doesn't require direct light. Actually there's a whole branch of plants, that can't even live under direct light. And yes, plants can grow seriously slow or fast. That's just nonsense your stating.

About the dead people. It's maybe the first time I've heard anyone grabbing onto that "conceptual" idea that seriously. Maybe the air turned poisonous? Fuck sake, ease up.

You're not familiar with the story? Really? What you are pointing out here, is that one image should be now enough to tell every aspect of bigger concept. That's highly unreasonable to say so. Just bite it, it looks good and you can't deny it.

>>2117912
How does caricature not require knowledge of the fundamentals? You need a firm grasp on the fundamentals in order to effectively caricature a face. When you caricature You're just playing around with proportions but still adhering to fundamental principles . am I missing something?