/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2168326
Do you have anything in particular that bothers you?

Do you work on paper as well? Even if you're only going to be producing digitally, I advise you to practice on paper as much as you can. Even though the girl has presence, the direction of your brush strokes could be developped to go around the form. Were you to caress her skin, what direction would your hands go and how would it roll over the muscles? Unfortunately, working digitally is not that inviting to experiment in that sense, in my opinion, even if possible.

>>2168333
I think what must be pointed out here is on style. The way I see it, style is what is left as a personal mark when you're looking at the world. It's not something you choose to do, but something that happens to you and you accept it, assume it, admit it. The more you repeatedly look at the world and register it, the more it will show up, because you'll be so comfortable with your subjects, you'll know it all so well that all that what was once minor and almost imperceptible to you will show up. That is, the velocity of your strokes, the way you fill your page, the colors you use and so on. That's how sometimes a minimal work, a single brush stroke from a master appears to have more strenght then the hesitant stroke of the begginner. I don't think Schiele tried to stretch the hands, he looked at the world in that way.

It may be so that the anon wasn't really looking, that he was taking prejudices on how he should be looking (and that's how it is most of the times, one of the things we dance with when learning to draw), but who am I to say it? Afterall, if anon is taking the vision of the other as standard, my word has an authority and by pointing out a problem, he will naturally see it as a problem. What if, instead, I asked him: are you really seeing it in this way? When I ask something like this, usually my students say "no, actually I know it's different, but I don't know why", and there I can enter on a more objective remark.