/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6765582
the issue isnt really whether or not its realistic either
media is allowed to be unrealistic
the problem is that if someone wishes to portray a certain type of media, who are you to tell em they cant because its unrealistic? unless theyre writing an objective fucking documentary, realism is a non-factor

another thing people get pissy about is titty armor, and yes, titty armor is (as far as we know) not historically realistic, but thats only because we havent discovered it yet, most likely because women historically simply didnt fight with plate armor as often as men did. if women did fight at all, they were usually independent fighters or huntresses who fought for necessity, not glory, and used lighter armor like mail or leather
however theres a difference between "historical realism" and "theoretical realism". while we have no evidence of sexy booby armor existing, theres nothing to suggest it couldnt, or wouldnt. human beings are beauty loving and extravagant beings who love the human form and displaying their best features, and some of the best fighters in history fought either naked/half-naked (this was commonly done in show fights, like boxing matches or colosseum fights, to show off the ideal human form), or clad in some of the most needlessly intricate armor ever, just to show off. we just love beauty.
and guess what some male fighters wore? if you guessed 'armor that was sculpted like chiseled abs' youd be right. some of them even wore codpieces that looked like dicks. why? you may ask? 'why not', they'd say.

every person who "fixes" a female character by redesigning their sexy/intricate/sculpted armor to look flat and boring prides themselves in realism and how fucking huge and throbbing their brain is, but they seem to miss a more important aspect of art- presentation.