/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6119079
Yes.
>>6119038

>>5193764
>tfw you go right to the line art at the same time as the sketch on the same layer by erasing and improving line quality with every stroke after the initial

>>4156097
That's what you get for being a mindless xerox machine and copy instead of using Loomis and Hampton as a supplement towards your own approach.

There's no such thing as an "art thief" it's only you bitching and moaning because your work did not appeal to the masses whereas someone else did after they took the concept you used. There's no such thing as an original piece of work. Prove me wrong.

>>3955039
desu we need more public shaming for those who've stagnated especially for years on end.

>>3791348
You may construct any face regardless of style using Loomis, if you are unable to do so you must be doing something fundamentally wrong.
>t. drawfag who exclusively learned from Loomis

>>3755750
/ic/ steers you into the right direction and helps purge the faggotry from hugbox environments with honest and brunt critiques. Tell us where else may we find a site where you may receive honest feedback without the sugarcoating and brown nosing? You can't.

Is anyone else finding this a bit exciting? We may become underground pioneers providing bootleg fap material under the radar. I know it sounds silly but think of the potential monetary gains that would come from all the banned porn. It's how wealth and legends are made and it may come from a simple lewd drawing of an animu girl.