/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2722538
Looking at this makes me feel queasy. It's too garish and messy. Colors, details, all those lines, the shapes -- just eugh. Next time try blocking out your shapes and colors better, because honestly you waste your time detailing this.
>>2722576
The lines are all over the place and just frankly don't look thought out. Why do you throw different cliched late 20th c. patterns and shapes into random parts of your drawing? Also your light is inconsistent so the drawing loses any depth that it gets from your individual shading of the eyes and mouth.
>>2722594
spend more time studying, these look rushed. Take the time to really measure and understand why he puts certain shapes in their angle and placement. Also don't forget the feet/hands.
>>2722642
some of your figures are really stiff - that bottom left corner in particular. It's hard to tell what's really going on since you have so many unnecessary lines. Also you should think about overall lighting schemes, adding something like AO with drop shadows and general splitting of layers with shadows will help define the forms and keep these from looking as flat as they look now. Check out how pic related adds real simple shadow shapes with hatching to add to the depth of the drawing. Adding these shapes and hatching instead of more lines will make your work look much cleaner and give it more depth.

Does anybody know the pic related artist?

>>2463741

not sure if this was a d/ick or not