/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3513260
everything in the world is exactly the same, I was just being sarcastic.
>>3513400
well this is exactly where's you're making this leap of logic - you assume that there are some kind of arbitrary "people" whose opinion on stuff is some kind of an origin point, who determine if your skill level is satisfying.
Now there are, indeed, some levels of success in any field that can be used as such point of origin, but not only it is incredibly hard to define it, it also changes over time and from country to country.
You, again, tell me that by sticking to a routine you will see muscle gains, and that is indeed true, I don't have any doubts about that. But so, in my opinion, can you get steady art gains - you find a good book, and you stick to it, and you will most definitely improve over time. However, both of these gains are usually judged by the actor and the environment according to the existing social standards - a clueless skinny teen that tries lifting for half a year, gets maybe a couple kilos on his sides at best because his nutrition sucks and he has no idea what to do with the bar can easily get disillusioned with fitness and drop it all together since he was wrongly expecting to become a Bruce Lee by that point. On the other hand, a person with little talent can grind fundies for years, truly trying his own personal best and getting almost no results too, because his approach is fundamentally flawed and he needs a teacher to point it out, which he reaches out to due to social awkwardness or stubborn defiance.
TL;DR
one can encounter issues and troubles in any field, regardless of what he's doing. In some fields you might need more cunning and intelligence to reach for the top, in others fast reactions and great skeletal structure is more important, but everywhere you will need determination and willpower. You see dyels and think that they made it, I see artlets polishing turds for Riot games and get sad that they squander their time and talent.

>>2691606