/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6870044
then you're just clueless.
you do no realize that what you have is due to what you have seen.
the way styles developed over time is literal proof of that.

>>6870054
>Dürer's woodcut print of a rhinoceros is as iconic as it is inaccurate. In this article we explore the legacy of this artwork and how it shaped public perception for more than 200 years after its creation. In 1515, German artist Albrecht Dürer created the woodcut without ever actually seeing a rhino for himself with his own eyes.
>Instead he used a description from a letter and a sketch created by an unknown artist who had seen the rhino.
>and a sketch created by an unknown artist who had seen the rhino.

but i love how you think he could have gotten the proportions and head shape exactly right just from descriptions. as well as the folds of the skin.
you retards really do believe that "human creativity" is a magical thing that can pull things out of the ether, huh?

IF ANY OF YOU RETARDS COULD ACTUALLY DRAW or understood drawing, you'd know that you cannot even properly draw anything you didn't study. at least not in a competent way. to think that you can draw things you havent seen, or draw/build on styles that you've never seen is utterly laughable.