/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3222621
I've looked at his other shit and it's fucking awful. He looks like some Barrista faggot with his hipster beard. He is represented by Saatchi, which is comes as a surprise, but as I said over and over again, the art market has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with marketing and how you make money off of art.

>>3222650
>asked for original artwork
>shows some Wacom shit
It is as I thought, you are an illustrator, deeply rooted in tutorials and learning books. Despite all the effort, you have adopted a lot of elements that come across as sterile and mathematical. If you look at the hairline on his front and the contour of the head, it is your basic "circle here, intercection line there" approach. It looks traced to me.

You do the same little blocks of lines to get a chisel-type shading, because that's what you learned, it's nothing that came organically from your own practice and realisation how you can achieve effects.
>pic: your average Loomis lesson with those chisel blocks do nothing for the haptic

Except for the eye and nose area, which is half decent, it features the typical illustrator choices: You close areas of darker shades with an outline (neck, ear) like it's some architectural sketch. He looks like he is wearing permanent make-up with his weird eyebrows, that you also close with fat contours.

In essence, your sketch shows just what I've pointed out this whole time: You have adopted the style and choices of someone else.

And you keep yelling
>There's nothing new in modern art anymore!
while you are as much of a lazy, uninspired copy-cat yourself. That is just laughable.