>>7872626
It's shit
There's bits here and there that look at least like they put effort in
But this screams "Muh style" plus the backwards hand is a clear sign they dont know basics

I kind of just don't care, man.

>>7872636
So does this person get commissions?

>>7872626
>>7872636
They're a true dunning kruger. If they keep at it and improve, they'll realise they're being an idiot now, but that's dependant on them improving... and that's dependent on them being critical enough of their work to see its faults.
That aside, can this even be called a 'digital painting'? It looks more like a still from an old flash animation circa the 00's. Shouldn't digital painting be more dependent on blending and detailed rendering and such? Or am I being pedantic about a loose term here?

>>7872626
the energy you expend on shitters like this is not worth it in any universe

>>7872639
No yet it seems.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtCrit/comments/1pvjq6c/a_gallery_professional_said_my_work_is_basically/
> A gallery professional said my work is basically good enough to skip art school and go directly into freelancing, does anyone concur? What sort of aesthetic or audience should I target?
>Vector digital, mostly solid geometry over a pencil sketch or some anatomical guidelines.

>No references, I make a point of only studying references now in order to not study them later.

>I got into art years ago as a way of eventually getting into webcomics (physical graphic novels if I'm particularly lucky) but got more serious about the technical and fine arts aspects around March 2024, with my most serious work all being from the past two months. I am mainly influenced by a mix of 19th-century classical art and 20th century popular or experimental art. I still have a lot of narrative elements throughout my standalone works like the ones here and slides #2 and #5 in particular were made as part of one of my storytelling projects.

>Is my art at a professional or post-art school level? Does my subject matter match my technique or should I adjust the type or vibe of my work overall?

>I also received some technical comparisons to Picasso, where would you place my work on the spectrum from abstract to figurative?
>>7872646
Yeah, you're probably right.

>>7872656
>A gallery professional said my work is basically good enough to skip art school and go directly into freelancing, does anyone concur?
>I also received some technical comparisons to Picasso, where would you place my work on the spectrum from abstract to figurative?
Well it's no wonder they've got an inflated ego regarding their work, people keep sucking them off to such an extent.
People need to learn that being overly kind, or complimentive, can be a crueler than just being honest.

>>7872685
>People need to learn that being overly kind, or complimentive, can be a crueler than just being honest
It's why I'm here, /ic/ may be full of crabs, but I get significantly more out of someone calling my shit ass than beating round the bush and sayings its good

>>7872626
His art is easily at a professional level. He deserves 2 points in artist.

>>7872685
>>I also received some technical comparisons to Picasso,
Holy hell, how on earth can someone delude themselves into thinking this is accurate?

>>7872784
holy kek

>>7872626
just tell him you saw two left hands and assume its ai. artbros HATEEEE it

>>7872626
People like this think they're professional because all the "steps" are there. They likely sketched the drawing first (and it looked exactly like the lineart here), then they "inked" it carefully, then they colored it all within the lines and paid attention to the color palette, and finally they painstakingly shaded every part of the drawing with the same level of detail as everything else. No stone left unturned, no detailed forgotton.

They forgot the number 1 rule of art: Appeal. Nothing else matters, being thorough and complete when drawing something often reduces soul.

File: 1748458203848977.png (988.6 KB)

988.6 KB PNG

>>7872656
Picasso can draw real humans, but chooses to reject it

File: m8pgswf5jg7g1.jpg (39.3 KB)

39.3 KB JPG

>>7872840
Yeah, you're on point. (for some reason my previous comment linking the post was deleted).
https://old.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/comments/1q8t59e/i_have_to_ask_about_artist_making_porn_art/nz8frtb/
> I use aggressive contouring and coloring to guide the viewer's eye and embed strong shape language , and I stylize proportions to change the appeal of characterization of subjects. I've gotten plenty of advice before that I've incorporated into my work, considering I wasn't even serious about digital painting until last year. I make conscious aesthetic choices I am ready to defend due to what they bring to the piece, you just vomit up what you've memorized and can barely advance an inch after three years. I've also gotten plenty of glazing before on stuff I thought was barely worth the effort to post, I reject criticism when I can think of a rational, informed argument against it, positive or negative, I don't shout people down while ridiculing them for having a passion for art beyond the lizardbrain reaction of "the thing the work depicts is good therefore the work must be good as well."

The art from the user they're shitting on is pic rel.

>>7872626
2 left hands.

they're at the soul level

>>7872626
Least necessary water mark of all time

>>7872871
it's kinda shitty, but the hands are right, the right hand's thumb is in front.

>>7872962
Doesn't make sense visually imo. Shouldn't the thumbs be on the otherside on the hand?

>>7872626
not your personal army

File: iugf.png (48.1 KB)

48.1 KB PNG

i could bust a nut to it if I was on illegal stimulants

File: file.png (740.1 KB)

740.1 KB PNG

>>7873190
Maybe this will make it make sense. I agree the readability on that atrocious.

>>7873255
Oh now that makes sense, lol. Awful lighting.