At 4/28/09 12:07 AM, sucho wrote:
At 4/27/09 10:48 PM, MindChamber wrote:
i admit sucking at colour, composition, shading, and style.
No ones talking about that, were talking about anatomy.
probably due to these constraints, i don't have time to spend making examples to illustrate every post i make for these little point-counterpoints we have.
well you alway seem to always have time for these counter points, even when Im trying to give advice that wasn't addressed to you. if you gonna counter what I say, don't turn around and tell me you don't have time to defend your position.
i took your original comment at face value. just because you decide to elaborate now on the differences of "stylized anatomy" vs textbook doesn't mean i'm incorrect.
"if you are using the human form, then its important regardless of art style,
an extra long wrist, no neck, detracts from the image and basically kills the art no matter how fancy, stylized or detailed."
That is what I said, before your post.
wrong,,, again,.
that is stylized anatomy, the bone structure and rips are all designed to have volume and shape of a real skeleton but with a stylized look, theres nothing flat, odd, or broken about that bone structure.
and it is what I said after, I didn't elaborate, merely repeated the same message.
i don't mind showing off better artists either.
neither do I, but when you make a false statement like;
"i dunno... art for most purposes, has aesthetic value only. if you know how to use colour and shade pleasingly, i think its more forgiving than really good anatomy"
......, it would kinda help your position if you didn't present an image with a strong foundation on the human anatomy,
