[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/ic/ - Artwork/Critique



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: The art of a hack.jpg (1.5 MB, 2146x1508)
1.5 MB
1.5 MB JPG
Why is this allowed?
>>
>>2864825
sauce on second pic?
looks interesting
>>
File: Staccato.jpg (29 KB, 400x283)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
Wow, such a hack. I can't believe they used a common trick deployed for decades in different mediums.
>>
File: shat.jpg (64 KB, 500x375)
64 KB
64 KB JPG
>>2864825
>>
>>2864829

http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=56996328
>>
>>2864825
You're reaching OP. this is a simple, real light trick that wasn't invented by the artist on the right.
>>
>>2864837
They could be unrelated, but I kinda see where OP is coming from, one uses the light trick creatively, making a compelling piece to go with it, the other just slaps it onto the sameface they've drawn over and over again.
>>
>>2864825
the artist of the right pic is much better
>>
>>2864844
Ok. So there's uncreative people doing digital art and creative people doing digital art.
Does that need a thread?
>>
>>2864825
>from interesting style to generic abomination
>>
>>2864825
I don't understand the question.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.