What did she mean by this?
She thinks that she can discount critiques by attributing what people view as flaws in anatomy to stylistic choices.
>>2432464
Anon, that's a little girl.
She doesn't know any better.
>>2432482
>X to doubt.jpeg
>>2432464
>Muh style
The post. So this is how it's like on fagbook.
>>2432482
but there are no little girls on the internet.
![1457299513644[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/QWE9mhB.jpg "1457299513644[1].jpg")
>>2432464
Mentality like that is what leads to abominations like pic related.
>>2434730
My dick does not care.
>>2434730
Quality shitpost.
>>2434730
m-muh dick
who drew this
>>2434773
Sure.
>>2434730
Post more faggot
It's an excuse, most of the time. People fuck up / don't know any better but attribute it to their style.
That said, it's pretty obvious that plenty of appealing artwork isn't proportional, and is intentionally disproportioned. Exaggerated / completely wrong proportions are common in most cartoons. The important thing is consistency and purpose. I'm sure we've all seen the barrel chested cartoon guy with skinny legs, or anime style giant eyes, etc. They're meant to say something.
And obviously, if you never learned how to draw a proportional human chances are you won't have a damn clue how to modify them for stylistic purposes anyway.
>>2434778
>>2434774
Kyle did
>>2434793
Does he always use the same colors for skin no matter the scene ?
She means that anatomy and proportion are social constructs invented by the patriarchy in order to oppress women. But what she's really saying is she wants to escape criticism and having to study by simply claiming that any faults in her lazy works are not actually faults, but really "MUH STYLE".
>>2434730
What's ironic is that she'd probably blast that image for being "misogynist" and "putting unrealistic body standards" or whatever.
![4COq0X2[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/HI76MD0.jpg "4COq0X2[1].png")
>>2434774
>>2434778
>>2434804
oh is that why his rendered work looks like that
>>2434730
seriously who drew this?
>>2434804
Must be a NatSoc
>>2434730
If we want to nitpick there's a couple of issues with this drawing, but there's nothing wrong with the proportions.
If you Fuck with proportions, it needs to be pleasing to the eye. They viewer should be too enthralled to notice the figure is off right away. It has to be done intelligently and not just because you like to make large arms or small legs.
>>2434871
really?
>>2434871
>but there's nothing wrong with the proportions.
You're deluded.
>>2434730
Whilst what the retard in the OP was saying is fucking stupid, there's nothing wrong with that image. A bit exaggerated? Sure, but it's meant to be and it doesn't stand out. Notice how wide the hips are as well.
Exaggeration and stylization are fine and even massively enormous physiques and extremes can be drawn well. It's pointless asymmetry and mismatching proportions because the artist can't actually do it that make a piece look awful. Intentional strange proportions can be done well. Look at goblins or dwarves, especially the more comical ones like WoW goblins. They still look fine, despite being more or less disfigured.
>>2435159
>Notice how wide the hips are as well.
Really wish he had drawn more of them, though.
>>2434774
search for "Ban"
>>2434871
>there's a couple of issues with this drawing,
Like what?
