You're my favorite new comic book artist. I'm blown away by your art for Catwoman and Gotham Sirens. Not mention, art from Cover Girls. Please, don't listen to some arrogant people and keep doing your amazing art.In the whole history of comic books, you're in my top 5 of artists along with:-J. Scott Campbell;-Jim Lee;-Simon Bisley;-Juanjo Guarnido.
I completely agree! I was disappointed by Cameron's post. People seem to neglect the fact that artists are hired for a reason and still have to perform to the expectations of their employer (like any job).As for the complainers, anyone who seeks complete realism should stop reading superhero comics. Anyone complaining about female exploitation aren't reading the comics, they're taking a glance and forming an opinion. How is being depicted as a sexy, confident badass not empowering?
Man, I still like very much your drawing even knowing about the "anatomic mistakes", as a reader and a wanna-be penciler. Keep up the good work and I DOUBLE DARE THOSE MOTHERF--! :D
Sorry brother. But fellow artists do have the right to criticize your work as well. You could say, they have more of a right, as they're in the same trench as you. It was a garbage-time drawing and exploitative art isn't inherently garbage if it weren't the rule rather the exception. That cover doesn't help. And it isn't sexy. --- Niles Day
I think other artists do have the right to criticize. What they did, though, was mockery. And mockery is not cool.
There's a line between Critcism and Douchery which I feel Stewart crossed.
Sorry, but if you don't want your work criticized, then you're in the wrong business. The characters that you are working with have certain limitations, this one in particular is supposedly anatomically normal.If you expect people (fans, artists, or anyone) to simply approve of everything that they see from you, then perhaps it's time for a break. Because quite simply, that's even more unrealistic than the image that got this started.
Más culos y tetas por favor. Cuanto más gordas mejor.Cuando hagas a batman ponle un buen nabo también, viva la abundancia!
just show them a picture of a real person. Period.And I did not think this one is odd. Due to the way it is "shot" - the pose - it might look like there is no spine left, but come on. Just adjust your mind and you see it is just plain a gorgous image!!
Criticism, especially from those with experience and skill, should always be welcome. Mockery, on the other hand, is pointless and uncalled for. And honestly, I'm more uncomfortable with the remake than I am with the original. They're both designed to titalate, which is fine, but the pose in the remake is exactly as bizarre as the original is being accused of being. At that angle, the foreshortening is obscuring the upper back, which I get, but then... what? The spine suddenly veers out at a 90 degree angle, to reveal the lower back. That looks painful. Why not just let the foreshortening of a natural arch obscure the entire back?... oh wait. You did that. People bitched.
Please kindly delete this second post.
Post a Comment