getting started, what do you think?

File: 1340281511329.jpg (47KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 300x300px

>>2412555
The drawing ain't that good so you might want to go and have a look at the beginners thread but those numbers are pretty good.

File: silh.jpg (211KB, 806x1530px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 806x1530px

it's pretty good!! i really like the looseness of the drawing. because the way you're working is less about structure, i feel you could play around more with the posing and design of your characters in the future. with the dog in particular, the silhouette gets a little muddied on the right side. the design and drawing is nice, but the foreleg, hindleg and head all sort of meld together, which makes the tongue a little hard to read. i would pull the head out more or lean the dog over a bit, and bring the hind leg away from the foreleg to create one full negative shape as opposed to the two small ones you've got going on.

actually, while writing this i noticed that the negative space continues down to his hip, so i might play around with that as well... i think part of the reason i didn't catch it while looking at it the first time is because of the lack of contrast, i might darken up that area a bit to define it a lil more.

anyway, it's good, play around more, keep making things, etc etc. always try and make your image as clear as you can to your viewer. which doesn't mean you have to simplify or clean up your work, you just have to clarify it or whatever

too stylized for me to criticize

It's Quentin Blake. learn to reverse image search people.

>>2412659
>
The best place to be

>>2412672
aw dang!! i feel foolish now for trying to critique it. the style's obvious now that it's been pointed out to me, tho i still feel like the dog could be clarified a bit

>>2412672
KEEKKK

Quentin Blake needs some Loomis.

>symbols
>muh style
doesn't have the spark

its bad, and the reason is not loomis

its boring. boring is bad, and it really boring. no definition, nothing to look at, not composition, no focus, no consistent eshtetic. it offers nothing interesting.

>>2412555
better than probably 26% of /ic/

>>2412672
Not that he's really great or anything, but OP picked a really poor example, you must admit.

>>2412672
That's actually really interesting though. I've always disliked his drawings, especially as a kid. But before I noticed it was him I was prepared to comment his potential for a children's books illustrator with a bit of practice.

>>2414176
better than 100% of /ic/

>>2412672
Implying the fame of the artist matters
Implying style is a valid excuse for a shitty drawing

wew