This artist

>>2873686
>>2873688
why does the most shit and worthless art have the most watermarks plastered all over it, while art that's actually nice to look at doesn't? it's backwards thinking

>>2874524
That's how patreon works, anon. You pay money to get it unwatermarked.

>>2873686
Their level is good. Their composition kind of sucks and their rendering isn't as good as it could be, but their line work is pretty nice. Although, it's not really something you should be shooting for because you'll be a level under this person. But yeah, study up your fundamentals.

>>2874524

Freddie-Kruger syndome

no.1 rule of art: don't bite anybody whose work isn't completely rock solid. you are internalizing their flawed methods without even realizing it - just like they did

File: fuckthat.png (84KB, 300x325px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 300x325px

>>2874531
>pay to have it unwatermarked
for what reason?? it literally affects nothing. and as a REWARD?? pretty fucking insulting if i were their patron. the artist cant be fucked to give something in return other than content no one asked for, that they were going to make anyway.
that's like offering to post my finished works online.. as a patreon reward. "for my 1st tier of rewards, i'll link you to my deviantart gallery! youre WELCOME."

File: 861f869fa3d4d6b4330e6db852dbaf6a.jpg (35KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 736x552px

>>2874524
I used to watermark my work too, when I took art really personally and was practically drawing for pussy. I guess many artists go through a phase when recognition and fandom is everything, neglecting the fundamentals chasing views and favs, therefore the watermarks on bad art.