How's this art

File: Ew.png (621KB, 1280x1656px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 1280x1656px

how's this painting too?

pretty bad senpai

>>2926726
The head eyes are way too big.
Shoulders too broad.
Bad proportions.

>>2926727
Same problems.
Big eyes, no chin.
Right arm is supposed to be covering that ass.

Overall I don't like it.
Go to the dedicated stylized thread.

>>2926726
down the eye size a little and take a look at gravity fall's style, something closer to that would refine this to a really high tier.

File: elf.png (501KB, 1280x1684px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1280x1684px

what about this one?

did you just genderbend Fry and give him a robot arm

>>2926756
lol i was just thinking the same thing

File: Mackenzie.png (155KB, 285x465px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 285x465px

>>2926745
I really think you need to go to this route
pic is touch detective.

>>2926739
>The head eyes are way too big.
>Shoulders too broad.
It's a cartoon, bro.

>>2926726
Not a very appealing style

>>2926727

The eyebrows look like delicious cheetos

>>2926727
I dont think painting fits your style very well, I would stick to flat/ cellshading look if I were you
The thing with painting is that its basically 3d modelig and requires good understanding of fundamentals (which you dont have/ seem not to have interest in anyways) , without that it will look like shit most of the times

Your style is cool, I can imagine a kids cartoon in thst style, to develop it further look at some other cartoons out there and try to pick things you like and use those (steal like an artist)
Nothing else to say, have fun m8

File: Atomicbetty.jpg (11KB, 250x348px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x348px

>>2926726
Looks pretty nice.
Like a kids TV show.
I do think the head is a smidge too big for the body and I think it would benefit from just drawing lines as eyebrows instead of colouring them.

Kinda getting an atomic Betty vibe of the artsyle. Maybe that's just me though.

>>2926985
FUCK YOUUUU

>>2927025
Why the hostility anon?

>>2926853
>It's a cartoon, bro.
you meant to say MUH STYLE?
this is bad proportions for cartoon character

>>2926726
>>2926727
>>2926745
It's pretty unappealing, the proportions are bad on all of them, and it's very, very clear that you haven't done any actual study of real anatomy. You can tell a lot about a cartoonist's skill level by their choices in stylizing anatomy. To be specific, besides the glaringly obvious stuff, I can tell you haven't studied anatomy by how you drew the head-to-neck connection in the OP, and...basically every part of >>2926745.
You have to know the rules before you can break them. AKA, yes, despite what you may think, you do need to study the human form before you can be any good at stylization and cartooning. I know it sounds boring, but just do studies alongside your cartooning. Stylization is a skill in itself and it's a beast just like any other form of art. Crafting a well constructed, appealing cartoon character is practically a science. Study how the masters do it - Stephen Silver, Genndy Tartakovsky, Craig McCracken, Glen Keane, Fabien Mense, etc. Check out Griz and Norm for useful weekly cartooning tips too.
You might think "it's just a cartoon, it doesn't need to be anatomically accurate", but think about why your favorite cartoon characters look so good. It doesn't matter how wacky or crazy or weird the character's body or proportions are, they still read as human to you, and they're appealing to your eyes, and they make sense. With good cartoonists, you can just tell that the artist knows how the human body works.

I wrote this wall of text because I am passionate about cartooning.Go to the alternative art/stylization drawthread next time instead of making your own thread.

>>2926985
Atomic Betty is a mediocre cartoon but the pic you posted is clearly a professionally designed cartoon character with appealing & well-balanced proportions. OP is nowhere near that skill level but they can get there if they keep at it and are smart about it.