[ SECRET POST #6022 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6022 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 37 secrets from Secret Submission Post #861.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

If I give you the benefit of the doubt that your idea of bad fanart is not just heavily stylized in a way you don't vibe with--then yeah, I know what you mean and I'd probably feel the same way if I saw a booth full of that stuff at a con.

But otoh, I love lots of fanart that is heavily stylized doodles. As long as the style is deliberate and consistent, and succeeds in conveying whatever it's trying to convey, then I'm going to respect the skill there--even if the artist's style looks like art a dog threw up.

[(Anonymous)]

It's more like wonky anatomy, muddy colours and shaky lines.

[(Anonymous)]

Can I say that I'm so sick of artists trying to excuse their shitty anatomy by saying "it's just my style"? Because no, that's not how that works. You can't stylize stuff unless you've got a firm grasp of basic anatomy to begin with. Shitty anatomy is shitty anatomy, that's not a "style."

[(Anonymous)]

This is such a weird take. Like, do you just not believe in cartoonish, doodley art styles, or?

If an artist is going for realism, then sure, poor anatomy is poor anatomy. But if realism isn't the aim, then nah, bad anatomy in the name of style is 100% fair game.