Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NotAddison t1_j1e4tb4 wrote

Lighting and colors are fine, but this is pretty terrible. Is she part rabbit? Not only are here legs ridiculously massive compared to her body, they are also insanely long. Also the realism of her body contrasts oddly with her Disney/Pixar face. There's a difference between painting women and fetishizing them. Since you are an established artist, these mistakes speak more about how you view women and less about areas you can improve.

−5

kanible t1_j1ebl1x wrote

> Not only are her legs ridiculously massive compared to her body, they are insanely long

not all bodies are built with vitruvian perfection. the legs do no seem exceptionally long. the feet are extended and the measurements from ankle to groin are about the same as groin to head. Also look at pictures of professional ice skaters or track/field athletes. their legs are also heavily toned compared to the rest of their body. its not that absurd of a physique

> The realism of her body contrasts oddly with her disney/pixar face

The face looks more cartoonish than the rest because it doesnt have any rough shadows, she is staring at the light source. That and the artistic style in her body and face are consistent so im not sure what you mean by one section being more realistic than the other. The whole thing is stylized, there is no “realism” to be seen.

> Theres a difference between painting women and fetishizing them

why are you even bringing eroticism into this? its a figure drawing ffs

who tf even are you to make these types of critiques?

−19

Whoa1Whoa1 t1_j1eks4h wrote

Anyone can critique art.

Also, it's cartoony because the dimensions are wonky.

  1. Her eyes are about twice as big as they should be, leading to the face looking very Disney/Pixar animated and cartoony.
  2. Her thigh width is literally thicker than any part of her waist or torso. That is impossible and no human has a thigh that has a larger circumference than their torso.
  3. Her leg length should be half or less than half of her total height. Here it is clearly way more than that, which leads to a really strange look especially with the thigh width wider than the entire torso.
14

user74211 t1_j1etnk8 wrote

I don't know if you noticed, but both of her upper legs are pushed against something (the chair and her foot), and because of that I am very sure that this is not an unreachable physique. I have a similar build, with maybe slightly broader shoulders, but the waist to legs seems relatively normal when you also consider the arm that blocks part of the waist (which means that it's not as small as it might look at first glance) as well as the slight twist of the torso

−4