>>133334>artistic growth etcthere are artists who don't progress past rough marker art, but they are nonetheless considered skillful at what they do. I consider him an 'artist' because he demonstrates skill, artistic intelligence and a degree of creativity that is at least similar to cheesecake artists of yore, even if it is as derivative. I agree with your sentiment about progression, but maybe this stage of the process gets his rocks off the most, so he has a preference for going no further. maybe he has ADHD. maybe he IS lazy. who knows. but I do appreciate seeing his linework, even if fantastic color versions like
>>132485 exist.
>no point in comparing Legoman to themthat comparison actually supports the perspective that he is below the level of someone who has mastered both. my point was that I enjoy his work because it demonstrates good visual-spatial-anatomical understanding, and if I had to choose from the two sub-par extremes of naked sketch-like artistic competence vs. colorful photoshop glitz lacking underlying structure, I would pick the former. I don't even care about the characters because I don't know 80% of them.
your bone is that you find his compositions lifeless and boring, dull poses and expressions. cleaning these sketches up and adding color won't really change that, and asking for something different is like asking Elvgren to paint a face other than his formulaic smiling or 'surprised with pursed lips' expression. if I shared the sentiment that this work is shit I would simply ignore it and move on like most do with artists who don't tickle their fancy.
