>>2264357It can be proved objectively. You can objectively prove I'm worse than Sargent.
But there is a point that not either me or you can say one is better than the other. Maybe those masters themselves can, but most of the time those artists are really humble and won't compare themselves.
>If you talk with a large selection of working pros, the vast majority of them would put Mullins far above KopinskiI don't think so. A lot of artists are fans of Mullins but I don't think they would say he is better than Kopinski. Never saw any pro artist comparing technical ability between living masters... Even dead ones, it's end up being your opinion.
>It's not a mob mentality or anything either, it's just pretty darn obvious to anyone who has experience making and looking at art.Not really. Where did you read that? You can find a lot of pros that don't have Mullins as an inspiration, but others, like Paul Bonner for example. If they're better than us this makes their opinion more valid? But if it conflicts with others pro's then it's just end being a matter of taste.
And I have some experience making and looking at art, why your opinion would be more legit than mine? And what if I have more experience than you, you should be listening to me? What if the opposite?
You see, we can't measure it, stop saying what you think is true like it is actually the only truth.
>>2264362With that I agree, hes is a beast when it comes to digital art and experimenting new things.
