that wasn't "how it was suppose to be drawn: it's an amateur mistake coverd by a simple excuse. a breast should flow along from a single line. if the line was penciled in from the beginning, he wouldn't have pulled it, and it would have looked natural.
The arm is wrong because no one's arm concaves at the should that deeply or gently.
As for calling everything else bull: signs in someone who's never faces scurtany under a drawing. if you can't handle the comments made by other artists and critics, don't bother drawing. frankly, the line art is very poor, the inking is really amateur, and the dude probably should used white out instead double layering.
There's a ton of amatue mistakes in this drawing, just like in my own I make mistakes/annoyances. people often complain about the fact I never draw feet/that my feet look kh style/ no legs/ I don't understand the piece/ I use stock body models to draw off of.
Really man, to say the lineart is good and to say I'm bullshitting is just not helpful. you can pretty much tell the guy has either self taught himself or is currently learning how to draw.
Its not good art, I've seen better of the same subject (literally. >.> but I ain't getting into that) and the finger pose: do it with your hand with putting pressure: YOU CAN'T. the fingers strain out: its not natural for them. make a pistol with your hand, you two bottom fingers start to hurt after a few seconds: that's why you usually do it with your index.
And no: its HER LEFT side. she's just extremely lopsided.
Now, I'm sure you know far more about art than me (all my drawing and painting is purely of my own practice, and I can never claim to be that good at it - ie. my sig is a painting of mine, which you could probably go ballistic on for technical errors), I, too, wonder if you're not being too harsh. Here's the thing: realistically, it might be off. But artistically, it might be admissable. After all, Picasso isn't exactly realistic, and I'm sure you could say how it's unnatural. But it can work nonetheless. Likewise in pure exactness to form no ancient statue can match those of, say, Michaelangelo. But is that to neccessarially say one is better than the other, or that the ancient work is flawed? It's the same thing in writing, which is an art I know a little more of, when poets are given creative license. It is technically wrong to write sentences without verbs, yet for effect it can be done. Likewise punctuation can be cast aside in favour (or for the purpose of) effect. And I was just reading a story where the footnote said that two places mentioned as being nearby where in fact fifty miles seperate: a conflation for poetic effect. And my brother, who is an aspiring musician, speaks the same way of guitar-playing. Technical prowess and exactness is not everything. Often, in fact, it is the flaws that he admires and give it the 'real' effect - an improvised, if flawed, live piece more interesting than one done to studio perfection. The best and the fastest guitarists do not always make the best music. After all, is Led Zepplin or Boston remembered in higher regard? The former, most would say, yet they would change and alter and even mess up their own work, whilst the latter was a perfectionist. I think drawing might be the same way. It might be technically wrong, but it might look right.
But I'll not definitively say you're wrong in what you say, as you plainly know so much more about art than I do, it may be that you
are gauging it on artistic rather than realistic merit in pointing those things out. And I know I'd be rather the same way in critiquing writing. Knowing the art better than some others you probably pick up on things that others wouldn't even give a second look. And, like you, I'm harshest in those thing which I dislike doing myself.
