Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Tea Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 04:04 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm enjoying your 'Flexibility Series' very much. You have talent, yes, but most importantly, you have a wonderful sense of creativity and style. Tea ps: I'll take the comic chick any day; the girl is fat! (reply to this comment)

from monger Monday, September 23, 2002 - 11:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Image updated! Craven de Kere ol' chap, I've changed the shading on her butt just a tad, and I redid her neck and shoulder (she was quite the hunchback before), just for you. :) Up until recently I haven't tried ripping off anything or anyone for art ideas (which clearly explains why I've never been a famous artist :] ), but this particular piece I copied from a Japanese kink magazine I stole at the tender age of 14, which is now very dear to my heart (yes, you can see I've ALWAYS been this messed up :] ). So dude, I figured I'd just put up the original photo here too so you can compare the 2 butts to your heart's content. :) (Hey it beats comparing fingerprints, or anything else I can think of for that matter.) Still, her ass is somehow quite off yet. :) (reply to this comment)

From Craven doesn't want to log in Monday, September 23, 2002, 13:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Compare the position of the elbow to the butt in both pictures and you might see why (in the picture the elbow covers some awkward parts that the drawing shows), you also might wanna make the crack (is there a polite way to say that?) go a bit higher or at least be more pronnounced. But lemme stop complaining, this is fine! It's the position that's weird!(reply to this comment)

From Contortionista Monday, September 23, 2002, 13:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Also, monger, and this is getting extremely picky , you'll notice that in your drawing the overall line of the back produces an arch. Look at the photograph and you'll see the model's spine actually rounded and protruding a bit. If you trace it from her seat up until it is obscured by her shoulder blade, it actually forms the lower part of a slightly flattened C, whereas in your drawing the line of the back is too straight for that stretch; if anything it is ever so slightly concave. But this is probably only noticeable to someone who regularly executes that stretch in gym class and knows that to try to get the lower back in a line where it is in the drawing would be a major ouch. Bottom line (pun intended) this is such an esoteric criticism it is more of a compliment.(reply to this comment)

From monger Tuesday, September 24, 2002, 00:09 (Agree/Disagree?) I luv exxxaggerating and making my women look like radioactive mutants. Thus, the arch in her back is actually completely intentional, as is her obscenely long leg. :) By the way, I know it looks far too weird, but the black triangle thingy beneath her elbow is not supposed to be empty space (no, it isn't her leg extending directly into her ass), but rather just bodyart over that area, so as to make her leg APPEAR longer than it really is supposed to be here (what can I say, she's a showoff). But hey Contortionista (that's a frikin' cool name by the way), I rather enjoy people getting extremely picky; it helps me see what's wrong with all my art, even if I do pretend to not accept it. ;)(reply to this comment)

from Craven Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:10 (Agree/Disagree?) She has a weird butt! Or maybe I just haven't seen that position enough. ;-) I am a fan of simplistic and well drawn lines (I use overkill to get my lines) and along the arm and breasts the one-line shading is great! (reply to this comment)

From Craven 's laughing! Monday, September 23, 2002, 10:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok, so the original's butt is kinda weird too!(reply to this comment)

From monger Monday, September 23, 2002, 11:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah, I see you've already come to that same conclusion I did before I wrote what I did above. :)(reply to this comment)

From monger Sunday, September 22, 2002, 13:04 (Agree/Disagree?) What can I say?--Obviously I haven't seen enough women in that position either ...Know anyone who'll model it for me?? :) I actually lost quite a bit of quality and sharpness on the lines here by trying to get this one down to the 40K limit. Dude, I need a good critic like ya to tell me everything you think is off with any of my other pictures here too. The more harsh the better! (I apply this to a woman's sexual manner with me as well. ... I'm seeking powerful therapy.) :-)(reply to this comment)

From Craven 's being a critic Sunday, September 22, 2002, 15:35 (Agree/Disagree?) I cog to your rythym as to the file size, I wanna get jules to allow me to use a javascript to link the low rez pics to higher relolutions that open in a new window. But she probably doesn't trust me with that. My only critique is about the anatomy of the pelvis. The technique in regard to art I'll not touch. Have you done the anatomy background? I'd never been able to draw humans till I looked at their bones (even bought a reall skull for both morbid reasons and for study).(reply to this comment)

From monger Tuesday, September 24, 2002, 00:15 (Agree/Disagree?) No dude, I never did do the anatomy background at all (which should be painfully obvious through this picture :] ), or any other type of art background at all unfortunately. But hey if it means I get to have my own human skull too I'm definitely game!(reply to this comment)