COMPO CORNER
Dec. 16th, 2004 11:57 pmSome may be aware that in the Maelstrom postal pack was notification for an art contest of sorts. Naturally, I have decided I will be entering. Below are the first three drawings I knocked up this evening while Channel 5 showed me the Top 50 Greatest Embarassing Television Moments Of All Time. Hot off the presses - I have not even rubbed out the pencil lines because the ink may not be dry yet. Fuck you, scanner pane!
I don't know which of these I'll submit, if any, but I figured people might be interested.
I don't know which of these I'll submit, if any, but I figured people might be interested.
| Tree It's a dryad, man - design heavily borrowed from DC Comics' Jason Woodrue (The Floronic Man). |
|
| Snake Snakeman ("Ophidian"). I have no idea what their feet actually look like. It is ARTISTIC LICENSE> |
|
| Cat It's supposed to look vaguely like a Wemic Mona Lisa. Really fucking vaguely. |
no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 01:28 am (UTC)I'd go with the Ophidian, it's very fantasy and is in a more natural, less artificial pose. He's actually doing something, and can be used to illustrate a skill description as well as a racial physrep.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 09:18 am (UTC)Have you seen the IC almanac?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 10:10 am (UTC)Anyway, my comments are supported by all others (except Kmazzy). Go with the Ophidian.
I have no idea what the terms of teh competition are, but i imagine it's a call for more art they can use.
So, static portraits are good, but active poses are better. Go with the Ophidian.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 01:49 am (UTC)not as sexy as tree-you of course though.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 07:05 am (UTC)The Ophidian is excellent.
The Wemics body just doesn't look in proportion to the head. The head is most excellent though.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 08:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 09:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 10:26 am (UTC)Like the ophidian, the dryad is cool but not quite in genre
no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 10:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 12:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 03:12 pm (UTC)I would have, but I was all sat down and couldn't be bothered looking up the original ... maybe I'll do a more properer version.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 08:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 03:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 02:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 02:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-17 09:34 pm (UTC)