/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6908684
>the artist you posted is trash
Based on what and can you elaborate on why that work is trash?

You can't compare artist if they're not in the same genre of content, and objectively, the one i posted creates better works, so the numbers don't add up.
Why is the other artist making lower skill works more successful than the other one?
The only noticeable difference is indeed the "render" and the complexity of the artwork itself and has time has shown, normies are suckers for anything that remotely emulates real life lighting.
>people sucking up to artist
This wasn't ever any of my points.

This is the clear point that although one work is better than the other, the general audience, prefers the work with the "render", although being inferior, wich ties to the initial point that westerners generally tend to go for minimal visual information, which manifests itself in bare titties floating in the void, which become the focus of any given artwork like that, hence people generally tend to like such works because of the lewds, not because of the skill.

Liking a picture for the "render" is an excuse made by non-artist who believe art must replicate reality or else it's bad or to just not admit that they like it for the titties.

If "render" would be the ultimate factor upon which is decided if a picture is of "high quality", then try to decipher the mystery of pic related.