I would disagree generally. A basic understanding of real horse anatomy and proportions is much more useful and important before stylizing, even if aiming for a specific style.

Again, I would disagree, as would many professional and aspiring artists. I am not saying it is the only way to study, simply that it is one of the better ways. Disney, for example. Their cartoon characters are extremely simple and shape based - however, true to their real life counterparts, for the most part. But before they make them simplified they do many, many studies of the real animal! The same should be done for MLP, in my opinion. Though you're free to take my advice with a grain of salt, because it's just that; advice.

Fuzzy fetlocks...

Best gay horse.

<3 it!

Tis a good one ^^

Well, if you'd like critique, first off, horses don't have cloven hooves. Only animals such as cattle, deer, antelopes, gazelles, goats, and sheep do. Horse hoof vs. Cloven hoof

Also the head looks extremely small. I would suggest studying actual horse anatomy before diving straight into a simplified cartoon mlp kind. Best to understand how the animal works and looks before simplifying it.

oh... i... have studied horse anatomy plenty?? what i said in the description was more about not having decided how i want to approach drawing these extremely stylised horse-adjacent cartoon characters than anything else,

she has cloven hooves in this picture because she's a unicorn and unicorns are classically depicted with cloven hooves. i've seen a horse before.

oh, i just figured out you must have been thrown off by my use of the words 'horse practice', which renders this comment fractionally less baffling. in this instance i was referring to mlp characters as a whole as 'horse' for comedic effect, which must have been unclear. claps you on the shoulder. have a good one i guess?

I don't see why my comment would be baffling, with or without the use of practice in the title. You'd think people would be more open to critique of their work, especially when it is meant in a friendly manner, and also can be taken with a grain of salt.

In response to your first reply, the fact you have studied horse anatomy before is irrelevant. One can always benefit from repetitive practice and study - an artist never ceases to improve - unless of course they cease seeking improvement and stagnate. This also comes off as condescending, though I realize text can be misleading. How am I to know how much you have studied in the past? And alright, you hadn't decided, and I offered a suggestion. In my opinion, whether wanting to pursue a cartoonish, realistic or in the middle style, a basic understanding of how the real world/animal/etc works is the best route. As for the hooves ah, alright then. Makes sense, though that then makes the title of "horse practice" misleading.

Either way, good luck on developing your style! Perhaps in the future be a bit less condescending toward those who wish to help? Intentional or not, it certainly came off as such. Have a good evening, either way!

tbf your original comment reads as pretty condescending itself

Please elaborate?

I don't see any request for critique on this or the artist's main page, for starters.

I was unaware I needed permission to voice my opinion and offer a friendly suggestion? As I mentioned below;

"Well, it (critique) shouldn't be (taboo/frowned upon). Ask any professor at an art college/uni/school, or any full time professional artist. Critique is one of the best and quickest ways to learn what you are doing wrong, and to improve upon yourself. If you only ever get told your art is great, beautiful, cute, etc, you never learn what you are doing wrong - or at least you learn it at a much slower pace!"

And again, the artist is free to take it with a grain of salt, and ignore it if they so wish. by no means do they have to acknowledge what I said. I am simply trying to help a fellow artist try to improve. And it is my opinion that the one thing furAffinity SEVERELY lacks is constructive critique. Mostly because people are afraid to give it, as it starts fusses such as this!

yikez, this blew up. i'd appreciate if more people didn't pile on here, i know you all mean well but it's unnecessary! Stygimoloch, i'm sorry but you were pretty dang condescending and it wasn't useful crit. I get that you meant well but it was utterly bewildering to me to be treated as if I'd never once thought of looking at real life animals for reference before trying to draw a cartoon version of that animal, especially by someone who also seemed to think I didn't know that horses don't have cloven hooves. The reason this has become a 'fuss', as you put it, isn't because people can't take crit, it's because the attitude you appeared to be coming from when you offered it was that you were speaking to someone who had never looked at a photo of a horse for long enough to notice one of their defining characteristics. Crit in theory is great, but your crit wasn't and neither was the attitude it suggested. That's why I responded dismissively. Have a good one.

I would disagree that is was not a useful critique. Suggesting to study more is unhelpful how. I pointed out areas I found flawed, and suggested what I thought should be done to improve upon it. Perhaps you see it as condescending, however I do not see it as such, and do apologize if it came off that way. However I feel it is much more useful to be concise and straight forward, rather than to beat around the bush and walk on eggshells when it comes to pointing out what one thinks is wrong. Though perhaps it would have been better had I gone into greater detail.

"it was utterly bewildering to me to be treated as if I'd never once thought of looking at real life animals for reference before trying to draw a cartoon version of that animal, especially by someone who also seemed to think I didn't know that horses don't have cloven hooves" Alright, and let me pose you this from my point of view. You stumble upon art that says "Cat practice" Yet this cat has features of various species of animals slapped all over it - maybe floppy bunny ears, and a fish tail. Would you not stop and point out that cat's don't have bunny ears nor fish tails? Assuming you believed this was GENUINELY how this person thought the animal looked, and that they were genuinely trying to practice drawing cats? How is it out of line for me to point out that horses do not have cloven hooves, as it would be an easy mistake to make, especially someone unfamiliar with horses. Do keep in mind there are many people out there who REFUSE to look up reference, as silly as it may seem. Like I said earlier, how am I supposed to know your intentions or what you've studied? Again, no need to take it personally. I have very few cues to go off of, since all I have is this art piece, and what you have as the description. I'm just some stranger on the internet you will very likely never meet nor have to deal with in the real world.

Don't try to pin this exclusively on me. Your response was no better, and if anything we are both at fault here. You could have simply said "Thank you for the critique!" And left it at that. You do not need to state your agreement or disagreement and make a bigger mess out of something than need be - though you can if you want, however preferably in a more mature way - as it is my opinion, which is of course subjective. Not trying to paint myself as any better - there have been many times I have received critique from friends and have acted rashly. I'm no better, we're all human and we all make mistakes.

Honestly, dude? If I found a picture that matched that description I'd assume I was missing something and leave them to it. If your assumption would serously be that they just somehow didn't know cats don't have fishes' tails rather than that they were designing some kind of custom species that incorporated cat traits and they were practicing the cat angle of that species or something like that, then I think you should probably avoid offering your opinions to people in future until you've tackled why exactly it is that you're making those kinds of leaps of logic.

It was an extreme example, and if you can't see the relevance, than I don't know what to tell you other than to try explaining again. You also seem to have conveniently missed all other points I made. If I have to make a less extreme and unlikely example for you to reply without an insult at the end of your reply, instead of a more formal reply which I would expect from anyone pursuing a career with an online (or offline, for that matter) presence, let me try again;

Someone does a drawing of a corvid, lets say a raven. It's supposed to be practice. They state this specifically, either in the title or the description. Everything looks alright, it's mostly accurate - but you notice that the beak and tail are more crow like than raven like. It's a subtle but noticeable difference - at least to you. Would you not point this mistake out to them, so that they could learn from the mistake and use this knowledge in the future?

I'm honestly astonished I even have to explain this, or defend myself. God forbid I make a critique, state my opinion, and try to help a fellow artist whom I THOUGHT, given the title of the piece, was genuinely practicing something. Anyway, I don't wish to drag this on, as I'm sure you don't want it dragged on either. If you so choose to reply, unless you pose a question, or give me good reason to continue on the argument, I'm finished. At this point if we can't conclude this, I doubt it'll progress much further anywho. Best of luck with your art.

yeah no it won't. i'm seriously stunned that you think this is a point worth defending. here's some crit for you though: context is important, and if you don't have it to the point where the conclusion that you seriously, earnestly draw is that someone has never seen a horse before? you should probably avoid positioning yourself as a voice of authority.

It is not an impossibility that someone has never seen a horse before, or that they couldn't make a mistake as simple as putting cloven hooves on a horse. It's not that outlandish of a mistake for someone to make, or for me to presume was an honest mistake.

I will defend my right to speak my opinion and to explain where I was coming from. How is it "stunning" that I try to explain how I came to my conclusion, so that you can stop throwing dismissive speech my away. And who are you to tell me what I should and shouldn't voice my opinion on? Especially when yourself and other posters gripes seemed to be that I was the one being "condescending." Again, I never claimed to be an authority figure, I made a suggestion which you've seem to taken too far to heart.

OK bud this isn't funny any more it's just obnoxious

I would really advise against offering people this kind of crit tho

I haven't found it funny to begin with, in fact I've been taking it quite seriously.

Thanks for the advice. Good day.

Stating "please study actual horse anatomy before jumping straight into a simplified cartoon kind" may not be untrue but is pretty presumptuous and reads condescendingly, for one. You don't really know if the artist has or has not done so before hand, you can only assume. And you know what assuming makes out of you and me.

As well, giving critique when it isn't requested is generally seen as rude.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never demanded any such thing. I made a suggestion not a demand. "I would suggest studying actual horse anatomy before diving straight into a simplified cartoon mlp kind." Is no where near stating what you misquoted me as saying. You worded it as a more demanding/authoritative sentence, which is not true to my original phrasing. A suggestion means they can take it or leave it as they wish, giving them my opinion on the matter. And you're right! I can't know if they have studied or not before hand, but that's the great thing about studying! One can never study enough, there are always new things to learn, even if you have studied the same subject for years.

Well, it shouldn't be. Ask any professor at an art college/uni/school, or any full time professional artist. Critique is one of the best and quickest ways to learn what you are doing wrong, and to improve upon yourself. If you only ever get told your art is great, beautiful, cute, etc, you never learn what you are doing wrong - or at least you learn it at a much slower pace!

Critique is a necessary evil. It can hurt to take it sometimes, but in the end, it is for everyone's benefit. I only wish to help fellow artists improve!

i love ......