Amazing work!

Thank you! :)

Sometimes it is sad. A new medium or a variation of an old medium comes around and there are always some people that think they can ignore the old masters. They never consider that some rules transcend the medium.

That said, rules are good, rules give you a framework, so rules are neccessary.
However, a master of his art knows when and which rules he can break.

Anyone doubting this can check out the original trailer to 'Psycho'. Hitchcock broke practically all rules when it comes to movie trailers and still managed to make it work.
Not like today when movie trailers bore me to death with their formulas, which interestingly don't work on me.

The saying of "know the rules before you break them" or variations on it is something people keep repeating with good intentions to no end, but I actually dislike that saying.

I think there is a difference between rules and guidelines. Rules cannot be broken without negative consequences - the rest are guidelines. Placing an element alone, surrounded by other elements that are grouped will make it stand out - this is a rule. In natural environments you most often have warm lights and cool shadows - this a guideline. Guidelines are there to make sure you don't screw up until you gain a deep enough understanding of the "why" behind a guideline, so that you know how to deviate from it and still make it work.

Rules of art are a result of how the World works - how light interacts with things, how our eyes gather information from light and how our brains process that information. It's cold hard science - physics, neurology, psychology. How these phenomena work is not a matter of opinion. And this is why the observations that artists before us gathered and perfected over centuries will always be just as relevant in the same way the observations of blacksmiths about how steel behaves under certain conditions are still relevant to modern metallurgy.

People use the "know the rules before breaking them" saying as an excuse implying that if you learn some things you can disregard everything and do whatever - then they make sloppy art with no foundation, no structure, and complete disregard to how the human brain processes visual information, and claim that they learned the rules and now breaking them on intention.

Of course if you do "modern art", then there are no rules since you can claim whatever to be art pretty much... But if you want to make figurative realist or semi-realist art (and semi-realism includes all of furry, cartoons, anime and other heavily stylized genres) then there are lot of rules, and these rules are simply the rules of Reality. But to actually learn all this takes something most people are not willing to invest: effort and time.

I must have spent a thousand hours by now studying anatomy, the physics of light, visual psychology and many other things, and I still know so little. I'm still feeling like a first year student. There is so much to learn, that to think you can ever truly "know the rules" is just arrogant and delusional.

1. You are better explaining this with words than I am.

2. You don't have to know everything to "know the rules", sorry, "know thw guidelines". Knowing everything is not neccessar to make art, or even good or great art. What you have to do is finding the way that works for you and for your customers or Patrons. There are a few cartoonists I like, but one stands above the rest for me. Sergio Aragones. He never fails to make me laugh with his cartoons and with his comics Once he made a four issue Groo comic where aside from the usually funny antics of Groo he explained the finacial crash of 2008 (as one example). He has found the art style and humor that works for him and his readers. And I heard that he is fast as well.
Again, knowinf the guidelines is not knowing everything.

3. Like I said, you are better with words explaining this than I am, so are others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikAb-NYkseI

I can be a bit of a smart ass, but really? I'm just a slightly educated barbarian. I know enough to know how little I know

Thank you! :)

The background paintings, the right is an early Rembrandt, known as "Artist in his studio" and is thought to be one of his earliest self-portraits. I have roughly repainted it in small and darker colors to fit the lighting. It is a bit of a juxtaposition to the piece itself showing me in my imaginary studio.

The left one is actually a photograph edited. I wanted to repaint that one too, but sadly due to being sick and not being able to work for a while I just didn't have the time. It is a copy that was painted from Rembrandt's famous "Night watch", before it was cut down to smaller size hundreds of years ago, so this copy shows what the original composition looked like. I have used this particular one to symbolize the importance of knowing the true origins.

incredible!

Thank you! :)

you're welcome!

I see, that looks awesome

Thank you! :3

I liked Peter Paul Rubens over Rembrandt because he painted scenes in a lot of bright light, whereas Rembrandt used a lot of darkness and shadows in nearly all of his paintings. I see that a lot on Fur Affinity, artists using the Rembrandt model instead of the Rubens as I do. The darkness covers up a lot of the picture in my opinion and forces the viewer into a limited focus on the entire work. Rubens had the point of focus created by planes of where the arms and legs were pointing, then used bright light to reveal a lot of color and form. Da Vinci did the same except for one painting where he wanted to present the Golden Ratio in the placement of each point in the picture of the Mona Lisa.

This is well done but you see Rembrandt in a different light

Yes, Rembrandt was a tenebrist so usually has strong chiaroscuro, and focuses on drama, character and personality. Steve Huston interpreted it as that Rembrandt used beautiful dramatic light on imperfect, sometimes even kinda ugly people, representing God's light illuminating the faithful. He was likely influenced by the caravaggisti. And for someone who is most importantly a portrait painter this is a good choice.

Meanwhile Rubens is all about enjoying life, sexuality, hedonism and the high baroque ornamentalism, mythology, symbolism and theatrics.

Then there is for example Vermeer, who has the realism and obsession with light just like Rembrandt, but he was a genre painter and painted much more serene or happy scenes, so generally his paintings are much lighter.

It comes down to personal taste. I love Rembrandt and Vermeer for different reasons. Rubens is much less to my taste, I'm not so much for the theatrical, ornamental scenes he mostly painted. But he was a great master nevertheless, I actually admire his anatomy and how he painted all those subtle bumps on the body. I have even done a mini-study of one of his paintings.

lessons from the master... I love it...

V.

Thank you! :)

Absolutely blessed <3
Good luck!

Thank you very much! :3

standing on the shoulders of giants

great work

Exactly. :) Great artists have always studied, and built upon the work of great artists before them.

Thank you!