Do artists not get to apply their own art-styles to characters?
This is how Dandonfuga draws Kale.
By your own admission they’ve adapted every basic physical trait of the character aside from clothing, and drawn a character fitting the description, but in their unique style.
What more can you ask? Take away the art-style of the original artist and any character is just a list of physical features.
I don’t mean to blast the artist. They are obviously very talented. But the pose and clothing do not remind me of kale.
A character is more than just physical features. Face and pose give them character. And seductive pose and face are not the essence of kale. And if you don’t include the essence of a character, you should at least include the clothing, or the character gets lost in translation.
Fanart can add, include or leave out whatever the artist likes.
There is no such thing as an “essence” of a character. There is simply an original depiction, no single part of which is central or integral when translating to another depiction.
What does and doesn’t get lost in translation is entirely up to the artist, and whether they care to depict that given aspect.
I know. That’s why I gave my opinion in my original reaction. People can do as they please. I personally don’t see kale in this. It does not diminish the artestry involved making something like this. They probably spent a lot of time and work on this. The art itself is impressive.
You can not agree with that, and that’s also fine. I just intended to clarify my stance.
And I don’t think you should have complained with an “it could be anyone”. The artist has drawn Kale.
Yet you essentially questioned the very notion of them having successfully done even that. “this could be anyone” is little more than saying “this piece fails to do what I think it set out to do” or “this doesn’t even achieve the bare minimum” whatever you happen to think that is.
A better way to put it would have been “I would have liked her to be even more recognizably Kale” which others and the artist can then either dismiss as something the piece does well enough for their satisfaction, or agree with.
Even when it’s instantly dismissable as not what the artist set out to do, “it’s a failure” hurts. It isn’t a nice thing to say or hear.
You could have expressed your opinion differently. It’s clear you didn’t intend to question the talent, but you did.
Do artists not get to apply their own art-styles to characters?
This is how Dandonfuga draws Kale.
By your own admission they’ve adapted every basic physical trait of the character aside from clothing, and drawn a character fitting the description, but in their unique style.
What more can you ask? Take away the art-style of the original artist and any character is just a list of physical features.
I don’t mean to blast the artist. They are obviously very talented. But the pose and clothing do not remind me of kale.
A character is more than just physical features. Face and pose give them character. And seductive pose and face are not the essence of kale. And if you don’t include the essence of a character, you should at least include the clothing, or the character gets lost in translation.
I don’t even remotely agree.
Fanart can add, include or leave out whatever the artist likes.
There is no such thing as an “essence” of a character. There is simply an original depiction, no single part of which is central or integral when translating to another depiction.
What does and doesn’t get lost in translation is entirely up to the artist, and whether they care to depict that given aspect.
I know. That’s why I gave my opinion in my original reaction. People can do as they please. I personally don’t see kale in this. It does not diminish the artestry involved making something like this. They probably spent a lot of time and work on this. The art itself is impressive.
You can not agree with that, and that’s also fine. I just intended to clarify my stance.
And I don’t think you should have complained with an “it could be anyone”. The artist has drawn Kale.
Yet you essentially questioned the very notion of them having successfully done even that. “this could be anyone” is little more than saying “this piece fails to do what I think it set out to do” or “this doesn’t even achieve the bare minimum” whatever you happen to think that is.
A better way to put it would have been “I would have liked her to be even more recognizably Kale” which others and the artist can then either dismiss as something the piece does well enough for their satisfaction, or agree with.
Even when it’s instantly dismissable as not what the artist set out to do, “it’s a failure” hurts. It isn’t a nice thing to say or hear.
You could have expressed your opinion differently. It’s clear you didn’t intend to question the talent, but you did.