Tomorrow I start my open-dive SCUBA training. I’m so excited, my brother works for one of the reef boat companies and knows the best people to go with and how to get it cheap. Plus I will be learning at the Great Barrier Reef!
nope-no-username said: What stylus do you use?
As in tablet? Wacom Cintiq 24 HD!
Boy Mega Sharpedo looks bad, like mega bad. Wow, is that bad.
It actually makes me upset how they could pass a design like this. What’s with the yellow and the shitty mega-goatee trend? Ick!
Anonymous said: Hey I was just wondering if you've been posting any of your stuff lately? It may just be that my dashboard is to cluttered so your stuff just isn't showing up, but I haven't seen much so I was just wondering.
Hello there! Unfortunately that’s not your dashboard; sadly I have been on a bit of a recent art hiatus and decreased my online activity. It’s my last semester for undergraduate marine biology (then onto Honours), so I have assignments being thrown at me from all directions! And since I got nothing but High Distinctions last semester, I’m really pushing in my efforts at university to try and get similar results this semester to ensure the best possible transition into Honours! Sadly that doesn’t leave a lot of time to do much artwork. It’s taking me much longer to finish artworks, and there’s been a significant decrease in the amount of new pieces that I start (and it’s driving me insane).
Although I have a couple of pieces on the go still, I will try to finish those as soon as I can and get started on whole new projects and pieces that I have planned in the near future. Thanks for showing an interest and I’ll do my best to get more art out soon :)
Anonymous said: I still love you and love your work but the mountain/boy drawing you drew recently looks very out of proportion. The shoulders and chest look wrong and quite childish-ly thought out. It makes me sad with all your talent, it's still wonderful but the body could be better. Don't take this the wrong way
Thanks for the feedback, I can see what you mean, I was trying to make the body look deliberately awkward and stooped to contrast with the strength of the mountains (if that makes any sense AT ALL) but yeah I can see what you mean about it being a bit off looking at it again. I think it’s because I didn’t have a reference and just drew it from my head, I’ll get someone to model for me next time I reckon 😊
I won’t ‘take this the wrong way’ but anon does need to work on their constructive criticism a bit more. While constructive criticism is always good and helpful (and I do agree with anon that the anatomical proportions of the rib/chest areas are off in comparison to the arm and neck placement) there should be no reason for anon to feel ‘sad’ because of minute errors in a talented artist’s drawing. Kate’s talent is phenomenal regardless of any mistakes, and especially since she didn’t use reference for this drawing.
We’re all human and we all make mistakes; this is true for those who are just starting out and even the most experienced, talented and skillful of artists. It’s a bit disheartening and a little bit pretentious to say to someone that their mistake ‘makes you said with all their talent.’ What you’re suggesting there is that talented artists shouldn’t make mistakes, or if they do, that it’s a sad, disappointing or unnatural thing. Instead of trying to put Kate on a obscenely high pedestal in terms of expectations, turn your criticism into something constructive!
You’ve mentioned that the shoulders and chest are out of proportion and childish in execution, which is a fair observation. You then state that the body ‘could be better’ but don’t accentuate why that is. Therefore the construction in your criticism is only half complete; you’ve outlined the positives and the negatives, and that the negatives should be improved, but you haven’t really explained how that can be achieved.
Granted, Kate took your advice on board and pretty much finished the criticism for you by claiming that while although she was going for a deliberately awkward look, she agrees that the proportions are off and one way of improving that would be to look at reference for the next time.
Anyway anon, while I agree your motives were good, I think as a fellow artist it’s a tad unnecessary to state that mistakes in an artist’s work make you ‘sad,’ especially given their skill level. Next time when giving criticisms, try to evaluate what needs improvement and support that using technical aspects instead of leaving the artist to guess how they could improve. Fantastic work by the way Kate :)
Not birds. Aviary wings do not share the same 5 digit limb structure.
The homology of the digits in the bird wing is actually a matter of debate. Phylogenetic evidence conclusively shows that the digits of the bird wing are the thumb, the ‘‘index’’ ﬁnger and the middle ﬁnger. The embryological origin of these ﬁngers, however, is identical to that of those ﬁngers that usually form the ‘‘index’’, middle and ‘‘ring’’ ﬁnger. There are several hypotheses about which digits were reduced and eventually lost in theropods.
Birds and theropod dinosaurs both have three digits, but these digits differ between each other (dinosaurs have digits one, two and three; birds have digits from the second, third and fourth positions). An intermediate theropod fossil, Limusaurus, has a mix of the different digits and bones in the wrist, suggesting that the evolution of digits in birds may have resulted from a ‘shift in digit identity characterised early stages of theropod evolution.’ Granted, the ‘wings’ of birds and bats are regarded as being examples of ‘discrete homology’ (but are also analogous, as with petrosaur wings).
I’d also like to point out that every comment I get like this is always related to bat wings rather than birds wings (on a dragon for example), where homology of the digits is clearly evident. That’s the annoying part. Also, I don’t mean to nitpick, but I think the term you’re looking for is ‘avian wings,’ not ‘aviary wings’ (which is an enclosure for keeping birds).
Also, a cheeky reference worth reading (not tooooo out of date): Wagner, GP 2005, ‘The Developmental Evolution of Avian Digit Homology: An Update’, Theory in Biosciences, vol. 124, pp. 165-183.