This is gorgeous

No one's willing to admit how erroneous any of this is. It always boils down to how YOU, the accusers *feel*, never any facts.

Gonna be interesting seeing the fallout from this drama, cause that's all it is.

Again, the rain. And one of those artists said being capable of multiple styles is a bad thing and a sign of AI. It keeps boiling down to negatively judging people for doing stuff that we can't, which isn't fair.

The AI allegations boil down to "I don't like how this person paints, and they don't know how to draw a kimono."

I'm not taking that seriously. If you do, that's you. But don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.

How those two resolve that is up to them, not for you or I to decide. They're grown.

Again, in those specific examples, yes. Have you looked through his other works to determine a significant amount of such cases? Is this so prevalent and recent that it needs be exacerbated in such a way?

I think that's fair to ask tbh. Because considering he said he stopped, my point stands.

I refuse to find malice in wanting to emulate other people you think are great artists. The point being, you should add your own spin and creative flair, which RC does. So idk what the problem is.

When this drama first sparked, I found myself really pondering these ideas concerning using refs, studying other artists, and developing a recognizeable style. I like a range of art, and I like to study a bunch of diff artists that do cool stuff. In college, I was taught to study other people.

It's not a bad thing to study other artists. Art is and will always collaborative. I'm not saying plagiarism is okay. As long as there's meaningful differences in the art, then similarities be damned, you've made an original piece. Is all fanart plagiarism now? Does that make sense to you?

I feel like I'm suddenly in the upside down world. Being told it's bad to use refs, not to study other artists, and that every part of a picture must be perfectly rendered or else.

Huuuuuuhhhh??????????

None of the examples in the doc show extreme cases of this. They showed one clearly older pic, then compare lighting and veins on penises. You're acting like the doc shows dozens of examples. I'm really confused on why you're going so hard on this nebulous and weak point that hinges on dick veins.

Dude! I hate having to unfollow them. But I literally can't agree with this in any capacity. It's just not fair to write documents invalidating someone's art based on vibes. And anyone falling for that gets negative respect. I'm still very disappointed in the darkgem comments about style changes.

In those specific instances, yes he traced those particular parts of the image while making meaningful differences in the rest of it. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said.

This didn't prove dishonest business, and no one wants to be upfront about how it is about money and clout. Rou's own customers have defended him by saying they've seen his process and their words fall on deaf ears.

There's only so many ways a body can be drawn, especially when a majority of artists are using the same refs. Art looking similar, or even being referenced, is not and cannot be the end of the world. I do studies of certain artists I like. RC publicly said he was studying NG's art cause it's cool.

This. Literally this.