>>504180>muh hard work
Hard work isn't substitute for quality.
Who gives a shit how much time or effort you put into a piece if it looks like shit in the end?>we have an entire fucking dimension to deal with
So do 2D artists, it's just that they are skilled enough to simply calculate it in their minds and come up with the final result, rather than relying on an algorithm to do it for them. It's simply substituting skill with effort. 2D art is straight to the point and provides full control. Every detail of his work is there because he deliberately placed in there. Meanwhile, a 3D "artist" pulls sliders and presses buttons to see if it looks right, never having a clear picture of what he wanted to convey in the first place. A slave to one's tools can not be an artist.
A 3D "artist" is a slave to pre-made shaders, algorithms, renderers and the functionality provided by them. He bitches in impotent rage when after several hours of processing, his alienware computer comes up with a render that doesn't look like what he wanted. Wouldn't it be so much faster if he could simply paint every detail exactly like he wants to? But alas, a 3D monkey lakcs the talent and intelligence to do so, forever doomed to let a machine decide what his "art" looks like.
And all of that for what? Just for the extra dimension? Why would that matter when both human vision and digital displays are 2D? But I guess one would have to let 3D "artists" have at least that. Let them wallow in their imagined superiority, lest they collectively commit suicide in realization of their worthlessness.