Quoted By:
art is a game. if you want to make representational content, you won't limit yourself to 2d-only or traditional. but most still enjoy looking at a 2d-only painting made of dried brush strokes. it's hard to make. it's impressive because of the medium's restrictions--the rules of the game.
digital art is a different game. the rules allow for layers and blend modes. you eschew mixing paints and waiting for strokes to dry. but you still need tight sketching, anatomy, perspective and other trivia. i play by 2d-only digital rules because they're more accessible than traditional, and more soulful than 3d. [spoiler:lit]also, i was groomed by anime artists[/spoiler:lit]
mixed 2d/3d and 3d-only are also different games. i think mixed 2d/3d rules are more forgiving than 2d-only, while 3d-only rules are substantially harder.
corporate tends to be results-oriented, so they lean into 3d for assets and mixed 2d/3d for concepts/splashes/marketing. mixed 2d/3d seems efficient for cranking out pretty paintings. commissions and ownership markets lean into the restrictive rulesets of 2d-only digital and traditional because artists and consumers value the effort required to succeed in those games, and/or the soul of the results.
with this in mind, i can't say that using 3d is cheating. but i can say this: if your fanbase think you're 2d-only, and later find out that you trace or use 3d, they are right to be disappointed. it's not that you misrepresented your art--you probably never *said* you were playing by 2d-only rules. but artists and consumers value the ruleset, and they make assumptions about it.
the solution is not a cheating tribunal, it's clarifying the rules of your game. unadjusted pronouns-in-bio exposition is an option, but i dont like it. it would be better to post a timelapse that includes your 3d work, or reply with the background you painted over. these things demystify the workflow without being obnoxious.
