>>5918961Your argument is irrelevant since it's completely unrelated to the point of the guide.
>The guide is A SYMPTOM of your larger issues with making uncreative guide-driven generic art autistically.??? Perhaps you're confusing me with a different user? And again, if you understand the purpose of the artist's "guide," you know it's not meant to be used as a 1:1 reference, it's just an example of how light and form coexist. Clearly, it's meant to be an *example* on how to render value (semi) realistically, it's not a step by step guide on how to do it, it's not teaching composition, color, or some other element of art, or is guide on abstract expression, or whatever artstyle you're latched on to, it's just showing an EXAMPLE on how to render this single technical aspect of art (value).
You're attacking this guide because it's demonstrating how to render a certain way, in a certain artstyle, and calling it 'bad, wrong, stupid' because different art styles exist, and/or it's not teaching you the complete art theory in 4 boxes.
The "guide" is good, for it's purpose. There's literally nothing wrong with it, and really no reason to shit on it.
