>"Draw a background bro, people will like-ACK"
No one outside a few autist cares about backgrounds.

>>7662546 (OP)
both are AI

>>7662546 (OP)
Backgrounds only matter if there's something relevant happening on it. Otherwise, don't waste your time. Unless you want to practice, which I think is always a good idea.

>>7662546 (OP)
>he still isn't getting it
There is no "background" vs "character" divide. There is only Thing vs Scene.

Both are scenes. The left one is much worse composition-wise and is effectively a void drawing pasted on a separate background incohesively. The right one has clear story, and everything is interweaved to be one whole.

Pretty good numbers for an oc

>>7662546 (OP)
over 9000 feetfags

>>7662546 (OP)
left has nothing to care about
right has feet for footfags

>>7662612
>>7662625
Yep. The feet is what made me like and retweet that shit.

>>7662555
This is such a dumb stupid remark, do you interact with all the things and objects in the background of your life all the time? No right? Why should drawings have complex interactions with the scenery then? Why having a non interactive background means that the drawing quality is subpar automatically? If that was the case then canvases of landscapes and shit wouldnt be a as eye soothing as they are.
Backgrounds are always a net positive, no matter if the subject is interacting with them or not.

>>7662546 (OP)
Fail. You provided only 1 example. Furthermore, the 2nd drawing does feature a background, however limited. Those 3 stones and area of water are more backgrounds than 90% of xitter artists do.

>>7662659
For a well-done scene of a bear in the wilderness, the bear and background are not separate, they are part of a cohesive whole. Dividing the character and the background in your mind, conceptually, leads to them being split when you go to make the picture.

>>7662553
>Backgrounds only matter if there's something relevant happening on it. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
ngmi energy readings off the charts

>>7662666
I replied to the wrong post, it was meant to>>7662553
Sorry.

>>7662546 (OP)
one has feet the other doesn't.
give me the image so I can jerk off to it
then delete this thread.

>>7662671
Oh really? Please explain to me why is drawing background necessary if there's literally nothing going on in it, if you're not trying to show a beautiful scenery, and if you're not trying to tell a story with it? Content like the one in OP does not require background

>>7662674
>>7662662
>>7662652
>"i-it doesn't count"
>"f-feet"
Made by the same artist

>>7662680
cool, ok
can i get the name of the artist?

>>7662546 (OP)
People don't engage with backgrounds because they're looking for gachaslop shit.

>>7662546 (OP)
The one in the left sucks, it's Hitler tier perspective

>>7662546 (OP)
Right has more contrast which is better for eye catching for engagement, which I guess the algorithm picked up on so it got 8x the views. Technically the left one did better than the right one engagement ratio wise. 1.6k likes/13k views vs 10k likes/95k views.

>>7662694
https://x.com/lapefamm
https://x.com/alohapz

>>7662678
>if there's literally nothing going on in it, if you're not trying to show a beautiful scenery
It helps sell the illusion of the artwork
>and if you're not trying to tell a story with it?
Nobody cares about art without even some kind of implied story or it being part of something more engaging.

You don't necessarily need an extensive background but you need these elements regardless, else you're just spamming studies and concept art and are no better than an AI slopfag.

>>7662546 (OP)
The left one is also disorienting because there's no sense of place. Where is the camera? Where is the viewer meant to be standing? It's incredibly unclear. The right one lets you mentally imagine standing on the shore. It's just better composed

>implying social media numbers proves anything
>sample size of 2 images

>>7662913
It does, no matter how much you fucking cope, fag.

social media destroyed zoomer brains
sad to see

Someone who can't draw backgrounds would not be able to draw the images on the right, so what's the issue?

>>7662937
>Left side
>once again no sense of place
>shit values
>no real focal point
>bizarre color composition
>Perspective on the masks is extremely unclear (a repeated pattern but they are all different sizes? wtf??)
It looks like shit on a thumbnail, and looking at it up close is a pain in the ass too, because looking anywhere but the stiff triangle of her face, the mask on the road, the words on the top right and her feet is disorienting. Nowhere to rest between those points really.

Meanwhile
>right one
>good values
>face stands out very well
>eyes and arm draw your view from her face to the potato chip to her arm to the chip bag, around her other hand, her hip, up her other arm to her shoulder, to her tits and back up to her face.
>Hair, hat, thigh, and staff serve as a bounding box to keep you from leaving the image despite the lack of scenery
>Strong lighting implies daytime outside
>Angle implies looking up at her, maybe she's on her broom in the sky?

It's just way better composed.

i wish i could draw backgrounds...

i wish i could draw...

>>7662992
The only thing stopping you is yourself.

>>7662680
I didn't stutter, you made that up because your argument is so weak and pathetic. Shaky foundations, jealousy-kun.

>>7662546 (OP)
I think a bigger aspect is twitter is fast. People are not stopping to actually look at things because something else, something better, may be coming up. The piece on the left, while clear, is a little slower to process than a simple drawing like on the right. Plus a million other things need to be considered. How many bots saw your piece that day?
And more importantly likes don't always equate to money.

>>7662937
>Sample size of 6

>>7662937
Whos the artist?

>>7663234
No its that the low view image in each of these is fucking worse. This is like telling someone that nobody really likes pizza that's just sauce on it and that they should add cheese, and they put fucking 2 weeks out of date dollar store swiss cheese product (not even cheese) on it.

>>7663259
https://x.com/andrewcockroach

>>7663170
>>7663249
>only argument during this entire thing is nuh-uh
I accept your concession, anon. You’re one of the few autist that likes/cares about backgrounds, so you think everyone cares about it as well.
>>7663234
That’s another factor as well, 9/10 artwork gets no traction compared to white void drawings.

>>7662992
I wish i was a little bit taller

>>7662546 (OP)
Firstly, there seems to be more of an interesting narrative with the second image, which I think engages people more.
Secondly, the second image has a better visual design, so that it grabs people's attention better.
It should also be noted that the second image does have some background elements, which separates it from the usual 'void' criticism.

Backgrounds can make for a better image, but if the subject of the image is just stiffly standing around, and the visual design of the image is dull, it might as well have just been a girl in a void image anyway.
Much of what I said can apply to >>7662937 as well.

Though >>7662680 is a mystery, since they generally get decent numbers, and that seems to be their only nsfw image, you'd think it'd do better.
Frankly, the first is just a more interesting image in general as well, nudity and foot stuff aside.

>>7662937
>>7662680
>>7662546 (OP)
>retard finds out that twitter engagement is pure luck

>>7662680
Right one has a "goth" and cyber design, on top of collages. It's been algo-bait this past two years.
Or, it might just hit the fashion-artists bubble.

>>7663798
Any more copes?

>>7662546 (OP)
picture on the left is nice, but picture on the right makes you go hehe (also feet)
this is the normalfag mentality you should keep in mind

>>7663773
>Though >>7662680 is a mystery
Right one has the temptation to zoom in to see what the background is, good contrast, and clear markers of interest (dark elf, maid costume).
Left one is obviously a lens-distorted (photo ref?) footfag-focused thing, so it repulses non-footfags and people who are moreso looking for an escape. If you look past it and zoom in on her face, it additionally doesn't seem to have the same style appeal - pseudo-relaistic - as the animu one on the right. It's less stylized, and thus has less broad-appeal, as that one page from Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics explains. For some it's probably reaching into the uncanny valley as well. The perspective for her size is also kind of weird. She's simultaneously sitting high above yet also laying down? If she's so big, where is the atmospheric perspective? It's just generally bad composition, but done by an artist who otherwise is good at painting humans and other things. I imagine the existence of the skulls and the childlike outfit the small person at the bottom is wearing also weirded some people out enough to not click like, but the likes:views ratio is roughly the same for both so it's probably just people not even stopping on it rather than looking, and then looking away.

>>7663877
>it additionally doesn't seem to have the same style appeal - pseudo-relaistic - as the animu one on the right.
right....

>>7663877
>but picture on the right makes you go hehe
which might be the most important skill