>>95872852>I think I've finally figured out what it is that triggers you people so muchSo you don't get excited, I'll let you know you definitely didn't figure it out.
I entertained for a moment that men not smiling might be a common factor but it turns out you're wrong. Even if you had been right, men not smiling would be incidental and secondary, the primary factor will be elucidated upon below.
Particular issues I can contrast between the two halves of that image
top is very much less technically accomplished in many aspects of art
top looks cartoonish with insipid pastels and flatter shading, bottom has realistic colours
top is almost entirely flat, bottom has depth of composition
bottom is an interesting and ominous location, top is a sunny pasture, literally a pastoral scene
bottom is dynamic, something is actually happening, even if you do have to wonder why the woman hasn't even turned around yet there's already lightning coming from the wizard's hand
top is almost 100% static, like they're posing for a group photo.
Heres's all the action in that image
a cat rubbing a leg
a pigeon peeking from behind a foot
a fucking butterfly
a couple of beetles
Someone made 7, count them 7, coloured unicorns.
Of the 5 dynamic things, 80% of them are incidental to the scene.
7 humanoids in that picture, 5 of them entirely static, one maybe moved hands up to look at a beetle, the most dynamic humanoid is looking up at her unicorns and she looks surprised that they're there.