Well first off, you need to learn how to make correct facial features. Also, you need to work on contrast. The head is too big, but I bet you already knew that. Can you post a picture of your friend for us to compare?

Well first off, you need to learn how to make correct facial features. Also, you need to work on contrast. The head is too big, but I bet you already knew that. Can you post a picture of your friend for us to compare?

[color=#CE091D]I wish I had the original picture, but now I lost it...[/color]

I wish I had the original picture, but now I lost it...

[quote="Corbo"]The technical drawing isn't good at all. Lacks shadows, pencil quality, volumetry between many things that I will stop to mention because if I don't I'll start with one of my bastard analysis. And unless that thing is flying while producing flames or something it MUST have a projected land shadow. Second look, it does have a suggested pencil quality but my guess is that he didn't use different pencil graduations, I stand with that unless he says otherwise. [/quote] Dear Corbo: Yes, shading is only hinted, nothing commited because I'm not confident in defining volume through shading. I used a mechanical pencil, only varied my pressure. No use of different leads (HB, F, etc). I always found switching pencils to disturb flow and concentration, though that's simply because I never got myself used to the process. That, and softer lead always ends up on my hands. =oP As for the "land shadow", technically the light source could be from behind the 'camera', and thus the shadow would be projected behind the figure. The horizon line is also fairly level with the view. In any case, I never defined the background beyond crude suggestion, nor is the direction of my light source defined. [quote="Corbo"]So... you draw a sketch and the basic rules & concepts of design & drawing don't apply just because you drew an sketch?[/quote] Intent, my dear Corbo. My intent in this image was to show a creature design. Thus it qualifies as a sketch ([url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sketch]Definition[/url]: "a simply or hastily executed drawing or painting, esp. a preliminary one, giving the essential features without the details.") rather than a more detailed illustration. Granted, more detail, shadow, scenery, even color would certainly improve the quality of the image, but the lack of these things is superficial to the intent. And with art, there are no [i]rules[/i]. Silly boy. =oP Merely guidelines to improve visual impact, depending on your goal and intent. Dear Phobos: Do you have Photoshop? You could desaturate the image to remove the blue. Anywho, pretty good, though the eye, nose, and mouth are simplified and thus come out flat, as opposed to the shading you did on the jacket to express the folds and volume. When an image is not consistent in its approach, the differences point out the flaws in one another. Dear everyone: My initial sketch was to express a creature design for a project of mine. Luckily, I knew people far more talented than myself in the field of drawing. As a team, we developed the design through many stages. [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa001.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa002.jpg[/img] Size comparison to a human. [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa005.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa006.jpg[/img] We dropped the exoskeletal concept in favor of flesh. Then we decided to remove the shoulder globes (brain casings) due to animation concerns on the four arms and globes being too much in one area. [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa016.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa018.jpg[/img] Here you can see how the forearm splits and closes when swimming, revealing a fin. [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa023.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa024.jpg[/img] A closeup of the gills behind the jawbone. [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa029.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa030.jpg[/img] Here we were deciding on the orientation of the four arms to one another, either vertically or horizontally aligned. We reasoned the horizontal approach would limit arm movement in animation, so we went with the vertical alignment. [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa031.jpg[/img] Gesture drawings for the six maestro types. Also some anatomy on the skull and neck cords. [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/voa_anatomy_arms.bmp[/img] Arm anatomy and how the fins extend. [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/voa_anatomy_legs.bmp[/img] Leg anatomy and how its fins extend. [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/voa_anatomy_reaver.bmp[/img] Reaver anatomy, an appendage that extends out of the chest. In this sketch, it was referred to as the Scythe or "sythe". In the end, this is what we came up with: [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa_Generic.jpg[/img] A generic Kerubim warrior with Reaver extended. [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/voa_biochemical.jpg[/img] One of the six maestro classes. [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/voa_gravitonic_cc.jpg[/img] A color comp for the Gravitonic Maestro. [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa_Gravitonic_Exophyte_Armor.jpg[/img] Armor concept. We drew all maestros nude, so we could photocopy them and draw different armor concepts over each. [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa_Gravitonic_Armor.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/voa_Nephilim_cc02.jpg[/img] Different color comps for the Nephilim, a newborn Voa. [img]http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa_ZHeight.jpg[/img] The whole cast assembled in a height comparison. (Note, each character is from a seperate image, so they do not all share the same view plane) Anywho, that's a lot of pictures. Hope I don't break anyone on a slow connection.

Quote from "Corbo"

The technical drawing isn't good at all. Lacks shadows, pencil quality, volumetry between many things that I will stop to mention because if I don't I'll start with one of my bastard analysis.
And unless that thing is flying while producing flames or something it MUST have a projected land shadow.
Second look, it does have a suggested pencil quality but my guess is that he didn't use different pencil graduations, I stand with that unless he says otherwise.

Dear Corbo:
Yes, shading is only hinted, nothing commited because I'm not confident in defining volume through shading.

I used a mechanical pencil, only varied my pressure. No use of different leads (HB, F, etc). I always found switching pencils to disturb flow and concentration, though that's simply because I never got myself used to the process. That, and softer lead always ends up on my hands. =oP

As for the "land shadow", technically the light source could be from behind the 'camera', and thus the shadow would be projected behind the figure. The horizon line is also fairly level with the view. In any case, I never defined the background beyond crude suggestion, nor is the direction of my light source defined.

Quote from "Corbo"

So... you draw a sketch and the basic rules & concepts of design & drawing don't apply just because you drew an sketch?

Intent, my dear Corbo. My intent in this image was to show a creature design. Thus it qualifies as a sketch (Definition: "a simply or hastily executed drawing or painting, esp. a preliminary one, giving the essential features without the details.") rather than a more detailed illustration. Granted, more detail, shadow, scenery, even color would certainly improve the quality of the image, but the lack of these things is superficial to the intent.

And with art, there are no rules. Silly boy. =oP Merely guidelines to improve visual impact, depending on your goal and intent.



Dear Phobos:
Do you have Photoshop? You could desaturate the image to remove the blue. Anywho, pretty good, though the eye, nose, and mouth are simplified and thus come out flat, as opposed to the shading you did on the jacket to express the folds and volume. When an image is not consistent in its approach, the differences point out the flaws in one another.



Dear everyone:
My initial sketch was to express a creature design for a project of mine. Luckily, I knew people far more talented than myself in the field of drawing. As a team, we developed the design through many stages.




Size comparison to a human.





We dropped the exoskeletal concept in favor of flesh. Then we decided to remove the shoulder globes (brain casings) due to animation concerns on the four arms and globes being too much in one area.




Here you can see how the forearm splits and closes when swimming, revealing a fin.




A closeup of the gills behind the jawbone.



Here we were deciding on the orientation of the four arms to one another, either vertically or horizontally aligned. We reasoned the horizontal approach would limit arm movement in animation, so we went with the vertical alignment.


Gesture drawings for the six maestro types. Also some anatomy on the skull and neck cords.


Arm anatomy and how the fins extend.


Leg anatomy and how its fins extend.


Reaver anatomy, an appendage that extends out of the chest. In this sketch, it was referred to as the Scythe or "sythe".

In the end, this is what we came up with:


A generic Kerubim warrior with Reaver extended.


One of the six maestro classes.


A color comp for the Gravitonic Maestro.


Armor concept. We drew all maestros nude, so we could photocopy them and draw different armor concepts over each.




Different color comps for the Nephilim, a newborn Voa.


The whole cast assembled in a height comparison. (Note, each character is from a seperate image, so they do not all share the same view plane)

Anywho, that's a lot of pictures. Hope I don't break anyone on a slow connection.

[quote=name:Hercanic] Intent, my dear Corbo. My intent in this image was to show a creature design. Thus it qualifies as a sketch ([url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sketch]Definition[/url]: "a simply or hastily executed drawing or painting, esp. a preliminary one, giving the essential features without the details.") rather than a more detailed illustration. Granted, more detail, shadow, scenery, even color would certainly improve the quality of the image, but the lack of these things is superficial to the intent. And with art, there are no [i]rules[/i]. Silly boy. =oP Merely guidelines to improve visual impact, depending on your goal and intent.[/quote] 1. A skecth should, no matter what, still have really good quality. 2. I'm not silly, saying that there's no rules in art's just stupid 3. "Depending on your goal an intent" If your goal and intent is being mediocre, go ahead, assume art has no rules and don't use the basic design concepts on your sketches 4. Some of your other drawings are good others are meh. Consider that a complement as I never say something is good. 5. Learn to use color markers properly :P And I mean the first two colored with markers.

Quote from Hercanic

Intent, my dear Corbo. My intent in this image was to show a creature design. Thus it qualifies as a sketch (Definition: "a simply or hastily executed drawing or painting, esp. a preliminary one, giving the essential features without the details.") rather than a more detailed illustration. Granted, more detail, shadow, scenery, even color would certainly improve the quality of the image, but the lack of these things is superficial to the intent.

And with art, there are no rules. Silly boy. =oP Merely guidelines to improve visual impact, depending on your goal and intent.

1. A skecth should, no matter what, still have really good quality.
2. I'm not silly, saying that there's no rules in art's just stupid
3. "Depending on your goal an intent" If your goal and intent is being mediocre, go ahead, assume art has no rules and don't use the basic design concepts on your sketches
4. Some of your other drawings are good others are meh. Consider that a complement as I never say something is good.
5. Learn to use color markers properly And I mean the first two colored with markers.

Dear Corbo: 1. A sketch should communicate the ideas needed. Quality is subjective. 2. There are no absolute rules. To say that is stupid is ignorant of the art field. What qualifications do you have to make this assertion? When drawing a person, for instance, there are guidelines for ensuring correct proportions, such as the nipple is roughly 45 degrees from the dip at the base of your neck. But what of caricatures, whose very nature is to exaggerate proportions? Again, I reiterate, it falls on your goal and intent as to what guidelines would be helpful in achieving the desired aesthetics. 3. See above. You can also substitute the word intent with purpose. If the purpose is to wow a general audience, then you aim for the highest quality possible. If the purpose is to develope an initial concept for further refinement, then you sketch. When you are designing something, you DO NOT go for a professional quality image on the first try, as it's likely to result in wasted effort. You plan things out, meaning you use faster methods to try out different ideas. 4. Those two are rough sketches drawn to help us decide which way to place the arms. Again, intent/purpose. The markers were used just to quickly splash a bit of color and highlight areas of discussion, no intent of professional quality. I posted them here to show what we used in our discussions, to show our development process. Also, there is a difference between criticism and intentionally antagonistic comments. You could say, "The marker goes outside the lines and is inconsistent on the first two images that use it." That is a fair observation. To say, "Learn to use markers," is antagonistic and unnecessary. It's a rude approach that offers no substance to the recipient.

Dear Corbo:
1. A sketch should communicate the ideas needed. Quality is subjective.

2. There are no absolute rules. To say that is stupid is ignorant of the art field. What qualifications do you have to make this assertion? When drawing a person, for instance, there are guidelines for ensuring correct proportions, such as the nipple is roughly 45 degrees from the dip at the base of your neck. But what of caricatures, whose very nature is to exaggerate proportions? Again, I reiterate, it falls on your goal and intent as to what guidelines would be helpful in achieving the desired aesthetics.

3. See above. You can also substitute the word intent with purpose. If the purpose is to wow a general audience, then you aim for the highest quality possible. If the purpose is to develope an initial concept for further refinement, then you sketch. When you are designing something, you DO NOT go for a professional quality image on the first try, as it's likely to result in wasted effort. You plan things out, meaning you use faster methods to try out different ideas.

4. Those two are rough sketches drawn to help us decide which way to place the arms. Again, intent/purpose. The markers were used just to quickly splash a bit of color and highlight areas of discussion, no intent of professional quality. I posted them here to show what we used in our discussions, to show our development process.

Also, there is a difference between criticism and intentionally antagonistic comments. You could say, "The marker goes outside the lines and is inconsistent on the first two images that use it." That is a fair observation. To say, "Learn to use markers," is antagonistic and unnecessary. It's a rude approach that offers no substance to the recipient.

I have no qualification besides the fact that I'm studying architecture but no title at all, I just know this things and I don't care if you really need me to show you a title for something that every art school would teach you, you like to draw like you do, don't pick it on me I was just pointing out mistakes. [quote=name:Hercanic]When you are designing something, you DO NOT go for a professional quality image on the first try, as it's likely to result in wasted effort. You plan things out, meaning you use faster methods to try out different ideas.[/quote] Yes you do. I'm telling you because I design things that you have no idea and if I came with something without the things I mentioned (shadings, shadow, pencil/line quality, volumetry in other things) architects would laugh at me so bad. Do not confuse it with architecture being "more technical", it's not, free hand drawing/sketching's probably the richest part of it, I should know.

I have no qualification besides the fact that I'm studying architecture but no title at all, I just know this things and I don't care if you really need me to show you a title for something that every art school would teach you, you like to draw like you do, don't pick it on me I was just pointing out mistakes.

Quote from Hercanic

When you are designing something, you DO NOT go for a professional quality image on the first try, as it's likely to result in wasted effort. You plan things out, meaning you use faster methods to try out different ideas.

Yes you do. I'm telling you because I design things that you have no idea and if I came with something without the things I mentioned (shadings, shadow, pencil/line quality, volumetry in other things) architects would laugh at me so bad. Do not confuse it with architecture being "more technical", it's not, free hand drawing/sketching's probably the richest part of it, I should know.

Dear Corbo: Qualifications do not necessarily pertain only to titles. I wanted to know what background you have in art, and you gave it to me. Thank you. You work in architecture. For that kind of art, there are definately rules. You are representing what will possibly become reality, and therefore must use reality as your model. But for art in general, there are no absolute rules. Take abstract art, for instance. Architects would laugh at you? Well, it could just be your face, but who knows. Well, they do. =oD In any case, you seem to ascribe to perfectionism, which is fine, but if you treat every sketch as the final draft, you'll take up more time than necessary and may not be able to explore all possible ideas. But I concede that I do not know much about the architectural field (though do have an interest as it pertains to level design). I [i]do[/i], however, know a thing or two about production art in creative fields like game art. Have you posted any of your work before? I'm curious.

Dear Corbo:
Qualifications do not necessarily pertain only to titles. I wanted to know what background you have in art, and you gave it to me. Thank you.

You work in architecture. For that kind of art, there are definately rules. You are representing what will possibly become reality, and therefore must use reality as your model. But for art in general, there are no absolute rules. Take abstract art, for instance.

Architects would laugh at you? Well, it could just be your face, but who knows. Well, they do. =oD In any case, you seem to ascribe to perfectionism, which is fine, but if you treat every sketch as the final draft, you'll take up more time than necessary and may not be able to explore all possible ideas. But I concede that I do not know much about the architectural field (though do have an interest as it pertains to level design). I do, however, know a thing or two about production art in creative fields like game art.

Have you posted any of your work before? I'm curious.

[quote][img=http://www.soloaxis.com/images/Voa/Voa002.jpg][/quote] All I can say is, beautiful. All though the bottom part of the legs do throw it off a bit, but good job. And for some reason, those sketches giving me an idea of protoss civilians. But thats my imagination. Ever thought about a career as character designer for blizzard or star wars? :bleh:

Quote

All I can say is, beautiful. All though the bottom part of the legs do throw it off a bit, but good job.
And for some reason, those sketches giving me an idea of protoss civilians. But thats my imagination.

Ever thought about a career as character designer for blizzard or star wars?

Herc I'm impressed. Though one thing I noticed is that most of your character designs have very soft, feminine facial features. Is this intentional? I guess I'll play along...amirite? The smaller pictures are close ups of the bigger picture...feedback appreciated. Sorry quality is so low. http://danoodlebox.deviantart.com/art/Fishie-WIP-almost-done-82753605 no one stalk me >:{

Herc I'm impressed. Though one thing I noticed is that most of your character designs have very soft, feminine facial features. Is this intentional?

I guess I'll play along...amirite? The smaller pictures are close ups of the bigger picture...feedback appreciated. Sorry quality is so low.

http://danoodlebox.deviantart.com/art/Fishie-WIP-almost-done-82753605

no one stalk me >:{

You're the one that put that big, ugly snowball on my page a long time ago. D:<

You're the one that put that big, ugly snowball on my page a long time ago. D:<

heh heh...sucker

heh heh...sucker

herc: Very nice mutant/alien/monster things ;) youre anatomy is superb and they look like they could actually be real with practice appendages. Do you draw anything else btw? Kame: Nice grouper fish, Ive seen a few of those in the water myself =o anyway the blue seems too invasive and it takes the eye away from the picture as a whole. glad to see this topic is alive 8) anyway heres my most recent thingy I did: [img=http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9887/42920nnt3.jpg] It is an entry to a contest and its suppose to be an anonymous contribution so dont tell anyone ;D btw this was not done in photoshop, It was done on this site: http://www.iscribble.net/

herc: Very nice mutant/alien/monster things youre anatomy is superb and they look like they could actually be real with practice appendages. Do you draw anything else btw?

Kame: Nice grouper fish, Ive seen a few of those in the water myself =o anyway the blue seems too invasive and it takes the eye away from the picture as a whole.

glad to see this topic is alive 8) anyway heres my most recent thingy I did:

It is an entry to a contest and its suppose to be an anonymous contribution so dont tell anyone ;D

btw this was not done in photoshop, It was done on this site: http://www.iscribble.net/

Purple doesn't go well with eyes unless there an evil person in my opinion. Use blue instead- [/advice]

Purple doesn't go well with eyes unless there an evil person in my opinion. Use blue instead- [/advice]

[quote]Purple doesn't go well with eyes unless there an evil person in my opinion. Use blue instead- [/advice][/quote] How do you know she ( I'm assuming ) 's not "evil?" How do you know she doesn't wear contacts which, for reasons beyond her control, give her eyes a purple appearance? How do you know she's not not genetic-alteration-project which results in purple eyes? Pah. IAMHYPEWARFASDRFAR/ . HYPER. That's what I meant to type, and my hand spasmed.

Quote

Purple doesn't go well with eyes unless there an evil person in my opinion. Use blue instead- [/advice]

How do you know she ( I'm assuming ) 's not "evil?" How do you know she doesn't wear contacts which, for reasons beyond her control, give her eyes a purple appearance? How do you know she's not not genetic-alteration-project which results in purple eyes?
Pah. IAMHYPEWARFASDRFAR/
.
HYPER.
That's what I meant to type, and my hand spasmed.

I think this topic is more for insight on artistic problems, not on creative problems...an artist's work is still their work. There could be a multitude of reasons why her/his eyes are purple which transcend the mere background. Maybe its a genetic mutation as in maybe its a humanoid from another planet. Maybe they're contact or glass or robotic eyes. Or it could just be emotional justification and response. Purple is a royal color. It also contains both the color of the human ego, red (per Goethe), and the color of calm and emotionless blue. You never know.

I think this topic is more for insight on artistic problems, not on creative problems...an artist's work is still their work. There could be a multitude of reasons why her/his eyes are purple which transcend the mere background. Maybe its a genetic mutation as in maybe its a humanoid from another planet. Maybe they're contact or glass or robotic eyes. Or it could just be emotional justification and response. Purple is a royal color. It also contains both the color of the human ego, red (per Goethe), and the color of calm and emotionless blue. You never know.

Are you insinuating that the aryan race is more virtuous than any other? hur hur. The color of ones eyes does not have any relation to if the characters a protagonist or antagonist. Nor does it have an inclination to suggest that they are good or evil. Hell in most animes the guys who look good are the bad guys and vice versa. And come on guys, this is ANIME we are talking about. Everyone is born with abnormally colored eyes and hair. As for the exact hue I chose for the eyes, It is very pronounced in the picture as a whole maybe even more than the muzzle flash. It forces the viewer to be drawn to the face. For the record she is a protagonist 8)

Are you insinuating that the aryan race is more virtuous than any other? hur hur. The color of ones eyes does not have any relation to if the characters a protagonist or antagonist. Nor does it have an inclination to suggest that they are good or evil. Hell in most animes the guys who look good are the bad guys and vice versa.

And come on guys, this is ANIME we are talking about. Everyone is born with abnormally colored eyes and hair. As for the exact hue I chose for the eyes, It is very pronounced in the picture as a whole maybe even more than the muzzle flash. It forces the viewer to be drawn to the face.

For the record she is a protagonist 8)

Hmm...I'm sure your missing a very fascinating part of anime, that is, social context, with that attitude.

Hmm...I'm sure your missing a very fascinating part of anime, that is, social context, with that attitude.

http://jamaleh.deviantart.com/ Pick one?

http://jamaleh.deviantart.com/

Pick one?

[quote=name:Corbo][quote=name:Hercanic] Intent, my dear Corbo. My intent in this image was to show a creature design. Thus it qualifies as a sketch ([url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sketch]Definition[/url]: "a simply or hastily executed drawing or painting, esp. a preliminary one, giving the essential features without the details.") rather than a more detailed illustration. Granted, more detail, shadow, scenery, even color would certainly improve the quality of the image, but the lack of these things is superficial to the intent. And with art, there are no [i]rules[/i]. Silly boy. =oP Merely guidelines to improve visual impact, depending on your goal and intent.[/quote] 1. A skecth should, no matter what, still have really good quality. 2. I'm not silly, saying that there's no rules in art's just stupid 3. "Depending on your goal an intent" If your goal and intent is being mediocre, go ahead, assume art has no rules and don't use the basic design concepts on your sketches 4. Some of your other drawings are good others are meh. Consider that a complement as I never say something is good. 5. Learn to use color markers properly :P And I mean the first two colored with markers.[/quote] Man, if everyone was like you, every fucking painting, drawing, and sculpture would look exactly the same. Perfectly proportioned, shadowed, designed. Total aesthetic realism devoid of express and emotional content. Your model of art is idiotic. Who gives a shit about perfectly replicating our world? Your replications are but that, copies that cannot succeed the work of nature or God or whatever you want to call it. You, my friend, are a dumb ass. If you actually do represent most of the art world (I don't believe many true artists take the time to totally destroy any originality in their artwork by succumbing to every arbitrary rule), then congratulations, you have company among idiots! Go start a gallery of Ayran art.

Quote from Corbo[MM]

Quote from Hercanic

Intent, my dear Corbo. My intent in this image was to show a creature design. Thus it qualifies as a sketch (Definition: "a simply or hastily executed drawing or painting, esp. a preliminary one, giving the essential features without the details.") rather than a more detailed illustration. Granted, more detail, shadow, scenery, even color would certainly improve the quality of the image, but the lack of these things is superficial to the intent.

And with art, there are no rules. Silly boy. =oP Merely guidelines to improve visual impact, depending on your goal and intent.

1. A skecth should, no matter what, still have really good quality.
2. I'm not silly, saying that there's no rules in art's just stupid
3. "Depending on your goal an intent" If your goal and intent is being mediocre, go ahead, assume art has no rules and don't use the basic design concepts on your sketches
4. Some of your other drawings are good others are meh. Consider that a complement as I never say something is good.
5. Learn to use color markers properly And I mean the first two colored with markers.

Man, if everyone was like you, every fucking painting, drawing, and sculpture would look exactly the same. Perfectly proportioned, shadowed, designed. Total aesthetic realism devoid of express and emotional content.

Your model of art is idiotic. Who gives a shit about perfectly replicating our world? Your replications are but that, copies that cannot succeed the work of nature or God or whatever you want to call it.

You, my friend, are a dumb ass. If you actually do represent most of the art world (I don't believe many true artists take the time to totally destroy any originality in their artwork by succumbing to every arbitrary rule), then congratulations, you have company among idiots!

Go start a gallery of Ayran art.

Corbo's like the kind of person who's taken a junior art course, and thinks he's an artist. Fortunately, he's an aspiring architect, so his model of "art" is perfect.

Corbo's like the kind of person who's taken a junior art course, and thinks he's an artist.

Fortunately, he's an aspiring architect, so his model of "art" is perfect.