Paging Dr.(_____): The Soren Project Part 1

As some of you may recall from my introductory post I made a few accusations that I promised I would elaborate upon, chief amongst them my opinion that Ryuu, while not without talent as an artist, was letting his talent go to waste. Yes I went there. I meant It then, I do now. I'm also very aware that those were some real big fightin' words, so tonight is when I "put up or shut up," as it were.

This in mind I decided that I would take an example of Ryuus work and give it a once over to illustrate what I find could be improved upon in his work. So I took the first piece from his deviantART gallery linked to me (Snow-HEAD-Boarding) and redrew parts of it, shade da great deal of it, and generally finished the piece. In the end turning the original, into this. Please take a moment to compare.

I had the presence of mind to save my progress in stages so I could best explain how I went about my work, and make commentary on the original. However those are for future posts as I feel a quick Q&A is in order to answer some burning questions.

Q: How dare you edit this without Ryuus permission!
A: I'll admit it really would have been best to secure his permission to alter his work. However given the reason I was altering it in the first place I don't think I would have gotten it so I did it anyway. Still I do feel a bit guilty, so should Ryuu remain a good sport about the whole thing and make a bit of effort towards improvement I would like to offer it as a gift to him to show there's no bad feelings on my part.


Q: What did you use to do the work?
A: I used a free program called MyPaint and a graphics tablet. MyPaint is a very good program, especially as it's free and I highly recommend it if you have a tablet.


Q: No fair! Ryuu did this by hand, and you used a digital program!
A: A fair point, and one I considered as I worked on this. That's why I restricted myself to a single brush setting which emulates a 2B pencil (pretty well I might add). While drawing digitally allowed me a fair amount of neatness, there is nothing I did that is not reproducible with real media (such as pencils & pens) and a steady hand. Ryuu may need to acquire better paper and pencil/pen stock, but it's not anything that requires a computer to do.


Q: Why not edit one of his newer works?
A: I'll admit It would probably have been better to do so, but I decided that this was a good example of his work, as he hasn't drastically improved or changed since then. So I feel this one serves just as well. Other than that, no particular reason.

Paging Dr. (_____): The Soren Project Part 2

I'll assume you've come straight from Part 1 so I'll just dive right into things. I'd like to discuss the first stage of alterations, as seen here, where I simply removed the notepaper lines and binder holes. As before, please take a moment to compare it to the original.

This removal of the lines brings us to the first, and most obvious issue with Ryuu's work as an artist, namely his choice of medium, pencil and notebook paper.

What's wrong with notebook paper I hear you ask? Simply put, its the medium of complete amateurs. Few serious artists even consider it, preferring the better quality paper of sketchbooks (which are not that expensive at all). This is because the very cheapness of notebook paper means you can't do as much with it. Too much inking, pencilling, or even erasing and it'll rip. Markers bleed right through, and pencil lines smudge, ruining any fine details and lines. It simply can't compare to the sturdier paper you get in sketch pads (which, again, are not that expensive).

Another problem is the lines. For starters, the lines are a crutch. Using them allows you to better gauge proportions and such things, but like any shortcut they make it harder to do the same without them. Secondly, they give a false sense of "fullness" to the picture, as once the lines are gone you can see that there was a lot of empty space being hidden by the notepaper lines.

The first bit is perhaps forgivable, though Ryuu should try and learn to get by without, though if he's not quite ready to give up the lines I'd suggest using a ruler and pencil to make his own lines in a sketchpad and erase them after he's done. The lines are still a distraction though, as you can't accurately gauge how much empty space the picture has with them in the way. They also interfere with any fine details that happen to cross their path.

All in all, notepaper is the choice of amateurs, which I feel has Ryuu doing a disservice to his own work, as in my own opinion for Ryuus faults as an artist he most certainly can do better both in medium and as an artist.

Paging Dr. (_____): The Soren Project Part 3

Again, I'll assume your a glutton for walls of text and came straight from part 2, so I'll waste no more time and get on with it. Having dealt with the need to choose a good medium to work with, mostly by explaining the the deficiencies of notepaper as a medium, its time to move on to Stage 2. Please take a moment to compare it to Stage 1.

While I've obviously begun shading, I'd like to mostly discuss line-work and body structure for this post. Though I'll have to only cover key issues as the covering full details of these too subjects would quickly get out of hand.

Body Structure:
First off, I don't just mean musculature, as that's just a part of body structure as a whole. No I mean pose, proportion of body parts, proper angles, joints of the body, and yes, proper musculature. Basically all the ingredients to ensure that any humanoid body you draw actually follows the rules of the human body. For example, there are ways your knee cannot bend, pure and simple, and this applies to drawings as well. Ryuu, for the most part, is actually fairly good at body structure, even going so far as having traced out the parts of the shoulder that he later covered with the vest. This is a good habit to have, though it would have been better if he had erased the evidence entirely (more on that later).

However, he did make a few mistakes, which I shall explain. First off, below the knee you'll find that the back leg is twisted around so that the foot faces a different direction than the knee. I'll go into more detail on this one next post, so lets move on. The proportions of the drawing are fine for the most part, though a few issues arise with the musculature. The calve muscles weren't rounded as they should be for someone as athletic as Soren, and the back thigh was a little bit under-muscled so it wasn't as big as it anatomically should have been. Lastly there was a long tendon along Sorens arms that I removed as It tends to be thicker when it is obvious, and not that obvious the rest of the time.

Line-work:
Line work is pretty much exactly as it sounds. Lines curve smoothly, straight lines are straight, etc. There's some trouble here, this is a common problem only resolvable through practice (hint: straight lines are best done with a smooth swift motion). However, it's also important that your maintain clean lines. Blurry lines distort where one part of the drawing ends and others begin. Further, any line you erase you'll want to erase fully. Otherwise, as is the case with the remnants of Ryuus body structure sketching, they'll make parts of the picture look "see-through." Because we can see parts of the shoulder that the vest covers up, the vest becomes less solid, almost as if its not entirely there. Unless this is on purpose its obviously a problem, easily fixed by making sure you completely erase things. With line-work cleanliness is a high virtue, and unless your being intentionally messy, things like ragged, wobbly lines and incomplete erasures should be avoided when possible.


And that's it for Part 3! A real mouthful I know, but chock full of technical detail (it's good for you)

Paging Dr. (_____): Constructive Criticism Part 1

Greetings one and all and a good evening to anyone I may have missed! It is time once again for I, the woefully bombastic Dr. (____), to grace this blog with my oh so tedious ego and vapid wit! Never fear though, for I, the eternally melodramatic Dr. (_____), shall endeavour to be a good evenings entertainment in spite of my glaring deficiencies as a man of succinct exposition and humour!

To this end its time for everyones favourite bit of any serious discussion, the editorials! That glorious section where opinion masquerades as fact and all semblance of unbiased commentary goes out the window (good thing too, it was cluttering up the place!), and your host, the forever rambling Dr. (_____), goes completely out of his gourd!

Ok that's enough of all that, its time to put the crazy away and get around to ye olde meaningful writing, going out of my mind shall have to wait. But where to begin? Well I suppose explaining what the hell constructive criticism means would be a good start.

Paging Dr. (_____): Constructive Criticism Part 1:

Oh constructive criticism, what a cheap phrase that's become, with way too many people mistaking it for the old mantra of "say something nice, or nothing at all," when this is not what constructive criticism means, as by definition criticism is kind of on the harsh side of things. No matter how gently you break it, or how valid it is, it is still criticism.

No what this "only say nice things" mindset ends up doing is filling the heads of many aspiring writers, artists, musicians, and whatever else with gobs upon gobs of praise and little actual advice on how to actually improve upon upon their art. The thinking seems to go that so long as you don't quash a young artists fragile muse it'll flower into something beautiful all on its own.

Sadly the truth is that this is rarely the case, especially with self taught artists. Many an aspiring artist who has subjected themselves to professional scrutiny has found, to their sorrow, that you can have all the good feeling in the world and that won't mean a thing if all you can produce is a flat two dimensional stick figure.
While technique is only half of what makes good artwork (the other half being the indefinable spark of genius.) you can't count yourself amongst the best without it, and that's where the "only say nice things" mindset hurts artists more than it helps them.

To illustrate my point, I present to you the following hypothetical situation:

An artist you know wants your opinion on a work in progress. Upon viewing the piece you notice there are very serious flaws with the lighting and shadow. This is not a minor thing, like a misshapen leaf or a less than ideal composition, proper lighting is one of the very foundations of proper artistic technique. Books upon books have been written on the subject, art classes will make a big fuss about it, its a major problem.

Here are your available solutions:

Option 1:
You can be all smiles and good cheer, saying it was a excellent job and that with a little extra effort, you're sure those minor flaws with the lighting will be a thing of the past. This does nothing but tell the artist there is a vague, non specific, and minor flaw in their work. Assuming the artist has taken your critique to heart they're likely to reach the following conclusion about their work. "One one hand, there's apparently something wrong with how I did the lighting. But on the other hand it wasn't bad/big/important enough to point out specifically so it can't have been too bad. Besides they said it was very good anyway!

Option 2:
You can be honest with the artist, and point out that there are major flaws in their work. In an attempt to be helpful you take the time to point out the problem areas exactly, explaining how the lighting should act in order to accomplish what the artist was aiming for. Here you can give your own humble opinion on how the artist can accomplish this, though of course the artist is free to provide their own solution to the problem. With their shortcoming firmly in mind they can alter the picture according to new goals and aims in an attempt to compensate or correct for the existing flaws, or possibly start anew in a bid to get it just right. On one hand, you thrown a monkey wrench into things. On the other hand, you did your best to help fix things, and now the artist is once again pursuing their goal, with the problems fixed.

With Option 1, what you've basically done is mislead the artist about how skilled they really are, telling them what they wanted to hear instead of what they needed to hear. This is not constructive criticism as, to any serious artist, their level of skill is their pride and joy. It's what they use to bring their vision to canvas, paper, whatever! Their art is something meaningful and important to them, and in some cases is their very livelihood. With all that in mind, consider that you've just lied about how successful their attempt to bring their vision to live was in an attempt to spare their feelings.

Wait, I hear you cry out, I told them there were a few minor things! So you did. But those minor things could be anything, if the artist wasn't aware they existed beforehand, what good will vaguely declaring there's one or two small things to fix do? You didn't tell them where to look. If you did, you didn't point out the full extent of the problem, saying it just needed a bit of polish or something. This lack of honesty in favour of trying to boost their spirits will do them no favours when they try and present their work to people who will not be as forgiving. If anything their feelings will be hurt worse because when it really mattered they thought their work was better than it actually was!

Option 2, as the more astute amongst you have probably figured out by now, is what constructive criticism actually is. Its being honest about all every single shortcoming and how severe they are. The artist will not necessarily like it, but for something so important they deserve the truth, especially if your their friend. Constructive criticism is not only being unafraid to knock-down something that's not good, but to help put up something better in its place. The key word here being help, as you cant outright do it for them.

There's more to being a constructive critic of course, but all the details on ettiquite and such will be covered in Paging Dr. (_____): Constructive Criticism part 2! Available now at all for the low low price of $99.99! Or, you know, for free in this blog...

Whatever! Until next time, this has been the indefatigable Dr. (____), wishing you all a good evening!

Paging Dr. (_____): Constructive Criticism Part 2

Welcome one and all, and good evening ! It's time once again for your evening does of egotism, as I, the deliriously long-winded Dr. (_____), bring the epic editorial brinkmanship of my previous post to an exciting conclusion! There will be action, adventure, and padding galore! Okay, not really, but you can't blame a man for attempting to liven things up.

With that out of the way, I see no reason to delay further! So it's straight to brass tacks, as I, the oh so formulaic Dr. (_____), present to you part 2 of my modest discourse on the nature of constructive criticism!

Paging Dr. (_____): Constructive Criticism Part 2: How to be a Constructive Critic.

There are two parts to creating a work of art. The first is the artist's raw creativity, their so called muse. Without this, an artist lacks the raw vision to produce anything remarkable. The second, and far less glamorous part, is the artists grasp of proper technique. An artist can have a wondrous, beautiful creative vision, but without proper technique, all you'll get is a visionary mess.

Obviously you can't instill inspiration into an artist, they have to find it themselves. Fortunately however, and this is where constructive criticism comes in, you can instill proper technique into an artist, through instruction and honest feedback. As we've previously gone over why the honest part is so vital, we won't go into that again. So instead it becomes necessary to examine how to best deliver an honest critique.

First off, here's a good example of what not to do, both as the one giving and the one receiving criticism, courtesy of The Muppet Show's Statler & Waldorf. Even if you know who or what I'm referring to, please watch the linked video anyway so it's fresh in your mind. While the linked video is obviously a comedic sketch, it's still a good place to start when discussing what not to do as a critic.

First off, while certainly honest, this is a horrible way to deliver criticism. It's antagonistic, disruptive, and annoying. But above all it gives no actual advice on what could be better, or any genuine suggestions for improvement, and this last bit is what separates constructive criticism from pointless negativity and abuse.

While the first three points do not necessarily disqualify one from being a constructive critic, they make it very likely that their advice will go unheeded. Therefore a bit of tact and diplomacy is called for. Otherwise, even if you have some genuine useful advice to contribute, you still sound like a heckler. You'll have alienated the artist, and your advice will probably be ignored.

That is not to say that you should sugar coat things, that's where the whole "don't say anything negative" problems comes from. You need to remain as honest as possible, but you also need to be able to do so without making an antagonistic ass out of yourself. After all, you're there to try and help.

Therefore its probably best that you follow these general guidelines until your comfortable giving out constructive criticism. Bear in mind that provided you remain civil and polite, its not rude to provide input beyond "I like/don't like it."

1. Be diplomatic. You will not go far by saying "It sucks" or something abusive like that.
   Start with the honest admission that you feel there are some issues with the piece you'd like to discuss, and then go from there. Be civil, be polite, but be honest.
   
   
2. Go over technical issues first, if there are any. This is where things are clear cut and "easy" as a problem with anatomy, lighting/shading, whatever, is still a problem regardless of the artist or critics tastes in art. Point out specifics and provide solutions to the best of your knowledge and ability.
   
   
3. Having gone over the technical issues, you are now free to express things beyond facts about proper technique, such as your thoughts about the content of the piece. It would be to the artists benefit to hear what goes over well with his audience and what doesn't, but unlike technical issues, this stuff is subjective.
   
   For example: In a comic, you feel the big chase scene would be improved by cutting back on the rampant explosions. This is your opinion, and even if your point is valid this is a matter of taste, not proper technique. You may discus these matters of taste and offer advice, but you must also admit that you are now expressing your own humble opinion, whereas before you were expressing facts about proper technique.
   
   
4. Throughout the process of giving advice, hear the artist out. There must be an actual discussion between the critic and the artist, not merely talking at one other. Improper technique is one thing, and there's not too much an artist can use to justify it. But subjective matters, such as the example given in #3, are a different matter. If the artist can defend his decision to include rampant explosions in the chase scene, this is their artistic vision and you need to be respectful and listen, even if you don't necessarily agree
   
   

Next time you have the opportunity to provide constructive criticism, don't shy away from doing so! Just keep these 4 guidelines in mind and things should go just fine, and you'll be helping the artist develop. It's good for them, provided you're honest as well as nice.

And with that gem I end my little essay on giving constructive criticism. Later I shall write up a bit on how to take it, but for now this seems like a good place to leave off. So until next time I, the triumphantly helpful Dr. (_____), bid you adieu!

Character Sheet: Jack of Lanturns

Good evening one and all! Tonight I, the gloriously verbose Dr. (_____), present (for your viewing plesure!) Ryuu-Atrineas' very own OC, Jack of Lanturns! I, the wondrously forthright Dr. (_____), will be blunt, I do not like this OC, I really don't, mostly because at this point I have high standards for writing of any kind. It's a bookworm thing I assure you. It's going to be a verbal beatdown and I intend to pull no punches with my critique. However, far from simple abuse I, the fair-minded Dr. (_____) shall be the very paragon of constructive criticism! And with the obligatory hot air out of the way its time to get to brass-tacks as Dr. (_____) presents: Jack of Lanturns.

Name: Jack of Lanturns
Nick-Name: Jack
Gender: Male
Age: (unknown)
Height: 7'0"
Weight: 107 lbs.

I've not much to say to the above except that Lanterns is spelt with an "e" not a "u."

Physical Description (body): Jack is a very unusual person. His body is unnaturally thin, as his stomach curves inward at an abnormally skinny position. His ribs are noticeable, as his black skin is tight upon them, giving the appearance that he's on the brink of death by starvation. His shoulders, though they stick out from his body very well, are not really "broad". His medium-length arms are also too skinny to be healthy. His hands only have two fingers and a thumb on each hand. The fingers do bend like a normal person's would but they're shaped like dagger blades. His legs are long, thin, and normally bent at the knee, even when standing. His feet are long with two dagger-like toes in front, and one at the heel. His head is like a huge pumpkin, but eyeholes are cut out of it, allowing his yellow eyes to glow through. His mouth is the base of the pumpkin itself, having a large jaw and teeth that are rowed in pairs like a shark's mouth.

Okay, first off. The "very unusual person" bit is ludicrously unnecessary. Jack is a seven foot tall emaciated, skeletally thin poe, with pitch black skin, bony, dagger-like hands, and a jack o' lantern for a head.

"Very unusual" is an understatement, not to mention beating the readers over the head with the obvious. Furthermore, as my description of Jack shows, alot of this descrition is needlessly long and clunky! We get it, Jack is thin! You could have said as much using words such as gaunt, emaciated, skeletally thin, bony, or a simile like thin as a pin! The English language is full to the brim with words that, used properly, can reduce a long wall of text, into a neat and concise paragraph. We do not need to be hit over the head with the same details over and over, or have whole sentences thrown at us when a single word will serve the same purpose.

Physical Description (Apparel): A torn black cape encircles his neck, and worn black pants cover his legs. Apparently that's it.

Even here we find unnecessary wording! "Worn black pants cover his legs," as opposed to what pray tell? His head?! Unless he's wearing pants in a way that they aren't normally worn, it is completely redundant to say his pants cover his legs. they're pants, that's what they do. "Apparently that's it" is even worse. The whole thing is what people see when they look at him, you do not need to say that's it. Does he have invisible clothes or something? No? Then you need not use the word apparently.

Looks most Like: Jack (Gaia Online)

My fellow contributors hate this, so I think enough has been said about the looks most like bit for now. Instead I'll explain why a I've made such a big deal out of the character descriptions.

It's important to realise that your audience will likely assume everything you bother to write down is important. Things such as "Jack is a very unusual person" confuse things, as the obvious implication is that if he needs to be pointed out as strange, it isn't obvious that he is.

When you describe all the fine details it becomes harder to clearly remember the essentials, and things can become distorted as your audience tries to puzzle out how it all fits together. By using a bare minimum of carefully chosen words you can lodge the defining traits of your character into your audiences brain, leaving the rest to imagination. Not only is this more engaging for your audience, but they'll all arrive at roughly the same desired mental image anyway.

Personality: Jack is known to be truthful and blunt, even if it makes him sound rude. He doesn't care much for being a "Nice" guy, but he doesn't plan on making enemies. He's conservative about time, so he just wants to get done what needs to be done. He doesn't like to be rushed or slowed down, as he has a set schedule in his mind, even if it's only made up within minutes. He has a strong sense of possession and a small sense of sharing. He does share with those he likes, however.

I've said plenty about descriptions so far so let us give more practical examples. Here is a crude rewrite of Jack's personality description.

Personality(rewrite): Blunt and honest, Jack makes little effort towards being sensitive or polite, though he usually doesn't mean to offend. While exceedingly practical with his time, Jack resents working at anything but his own pace. Jack is very stingy with his possessions, though he will share with those he likes.

There, roughly half the length of the original while saying pretty much the same thing. Further personality details shall inevitably be provided through role play. Not that my rewrite should replace the original, I merely point out that with a little effort Ryuu can be vastly more efficient with his writing without sacrificing detail, perhaps making what he's trying to say even clearer at the same time.

Power(s): Can stretch, twist, and deform his already deformed body to be his own weapon - stretch his arms and sharpen his fingers for a long-range slash or join his legs together and sink his toes into the floor to be as sturdy on the ground as a tree.
Upside to Power(s): He's pretty unpredictable as to how to attack or defend.
Downside to Power(s): Being stretched out can put him in a venerable position.

I've nothing to say about the powers, they're fairly straightforward, and I've made a dead horse of my previous points so let us move on and not beat it further.

Strengths: Very strong against magic attacks and arrows seem to only stick to him...
Weaknesses: Fire! Normal fire can burn him really quickly and is more effective than a sword.

Again, fairly straightforward, though it could be a bit clearer whether or not arrows work on him.

History: Jack was originally a poe who had been lurking in the Kakariko Graveyard. Before, his name was Rack. He always had a fascination for shiny things like rupees and Deku Seeds, but he also had a fascination for stealing these things from trespassers in the Graveyard. Apparently, such skill in thievery had found favor among the ranks of Ganondorf. Because he was able to steal efficiently, he was hired by the King of Evil to do some secret funding projects...

Rack had a tiff with a ghastly thin man with a single glowing eye. He stole the man's wallet containing a huge rupee. With that taken, the man was left with no money at all. In contempt, he set up a poe shop, hoping that one day, he'd have the soul of the poe who robbed him brought to him begging for mercy...

One fateful day, Ganondorf gave Rack an alarming gift. Ganondorf felt that Rack could be a better robber if he could slay whole towns from other lands and pillage their wreckages. A superior body and special abilities was the dark gift - but even as powerful as he was, Rack was horrified of his appearance. His pumpkin-like head and scrawny, anorexic phantom body scared him at first, and thought Ganondorf was pulling fun of him in that respect... especially with the new name granted to him - Jack of Lanturns. Jack turned on Ganon as soon as he found he had the power to pose a threat to him. Though Jack wasn't expecting much else from a king of darkness, he didn't like what Ganondorf had done. Unable to think of facing even the other poes, Jack fled from Hyrule. Unsure where he was going or what he'd do away, he just knew he would not be wanted.

Jack has pretty much accepted the fact he's horrifying and companion-less. He's taken up piracy and being a mercenary and such to occupy his time. He'll do almost any service - with a price.

Ah boy. This is bad, mostly because of one massive breakdown of logic (not to mention further abuse of the word apparently). Why does Ganon, who I'm assuming has gotten ahold of the Triforce of power at this point, need to hire a poe?

A man capable of levitating an entire castle, summoning legions of obedient monsters, projecting himself as Phantom Ganon, needs to hire a poe to steal treasure?!

The connection to the poe shop isn't a bad thing per se, though it has little purpose beyond saying "Look! My OC is connected to canon characters!." Returning to the bad logic though, why does Ganon decide Jack needs to be able to pillage towns? Ganon commands The Geurodo, an army of Moblins, Stalfos, and who knows what else. To top it off, Ganon could probably level a town if he wanted to without too much troub- oh wait he did! Look at what's left of castle town!

That's the main problem here, otherwise it merely suffers from clunky writing. However this is very bad logic. Ganon conquered a kingdom, commands an army of evil monsters, and the whole nine yards. He likely already has poes bent to his will who are probably just as good at theft as Jack is/was, never mind the fact that until Link came back he pretty much had everything his way with little effort. Ganon doesn't need more treasure, what he wants is the rest of the Triforce! The origin story makes little sense.

Extra: During the RPGs that he plays a role in, there's something to keep in mind; After Jack makes an attack dealing with stretching his body, assume he has restored himself to normal size by the end of that post unless said otherwise.
RPG Style: Zelda RPG

And thats all from me folk, until next time this is Dr. (_____) saying hello and good-bye!

Introduction: Dr. (_____)

Good evening, I am Dr. (_____) (that's pronounced " blanc' " if you'd be so kind), and it is time once again for that glorious exercise in boredom/tedium, introductions!

First off I, the astoundingly dense Dr. (_____), shall provide you all answers to the questions which are no doubt bursting forth from the very depths of your mind!

Q: What the hell is up with the way you talk?
A: It's mostly a way for me to work myself up into typing up an article. It's fun typing like an obnoxious blow-hard, that and it works my natural tendency to ramble off topic out of my system. Again, it's mostly a bit of fun with words and such to get me started with the more dry and less fun writing

Q: Why don't you like Ryuu?
A: I can only speak for myself of course, but I don't have anything against Ryuu himself. I mostly feel that his work could do with improvement, in some areas more than others, which is NOT a very welcome position to take from what I've seen whilst lurking and digging around in various forums. Regardless I'm here to expose flaws, and not because I'm some kind of hater.

Q: Why Ryuu specifically?
A: Mostly because that's who got picked as the subject of this blog. There's worse artists/writers than him floating around sure, no doubt. There's also better artists too. Ryuu, despite his problems, has potential for drawing, and I feel its currently wasted.

Q: Wasted how?
A: By his stubborn insistence that taking an existing character and changing things makes it original for starters, and I will, elaborate on that seeing as those are pretty harsh words.
Ryuu isn't without potential as far as drawing goes, he merely needs to address some very key issues in originality and technique, again such issues will be elaborated upon in their own articles.

Q: Why you then?
A: Because I've taken enough art classes and done enough sketches to be well acquainted with proper artistic technique. Niceties such as depth, lighting, proportion, etc. While I may not be the best artist ever, I'm nevertheless fairly well informed about what makes good art on a technical level, much in the way a food critic could have excellent taste, but not be the best of cooks himself. Trust me when I say that I do not criticise anything about Ryuu's work that I do not criticise in my own work, as I am consistently my own worst critic.

And that should just about cover it as far as introductions are concered, so until next time I, the outrageously nosy Dr. (_____), shall bid you adieu!