• it's still wednesday overhere. I guess that's the upside of being Australian, it's hard to be a day late :P
    I like the idea of the pose, but I think Arkonbey is on point with the dynamism.
    .-= Arjan´s last blog ..Good and bad news =-.
  • Rol
    I'm not sure I know the difference between this armour and last week's. That's not a criticism of the art - indeed, last week's had that definite chunky George Tuska style, and this was more reminiscent of the classic Layton period. I just assumed those were the same suit of armour, but drawn by different artists.
    .-= Rol´s last blog ..The Fire Inside =-.
  • Lee
    Sorry Rol - forgot to answer this one - the main differences in the MK IV and the MK V is in the arm join at the shoulder - in the MK IV they are huge, also the tops of the boots and the gloves are also huge. The helmet has larger ear cones in the IV and the MK V has a smoother connection to the red peak on the helmet (at least that's often the impression - it is open to interpretation by each artist I expect).

    LOL I think the difference is more an artform than a science :P
  • I have to say, this lacks the solidity and dynamism of your earlier Iron Men (Mans?).

    Especially compared to This one and especially this one.

    I can kind of see what you were going for, though. Perhaps a look at Darwyn Cooke's work might get some synapses firing.
    .-= arkonbey´s last blog ..photographs! =-.
blog comments powered by Disqus