I am a skeptically inquiring secular humanist of a materialist and modernist bent with a lapsed Roman Catholic upbringing. Thus, for all intents and purposes, I'm a pragmatic atheist. I am also queer and a furry.
I tend to have a life, now in sabbatical as I prepare for job hunting, mainly in the Earth and Life Sciences areas, and, to my chagrin, I am a procrastinator. Hopefully these will be fixed in the next 100 years, though the latter is something I'm working on constantly.
These are my contacts:
dracontes | Dracontes(at)hotmail(dot)com
If you mean to say the muscle definition looks unevenly marked along the animal, say neck, flank and thigh, I definitely agree. I make a fine point of laying that out because it often seems people don't know (or don't know how to explain) what they mean by "shrinkwrapped" which I feel, then, is rather unhelpful critique.
Certainly. However I should say commenting on another iteration of a piece you find offending to your senses, when I've already laid out circumstances that would recommend patience, won't make relevant developments happen any sooner: I'm afraid I do have bigger fish to fry.
I have my own ideas of how to update the creature design in the future. However do digress on what you'd do differently: I'm always up for talking shop on speculative zoology.
I should point out, though, since this is pencil on a printout of a digital drawing it's a bit difficult to update, unless I'd go about it digitally. With the design changes I'm imagining, it'd become more of a digital mixed media project the result of which I'd be inclined to submit separately to compare and contrast.
Besides, I like keeping a record of my artistic misdeeds. So, if this one does indeed hurt your eyes: don't look at it, maybe it'll go away.