Comments:
I don't think you should go around insulting people. I think putting Mike Hoffman's name on that list was mean and you deserve what he said to you. Whether hes a copy or not the guy can still paint circles around you.

Comments:
I'm only marginally talking about my work--mainly, I'm talking about yours, and it is anemically weak in the extreme. It's living proof positive that you're an expert in your own mind only. Some may occasionally notice that most artists consider themselves omniscient know-it-alls, imagining their opinions to be gospels of absolute truth; in other words, they think they have the only legit views on how to do almost anything--a God Complex. It's easy to see this is arrogant and stupid, except from the POV of the know-it-all, in this case, the purveyor of this artistically putrid website. As for defending myself from criticism, every artist who's worth a damn gets criticized--and it was a real effort to get down to the level of your own backward work to even comment on it. According to some, merely talking back to critics is evidence of guilt--or of Witchcraft. The trouble with slobbering fanboys who've elevated Frazetta to a supposedly unreachable perch is that they don't even understand or really appreciate what it is they're seeing. His whole problem is that he claims he came from nowhere and invented Art singlehandedly, with no thanks to 500 years of painting that preceded him, and there are enough simpletons out there to agree with that macho-driven egotistical baloney. That's the reason he's never been accepted into Fine art circles and never will be--all Art builds on what came before, period. He's an arrogant twit who's never given credit where it's due, or given a thing back to the public--in true Republican, Rush Limbaugh-fan fashion. Howard Pyle started a school, N.C. Wyeth taught other artists, and FF whines about taxes, spends millions to build a shrine to himself and keep his half-wit playboy son out on the golf course all day long. These aren't defenses of any kind--I don't need them--they're simple statements of fact. As for my own work, it's similar to a lot of artists--Pyle and Wyeth too, for example. What I do, and what they did, is follow the Classical rules of painting to the letter. I use all the same tools and techniques that people like you don't know and have never had the gumption or drive to seek out and learn. You're totally unable to look at a piece of my art and judge it on its own individual merits. This is a fact; you do what an unsophisticated public does--judge by comparison only. The fact that you can do nothing else is really not my problem--it's yours, and it's a very serious one, especially for someone claiming to be an artist themselves. Your other common tack is to look at a body of work and pick a "favorite" or two. This is all emotionally-driven blather, and has nothing to do with hard technical facts, evidence, History, or anything. There's no capability to see Art for what it really is, other than a catalyst for memory, or a convenient cause for a witch-hunt to gain some desperately-needed self-esteem. The fact that I am here talking about my work or yours doesn't prove a thing, other than I spending a little time to try and educate you for your own good. I arrived here because my website stats report visits from your link, so it's due to your mudslinging that I'm even here to begin with. Sure, I have some detractors--either ignorants or the jealous--I would expect that, but in the main, emotionally well-adjusted people have no trouble with my work, and they expect artists to build on what came before--like you could create anything in a vacuum. Take a look at my recent eBay oil painting sales, for example--a piece went for over $1400 last week, and another newer one is up now. Who solved all the technical problems in these works? How exactly did I "cheat"? Because people like you could likely never create works to this standard, you assume I must be stealing, because that's the only way that YOU would be able to accomplish anything remotely close to it. Because you're a thief at heart, you assume everyone else is, too. Comparison judgements are for dolts, and I leave you to them. But, enough about me--I am mainly interested in why the work on this site is of such poor quality, and how this sort of ineptitude lands someone in a position of sheepherder over other people with more talent than themselves. Why is your artwork so crude and amateurish, your figures so stiff and unnatural, and how do you imagine this evidence of incompetance adds any weight at all to your flimsy opinions? Don't you want to improve, or don't you know how? If it's constructive advice you need, I give that all the time to struggling artists around the world, in spite of my busy schedule. I try to give something back, and you are definitely in need of serious help with your skills--or lack thereof. Check my website for a sample of how I work at http://www.mikehoffmanart.com/demo1.html This oil was completed in under two hours--that's about $400 an hour--and certainly has enough to offer anyone who knows enough technique to appreciate it. Sophisticated people will see a total work of art, but laymen will see only a voluptuous nude woman and therefore be limited to comparisons to the LAST voluptuous nude woman they saw that was similiar. Is it all becoming a little clearer now?