One point of character design I struggle with is finding out is mostly in costume design, how do you go about figuring out what the character should wear without making it too bland or going overboard with it?

Draw with a pen, it will suck at first but trust me it helps you pay attention way more to the lines you put down. I used to have the same problem as you but after I got into ink drawing and general doodling with ink I found my line drawings in general got way better. On the flip side feel free to leave those loose wild lines and just ink on top of them later if you want to present them!

Hey @Mark Sukaiti! I can totally relate to your concern and felt the same way for a long time. I'm a cartoonist, so I absolutely love sketching loosely, generating ideas, iterating and messing around with a creative process. For us who are more into this "fast-paced" creative part of making art (as opposed to mastering detail-oriented picture-making techniques), polishing and rendering can feel like a boring thing to spend long hours on. However, as we scroll down our feeds and see so many skillful "eye candy" artwork across the Internet, we can't help but wonder if THAT's what we should be working on instead... But from what I've learned so far in life and in art, what I truly believe now is for each one to do their own thing, whatever it is. So I'd say don't worry about making your art in a way to please what you think other people might like better - do the art that pleases you and show it, then the people who share similar interests will come to you. And there definitely is plenty of artistic value (aesthetic and even technical) in sketching and concept, so if that's what we like the most, let's go for it - let's get awesome at it and let people know that's what we're really interested in. Of course, this doesn't mean we get lazy or neglectful. There's knowledge and technique to good sketching and concept, so I definitely encourage everyone (myself included) to study and learn as much as possible, even - and, sometimes, especially - things that are out of our comfort zone. I've had a share of studies on human anatomy, realistic lighting, painting, textures... and, even though these things might not show a lot in my cartoons, I feel like they definitely create a grounding support for my process and for my art to express what I want in the way I want. Nowadays, I tend to face these as two separate activities: studying to level up whatever skills I feel I need to work on at the moment, regardless my personal creative preferences; and creating artwork to convey my own ideas in the style, medium and process that I prefer, regardless the skills or techniques involved. Hopefully this makes sense! :) And here's a quick list of some awesome artists off the top of my mind whose work is more focused on either line art, sketching and/or concept (and, in the case of some cartoonists, is also far from "well-polished") - maybe it can help inspire you: . Nico Marlet . Alex Woo . Bill Schwab . Charles Schulz . Sergio Aragones . Bob Mankoff . Shane Glines . Stephen Silver . Mike Mattesi . Diego Lucia . Taylor Krahenbul . Roz Chast . Natalie Nourigat . Andy Estrada . Laerte . Bill Watterson (and sure there are many others I didn't remember to include. And, by the way, this list is in a completely random order - they're not listed by my personal preference or by the "quality" of their art or anything, I just spilled them out erratically as I remembered). Hope this helps! Let me know if you have questions or other thoughts about this. Best of luck in your art journey! o/

This may help you: Think of an infinite gridded plane, all vertical lines converge to the same VP no matter how large the plane is right? Infact no matter how big the plane is each square on that grid talks about each box that can be extruded from it where each individual box face the same direction and are aligned with this grid. (see first attached pic) Now imagine this infinite gridded plane turning in space, this would mean each box on that grid turns as well right? but then this means from a 1 point perspective where the second VP is off at infinity is now somewhere on the horizon line which would mean the distance between the VP has changed right? This is the keypoint though: Each box now on that grid share the same distance of VP. (see second pic) So essentially here are the keypoints: 1) If the boxes face the same direction they share the same VP and therefore share the same VP length. 2) If the boxes arent facing the same direction they wont share the same VP length. 3) This means VP is kind of fixed in space before drawing the box, where each individual angle of the box has their own unique set of VP somewhere on the horizon line. When it comes to focal length it basically means the distance between these infinite number of fixed VP change.

I’m pretty sure the distance between vanishing points should always stay the same. There’s a gif on Draw a Box that explains this https://drawabox.com/lesson/1/17/rotation (it’s a rotating box, where you can see the vanishing points moving with the box). I think the distance needs to remain the same or else it would be like using different camera lenses. For example, if you take a picture using a wider lens (the objects look more distorted), take a picture using a long lens and try to put them together, it’s very obvious there not part of the same picture (moderndayjames explains lenses briefly in one of his videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XF5YuAK63I , about 4 minutes into the video). I tried to illustrate this using your example number 2, but more extreme. In my example, the green boxes look like they could be in the same scene and the blue boxes look like they could be in a different scene together. But together, the green and blue boxes have very different levels of distortions (because the vanishing points are not the same distance apart) so they don’t work together and make things look weird. Basically the lens stays the same, so the distance between the vanishing points stay the same. Hope this will be of some help! (ps I’m not sure if this is the best way to explain it, or if my explanation is 100% correct, but I’ve heard a lot of people who have much more experience talk about how the distance between vanishing points stays the same in a scene)

The simple answer is none of them is correct. But, here's the thing that get people confused, even though it's not correct, but you can still use the 'different vanishing points' technique in some limited cases. I guess a lot of people get confused with vanishing points. Vanishing points exist first, thus they affect the objects in the scene, but it's not the other way around. The position of the vanishing points cannot change just because the objects in the scene move or rotate. Even though there's no object in the scene, vanishing points will still exist. You see, the reason vanishing points themselves exist in the first place is because there's a camera shooting the scene, if there's no camera then there's no vanishing points. Thus the only thing that can change the position of vanishing points are when you move or rotate the camera (changing the camera position or angle), while the 'distance' between vanishing points can change when camera lens' focal length also change (you may have heard the term 50mm or 200mm in camera lens, that's the focal length). So in reality, there cannot be two different sets of vanishing points in one scene, leave alone different 'distance' between the vanishing points. There can only be one set of vanishing points and one distance in each scene, no matter how many objects you have in that scene. As many have pointed out below, the confusion starts when we can actually try to change the position of vanishing points, while maintaining the same 'distance', to portray objects rotation relative to the camera. There are some cases where you can successfully and correctly do that, but in some other cases it doesn't work. I've attached some 3D reference I made in Blender to show that, in that particular scene and camera angle, when the object rotation is counter clockwise, it does work, but when the rotation is clockwise, it just doesn't work.

'The Janitor'; an old entrepreneur who found out too much about his business partners.  Used to work in the industry of human organs being sold to top payers, found out that it is used as a way to keep people in debt by buying their organs off them and having them buy low-quality tech in order to replace those organs only for them to inevitably fail and have to be replaced with the newest latest tech. He now seeks vengeance and to right the wrongs of the top dogs by stealing their riches and gathering info on their crimes. His cleaning machine transforms into a weapon of mass suds-truction!