I really shouldn't have replied, but i just enjoy arguing.
1. There's a certain sense of obligation for an artist to listen to someone who critisizes them, however you have not given a legitimate critique. The intention has clearly been more to simply demean and insult the artist than to direct and inform him, as clearly implied by your choice of words. Merely voicing displeasure provokatively is not a critque.
2. Isn't it strange that you are trying to enforce standards for the artists character concept in a board not at all related to character concepts? Why bring such offsubject standards to this board, when these kinds of standards would make much more sense in a place like /lit/?
3. Your standards just don't seem very reasonable. It seems to infringe too much on the artists liberty to create what he wants for the value gained. Gimmicky characters are not so bad that they should be banned, or really brought down in this way. However, if it really was so bad, I would probably agree with what you are doing.
4. >if you have to make nudity a selling point in your character, then it's a boring character.
Who even says this, when and how did it become law? Explain yourself, what makes this true, and do you really stand by this statement?
5. >Don't spout semantics
legit your argument against me is that what you're critiqueing isn't actually "art" so it doesn't count as a critique. This is semantics. Even if you were right, which you aren't, I could just say that you are critiqueing a character concept which is something that has more to do with writing, and so it belongs on /lit/, meaning you'd still be arguing in the wrong board.
/i/ is obviously not the right place to do these kinds of critiques, /ic/ already has the culture and purpose in place for it to be far more appropriate there, and therefore not appropriate here.
6. If you're going to be provokative, at least be witty and fun about it. This is just being unpleasant.