>>3788197Other difference in styles are(or should be):
muddy colours represent of the body of bill's project where yours is kinda clean in fact I would suggest you to with creamy skin texture like this
>>3787467 roastie's tit's and desaturate the purples to make it less muddy. Also clear creamy skin texture like these also true to the traditional classical painting(see: Bouguereau's work).
Bill's photography is heteronormative and monogamous where yours isn't(I have seen your photo of faggots in other thread). But you're still emphasising on male domination which is gay and boring. You should go more extreme and degenerate with your choice of bodies(but not with style, I will explain this later) like try roastie domination, 2 roasties and one man, use more faggots, dykes and trannies. You maximise the symbolic content of erotic entropy. You should absorb 4chan degeneracy if you're really going for this project.
Your photography is all about erotism where his is about emotional/sentimental stuff. but I would suggest you to be subtle in your erotism not be vulgar like this
>>3787105 photo. In nude photography there is a very thin line between pornography and art. The past painters knew this and they painted their subject gracefully without going vulgar. And how they did it? They did that with with nuance, subtle sensitivity and beauty. Be subtle in your edginess, degeneracy and your erotism. If I know one thing, it's that people like "nuance". People like not having to commit to anything, and if you give them something subtly they'll think both themselves and you a genius for giving them options. It gives people an opportunity to think about ideas, but without actually engaging with them.
