>>1706380Not to be a dick, but most of these aren't really "minimalist" art. This one is pretty decent
>>1706643. The rest just seem like half-ass vectors with no face. I think it became more popular about a year ago when the person with the watermark here
>>1708226 started doing these vectors with no face and less detail.
Here are some that I think that are consider good, because it use a technique where it makes your mind complete the images.
>>1712715>>1689949It's fine if you like this type of style, but it would be nice if there was more OC with more creativity than "vectoring with no face and less detail". Also picture related is pretty good too.
TL;DR version: Make it with more gaps in between to allow the viewer to use their mind to fill in the gaps.
Its suppose to be simple, but effective. Less is more.
