Do you mean that the representation of highlights in the hair are different from highlights on the face? I can see that, and wonder if one style or the other might work better overall?Again, excellent work. For me the hair seems to have been done in a much looser style than the face and draws attention. But I like it.
First, one of my replies disappeared. Now half the thread seems to be missing.As for the cartoon like character, and the other critiques, they are all fine. Just please remember what it means to be the artist. Agent has been doing his renderings for a long, long time. He has the artistic license to represent his protraits and other work however he likes. The dark lines around the face for instance are an artist's expression, and one which has a precedent. Look at Georges Henri Rouault and you'll see what I mean. http://mattstone.blogs.com/photos/sacred_images/apostles-georges-henri-rouault-fauvism.html
I once had a teacher who critiqued life drawings that were done by eager students but which took too many liberties (ad lib here) "you must learn the basics, the standards, you must draw what you see, before you have the liberty of self expression." One might want to paint or draw a scene using a fauvist technique, but it is imperative to learn how to draw the same without imposing a particular "style."
Some may argue this point, and I agree, there are some prodigies who can pick up on the things they see, interpret, and render their expression in a beautiful way before most of us would know what we are looking at. I'm not just talking of portriature or of realism. But you can look at the work of some who have not spent time to study, practice, (a constant process) and learn, and know they're poor copies.
Agent's work is his own style and I respect and admire that.
Agent, nothing strange, one thread was divided into three.First, one of my replies disappeared. Now half the thread seems to be missing.