One Illustrator I like is Ilovedust because of their unique style, bold color, and how their work is founded is traditional artistic principles. Essential to stand out in the Illustration world, style means having one's own repeated symbols and imagery like a calling card, having a unique handling of tools, and a unique color palette. Ilovedust executes all these things with great proficiency and completion. For example; the repeated imagery of bicycles, the synthetic color palette, and consistent line quality and lighting carry the identity of the illustrator through each piece. As for the technical execution, Ilovedust has strong, complex compositions with visual pathways of color and value leading the viewer's eye through each picture. Perspective and point of view are also utilized. The images aren't always from a conventional POV, but sometimes from definitively high or low positions, and the architecture is consistently founded on accurate perspective. Linework also is used to tie the picture together. Although so subtile that they just define edges for the most part, line connects everything in the picture to the edges of the format like a finely woven fabric. Line and shape variety is also works to differentiate objects in space, such as the difference between geometric and organic shapes, and line thickness that brings objects to the foreground.
One Illustrator I found that I dislike is Ginger Nielson. To me the art looks passive, boring, and poorly executed. The drawings look to soft and sloppy; children's illustration, just as with any other form, should be exciting and thoughtful. Another thing that bothers me is that it is very obviously drawn on a tablet; good art should be like a magic trick and make the viewer wonder how it was done. There is no consideration of visual pathways; or if there is it feels awkward and static. Line quality is inconsistent and weak; I like strong clean lines and these look sketchy and lacking in energy. I wish the thickness of the lines corresponded with the objects in space, but it looks random, further flattening the pictures. Everything looks as though it wasn't done from observation but a from a vague memory. For most of the pictures I can't tell if the drawing is intended to be flat like or a cartoon, or if space is attempted. Although there is some perspective, the background is brought forward by loud patterns or textures, flattening the picture. There are moments of pictures I enjoy, but I keep wishing they were finished more.