something i think about a lot is the digital artist folk wisdom that using a line stabilizer will make you a worse artist.
like. it's definitely something i see a LOT. while i won't always recommend using a stabilizer, sometimes, it's undoubtedly the right tool for the job. i'll recommend using a line stabilizer for someone who knows what their lines are supposed to be, but just can't physically draw them, and as if they had prepared the action, someone will come in and say "don't use a line stabilizer, it's, for whatever reason, Wrong".
"it makes your lines bad, they're just a little too clean, they curve a little too programmatically, they come off as sterile", etc. etc. etc. but there's little to no evidence actually backing this up - sure, you can spot line art that is bad because it is stabilized when it should not have been from a mile away. but its because the line being drawn is a bad line - when a good line is drawn with a stabilizer, you don't notice, because it's a good line.
maybe you'll fawn over it if its an especially good line, but you aren't going to think, "this is because it was stabilized" yknow. its one of those invisible tools where you can only really see the negative results more than the helpful ones, you know? a tool being used to produce bad results doesnt necessarily make it a bad tool if it is also capable of producing good results.
the line stabilizer does not make lines easier to work with, it makes your lines easier to draw, which is conceptually similar, but not the same thing. if you dont know what the line you're drawing is supposed to convey, you're going to draw a bad line whether it's stabilized or not tbh
