This thread reminds me of the Whistler v Ruskin case. There is a common misapprehension that a picture that takes 20 hours is intrinsically "better" in some way than one that takes 2 hours. 'Tain't so. I can see exactly why the critic referred to preferred the second picture. It may use only simple elements that could be put together quickly, but in terms of structure it's rather good, whereas the first picture needs better composition, despite the obvious effort that went into the model-making.