/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3138680
I am surprised it wasn't first post desu.

>>3136061
Will do. Just need to learn me some korean.

Also forgot to name fag. FUCK.

>>3132681

/ic/-collab redline when?

>>3129921
It works though your ability would probably be dependant on how much time you've spent deconstructing everyday objects into basic forms.

Trick is to remember the drawing as a construction/gesture. Thats your first layer. After that you learn it's texture and how it expresses value.

Like sorta this guy: https://www.instagram.com/uyeno_art/

Some artists like Peter Han, and moderndayjames report to be able to *see* construction in everyday life.

You'd probably have to train your visual memory a shit ton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URvOubOfosw

Overall though I suggest you try actually studying first as that has more evidence to take you further

>>3128987
>>3129142
>>3129158
>>3129175
>>3129307


How do you normally study? Just taking some notes to see if there is specific good or bad behaviour when studying.

>>3128057
>should I stick in
*stick to

>>3127155
Help me what style should I stick in. I am autistic. Should I stick to a style?

>>3128019
I get what you mean, but you start to motif in what poses/compositions you are making (not necessarily bad).

Also there is that added annoyance of people underestimating your technical skill because your presentation of it is often rather... lackluster? Idk the word. But then you try imitating a strong style, your work looks "better". The thing is that actual intuitive style (as opposed to style copied from actual artists) tends to have shit that people tend to see as unappealing unless you consciously refine it.

>>3128022
When I younger - for some reason - I figured that if I just drew a shit ton of faces (whilst making small changed) I'd eventually make better looking faces. As I'd draw and draw eventually I'd sometimes start staring at the forms of my teacher's head autistically as they'd talk. I'd start noticing small details of the head and noticed key landmarks. While the faces did improve, the Gestalt was overall lacking. Certain notes I'd see in reality and notice in drawing tutorials started appearing in my heads, and I was eventually able to easily draw heads without giving much thought. The only problem is that these heads were pretty off, but I didn't quite notice due to my even lower aesthetic perception at the time. Eventually I grew out of it, so when I started drawing heads again, I started noticing how off those looked. Now, normies didn't quite notice at least, but holy shit never again.

Wish I could tell my past self to just copy from other better artist and stick to studies. Having something in particular you want to draw well, and studying that with purpose is what gives real results. I haven't really adopted this approach yet, so I might do like a progress post or something.

>>3128012
I've had the same experience with introducing new information by thinking about things habitually in ways I never though of. However this lack of conscious information gathering is akin to evolution vs selective breeding. One is much faster (comparatively), and you are more likely to get what you want.

>>3128001
No just drawing won't make you improve. Visualization is from memory. Your drawings are a product of your knowledge. If you do not bring new information in, you will not improve.

Learned this the hard way.

>>3127482
>(that's not gunna make it for you crossies)

delet this

muh sekret club

>>3124560
Gi doesn't draw over 6 hours a day AFAIK

http://www.kimjunggi.net/biographie/itw-1-comic-king/?lang=fr

> I work usually 5~6 hours a day. I don’t stay up all night working since I’ve got married— maybe two or three times a month.

>>3123733
Sigh - typing. But even with how close the two are in process, it is pretty obvious that Gi has a higher capacity. Allegedly, in a lot of his pieces he has a rough idea of the scene. In larger murals, he says it is about 70%.

I have to say this point is a lot of speculation even for me though.

Damn, I hope I am not typing too aggressive though.

>>3123679

Sinix makes some nice shapes when he doesn't use much construction lines as he is thinking more about the shape language of the drawing rather than the structure

On the other hand however, a 6 year old draws "like Gi". It is than construction or not construction. It is more beyond just not using construction/seeing the construction

It is about confidence, rhythm, composition, and the general complexity of execution. I see many artists that draw "like Gi" but at the same time they don't really work at his level.

Now lets take a look at sinix:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymp3748rXEE

You see in his drawing process that he tends to start with a basic shape idea and extrapolate from there. This is mostly intuitive, and much less conscious visualization is being used here. I used to draw like this at one point, and still sometimes fall into the habit of it. Pay attention to that woman with the short hair ~6:15 mins in. You see he draws the hair and then cleans it up later. Same with the ears. Even if we assume that he is consciously visualizing the shapes of these figures, you still see a relatively high error rate with his lines. This is especially apparent on the next more realistic woman.

Now, there is a few people that are pretty Gi level, and has a similar process. For example peter han:

https://www.instagram.com/peterhanstyle/?hl=en

His work is a lot more obvious that he is visualizing much more of it (the perspective is a it fucky at some places like we see here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzRs3hTUvwE

Honestly I am not mad lmao, before anyone thinks that.

>>3123570
This somewhat similar something some faggots told me once. "Oh there are plenty of masters that draw like Gi - they just choose not to". Who are these masters?

Now, I don't expect you to answer this, but it would be nice for you to point to people that are actually on Gi's level.

>>3123549

There's no real way of knowing. We don't even really know when Gi was able to draw the way he does now. Even if we did know, just him isn't too reliable of sample size as he is a pretty big outlier already.

>>3117463
Another thing to post real quick is this thread chain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqOjCx4PG0&lc=z12dhz2hdobafv2f223dtxkh5sfnenjfy.1501435270743084

This "Uyeno" talks about his own interpretation on the methodology needed to draw like Gi. He talks about how information is 'memorized'. I am not quite sure his process, but here is his instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/uyeno_art/

Proko's famous imagination stream also plays with similar memory based exercises though I don't think it is specifically for drawing what you visualize. There is a difference in use of short term and long term visual memory especially when it comes to drawing like this. Long term generally deals with visual library - which Proko seems to be more focused on. This is just developed by careful observation and repetition.

>>3116280
I've beed researching into this shit. Trying to figure out a good way to really draw from what you actually visualize. My current model involves teaching yourself to visualized more nuanced images so they stay in your min stronger.

Been experimenting with gesture and fining ways to describe figures in ways that are visually redundant. So far, it has been going ok. Methods of exercise involve simplifying figures from observation into a gesture and then redrawing that gesture from memory. This requires some level of visualization or at least the ability to know which visual information goes where.

If you can wire your workflow in such a way in which you can reference these gestures as you draw, it should become much easier.

Only one slight miscalculation is proportion. That tends to mess up with my current process. Looking for a remedy for that, but it could just be forcing good proportions until it seeps into your subconscious.

Generally, visualizations become much clearer when you actually study how something looks an internalize it. Rather than using perspective lines, I had a go at studying the cube from different angles. This has improved my ability to see the cube "clearer" than before.

You mention how the image fizzles out when you try putting it into paper. This is because your short term visual memory skills lack, and your idea of what the object is isn't as in depth as you think it is. You think it is vivid because your visualizations are detailed enough to match your schema of how the object should look like.

Overall though, this is a really inefficient method of producing work. Gi can do it, but it is probably a side effect of inadvertently training these skills for decades as well as years of drawing. Might post some more later/create a thread if people are interested

WOW this post is probably really long and autistic huh.