[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Search:


View post   

>> No.6753114 [View]
File: 228 KB, 1200x881, 1642940556302.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6753114

The real answer, go study at st petersburg art academy
The Russians use a hybrid structure and academic approach and you won't find anyone outside of russia teaching it in full

>> No.6572996 [View]
File: 228 KB, 1200x881, 1642940556302.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6572996

>>6570907
I know who your friend is and his name starts with an O, and he is stubborn and fails to understand context
Walk into an animation studio and tell them gesture isn't a real thing
Tell a comic artist gesture isn't a real thing
Hell tell a splash illustrator gesture isn't a real thing
Yeah when copying casts and doing academic drawing gesture isn't a "thing", but for everyone not fucking spending 3 days on a single figure yeah it is an effective means of studying the figure
And yes I think every artist should learn how to draw using measurement because it helps train accuracy. I personally do a lot of enveloping exercises
But to pretend that is the be all end all is just silly, in the same regard that pretending gesture is the be all and all
There exists a need for both concepts
Understand that there is a pretty big difference between academic art, where your entire goal is to copy EXACTLY what you see using measurement and everything else
Like an animator, for example, will never sit in front of a model and bust out a measuring stick and a plumb.
One's method of study should be directly charted based on what their goals are, and for the overwhelming majority of artists that want to draw compelling figures should include gesture drawing as a study
Just because no mention of gesture exists before a certain date doesn't mean gesture is some made up concept, quite a lot of things didn't "exist" in art before certain times and that does not invalidate them conceptually
Wanna say that atmospheric perspective isn't a thing because Caravaggio didn't know what Raleigh scattering was?
Hell almost every descriptor of light we use in art now is modern because of light science
But does that mean that artists before didn't have a natural understanding from their own observation (limited, though that is another topic).
Also, stop regurgitating other people's arguments and learn to think for yourself
Do you actually believe gesture is bullshit or do you just believe O

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]