/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>1502101
>>1502097
>>1502128

According to the sticky the fundamentals are: Basic Shapes; Anatomy & construction; Light & Value; Perspective; Colour; Composition. And accordingly prescribes certain methodologies of each via a particular Artist.

It doesn't matter if you can barely draw a stick figure - we've got a book to fix that.
~From the sticky.

Ignoring the self contradictory parts, we'll notice a general declaration of /ic/'s procedure to drawing, utilizing those so called fundamentals: establish a perspective, produce a gestural skeleton, box in the forms, and flesh it out. That's basically it, with each part adhering to a particular Artist's system of rote. It's implied that what is shown is the model for improving. And then it's preached on the board that anyone who doesn't follow suit must have something fundamentally wrong with them for not adhering to the fundamentals.

How, for example was some one like Michelangelo able to produce such a drawing as posted, when he didn't utilize any of the procedures or fundamentals as championed by the sticky? According to any d/ic/k who says a drawing sucks because the person didn't get their fundamentals down, it should then follow that Michelangelo's drawing sucks. He didn't Loomis, he didn't Vilppu, he didn't Hampton, ergo his work sucks

Do you people even hear yourselves sometimes?