/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Post an example of you being decent with forms.

>>1460069

instead of me uploading a 30 second scribble of something that looks like a wooden manikin, just tell me what the basic procedure is with anatomy, do I learn every muscle or just specific ones or?..

>>1460067

This is pretty much an industrial designer's approach to teaching drawing, the goal being able to draw what you imagine, not just what you can copy. By tackling these in order loosely, you learn various concepts with greater clarity, since you'll appreciate how each fundamental builds on top of the other. It is easier to isolate your weaknesses and gaps in technical knowledge. You also end up learning much faster this way.

But do not confuse understanding with ability. While you learn these in order, you practice them in tandem.

>>1460079
That's all you have? 30-second scribbles? I meant actual work, still lifes or some some such that would show a decent understanding of forms.

It was meant to call you out, since it's unlikely that you'd ask such meaningless questions if you spent the amount of time drawing required to understand and describe forms.

When people ask questions like this, it's usually because they're trying to get in their own way of actually working hard and drawing.

>>1460079

No, you should post what you have. Beginners tend to overestimate their ability in drawing primitives.

All the anatomical knowledge in the world won't mean anything if you cannot draw convincing forms in space. That's pretty much the point the pic is making, the second figure is more convincing than the first because it has believable gesture/posture and form.

I don't mean to invade this thread but it's relevant to op's question i think. I'd just like to know what to do to make this drawing better and how i can shade it to make it look more realistic because i usually get stuck with it.
i posted it here >>1460114

I've decided to go back to fundamentals after reading this and the thread that OP's pic came from.

I just don't understand how all this setup using a straightedge is supposed to help me draw more-believable pictures. It's interesting, sort of like putting a puzzle together, but it seems different from drawing something from life, or studying something to learn how to draw it by repetition.

I'm not complaining after the first exercise; I've done all the way up to depth, but they are so time-consuming. Why does it have to be done this way?

>>1460141
fuck off

>>1460147
u r 1 cheeky kunt m8

>>1460141
"Why does it have to be done this way?"
because that's how your brain sees things and knows that they are 3d, especially with 2 eyes
fuck it up and your brain will immediately signal something's wrong

>>1460161
I guess so. I never really appreciated how much work goes into making something in perspective. All of the other stuff comes only after an hour of painstaking measuring...

>>1460141
>Why does it have to be done this way?
Because everything that you can perceive exists in perspective. It's obvious when looking at buildings lining a street, but it exists for organic objects as well.

Once you've mastered perspective, and drawing basic forms in perspective, you can literally draw anything. It's just a matter of simplifying complex forms into basic ones, and knowing the proportions of these basic forms.

>>1460120

First of all, you're thinking about it the wrong way. It's not about making a good drawing, a good end result. It's about learning.
You don't need x y and z to make this drawing look better at the end, you need the process of this drawing (and many, many more to follow) to learn x y and z.

Don't dwell on one drawing as being important. Don't draw something, THEN try to make it good/better. Decide what you're trying to learn when you first sit down to draw, and use the process of drawing to learn it. Then do it again (and again) until you think you've got your head around it as best as you can for now, and use the end result to identify what your new weakest spot is and try to get THAT up to speed in your next session.

For now, I'd say go back to focusing on basic forms. Get a handle on perspective, lighting planes and value to give them depth. When that's under your belt, you can use those solid forms to construct more complex subjects, and eventually build to more complex anatomy.
Study from solid, live objects as much as you can, so you can control and experiment with the lighting and perspective - use simple objects around you like mugs and tissue boxes, or even buy some styrofoam shapes from a hobby store. Learn the 'anatomy' of light and shadow - shadow planes, cast shadows, reflected light, etc.

I'm not really good for book recommendations or anything since I haphazardly bounded to and fro when I was first learning, but a little basic theory can go a really long way so I'll just mention Loomis' 'Figure Drawing For All It's Worth', and Gurney's 'Color and Light'. A lot of the material in the latter will be far too advanced at your stage (color is pretty much useless until you have a good understanding of value), if I had a more basic rec I'd give it (and if any other anons can chime in on that, I invite them), but it's still a great read. Just try not to get sidetracked or overwhelmed - learn to prioritise.

>>1460168

Just remember, you won't need to do this forever. When you understand how it all works, you'll eventually be able to do it in your head, it'll become second nature. Suffer the grind now, reap the benefits down the road.
You have to learn what numbers are before you can leap into algebra.

OP's picture captures beautifully everything that is WRONG with /ic/ teaching drawing. Lots of terms are thrown around like buzzwords, but without any exposition as to how they're linked together. Even with the picture's list, the so called 'logical order' is faulty. They're just buzzwords you expect to hear in a drawing class clumped together in way you expect more talented people to approve.

It's bizarre sometimes, because here on /ic/ those who have a knack for making competent drawings usually have a poor understanding as to what they're actually doing. They're so conditioned to moving a certain way they have become incapable of rendering an understanding as to what it is they're actually doing, when they're actually doing it. There is no reflexivity, just a bunch of savants going through the motions.

Just a bunch of talented parrots, squawking things they don't fully understand, fluffing their feathers as if the pretty display of talent automatically elevates them to the branch of telling others what to do. And what do they do when they get to the top?

They squawk like all the other parrots.

>>1460273
>I don't understand these terms, they must be buzzwords
>I don't understand these terms, other people must not understand them as well

Some hardcore projection there, faggot. Go read a book, no one on /ic/ is going to waste their time explaining concepts laid out in their introductory drawing classes.

>>1460273
>but without any exposition as to how they're linked together
Then people can ask for an elaboration.

>the so called 'logical order' is faulty
Case in point; could you elaborate on that?

>>1460276
>can't into the truth
>can't face reality

Most in /ic/'s star talent pool don't know what they're talking about, and it burns you to be called out on it. You don't know what you talking about. Getting you to expand on any term you learned in your drawing class will show, I guarantee it, that you only have a cheap understanding. You're a sham, a phoney, a snake oil dealer.

>>1460280
>/ic/'s star talent pool
Wow, I wasn't aware of such thing. Who are these people? Any examples of pictures they've done next to crits they've given? inb4 the only example you can give is Teal.

>>1460280
>>1460273

...On a completely unrelated note, I'm highly tickled by your way of speaking, and would love to subscribe to your newsletter.

>>1460280
Doctor, how did you know that i don't know what i know?

>>1460289
Because he's projecting, pure and simple. It's inconceivable that someone out there (let alone a great number of people) know and understand something that he does not.

Typical narcissistic behavior.

>>1460279
How exactly is 'line as a technique' being used here? If the implication is about the ability to lay a line precisely as intended then we're using 'technique' to signify a skill about hand-eye-coordination. But that displaces 'form', 'perspective', and 'rendering/value'. And if we're using 'line as technique' to signify a competence with utilizing it as a design element, then we're talking about design altogether. And if that is true, it pulls 'composition' away from being something of 'invention'. It dispels the logical ordering up to this point.

Which is confusing at this point because: 1. Wouldn't either way we're talking about how line, as taught here, be really about 'invention' at the excuse of 'composition'? 2. If 'composition' is 'invention', and so much of it is orchestrated from the parts prior in the list, then why is 'exaggeration' there to begin with? (if it's there to imply about indulgence with utilizing any of the parts of the list to 'invent' a style, then we're not talking about 'exaggeration', we're talking about 'composition'.)

Take any word on that list and you're bound to run into a contradiction when handling them all the way through. You have to constantly redefine them to stay on topic, or to maintain any 'order' or to keep any connectivity. They have meaning that is useful to an artist, but here they are just slopped together in a familiar sounding way.

So either there is something missing that binds them into a working system that should be deliberately made clear. Or we have the showing of a very talented person who took the time and diligence with rote learning about drawing and has managed to regurgitate the whole thing in a familiar way, all without really understanding what it is she is doing.

OP is on to something with: cylinder by itself does not = humerus/clavicle/scapula. And I'm adding the parrots that frequent here wouldn't know that.

>>1460289
needs loomis

>>1460311
probably needs vanderpoel more

>>1460307

Your inability to understand how these concepts tie together is your own shortcoming. This info pic isn't about going into detail on all those elements, it simply prescribes a logical order to tackle the subjects. This is a syllabus, not a textbook. Go read on your own time.

Everything listed in technique are basic concepts and ability-related qualities that are gained through training. There is no deeper room for discussion or debate about them, they simply need to be practiced through repetition.

Everything in life drawing are observation based, and requires you to memorize.

Everything in invention are elements which requires the artist to make conscientious deviations from what he can see/observe. It requires more mental energy.

If this doesn't make sense to you, just stop.

>>1460307
>OP is on to something with: cylinder by itself does not = humerus/clavicle/scapula.

You're grossly missing the point. Construction isn't just a method of drawing, it's a method of seeing. If the OP had a truly good grasp of form, he could do figure drawings and photo studies and envision the form of the humerus, scapula, and clavicle in his head. Without the ability to process information this way, you'll always be tied down to copying photos.

>>1460307
>How exactly is 'line as a technique' being used here?
For example: line weight. A technique clearly demonstrated in the OP pic where lines vary to indicate depth or directionality of light, or to indicate overlapping of forms. You're not aware of this because you haven't taken the time to look into these things in depth, so don't blame the image.

>But that displaces 'form', 'perspective', and 'rendering/value'
No it doesn't.

>it pulls 'composition' away from being something of 'invention'
No it doesn't.

>Wouldn't either way we're talking about how line, as taught here, be really about 'invention' at the excuse of 'composition'?
I'll assume you meant 'expense', but no, it does not.

I'm not going to bother running through the rest of your post because you're clearly full of shit.

>>1460342
>Your inability to understand how these concepts tie together is your own shortcoming. This info pic isn't about going into detail on all those elements, it simply prescribes a logical order to tackle the subjects.

Your inability to understand how that is simply not true is why you'll always suck at drawing. Deal with it.

>>1460342
>ability-related qualities
You can't even make-up sensible terms!
Stop, you're only showing how pretentious you really are.

>>1460369
>suck at drawing

But... according to you, it's the talented people who fail to understand this stuff.

WHOA WHOA WHOA

OP again:

I figured out what I was doing wrong and that was being a cocky bastard that thought he understood forms.

cylinder by itself = nothing if you don't know what to do with it.

I come back on here and people are trying to murder each other.

should I just delete the thread or?..

>>1460342
>Everything in life drawing are observation based, and requires you to memorize.

If that were true, then anything you say about invention is either a lie, or contradictory. Face it you don't really understand what you're saying.

>>1460373

Please do. End this shitfest.

It's in your hands.

>>1460385

The curtains shall be closed.