/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>sophie-chan

She's automatically immune to any criticism of her work on Youtube. You can't criticize shitty women artists without a hoard of white knights storming to her aid.

>>1551235
>Drawing hair comes with practice.
>There are no guidelines for it.

I beg to differ. I'm not even going to watch it, I'll save myself the frustration and reserve it for /pol/

>>1551235
>Mark Crilley

This is something that I've been meaning to ask someone, is he legit? I mean I've seen some of his tutorials and he just....draws the image?

No guides no roughs, he just draws it like a printer would.

I'm probably just being an idiot.

>>1551235
As a person who doesn't know jackshit about anime, I must ask: What's wrong with the tutorial? I watched it and it seemed ok to me.

The pic is the only anime thing I have

>>1551262
He knows how to draw (to an extent), he applies his understanding of it all to his work, but in truth he is just teaching ignorant teens how to draw with symbols instead of forms, values etc in mind.

>>1551258
is that you mikufag?
if so the stop making so many guidelines.
you'reo only supposed to make them to support your imagination i.e. when you have problems remembering stuff without them.
slowly start discarding them and learn how to use them intelligently.
right now you're walking on crutches even tough you'r legs are fine.

>>1551235
>sophiechan

Damn shes still alive? I thought I trolled the HELL out of her years ago.

>>1551264
Everything. Even the anime style that she drawing is outdated like Mark Crilley. She draws her lines like a 5th grader, dark and bold.

>>1551239
>She's automatically immune to any criticism of her work on Youtube.
wanna bet?

>>1551235
>drawing hair comes with practice, there are no guidlines for it.
This aint even Mark Crilley anymore. This is full on Dobson

>>1551433
yeah lol practice is dumb, need more stifling often not applicable rules.

>using distance units for placement of facial features

would it not be easier to just use fractions and ratios for proportions?

>>1551436
what

Her drawing skills are okay, it's just that she can't teach for shit.

>those comments
I can't take this any more guys!

Why is it that everyone who is bad at something has to be sycophants to people who are mediocre.

Why is it that people think this is a valuable resource!

Why?

>>1551474

Because people who are at a low level of skill and understanding are unable to differentiate between individuals with sufficiently superior skill levels and understanding.
They often really can't see the difference, because they lack the observational skills and knowledge to do so. All they see is someone who is better than themselves, so it is, to them, logically someone worthy of praise.
Sometimes people like that also try to elevate themselves by trying to associate themselves with the one perceived to have a skill level.

People with higher skill levels (higher than most, but still mediocre), but still low understanding. Very often misjudge their own actual skill level as well for the same reason. But they also receive validation of their perceived skill level, by comparing themselves to those with a lower skill level, often by teaching them.
Teaching gives a (false) sense of autority.

They tend to keep each other alive through positive feedback loops, false sense of community and reaffirmation of false information, ignoring or disclaiming any information that would break the illusion and counter everything they believe in (bliss through willful ignorance).

>>1551474
Why do you care? Grow up already, student.

What a stupid and stiff way to draw. You gotta feel the drawing, man. You gotta play with the lines.

I've said this before, but /ic/ is really catty. It reminds me of the past drama threads on /cgl/.
Why would you look up manga drawing tutorials on YouTube, anyway? I thought it was common knowledge that they're shit. It's like browsing Dragoart and being surprised when you find really awful drawings by a 10 year old.

>>1551478

this is the truth of it. pic unrelated

>>1551478
This is rage-inducing and also the reason why most everything is mediocre.

>>1551478
>skill level

That term is a bullshit term used by grown teenage boys to advocate a narrow naive orthodoxy. Stay angst.

>>1551595

You're letting personal experiences and bias distort your view on perfectly normal and understandable words used purely for efficient communication.
You know that angsty teenage boys didn't invent the term right?
Stay pretentious.

>>1551235
oh you mad because non believer can become famous while the loomis tard still struggling to be known and wonder why no one really like their super realistic drawing?

>>1551616
Buttblasted cantdrawforshitfag detected

>>1551616
>realism
>bad

>>1551617
this

>>1551595
Are you an idiot or something? Are you actually implying that skill does not exist? Because when there is skill, there are various different degrees thereof, which is commonly called "skill level". There's nothing angsty about that, you fucking moron.

>>1551599
You're articulating to obscure the point. You're using a term without any substantive heft and expecting its popular connotations to carry a point that isn't really there. We both know the use of the term "skill level" on 4chan isn't about skill or how well you can execute manual art technique to express an idea. Because if that were true, this thread would have never happen.

The term is about signifying a bandwagon taste. You do know we're all aware that when you say "skill level" you're trying to fit in with all the other pretentious full grown teenage boys about what constitutes a "skill level"? You using "skill level" to prescribe a narrow expectation and to alienate anything other. It's word meant make you feel like you're on the same wavelength with like-minded idiots, that you people are in the right. And all the while never really asking what exactly constitutes a level; or how, or why there must be this conception that skills are level based?

If you fucked a pencil, would that will improve your skill level? Or would you feel more at peace knowing it's a popular /ic/ exercise?

Loomis is good, but it has its faults.

Still though, starting to work cartoon/animu before understanding how humans work is a mistake. Sure, you may make it look like goofy/donald/kawaiiuguu, but you're not going to understand the process by which those abstractions came about and would be creatively void of producing your own caricatures and idioms.


One road is a MAJOR amount of work, and the other gives you a quick payoff without as much investment. Guess which road is usually the route to travel?

>>1551623
>realism
>always better

Yeah, 19th century art schools thought just like you. And look where that got them--out of touch with change, bankrupt and dead, survived only by a tiny sparse of ateliers that teach an uninteresting aesthetic.

Keep the dream alive!

>>1551628

Realism is better for the learning process though.

You can't do the fun stuff without knowing how to figure out things when you hit a roadblock. Classical training teaches you to resolve those issues better.

>>1551628
Because art schools that cater to rich kids by not teaching them anything and stroking their ego are so much better.

>>1551630
There is no real evidence to back that up, other than anecdotal

>>1551632
If it pays better, why knock it? If getting a degree in sloping paint earns a paycheck that would take you and your realism aesthetics a lifetime to achieve, why hate on it? What would be the victory?

>>1551634

Your opinion, no matter how many times you express it, is misdirected.

There are PLENTY of instances of people not being able to resolve problems in their illustrations and more appropriately animations without the proper fundamentals that stem from learning the things I specially stated earlier.

Your ego will prevent you from learning with that attitude. That's THE worst possible scenario.

>>1551280
So you don't actually know what you're complaining about and have to resort to insults to try and get your point across? What else is new on this board.

>>1551637
Like I said anecdotal. There are also plenty of examples of people inventing novel approaches. Your examples still don't prove a necessity.

Keep sucking that "fundamentals" cock though, that attitude will keep you in line with all the other cookie cutter artist. A scenario of learning art to fit a factory position is the ideal for your kind.

>>1551280
>the anime style that she drawing is outdated

Are you shitting me right now? Everyone needs to follow trends to be considered relevant?

Worst post I've read all day.

A lot of people here seem to insist that hair guidelines are mandatory; how would you guys go about doing them?

>>1551641

Is there anything in this post other than an insult?


You are putting yourself at a disadvantage by being difficult. Accept the notion that you will be better prepared for whatever illustration/animation you want to do by having these fundamentals or don't. Your career is the one that will suffer.

Remember, some people have been at your exact sentiment before at one point in time.

DON'T WASTE THE TIME YOU HAVE.

YOU ARE WRONG, AND IT WOULD SERVE YOU BETTER TO START ON THE LONGER ROAD TO SUCCESS.

>>1551651
Do you have actual proof to back up what youre saying?

The real insult here is the bullshit you're trying to pawn off.

Remember, some people don't need what you're selling, no matter how great you want to believe it is.

The only disadvantage I have is not being empathetic to your delusional way of thinking.

>>1551651
>>1551668

I think you both need to go outside for some air

>>1551258
This post made my giggle.
Million guide lines, even fucking 3d rectangle, yet that animu face doesn't have any relation to it, and is fucked up

>>1551671
I live in Syria

>>1551675

Sorry.

>>1551672
>3d rectangle
i mean cuboid, sorry im fucking stupid

>>1551675
Hey, look at this badass bus
http://youtu.be/x9Wjq3ogLTw?t=2m46s
go outside don't be a pussy

This new era of /ic/ is horrible, now I remember why I stop coming here. The constant putting down on people trying to help other people get into drawing is atrocious. People like her and Mark Crilley are like the Harry Potter books, it may be dumb down for the masses, but it's the first step into fantasy. As the strong artists grow become more inspired and seek out more knowledge, so I welcome all the sophie-chans and Mark Crilleys into the world, while they may make horrible content, they will eventually inspire someone to grow and make magnificent content. Most artist before discovering this place had an anime phase, let them go through it and when they want to become serious in learning perspective, form, and anatomy that's where we come in.

Seriously, you guys bad mouth artists harder than /cgl/ with that Dakota person.

>>1551702
There has been "Shit Artist threads" ever since I started browsing /ic/ 3 years ago.

Nothing has changed, it's the same shitstorms over and over again.

>>1551494

>Why do you care?

Not who you are replying to, but the point is that people are looking up to bad/mediocre artists and they learn their bad traits while believing they are getting better when in reality they are doing everything wrong. This is precisely why places like deviantart are so horrible because you have endless new artists copying mediocre "popular" artists creating this feedback loop of terrible works. I mean, people actually looked up to people like Snapesnogger and copied that "style", holy christ.

Its lowering the bar and encouraging flawed methods. As a result, we have been saturated with this endless sea of highschool-level crap. The most common behavior being this right here:
>>1551627 where people are just starting with copying.

I mean, these people don't give a shit about learning the foundations, they just want to copy a single style, dive right into photoshop and start polishing that turd. Long time back I had a conversation with a life drawing instructor who said they were just shocked at the amount of students in the last decade who are so resistant to learning the basics. Its only getting worse thanks to the hugbox-like nature of a lot of internet communities who say that criticism&critique is "trolling" or "haters".

>>1551727
>I mean, these people don't give a shit about learning the foundations, they just want to copy a single style, dive right into photoshop and start polishing that turd. Long time back I had a conversation with a life drawing instructor who said they were just shocked at the amount of students in the last decade who are so resistant to learning the basics. Its only getting worse thanks to the hugbox-like nature of a lot of internet communities who say that criticism&critique is "trolling" or "haters".

This is very sad.

That's actually not so bad, OP. It's a manga tutorial, and a slow one. A step by step very slow one. If you can't get the style down, you're missing some details and concepts if you have to go draw exactly step by step. But SERIOUSLEE.
>draw the mouth between the nose and the chin line
WAS THAT REALLY NECESSARY? Manga characters don't follow anatomically correct proportions or regular shading.

>>1551727
It's a phase, man. I used to copy Mark too. Mostly copy, but I learned some things about constructing bodies as well. I kept drawing and drawing and got better over time. Now I'm here in /ic/ shouting about Loomis and Vilppu. I was shit at drawing, Mark made me draw better and I kept progressing over time. Cheers.

>>1551280
>Outdated
Nigger do you even into anime?
Attack on Titan uses dem thick lines all the time.

>>1551706
this

>>1551628

If you knew about art history you wouldnt be singing this tune.
Abstraction is so 20th century. Get with the times. Duane Hanson, Chuck Close, Richard Estes etc are 21st century artists and search their work.

Welcome to 21st century, age of Superrealism motherfucker!!!!!!!!

Drawing from life is beneficial to the artist, why the hell is someone trying to argue otherwise.

>>1551823
Why not? Let's put that advice to through the wringer and find out if it's holds firm or it's shits out a mantra like "MUH FUNDAMENTALS."

If drawing from life is necessarily beneficial to any visual arts endeavor then it should be easy to explain how and why. There should a be plenty of objective evidence that doesn't depends on somebody's notoriety. Without pointing to the other artist can you really make it a universal requirement?

>>1551761
>If you knew about art history you wouldnt be singing this tune.

Oh, if you only knew the irony of what you're saying.

>>1551648
it's not that, it's just because the girl said "lol you can't learn how to draw hair, it comes from just practice and you just kinda get used to it!"

which is a technically legit method since we're seeing her put it to use and results in what she drew. but damn her sentence is just so annoying.

>>1551987
she said there are no guidelines not that you can't learn. jesus fucking hell /ic/ you ugly monsters, why pick on her. it's even true, that's the fucked up thing. hair is more or less an abstract blob which varies from person to person, you can't grid out the proportions in the same way she gridded out the face.

>she advocated practice, what a fucking idiot lol!

i'm convinced that there are people on /ic/ who contribute to the draw threads then there are entirely different monsters who can't and don't even draw that stomp around here because they like to talk shit.

>>1551235
You made me pause La Bouche for this. Fucking cunt.

As far as the video itself, it's just the same tired anime tutorial. I can understand why learning to draw like this is popular, because it is easy. I was in middle school once too, but that was fifteen years ago.

>>1551634
>If getting a degree in sloping paint earns a paycheck
But it doesn't.

>>1552068
tell that to all those abstract artist making 6 digits

>>1552069
>tell that to all those abstract artist making 6 digits
Which ones?

>>1552070
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290200/30million-haul-abstract-art-forgotten-painter-run-cottage-sold-300-000.html

>>1552070
Georg Baselitz
Damien Hirst
Anish Kapoor
Jasper Johns
Jeff Koons
etc

>>1552005
>she advocated practice, what a fucking idiot lol!

oh look, a strawman argument.
people here were irked because she said "Drawing hair comes with practice, there are no guidelines for it."

that implies that you can't learn how hair works and that it just magically comes to you with enough practice. practice itself is good and i would admit will help you get good at drawing hair but saying that there are no principles to be learned to draw hair is just the stupidest thing since dobson. however, at least she has something to back it up unlike dobson but she needs to learn more.

>you can't grid out the proportions in the same way she gridded out the face.
guidelines are only grids huh? well let me tell you one thing about hair, the principles of flow, origin and gravity. hair has those. flow follows a certain guidline which starts from a point of origin and for the most part follows gravity. you can't very well grid out cloth either so are you going to say there are no guidelines for cloth?

>>1552124
>blah blah blah i talk to much and i'm so buttman angry that i refuse to understand context.

>>1552125
said the pot to the kettle

who gives a fuck

>>1552151
I do give fucks, you want some? then ready your ass.

>>1552124

>call it a strawman
>literally next paragraph you quote her advocating practice.
>FUGGIN WIMMEN DORED ANIMU FEDORA SMUSH

C'mon, try better next time.

>>1551706
She's not a shit artist though and she's clearly making an effort. I'm not sure why so many people seem to fall into this mentality that you're either a star or a nobody with art.

Or why people are purposely misinterpreting "No guidelines for hair" as "No guidelines ever" in spite of the fact that she uses guidelines in the video.

Were things always like this?

>>1552163
yes, i quoted her advocating practice. and?

>>1551235
>This bitch needs some Loomis.

The first thing Loomis taught me was not so different from this: how to draw the head of a funny old guy from tracing two circles.

I'm just surprised by the death gripe on his pen: it may be painful for your hand if you're drawing a lot.

>>1551748
>Manga characters don't follow anatomically correct proportions or regular shading.

Why do people keep saying this? I have come to the conclusion that this must be Westerners saying this. In the eyes of a Westerner, reality looks one way so when they see characters from Japanese anime and manga they think "that doesn't apply to the same rules because otherwise it would like this instead."

This is the only reasoning I can come up with as to why people keep thinking that japanese manga character don't follow anatomy. It's like...how fucking wrong you are.

>>1551750
For a reason...there's a reason why do that. When you are drawing on paper it's different. It reeks of youthfulness as opposed to something a little more mature.

>>1551860
I think you are just being an asshole.

It's been explained countless times that drawing from gives you the foundation to be able to understand what you are drawing and the ability to exaggerate that which you are drawing. Example, if you are drawing someone punching another person in the face, how would you know how to convey if you don't try to draw that from life first.

If you draw what you think happens when someone is being punched in the face your drawing will be simple at best. If you draw it based on someone else's drawing then you will only be conveying what the previous artist conveyed without a solid understanding of it. If you were to draw it from life, you would have a better understanding of what's going on and then be able to convey that punch that is unique to you.

For an even better explanation check out that drawing tutorial with the shrimp someone did some time ago.

>>1552206

I think it's an issue of expectations. Most manga and anime exist somewhere in between cartoons and more "realistic" (i.e. referenced and often lifeless) western comics. So cartoon people may find anime too structured, while comics people think the anatomy is too stylized.

Personally, I think manga has the best of both (or three) worlds: it has the broad appeal of simplified cartoon designs, the life of animation, and the cinematic flexibility afforded by well-constructed designs and anatomy. This may also be why hentai is so much more popular than western rule34.

Shrimp

>>1552239
911 help! I'm being trolled!

>>1552267
Somebody mentioned a shrimp tutorial, I assume this is it, how many shrimp tutorials can there be, really

>>1552270
>tracing
>useful at all
>tracing
>a good enough idea to be put in a tutorial
>Not just drawing with a references
>using time that could be spent drawing to trace instead
>2011+2

>>1552273

He's not advocating to trace for the final picture but just to begin learning about a new subject.

If you don't know what a shrimp looks like, tracing it will force you to discover how it really is rather than how you think it is. From there you can draw from reference, and finally master shrimp drawings from imagination.

>>1552273

It's probably described as an easy method to improve. It never worked for me though.

>>1552273
careful with that edge, bro
http://pastebin.com/Z8B4hMDL

>>1552282

Take it with a grain of salt, my personal experience is that tracing helps me only AFTER drawing it from reference beforehand.

It's like my hand remembers what it drew first and is showing me my errors when I'm tracing the figure. It helped me to understand that I was drawing things without any volume, for example.

>>1552280
Even then you'd learn considerably more effectively by blocking in the structure of the form into polygons or guidelines (even on a layer over the reference) instead of just tracing outright.


If you practice by tracing, you'll learn to trace; if you practice by drawing, you'll learn to draw.

>>1552284
I'm not edgy, I'm right. It's okay people tend to get the two mixed up a lot, especially on this site.

>>1552386
Where's that image from? Seems like it's from a video, can't find anything with reverse image search.

>>1552386
i think its just one guy who calls everyone who's right edgy, unless this is a new internet troll tactic i'm too old to know about.

>>1552409

It's from Stan Prokopenko's youtube channel, he's currently doing a figure drawing series.
Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uEtdDvK6Xo&feature=share&list=PLtG4P3lq8RHGuMuprDarMz_Y9Fbw_d2ws

>>1552409

ProkoTV on Youtube. He's worth his salt.

>>1552428
>>1552431

Thanks. Seen his name thrown around here but never actually checked out his videos before.

>>1552410
It's an internet troll tactic you're too old to know about.

>>1552206
are you asian?

Elitism, elitism all around. Art is, in the end, about taste and not about perceived skill and will always be a matter of chance also.

>>1552236
>implying based Sparrow isn't the best around.

>>1552214
The only asshole here is the one who continues the tradition of repeating it like a universal factoid. You go around letting others put their dick (their method of drawing) in your ass without any question. And then, you further to think that makes you better at drawing.

Drawing from life isn't always necessary. The evidence is that there are subjects that have no relation to it, and therefore they don't need it. Drawing from life only fits a method of interpreting and has a limited application by that.

If you can't find real evidence to prove what your advocating, and instead repeat it as a rule of thumb, then it's safe to say you don't really understand it. You're just following along without any real knowledge as to why.

There is also the problem of defining it by something that it's not. You're basically saying that ALL drawings MUST are drawings from life, and that ALL kinds of drawings are displacements from that via exaggeration. This is stupid. And it completes disregards drawings of abstract ideas.

This is not real evidence. It's you re-defining the concept of what drawing is to make the rule of drawing from life necessary. You're only making drawing from life useful to you. Retarding yourself in the process.

The question is what makes it universally necessary for any kind of drawing. What makes it to where you universally CAN'T draw without it

>>1552206
It's simply this:

How you understand something changes the way you see it.


Any change to your understanding of something changes what you see. So naturally, any ignorance or biases (consciously or unconsciously) necessarily blinds you from seeing it another way.

The westerner's prescription of drawing changes how a westerner sees manga. And following that a D/ic/k's prescription of drawing necessarily changes how weeaboo shit is seen.

Here is a joke to illustrate this phenomenon:

At sunset in front of a lecture hall a student says to Wittgenstein, "What a bunch of morons people must have been thinking the sun revolves around the earth. You can just see that's not true!" To which Wittgenstein replied, "Perhaps, but I wonder what it would look like if that were true."

>>1551648

No offense intended, but this sort of question betrays a misunderstanding of guidelines in construction and design.

No guideline of any kind is "mandatory" when drawing. You use it where you need good alignment, clarification when drawing from different perspectives, etc. If you find you can place the hair quite consistently when drawing the character from multiple viewpoints, then a guideline may not be necessary for you when drawing.

However, for character design, you absolutely should clarify as many aspects as possible, including the hairline, which vary from person to person. Characters are not plastic models. They will find themselves in different situations and environments. What if your character is running, or caught in a strong breeze? What if she is hanging upside down? What if her hair gets wet? If you don't have a clear idea of the hairline, then you're likely to get inconsistencies.

>>1552124
yes they are only grids when she's talking about her literal guidelines in her guideline based tutorial.

she's not saying 'there is no method to drawing hair'

she's saying 'in this tutorial that i am doing now, there are no guidelines, to draw faces using this method you will need to practice drawing hair, or change the method.'

this is called context. you have to interpret a sentences meaning in relation to the whole communication.

it's in the 'not having autism 101' guide book, if you want to look it up.


guideline
Use Guideline in a sentence
guide·line [gahyd-lahyn] Show IPA
noun
NOT THIS ONE 1.
any guide or indication of a future course of action: guidelines on the government's future policy.
THIS ONE 2..
a lightly marked line used as a guide, as in composing a drawing, a typed page, or a line of lettering.

>>1552530
> The evidence is that there are subjects that have no relation to it, and therefore they don't need it.

Please list these subjects especially since you are making such a big deal about needing all this "evidence." Are you talking about abstract art perchance? Even those artists studied from life as well, well maybe not modern ones, but many of them did FIRST.

> You're basically saying that ALL drawings MUST are drawings from life, and that ALL kinds of drawings are displacements from that via exaggeration.

I feel that this statement is a little confusing and not really what I said at all. (Your post, in general, seems to be convoluted.) I only stated that drawing things from life gives you a better understanding of things (such as the punch) and help you to exaggerate, understand, and construct your subject(s). Also, it gives you a better way of expressing your unique voice rather than to regurgitate what's already been done. Drawing from life helps to widen your visual memory which, ultimately, helps when you are trying to draw from imagination. This would include studying not only from life, but from texts, reference, and etc.

>This is not real evidence. It's you re-defining the concept of what drawing is to make the rule of drawing from life necessary.

That is the evidence. You just aren't accepting it, because you are a bit of a pretentious asshole and a complete victim of the modernist art movement. That being said, no one is saying you need to be a slave to drawing from life. You are just using it as a way to expand your visual library as opposed to using it as a clutch. I don't understand what about this is so difficult to grasp.

Why not just go take a trip to the conceptart forums go through the sketchbook threads so you can see real 'evidence' of what happens when people study from life? Or, better yet, try drawing a platypus from your memory right now v. after looking at a picture of it?

>>1551280
>style is outdated
>dark and bold lines
You're trying way too hard to fit in.

>>1552077
To be honest, a handful of financially successful artists, that very likely had what would be considered "classical" training, probably isn't a good metric for deciding what you are going to do with the rest of your life, especially if you want your art to make you financially secure. All of these guys were known before their contemporary works started selling for large amounts.

Jeff Koons could get away with doing balloon dog sculptures and making a shit ton of money from them, but you are very unlikely to do the same.

>>1552482
It's funny how it's always babby artists who's art knowledge only goes as far as their favorite DeviantArt users think technical skill can't be measured in art.

>>1552681
BTW, to those who want to see a real master at work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs7VY16nTA0

>>1552646
>Please list these subjects
I already did : Abstract

>I feel that this statement is a little confusing and not really what I said at all.

How is it my fault you don't understand completely the ideas you regurgitate?

Exaggeration works via deviation, therefore it's limited in scope and growth of application. Drawing from life isn't a magic wand. If it was then the "life" part wouldn't be what make it works, that automatically limits its scope. There has to be something else. If that's the case then, drawing from life isn't alway necessary, and its potential is severely limited if you focus too much on the life part. A limited mind makes a limited imagination. You're demonstrating that nicely.

>That is the evidence.

Evidence is something that makes something else a MUST. It stand on it own without appealing. Real evidence doesn't need a set of circumstance to make so. All you've given is the usually anecdotal evidence, pointing at its usage but never showing what makes the "must". It appears useful, but you can't nail down the "why" without pointing to somebody else. You can't distinguish it limits and utility, you just go with the crowd. Read the joke in >>1552547 to understand that.

>Why not just go take a trip to the conceptart

Why not try this instead: Read a REAL book on Art. Something written by an academic, something of a scholarly calibre, something about theory, or aesthetics, or history. Read that instead of some self-help how to draw bullshit or a blog written by a pathetic man-child making his chops in "Da Industry" or whatever imageboard hugbox you use to post your pony-porn.

>>1552681
but art isn't about technical skill, he's right.

and your image is terrible looks like an ad from the 50s.

so shut up.

>>1552273
lol you idiot, it's your fault that you can't use tools in a benefiting way

>>1552722
ur the tool

>>1552171
yep. but in treating like shit the work of the others they feel better about their own work, plus they have a feeling of superiority and power.

>snobs
>pseudo Intellectuals
as i expected from one of the world's most useless profession. Real Art, my ass.

>>1551693
a cube is still a type of rectangular prism, there's no need for the correction

>>1551258
Those look more like skull guidelines than hair ones, although it's hard to tell since you've made such a mess to the point where most of those lines would be a hindrance rather than helpful.

and /pol/ sucks
all anyone does on that board is call eachother jews and niggers while yelling "My country is better than yours!" I'd rather browse /s4s/ for the funposting

>>1551693
a cube is still a type of rectangular prism, there's no need for the correction

>>1551258
Those look more like skull guidelines than hair ones, although it's hard to tell since you've made such a mess to the point where most of those lines would be a hindrance rather than helpful.

and /pol/ sucks
all anyone does on that board is call eachother jews and niggers while denying the holocaust and yelling "My country is better than yours!"

I'd rather browse /s4s/ for the funposting

>>1552681
>>1552685

True fox, I find most of these artists boring and lifeless. I enjoy Bob Ross's work, and people's who's works don't seem so empty or soulless.

>>1552710
>dean cornwell
>terrible
only on /ic/

>>1552796
Which artists are you talking about? Dean Cornwell 's art is full of life.

>Bob Ross
I like the man but I don't see what's so lively about kitschy background paintings.>>1552684

>>1552798
>dean cornwell
animu shit

>>1552805

>kitschy background

Nice nonsense buzzword

>>1552755
and that would be?

>>1552684
Not the first anon you were talking to but
>I already did : Abstract
Many abstract painters learned their skills traditionally.

>Exaggeration works via deviation, therefore it's limited in scope and growth of application.
How is exaggeration more limited in scope to abstract artwork? Is a cartoonist more limited than an abstract artist?

>Drawing from life isn't a magic wand
Nobody said it was. It's what you put into it that benefits you. You have APPLY yourself.

> If it was then the "life" part wouldn't be what make it works, that automatically limits its scope. There has to be something else. If that's the case then, drawing from life isn't always necessary, and its potential is severely limited if you focus too much on the life part. A limited mind makes a limited imagination. You're demonstrating that nicely.
Nearly all art is graded on it's ability to express emotions. How else you attain this quality besides drawing from the whole around you?How can an abstract artist portray color and shape patterns they see in their head without learning how said color works in this thing called reality?

The only limitation I can see from life drawing is getting to the point to where you can only draw things that are right in front of you (or from a photo). Which can be the case if you don't apply yourself like I said earlier. You should be drawing to get an understanding and use those theories in your art later, not blindly copying. Otherwise, what excuse do you have for not training your depiction skills?

cont

>>1552824
>Many abstract painters learned their skills traditionally.
Don't tell him that, let him be happy making installation pieces from old IKEA furniture and trash without applying himself.

>>1552684
cont
>Evidence is something that makes something else a MUST. It stand on it own without appealing.
Okay. http://www.wga.hu/

You know, I'm wondering if you actual draw since you don't seem to understand that a person cannot go straight from imagining these wonderful images in their head to their canvas/sketchbook/drawingboard/tablet without basic practice and study for how real things work. Or if you did what I said earlier about just copying in a life drawing class instead of analyzing and training you mind and hand to create more challenging ideas.

>>1552808
You know what I mean by kitsch, anon. Ross mainly did basic mountain range scenery with highly saturated colors (which makes me sick when I look at his paintings). It's stuff you'd find Christian family household.

I still find him inspiring anyway.

>>1552834

So everything has to be brown shit? I used to live in places like Montana and Colorado, we had scenic views like that. People draw with desaturated palettes for a cool post apocalyptic wasteland look, but that's not what the world really looks like, I've seen some of Bob Ross's paintings that look like places I actually used to go hiking at.

>>1552838
>I've seen some of Bob Ross's paintings that look like places I actually used to go hiking at.

I can believe that, but they still look kitschy. And that is ok.

>>1552847

>>1552824
>Many abstract painters learned their skills traditionally.
And many others don't. So what?

>How is exaggeration more limited in scope?
By the way you think a cartoonist can only work from exaggeration. Narrow the evolution, you narrow the change. This isn't difficult stuff here.

>Nobody said it was.
Read the post in this conversation. This about justifying it beyond factoid. Finding out why, without superficial reasons. It doesn't hold up to well.

>Nearly all art is graded on it's ability to express emotions...How can an abstract artist portray color and shape patterns they see in their head without learning how said color works in this thing called reality?
Why do think there must be physical tangibility for conceptual thing to exist?

Posting a site without giving context as evidence? That's not evidence. If it were, then my counter should stand as well:
http://www.metmuseum.org/

Boom! you just got proven wrong, hooray

I was wondering if all you do is take what's given and do it without any real insight. Are you just as pathetic as everyone else dancing to the same drum, staying modish what is given, never really thinking for yourself?

>>1552981

Not the anon, that you were talking too, but I find your argument rather difficult to believe. I'm mostly puzzled.

Abstract art does bear resemblance to life. Even the "conceptual" shapes are influenced by other geometric shapes witnessed in reality.

You're essentially life drawing all the time. No matter what the quality turns out to be. You base your dragons off paintings and other reptilian creatures.

>>1553035
A choice of influence doesn't mean it necessary. It's just a choice, not an requirement. Nothing about abstraction requires that you must relate it to something material. For example: modern english writing. It's basically drawings that don't referencing something from tangible world. The letters "a,e,i,o,u,y etc. etc. have no tangible familiarity to things in the world other than themselves, yet they are still drawings that express an idea.

This isn't difficult stuff.

Drawing doesn't operate through metaphor and simile ALONE. That's just you being unimaginative and uncreative

>>1553068

English writing inherits from world cultures. Numbers were borrowed from arabian numerals.

>>1553094
The letter "a" isn't necessarily symbolic of much else besides the letter "a". Same with the number "2" it doesn't look a whole lot like two things. And yet there they are representing an abstract concept. Go figure.

>>1553151

In a way, they are influenced from reality, particularly oration. Man is known as a species that derives from concepts present in life.

>>1552684
>I already did : Abstract
But many abstract artists do draw from life as well. In fact, many of the artists who 'broke the rules' were well versed in the rules of art and studied from life.

>How is it my fault you don't understand completely the ideas you regurgitate?
But I'm not regurgitating, I agree with the age old wisdom that you are rejecting for the sake of rejecting. I do feel that you don't really understand what you are talking about though. If you did you would realize that you are, actually, insulting the visual arts and artists.

> Read a REAL book on Art. Something written by an academic, something of a scholarly calibre, something about theory, or aesthetics, or history.

The irony in this advice is strong. This whole time you have been insulting art by claiming that drawing from life bears no real results so it's best to call the age old advice bullshit. You also insult all of those authors of those books who spent a good amount of time studying/drawing from life. What about all those artists who spent a good amount of time studying from casts before they could move onto the actual model? Why did they waste their time doing that when 'there's no actual evidence that drawing from life helps you as an artist"? If only you were alive then to impart your amazing knowledge onto them so they could have abandoned their art education.

If you aren't drawing/studying from life then how would you express yourself when it comes to your artwork? At best you would be working with symbols which would be born from your elementary understanding of the subject from which you are drawing.

If anything I think this is the very reason art isn't appreciated nowadays. People think that there are no actual 'rules' to art and that just isn't true. You don't just pick up a paintbrush and you are suddenly an artist. Why do people think this way? Is it because when people see abstract art they think "I can do that" and then proceed to do so?

>>1553174
>But many abstract artists do
And many don't, so what?

>But I'm not regurgitating
Pointing at a bunch of artist that do it, and basically saying, "look they did, so I must be right" AND not looking past that is basically you poohing a cliched understanding.

>The irony in this advice is strong. This whole time you have been insulting art by claiming that drawing from life bears no real results so it's best to call the age old advice bullshit.

The irony is I never said that. I've said Drawing from life isn't always necessary. And challenged with the question: Without pointing to other artists can you really make it a universal requirement?

What's insulting is people like you who think their swallow practical approach has a real deep insight into what they're doing. It's the attitude that your tricks-of-the-trade are a de facto must and the allowance for them to go unchallenged. No real thinking pushes for further discovery. No invention, no mutation, no evolution. No dissection of the methodology or of thinking or the process. No real investigation.

The real reason art isn't appreciated around here is because so many are either too lazy, too inept, or too scared to challenge their own strongly held beliefs. They don't want the burden or the discomfort of revealing their taken for granted ideas.

Seriously go read a real book about art.

>>1553163
What point are you trying to make? Communication makes reality, that still doesn't mean there must always be an influence from reality to make the communication.

>>1553185
>And many don't, so what?
Please name them.

>>1553193

That concepts in general are influenced from what has been observed.

>>1553185

You're probably looking to much into this. When an individual mentions to study from reality, it's not with the context of expanding creativity, it's intended to expand technical skill.

With the context of technical skill, many artists do claim that it's necessary. Life drawing is a suggested method of improving technical skill since all of it's fundamentals can be easily utilized. Speaking from anecdotal experience, it aids heavily with 2D observational technique, form, perspective, gesture, anatomy, proportion, rendering, etc.

Mitsuo Iso, the guy who animated the spider tank battle from Ghost in the Shell movie, claimed to study a spider heavily in order to capture it's peculiar movement.

>>1553207

It can be argued that it's also one of the more simpler ways to expand technical skill. If you find it difficult, you can always come close to it, and notice patterns. You could get back, front, and side of a subject matter without the aid of depending on a certain resource like books or the internet.

>>1553207
>You're probably looking to much into this. When an individual mentions to study from reality, it's not with the context of expanding creativity, it's intended to expand technical skill.

This has been mentioned to that particular anon multiple times already and they are still refuse to accept even that.

> I've said Drawing from life isn't always necessary.
Well of course it's not, because sometimes you have to make things up. Yet how can you if you don't have the adequate visual library, and knowledge, to do so unless you are studying from life or the actual thing. How can I make up a gun if I don't understand what a gun looks like or how one works in the first place? This has been said before.

Tbqh, I don't even know why or what you are arguing at this point.

>Seriously go read a real book about art.
I have, thank you very much.

>>1553206
Pollock for starters or on the other end Blackstock

>>1553207
All you're saying is deflationary. Nothing new, nor all that revealing either.

>You're probably looking to much into this
And like wise you're not giving this much thought.

>>1553211
>how can you if you don't have the adequate visual library

I can't help you have a limited imagination and creativity. If you absolutely believe nothing can be manifested without a tangible familiarity to the material world, then you have to redact "Well of course it's not, because sometimes you have to make things up." Those contradict each other.

If you consider yourself at least an avid drawer, at this point I'm not sure you understand clearly what you've been doing up to this point. Monkey see, monkey do, that sort of lifestyle.

Still, go read a real Art book and not some cliche written by an idiot who passed puberty within the last decade

>>1553231

It may not be anything new, but it's also true. It's been proven time and time again to enhance the technical skill of any artist. Pollock might be the pinnacle of "innovative creativity", but he sure wasn't the pinnacle of technical skill in comparison to a Renaissance artists like Caravaggio and Peter Paul Reubens.

Innovation is hardly correlated with better. Art is hardly innovative to begin with. Especially modern art, where "poorly-technically done" pieces often evoke the same message from the audience, the doubt of whether it's art or not.

>>1553231
>Abstract artists who did not study from life
>Pollock
>Briefly studied at an arts high school where they make you draw and study from life
>Attended the Art Students League
>An art atelier in NYC that enforces drawing and painting from life.

Good try troll.

Anime "art" is kitsch devoid of genuine emotion. No Genius (with a capital G) would be an anime "artist".
Also the highest calibre of anime art still does not reach the technical skill required for even intermediate-level landscape painting.

>>1551628
But at least they look good. Every thing since that has tried to be "interesting" and "intelligent" but I'll read a book on fucking math if I want something intellectual and truly interesting .

>>1553239

Hey OP I gave you a quick paintover, I hope this helps.

>>1553250
Ok I lol'ed.

>>1553236
Nice try moron. You don't know shit about art history. Pollock was expelled for not adhering to the curriculum and rules. Then wondered around a bit and when he attended ASL he was already forming an art around rhythm and not human figures. Just cause you think atelier means realism doesn't make it true, it just means "studio".

>>1553235
>It's been proven time and time again to enhance the technical skill of any artist.

It's only been proven to be effective if drawing from life. That's it. Nothing beyond that. It has a limited application because it comes from a limited idea. If all you can imagine is Anthropomorphism then that's your limit, that's your plateau.

>>1553265
did you know pollock and other abstract expressionists were actually partially funded by the CIA, who didn't like social realism because it was a bit commy, they thought abstract expressionism was harmless.

>>1553286
Yes, that abstract bullshit is just infantile masturbatory shit.

Somebody makes a buck drawing weeaboo and wannabe kitchen sink realist start getting those bad hurt feelings in their pee-pee.

Typical /ic/ user-base

>>1553309
>idiot defending horrific process and result video only because it's anime related
Typical /ic/ Cancer

>>1553346
Apparently the process isn't all that horrible, it gets her work. While anons on the other hand...

>>1553361
>gets her work
everything on the internet is true

>>1553270

It's not really concerning, considering that everyone is shaped by other influences. I transitioned from anime to life drawing to improve myself.

Most aspiring artists aren't introverted due to nature. They're influenced by society as well. They see other artists and wish to become good as them.

hey guys, look at what i found on imgur eh?

http://imgur.com/gallery/H1QJz

he really sucks.

crilley is bad, but there are far worse tutorials out there, OP.

far far worse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOagbCW7A-s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYaNos86ud8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqnLR-9GR8s

>>1553538
except those are joke tutorials

>>1553477
Funny how I don't see your dumb beliefs in legitimate psychological textbooks.

>b-but hurr durr "common sense" muh influences and shapes lelelelle
keep it for the judge, nigger

>>1553557

My claims are definitely present in both sociology, psychology, and the art books I've read.

/ic/, CA, and many other internet communities for that matter are consisted of aspiring animators and illustrators, not abstract painters and modern artists.

It's safe to say that the majority of them have the intent of improving their technical skill.

You're right about creativity manifesting from the mind, but you're unlikely to execute it well with little technical training.

>>1553540
They're not. It's hosted on a real "do it yourself" channel.

>comment
>reception by spermtoxicosed boys
Why does it matter? What I'm interested is if she gets paid or not.

>>1553477
Fine, but that still doesn't give drawing from life a universal application. That's the point: Drawing from life isn't always necessary, because it has a limited influence.

>>1553538
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOagbCW7A-s
>Na-rooh-two
my sides....why

>>1553265
>Pollock was expelled for not adhering to the curriculum and rules.
He still studied from life at the first school even if he didn't stay there for too long.

> Just cause you think atelier means realism doesn't make it true, it just means "studio".
Wow...you really think that you are talking to an idiot. I take classes at the place. Except for the abstract painting class ALL THE CLASSES STUDY FROM LIFE. End of fucking story already.

The whole point of this discussion was that you claimed that Jackson Pollock was an abstract painter who did not study from life, when he actually did. It's one thing to have that snooty attitude and be right, but it's another to be dead ass wrong and still fucking snooty about it.

>>1553286
>did you know pollock and other abstract expressionists were actually partially funded by the CIA, who didn't like social realism because it was a bit commy, they thought abstract expressionism was harmless.

This is true.

>>1553956
LOL You couldn't be wrong if you tried

1. Just cause he studied it, very briefly, it doesn't mean he used it in his art.

2. In interviews it's clear he doesn't draw upon it at all for his abstract work. Read the Life Magazine article for example.

3. He quit his painting class at the League after a Month and took a sculpture class instead. He didn't like realism.

4. The League, during 1920's was one the few places that was pushing Abstract Expressionism in their classes, even with Sloan as President.

5. This was about whether or not drawing from life is implemented or necessary in abstract work. Pollock was an example. He never used it because he never needed.

6. You're so wrong on some many levels here, that it's staggering. Next time do your research before you open your mouth. Fucking dumbass!

7. You're a retarded moron. Why are you still here, and instead "studying from life" to better your pedo-pony fandom?

>>1553985
>4. The League, during 1920's was one the few places that was pushing Abstract Expressionism in their classes, even with Sloan as President.

But the teacher he studied with wasn't an Abstract Expressionist.

Even if he abandoned the school(s) his background does entail studying from life. Even if he did not draw from life to create his famous works the point is that he did STUDY FROM LIFE at some point in time. So you were wrong, again. Could you, at least, just admit that and stop fighting this fact staring at you right in the face.

>Why are you still here, and instead "studying from life" to better your pedo-pony fandom?
I don't know who you think that you are talking to, but I'm really starting think that you have some serious mental/anger issues.

>>1554069
His background involves him going against life drawing studies. He as track record of quiting it and arguing against it. Learn to read art history.

>>1552710
goodness me who let you out of your pram?
Terrible ads from the 50's are hokey only because of the target audience of the time. The underlying skill and construction of Dean Cornwelll's work gives me wet dreams

>>1554199
But he if he did, even for 1 hour, attend to a life drawing class, he did draw from life.

This sounds retarded, but is a fact.

>>1553635
wat

>>1554219
ty anon, never heard of him before

>>1553985

Your point? >>1553985
He was a hack that had nothing interesting to say about the act of laying paint on a canvas. I'd take Rothko over Pollock any day

>>1554220
Even if he doodled a self portrait on a whim, you still have the problem of him purposely working to keep drawing from life out of the work he built his rep on. He deliberately made sure it had no influence, no reference, no tangibility. It, in no way reflected in his work. It's not there. He made sure of it.

What's retarded, is postulating the possibility that if he took at least one hour of drawing from life it must be in all his works or his method--as if he was tainted with some kind of venereal disease, infecting everyone until his dying breath. That's stupid. He hated realism and went out of his way to make sure it had no influence on him. Not only is that a fact, it's also history.

>>1554251
Rothko took a figure drawing class in his childhood, so according to some people here he is not an abstract painter but a social realist.

>>1554199
> He as track record of quiting it and arguing against it.

Which he could have only done by studying from life and learning to rules in the first place. Even if his works had NOTHING to do with life or 'realism', the point is he could not get to that point unless he had a basis he was trying to break from in the first place. Anyone who has done it after him and has not studied from life is just really taking from what he did and has help feed into the idea that art doesn't need rules. You can just do whatever the fuck you want and it's, suddenly, art.

I don't understand why you are having such a hard time grasping this. All of your posts are you arguing how 'drawing from life' is pointless and not necessary which is the case for no artist ever. You have proven yourself wrong in citing Pollock as an abstract artist who did did not study from life when he clearly has a history of doing so. You keep telling me to "read an art book" or "learn my art history." Well I don't know what kind of bullshit books you have been reading, but trash them. They are not helping you.

And with that I'm done with you. You can keep going, but no one, truly, serious about art won't put much worth into your words.

>>1554462
>You can keep going, but anyone, truly, serious about art won't put much worth into your words.

>>1554462
>Which he could have only done by studying from life and learning to rules in the first place.

You're dumber than a box of rocks.

This isn't a position made via denial. You're reaching with that kind of thinking. This is absolutely embarrassing, if you think that can tread water.

The absence of evidence isnt the same as the evidence of absence.

I take back telling you to go read a real book. I think it would be better if you've got professional help. You're worse of than what it would seem.

>>1554365
>rothko
Stupid selfish fuck who just wanted to jack off to his synthesia and call it "art".
>also he did it because he had no technical talent, a straight line would of been tough as fuck for him

>>1554525
rothko's work is beautiful.

if you don't like it you don't have any taste.

and i'm not saying this in a pretentious way like only someone of refined artistic merit can 'get' rothko, i'm saying everyone gets it except a few dumbasses.

i blame the concept art, gets people into talking about real art who don't actually like art all that much or have much appreciation for the image. video game concept art is kinkade for teenage boys. it attracts plenty of cool people but because there's nothing to get and the message is usually, 'how cool is main character, he's awesome.' some blockheads will slip by and shit on /ic/.

>>1554597
Being serious now, it really is just expression of his synthesia for colour. Nothing special at all.

Kill yourself.

>>1551235
>mfw that struggle to get eyes and eyebrows anywhere near symmetrical
>mfw she still ends up with assymetrical brows and one eye noticeably lower than the other

It seems increasingly you can get away with anything if you have a vagina.

>>1554602
is it beautiful? yes. therefore i don't give a hit what it's an expression of.

i don't look at a beautiful woman and go 'meh. just an expression of genetics.'

I think this would be a good place to ask
exactly what guidlines are there for drawing hair?

>>1555924
Look up the ribbon method. I'd link you but it's on James Gurney's blog.

>>1553588
>real "do it yourself"
Nigga, are you that naive?

>>1551279
Intarnet haet maschine XDDD

>>1551478
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

>>1551595
"Muh style!!!" detected.

>that one underageb& who thinks that studying the human form cannot at all be useful for drawing humans
how utterly embarrassing

>>1558806
>those several underageb& who think that studying and depicting the human form in ideal proportion is the only important thing

>>1558816
>mfw no one here says that

>>1558849
u mad

though people dont say it as much as they used to thats true, hell people barely even mention loomis these days

>>1558816
>in ideal proportion
nobody said that
>is the only important thing
nobody said that

try harder