/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2696012
>half-rendered processy stuff is top points btw
that is, as long as it's real real GUD

I wish I could draw like this

more stuff like this would be super helpful.

pretty sure the next bunch are all JSS

Sorry these aren't better res. Still JSS

>>2696015
i like this, Whosdat

>>2696037
I think Sargent is so good because he combines sight-size/comparative (a 2d approach) with a really great understanding of construction (3d approach) to 'shortcut' some stuff with awesome mark-making (like the lady's hair, pearls, and blouse collar).

>>2696039
no idea. It's pretty clearly a photocopy and a little more lifeless than the from-life stuff, but I thought it was clean enough to include i my inspo folder.

Everyone's seen this one. It's not just the value organization that's god tier, but the value planning. Fucker knew where everything in the drawing was going to be before he started. Try copying it stroke-for-stroke, mark-for-mark and you'll see what I mean.

>hey everyone, I'm Sargent and I can measure proportion perfectly by just eyeballing it. What, you can't nail a shallow curve on your first try? DYEL?

>>2696044
It's stupid the level of compositional/observational/motor skill that one demonstrates. It's the drawings under an hour long where genius really shines through.

Last JSS for awhile

actually last one for a few hours, I gotta go do some stuff

>>2696016
The contrast between the face and the rest of the sketch is so jarring

>>2696020
beginner with a question:

for these kinds of sketches, do you generally fill in all the black (like on the left and right of the left face) first, or after you've blocked in or rendered the shadows on the face?

>>2696060
can do both. Most seem to fill in the background afterwards-ish. Doesnt really matter

>>2696062
i see. i figure it helps give a sense of line in the lit areas, without having to use an actual line?

is this why artists make the background so dark?

>>2696067
>is this why artists make the background so dark?
just depends on what he's trying to study or create. it looks better like that as a simple sketch because it high lights the entire figure better.

some real nice stuff OP, thanks for posting, saving all of it!

Took me about an hour because I had to look up and down from the mirror, so proportions may be a bit off. But progress is progress.

I'm back for a little bit. Anybody else have good stuff while I'm gone, feel free to pick up the slack.

>>2696112
you got the wrong thread, buddy

look closely at this one
>vertical construction line through nose
>horizontal construction line through brow
>no others

>How to draw
>Step 1. Draw a cross
>Step 2. Draw the rest of the fucking face

this is the one I made the stipulation about color for

Seen this one in person. It's fucking mindblowing. apparently he did this by scratching away wax that was on copper. I dunno how the fuck he kept track of line thickness/depth by eye.

>>2696067
>give a sense of line in the lit areas, without having to use an actual line

In case you didn't know the term, you're describing implied lines.

>>2696313
seriously, zoom in on it and check out how deliberate and thought-out the linework is. If you're not hard/wet, you're not gonna make it.

>>2696296
There are some more in there, like the line through the eyes, a line from the tear duct to the outside of the wings of the nose, lines along the bridge of the nose. I suspect more were used in other areas but they were covered up by the rendering or were removed.

Also worth noting that it's a student drawing, so that centerline may have been added at the end by the instructor as they explain things, or it might even be drawn on the book that this was printed in instead of the original drawing/

>>2696314
that is

pretty sexy.

Zorn

>>2696318
Yeah I saw the one through the eyes. Hell, it's probably a sight-size, which really is only impressive in terms of patience, not construction understanding.

I was just havin' a laugh. hard enough to come by in a world where everyon lauds twombly and thinks this stuff is worthless

>>2696324
I really doubt it's sight size to be honest. Russians don't use that really. They focus very much on construction and often work larger than life.

>>2696323
magic.

okay last one for a bit, I gotta get some stuff done.

>>2696327
how do you know it's russian? the cursive?

>>2696330
Well I'm guessing it's Russian. The academies there pump out literally thousands of very similar images to that. The style also looks Russian to me with the structural approach and dense hatching, the French systems that are more popular in the West don't look like that at all, they are much softer and more blended and rely on 2d shapes more. The writing too might be Russian, they tend to write on their images like that. Sometimes you will see a number on it, like a 3 or a 4. They grade them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest score and 5 being incredibly difficult to achieve. They also have a + and - on each of the grades too I believe. Anyways, there are other places in Europe that teach similar things, so it might not actually be Russian and instead be Hungarian or something else, who knows. Russian is the safest bet though as they do the most work in this style and it's more of an established thing there.

>>2696330
The signature is in Russian.
>Saidov M.A.
>2 grade (some) studio.
>1949

Never saw this bust desu, but there's so many of them.

>>2696012
Nice thread. It's been years since I did any drawing let alone life drawing. The inspo might have worked.

First time properly browsing /ic/, popped by a couple of times but only really saw swords and boobs done on a tablet.

Like with other boards most people lurk. Out of the blue someone will post something amazing or provide you with the exact information you were after.

I think I'll lurk here more and who knows; I might get my finger out of my ass and draw something and then god forbid, post it in this shithole.

>>2696286
Don't know if you posted this one but I like it.

>>2696043
I think not all of it was planned
you can see marks of some kind of chalk or something in the white parts that he added on top

this of course doesn't detract from it at all

Based Paolo Rivera

>>2696338
are there any books on the Russian tradition? I take it Sight Size and comparative measuring are the french tradition you speak of?

I've found going to the roots with harold speed+sight size technique (i've visited a couple ateliers and read some books and constructed my idea of how it's "supposed" to be done) have been absolutely the best sources of improvement for me. Even advanced construction like bridgman and (sort of) reyes just aren't as useful for capturing likenesess of individuals (like the stuff I'm posting here). It's okay for making stuff up, but I end up relying on sight-size/comparative (comparative derives from sight size practice) waaay more than construction when I draw. I imagine that's because I've only ever had distilled versions of the tradition.

>>2696385
>this shithole
lord knows it is, but that's kind of a facade at the same time. I've been here since at least '08 or '09, and advice and threads from /ic/ have given me all the best resources and advice for learning to draw. I'm pretty confident now and I owe /ic/ more than anyone else, other than my own practice. Lurk moar, there's plenty of good around. Draw threads and resource/art book threads in particular. Thanks for the appreciation, m8

>>2696440
okay, yeah, not all of it. but a lot. Seriously, go try and recreate it mark-for-mark. You'll start out like "yeah it's tough" and then as you go realize you've made a wrong move and it's impossible now, like a sudoku you messed up.

Or maybe i'm just incompetent. Anyway, I've done master studies off some of these drawings/sketches and they've been very eye-opening experiences.

>>2696506

okay I need to go draw, that's all for tonight. Probably a few more tomorrow

>>2696469
>>2696458
thx 4 bootin'

>>2696504
There's a few books yeah. If you dig around online you can find pdf's of them but some are in Russian and not English. James Gurney wrote a post on one that is fairly popular since being released a few years ago: http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.ca/2015/08/russian-academic-books-on-drawing-and.html

Mostly their method though is taught in the classroom. There's also lots of books of student's drawings that people will buy and copy out to learn the methods. China's academic system is actually taken from the Russians so they print a lot of these books and they have artists teaching the same stuff.

Bammes is German but his approach is quite similar too.

Klimt from when he was 17 and before he developed his style

>>2696634

>>2696634
>>2696635
damn

>>2696012
Thanks for making this thread. it makes me feel much better about not having a tablet. I assumed everything I drew traditionally would look like unclean garbage.

>>2696594
I have some russian books and I would say that they dont focus on construction. Its very much Bargues method. Pic how they do it, but not from the book.

>>2696989
I personally prefer the look of traditional drawings as opposed to the ones made with a tablet.

don't die on me