/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

> not a painter
> a photographer

Enough said

>>3209980

To be fair that's not an argument.

>>3209684
It's bullshit. There are plenty of methods that can be used to analyse a composition, drawing random lines untill they match is not one of them.
Him being a photographer doesn't change anything. He's just fallen for a stupid meme.

>>3209684
Dynamic Symmetry is the true art redpill but this place is retarded when it comes to planning composition. This is how the discussion on /ic/ goes:
>redpilled artist: dynamic symmetry is the basis of western art
>/ic/: Hurr durr hurr I don't want to take out my calculator to do art
>redpilled artist: it's really simple, you can just do it with a square and a ruler.
>/ic/: fuck that, artists should just use their intuition to make art, now excuse me, I have some perspective grids and boxes to set up.

>>3210004

Go on...

composition is a fucking meme, in the end nobody really gives a shit. theres a reason classical art is dead, its a boring mess. normies only give a shit about whats colorful and actually looks cool, not about old farts who autistically planned every inch of the painting and leaving everyone els clueless until its decoded by some other person

>>3210036

>>3210041
yup thanks for clarifying how autistic they were.

draw lines across a painting at random, and you will find about as much stuff lining up with it as this guy with his grids

>>3210021
What do you want me to say? People will spend hours here constructing boxes in perspective but giving their composition some construction is where they draw the line?

This book probably has the most simple intro to dynamic symmetry if you are interested.
https://www.dynamicsymmetryart.com/uploads/5/4/2/6/54263701/a_simple_application_of_dynamic_symmetry.pdf

>>3210053

I'm just unfamiliar with the concept. Is it similar to what Loomis is talking about in Creative Illustration? I'll check out the pdf

>>3210057
Somewhat, except Loomis's formal subdivision thing is a simplification of it but still a good composition tool in it's own right. With dynamic symmetry the rectangle of the composition repeats and rotates within itself in a way like the golden spiral does although you can use rectangles of any proportion.

>>3209684
intredasting, but why does this theory look like it's surrounded by a fucking cult

why does this painting look like it's had its top and bottom cropped?

>>3210004

>>3209684
>trashing Aaron Blaise
That tells you all you need to know about this clown.
1. He doesn't acknowledge or respect the ability of a veteran Disney artist.
2.He doesn't treat others with respect which highlights his own insecurities. Probably posted that comment to steal some attention from Aaron's audience.

>>3209684
loomis calls it formal division and most old masters use it or so they say. it's purpose is just to create even spacing to place your objects and thus achieving unity. loomis talks about it in his book and introduced his own take which he calls informal division because he finds the formal one too symmetrical and lacks dynamism and freedom. if you want to pursue it then there's also a vid all about it by myron barnstone which he teaches you all about how to subdivide it and mathematical things and why we end up with 9X12 3:4 ratio as standard sketchbook because of root pi and shit.

>MUH RULE OF THIRDS
>MY GOLDEN TRIANGLESPIROGRAPH

Fucking hell, people who try to analyze composition are the most idiotic pretentious fucks.

>>3210301
Aaron Blaise is garbage, only go to him if you want to learn how to draw ugly bloated animals. It sickens me people regard these Disney "Renaissance" era animators as legends.

>>3210318
No, Loomis briefly acknowledges "dynamic symmetry" once and never explains what it is. Formal subdivision is similar but much simpler; just literally halving the composition over and over (dynamic symmetry and formal subdivision are the same for square compositions though).

>>3210351
>Aaron Blaise is garbage
do you really have to shill your pseudo-intellectual youtube videos here

I'm not the dude but these dynamic symmetry people shill their content like a cult but that's only because it is 100% correct. And their knowledge has driven them mad.

Even I've gone a bit crazy. I look at images that just click together and find out they have dynamic symmetry, where it be a master artist or an accident by an amateur photographer. This was posted on /pol/ yesterday and I liked the composition, it clicked, then what do you know? it nicely follows dynamic symmetry. An amateur photographer accidentally caught brilliance and I understand why and this needs to be shared because people since ancient times knew of this framework for beauty and people forgot about it all the sudden.

Also show me one appealing Aaron Blaise drawing, he doesn't know appeal from an elephant's ass

>>3210370
wow your so contrairion that you sound so cool XD i wanna be like you

>>3210372
needs more top, pic feels like crop.

>>3210372

>>3210276
And here we see that it's one thing to draw diagonals and point out tangents, and another to actually address how the painting is really read and affects the viewer.

If the purpose of composition is to keep the eye interested and moving across the canvas this is a failure. My eye was drawn to giant bleached 45-degree angle dead center in the paining and then slid right off to the upper right corner, never to return

Needs work :^)

>>3209984
Ethos is one of the 3 principals of argument

>>3210372
He uses a root 4 rectangle but there is no rhythm to it. No nothing.

>>3210377
Golden ratio proportions, my nigga. Did you do that on purpose? Tiger finally matches the rhythm of the composition, still adjustments could be made.

itt retards looking to shortcut the human experience out of artwork by use of formula. anyone can draw shapes over an image and think it says something. if you keep doing that it becomes painting.

>>3210388
itt gullible beginners that buy into pyramid power nonsense so that they can sound smart and critique people above their skill level

>>3210388
What is your opinion on knowing anatomy? What is your opinion on using construction to draw from imagination?

>>3210387
>>3210386
>>3210377
Are you guys trying to parody people who believe in composition theory and doing a good job of that, or do you really believe this bullshit?
Serious question.

>>3210392
Serious question, is Loomis a meme?

is composition a fucking meme or not?

>>3210391
Anatomy is just knowing what people look like, you retard, it’s not a fucking formula any more than knowing the Sun is kinda round.

Construction is just simplifying what things look like, nobody’s gonna mathematically draw out every simple box in actual mathematical perspective like a literal autist to draw a fucking person, which is the equivalent of what the “muh dynamic symmetry” autist is advocating

>>3210393
>Formal subdivision may also be used informally if one is adept enough. I have introduced on the next page another, quite apart from either formal division of space or dynamic symmetry.
>I have never found either as satisfactory as this new approach

What's on the next page?

>>3210391
Not >>>3210388 but

Anatomy
>100% scientifically verifiable

Golden Ratio/Dynamic Symettry
>muh sacred geometry
>Here let me impose this chart of 50 different points, See! about 3 of them almost line up near something

Do you honestly believe that every single painting must apply this exact "pattern" in order to be good?

>>3210390
>pyramid power
what?

>>3210391
not sure how it's relevant. anatomy knowledge helps depending on what you're trying to do. construction is a simple and very powerful way to create from abstraction. there are other ways but it's like the simplest and reliable for accurate proportions and stuff.

just to be clear, the art world is vast and complicated. there are many many better ways of doing these things. it's best not to get fixated on stuff that promises or even tries for universal solutions.

>>3210388
I think it's more of an "art conspiracy theory" thing, when your brain looks for patterns in a composition, and after looking hard enough it finds them.
Also this thing was deviced like 300 years after peter paul rubens, so you need to start bending history, with lost knowledge or wathever meme
>>3210393
literally next sentence
>I have never found either as satifactory
>>3210391
perspective an anatomy are based on actual science.

tl;dr don't fall for this specific meme

>>3210400
Loomis's own theory on composition.

I'm not saying you guys have to use dynamic symmetry and all it's mumbo jumbo magical powers, you can invent your own theories on composition like Loomis but at least plan that shit out beforehand.

>>3210404
>your brain looks for patterns in a composition
hardly a conspiracy. your brain does do that all the time. unless you're making stupid minimalist work with like < 10 edges there will be an intractable, nearly infinite number of patterns you can 'find'. just draw a grid over something and pull out whatever shape you want. you can even do this same kind of nonsense using cock shapes of various sizes.

the entire idea of some objective formula very dumb and a huge obstacle to your creative freedom.

>>3209684
Composition is just something you have to feel out, and you get better at it the more you practice.

>>3210407
I meant to say, that if finds patterns when there is none that is related to this grid

Something I've noticed with these dynamic composition grids and golden cricle grids is not so much that "oh, you can put lines down and they'll line up here and there by conincidence", its more like they put the grid down, and it literally doesn't line up with anything, yet still people are somehow convinced...

>>3210415
It's almost like it's all just bullshit...

>>3210407
>the entire idea of some objective formula very dumb and a huge obstacle to your creative freedom.
It can be quite freeing, look at Leyendecker's sketches, all his work is built on square grids but his use of 90 and 45 degree angles gives his work a dynamic unified quality everyone on this board is obsessed with yet can't explain.
You guy's wouldn't freehand a figure without planning it, so why would you not do the same for your compositions?

>>3210417
>all his work is built on square grid

oh
my
FUKCING
GOD

The reason you see grids on all of Leyendecker's shit is because he's SQUARING UP to put something onto a fucking canvas.
Oh my fucking god you goddamn retards.
Yeah I'm fucking done, I'm out of here. Good luck you crazy fucking idiots holy shit I'm gonna have a fucking aneurysm.

>>3210413
'nothing' doesnt exist tho. there's patterns in everything, even the patterns themselves. so i idk what you're arguing.

>>3210413
Absolutely blown the fuck out, saved\
/thread

>>3210422
D-d-d-damage control!!

>>3210417
To motherfuckingly reiterate the goddamn grid goes on AFTER HE'S DRAWN THE FUCKING THING so he can get the proportions the same on the larger canvas holy fuck. You guys are like crazy fucking Bible readers trying to find meaning in each drunkenly read fucking sentence.

>>3210421
>>3210425
>hurr durr hurr he's measuring that's why he uses a grid.
I knew someone was going to say that, he is measuring with it but he is also getting his angles from it. why is the background of this pretty much a grid?

>>3210417
>It can be quite freeing
>grids

>>3210427
>>3210392

>>3210427
>you will never be this ignorant

>>3210427
Because it's a fucking window?

Okay since you guys are beyond retarded when it comes to understanding composition I'll give you this and I'm out. FYI I drew that white diagonal line.
See a certain object mimicking that diagonal line's angle? Hmm.... No? You guys are hopeless. Go pursue your dream of being an underpaid concept art monkey, bye bye.

>>3210450
Hahaha, trolling so hard.

>>3210438
>hurr durr windows are square
not gonna make it

>>3210351
>Aaron Blaise is garbage

Lmao I can't with site

>/ic/ can't into design
Doesn't surprse me, explains some of the shit that's usually posted.

>>3210547
I know, right? If you can't even understand why Aaron Blaise is so good and so legendary, how could you even begin to understand how to make anything comparable?

>>3210551
Not talking about that guy in particular, just most of the posts here, who seem to think looking deeper into pieces and analyze them is pointless.

>>3210552
<zen> It is only that if you look deep enough, you find there is nothing there </zen>

>>3210673
Sure, that's true, and that's when art begins, because you start to choose what to see and what not to. But you will never get there until you actually deeply analyze pieces and the real world.

>this is the guy you're taking advice on composition from
i wonder what root rectangle he used for this photo.

>>3210381
Being a photographer is. irrelevant given that photography also deals with composition.

>>3209997
/thread
The best compositions can't be mapped by a fucking grid.

It makes sense for framing of formal compositions like Mucha or some of Loomis' commercial illustrations, but ffs that Rubens painting makes no damn sense.