/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3743194
>2 days left until 2019
>Still using shitty frog memes

>>3743194
the thing is, if you pay money for something, you're more likely to invest time on it, and finding it useful

>>3743197

The problem with a lot of these courses, self critique ones, is that the teachers aren't being brutally honest and don't take the time to fully critique what you give to them.

Sure they have a life outside of teaching and probably have more than 1 job but that's the thing. Some genuinely want to help you while others are taking courses to rip other peoples outline of their course to reteach it in their own words. This floods the market with bad courses with no intentions on helping anyone but the sellers pockets.

>>3743210
The problem with the majority of courses is that they repeat the same super basic shit written in any art book of their category since the 50s
The amount of intermediate to advanced material is so tiny it's almost non existent and most of the time it consists in the artist doing something that's really difficult to do without any sort of method whatsoever, most of the time while repeating the beginner concepts in earlier courses.

Art is the only thing where learning is such a fucking intangible thing, music is infinitely more complex and it's 100% explainable, you can put any concept of music down on paper and dissect it reliably for the learner. With art it's just "loldraw"

uh, have you seen color and light by nathan fawkes ? fucking amazing lectures.

>>3743561
Oh you mean the one where he Rambles about his life for the first five videos and barro y teaches

As a rule, Gumroad and udemy are both shit.

when you go on a study course at a college or university the main thing of value you get is the interaction between a whole load of other creative motivated people and plenty of face to face time with tutors, honest brutal feedback and generally giving yourself the time and space for an entire year to focus on and develop your craft without other commitments

>>3743493
The basics are all there is to it really. To repeat something Craig Mullins said "there is no thing as advanced drawing". But you can take those fundamentals really really far.

>>3743199

Nice try, jew

Not sure which thread to ask this in. I downloaded Hampton's Analytical Figure Drawing Class. But it only included the video lectures. How do I find the homework assignments?

>>3743194
yeah it all boils down to actually drawing with your own hands and applying what you learned thru observation

>>3743194
> most online art courses are a waste of money
just like in irl art schools

>>3744331
I only watched the first two but I remember hampton saying the homework at the end of each video.

>>3743561
>"When I was in art center college of design..."
>"We worked on this movie called Spirit, stallion of the cinnamon"
>"And oh, eh... Simple shapes"
>"Here I am just following the simple shapes"
>*Draws flawless impressionism*
>"There you go"
>"Did I tell you about the time where I worked on prince of Egypt?"
>"I had just walked out of art center college of design..."
>"They told me hey you're good, why don't you work on this big production with us"
>"It was a humbling experience, I wasn't really very good here's some work I did at the time"
>*Shows flawless work*
>"But let's get back to the simple shapes"
>"I'll just mix this color and this color... You just have to match the temperature of the limestone under the desert sun at 4pm"
>"I'll just draw several trees here"
>"I'm going to... quickly paint the pagoda lit up by the moonlight"
>*Draws complex architecture with 3 brush strokes*
>"Simple shapes of course"
Fuck Nathan Fowkes

>>3744343

I did some quick googling. It turns out the homework was distrubuted in pdf or doc file, and theyre in the CGP torrent. But theyre no in the rutracker torrent.

Guess I got to wait till tomorrow to get my homework ( ._.)

>>3743194
Find art books from the 1960s and earlier if you actually want to learn something about making art. Everyone nowadays in the art course business is a hack that was taught by another hack.

>>3744375
It's literally just draw 25 of what is shown in video.

>>3744374
>>3744374
This is my experience but with every single online art instructor/video series. They like to start explaining a concept that is way further down the road and not even in the scope of the class you're in for a couple minutes, and so you space out for a moment. And eventually they realize they rambled and got ahead of themselves, so they catch up by quickly finishing what they were immediately doing. In the 10 seconds they draw out something immaculate and I have to go back and watch their strokes like 20 times at 0.25x speed.

Honestly I think it's more or less just an inescapable part of being a teacher. A lot of my engineering professors in college were like this. I think, in their mind, anyone serious about the class is going to eventually come to understand the fundamental concept they are currently teaching. And also the professors probably find it really boring and tedious to explain what they feel is painfully obvious and simple. Keep in mind the people who teach are usually really passionate about the subject themselves. So to keep themselves sane they pontificate and wax. They like to call it "tying everything together" but really they like to jump ahead to shit you'll be doing months/years from now because it's more interesting to talk about, I feel. Meanwhile you're still barely able to do the most crude and basic things and breaking into a cold sweat.

The Craig Mullins' class is really good.

You're all acting as if taking one of these courses will teach you some secret to all of a sudden create great art.
Retards.

>>3744390
Scott Robertson teaches very nicely, but it's just perspective / mechanical design.
The only things you can objectively learn are construction and perspective. When it comes to stuff like line quality, painting, use of color, composition it starts becoming really fuzzy and intangible and they just start repeating a few basic rules of thumb that don't really help that much

>>3744397
>The only things you can objectively learn are construction and perspective.

And anatomy. And how light works. And work on your visual library.

>>3744400
Yeah I consider that included in construction and perspective. Visual library is always limited unless you're a memory freak like KJG, I know the basic mechanics of a crossbow but I'd definitely need reference to draw one
And anyway all of that will only get you to intermediate. Making the jump to actual professional tier work is insanely hard with just mileage and tutorials help so little

>>3744384
Okay but what if I want higher quality versions of the pictures?

>>3744374
lol does nathan browse /ic/?

>>3744391
I've only watched first lesson, does it get any better?

His insight is good, but the techniques he shows are something he says he doesn't even use and it comes off like he's just bullshitting randomly. WTF craig

Out of all online resources I gathered Vilppu's videos helped me most. If you're a begginer who already learned to copy decently just draw along everything he draws in his videos. I drew along all vids I got from torrents(series about anatomy and basics) and it definitely helped me to start understanding forms. Just a little tip, jump forward to see what he's actually drawing first.

Other than that, maybe copying Bridgeman and others helped me a bit with anatomy and forms but nothing beats competent teacher. If I had one from the start I wouldn't walk in circles like many beginners here also do and don't know how to progress. At least find some mentor who's a good artist or make friends online. Even at intermediate level you know the basics but can get lost without guidance and reaching professionalism is about subtle nuances.

I'm going to shill the drawing database again. He has free high resolution videos about almost every drawing fundamentals except color. He has videos on basic and advanced linear perspective, forms, value, figure drawing, anatomy, etc. I have no idea why his videos aren't recommended on /ic/ more. A lot of his videos are a bit long but I feel like I always learn so much useful information in them.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMXbAPr21di_-1K8CMTAdIUZ-qhxwZwgS

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMXbAPr21di-Ox-dmDwL2riWedei1dn9S

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMXbAPr21di8DjTKCE3EoS4KFtNZ-FDnP

>>3744622
> the techniques he shows are something he says he doesn't even use and it comes off like he's just bullshitting randomly. WTF craig

I felt the same way, but I think what he really meant is he never used them for a commercial job? I know he also knows and uses 3d, so I guess that's what he probably starts with at least for commercial stuff.

>>3743194
I've found Aaron Blaise course really helpful, learned a to of new stuff. It was some the character design one. Maybe you just knew too much already.

>>3744714
I feel so bad about refunding the course bundle because I panicked over the cost.

>>3744397
If you think you know perspective after watching/reading roberstson's stuff, i have a very bad news for you.
>transfer size in perspective? just eyeball it with ellipse lol

>>3744733
Why is this a problem? You can just transfer the proportions with a ruler.

>>3744744
How would you transfer the size of rotated rectangular box's side with a ruler?

>>3744758
You use the grid method from page 50-53 of How to Draw

>>3744783
Basically eyeballing it with an ellipse like a retard, this is exactly what i said.
It's pretty sad that you actually use and consider that "technique" (more like dirty hack) good, but what can you do?
You just don't know any better. You fell for the robertson meme after all.

there is this ukranian guy on youtube forgot his nickname (drunk), but he talks about this digital painting concepts much more in depth it might be worth checking him out, he doesnt like to cheat (uses only 1 layer for example), so his drawings feels traditional done with digital tools

>>3744796
I never had a problem with that method, you're being autistic

>>3744824
Well, you would never know because you never did complex constructions to actually realize how retarded and back ass this "method" is.
You cannot even draw rotated cube in perspective properly, i don't know why am i even talking with you.

>>3744843
I don't know either, you're raging for no reason.

>>3744853
I'm not raging, just saying that roberstson objectively sucks ass and you are dumb if you think that you "know" perspective after reading his books.
Your level of knowledge is barely better than "put your vanishing points far apart" deviantart tutorial.

>>3744860
this is so true, all that shit about perspective is basic stuff, that you must "just understand" without using actual perspective guidelines, you think car designers use those dumb perspective lines and shit? Nope they just understand how to design a car in perspective, same with story board artist, they know how perspective works, dont need no guidelines

>>3744880
I don't think that car designers know perspective that good these days actually.
They do it on computer and use specialized software.
It's not necessary for them to know math behind it.

But math itself is not actually that hard.
You don't need much to accomplish a lot.
That's still a lot more than roberstsons gives though.

>>3744889
all car designs start on painting/drawing be it digital or traditional after they are happy with the design they model it in 3d and then do clay model

>>3744895
It's not necessary to be rocket-science level precise on the concept stage of the design.
And 3d software basically does work for you.

>>3744903
what im trying to say, is that for painting you dont have to be autistic level of correct perspective, much more important is to get correct feeling in the painting

>>3744816
borodante

>>3744908
yup that is the artist

>>3744906
What is autistic level for one person, is a basic level for another.
It's really necessary to know that rainbow has a radius of 42 degree visual angle centered on antisolar point to paint it?
Not really. But if you don't, it sure undermines the sense of authenticity of your work.

>>3744919
no it doesnt, the drawing will just look akward if you draw 100% accurate everything, since in our vision everything is slighty distorted, this is why 3d animation gives off "uncanny valley", do to the fact, everything is to crisp, to correct. This is the reason 3d animation will never achieve true 2d animation quality, unless 3d animation will be able to imitate it

>>3744924
> since in our vision everything is slighty distorted
In what sense?
Are you implying that eyes are "curvilinear perspective"?
That's a common misconception. Eyes actually "use" linear perspective.
All experiments which "prove" the opposite are actually fundamentally flawed, because they rely on moving your eye along some long line, but if you do so you change the whole perspective setup.
Fundamentally, perspective setup is defined by position AND direction of the camera.
So basically if you move your eye, you change everything.
So perspective wise, eyes are actually make sense.

Color/value wise on the hand, i can agree. Cameras cannot capture how we actually see.
It's still possible to capture it in painting though.
But good perspective only help there. It's all about edges, value, colors.

>reason 3d animation will never achieve true 2d animation
The actually reason 3d animation sucks it's because it's preserves volumes perfectly, which doesn't usually happened in hand-drawn 2d animation. It doesn't look right, because we are not used to it.
You can also add uncunny valley and imperfect lighting to reasons too though.

>>3744932
this is exactly what i mean, our vision will focus some part of the picture and literally blur everything else out, we are really good at focusing and refocusing differnt parts of the pictures, so you dont even notice that part of your vision is actually blurred and interpreted by brain what should be there, thats why we sometimes see figures that are not there out of the corner of our vision

>>3744960
Why are you arguing, are you professional artist? You learn both technical and free hand so you have the option to do either when the time comes. Learning technical perspective is only going to improve your free hand perspective.

>>3744960
>>3744932
>>3744924
Jesus christ wtf are going on about. Take your meds. Seriosly.

>>3744967
its far to deep discussion for you

>>3744652
>if you're a beginner who already learned to copy decently
this though
how do i do this?

>>3744986
you got to see in perspective to understand the reference, you learn it by drawing be in from reference or from construction

>>3744999
nice trips
can someone who isn't ESL explain this?

>>3745121
Everyone is ESL here.
Sorry :(