/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

DrawABox = ISIS

The ones on the right are sexier

>>4877952
can't do left without anatomy, right is a waste of time, just feel the form for best rexxxults

>>4877963
>doll joints
hnng

>>4877952
Why are you?

>>4877952
Because I haven't studied anatomy in 4 years but I'm doing it right now.

>>4877976
Good man. Don't neglect perspective while you're at it.

>>4877952
because im not trying to draw boxwomen

>>4877952
not sure about this one, yeah if you can't draw a box you can't draw anything else. but those mannequins are more complicated than the figures and they are not even a accurately representation of the it.

is it really worth?

>>4877952
if you are the anon who made the op pic, could you give some advice on how to approach figure drawing?

>>4877952
how do i learn to do the one on the right?
neither loomis nor bridgman nor hampton nor hogarth do anything like that and vilppu's box mannequins are much more imprecise and rarely utilizes interesting angles

>>4878001
>more complicated
people don't actually believe this do they?

>>4877952
Because you can't do the left if you don't do the left. Doing box people can only get you so far. Don't be stupid

>>4877952
Who's the artist?

>>4878012
you won't do the left correctly if you can't even do the simpler box people, that's the point

>>4878010
this

>>4877952
souless vs soul

>>4878011
isn't that pelvis more complicated that a normal one? like the top middle one, just drawing an underwear shape would give you more information and would be simpler to draw.

>>4878012
>>4878001
>>4877986
>>4877971
>>4877969
>i'm too brainlet to draw a box in perspective
leave while you can and look for another hobby, that's my advice

>>4878010
>>4878048
moderndayjames

>>4877952
whats the point of boxes if you still need to correctly draw the anatomy? just learn anatomy lmao only retards push the boxes meme

>>4878010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FupeKX4NQsQ&t=303s&ab_channel=moderndayjames

>>4878065
Anatomy is just a series of intersecting boxes

>>4878058
you think it's easier to put together consistent conic sections in perspective than it is to put a box dead center on a larger box?

What do i do once I master the box people

>>4878010
>>4878010
Gonna have to stop you there. This is literally the first thing in Bridgman's "Constructive Anatomy".
He focuses on the two-box torso because it was intended for advanced students who probably had already encountered mannequinization. My experience with Hogarth was his hands lessons and they absolutely follow a "break it down to constituent basic solids" approach.

Loomis absolutely does approach a mannequin system in "Figure Drawing for All it's Worth" starting page 38-55 (with a couple pauses to focus on basic anatomy landmarks). He picks up again at page 70 and walks forward into actual figure drawing.

Just about every artist has their own mannequin system, I think Watts teaches 3 different ones back to back. This is similar to how just about everyone that draws the Loomis head long enough boils it down to just what they need for their own personal needs.

What's important is just understanding perspective well enough to block out ANY object or creature based on the forms you best feel represent the figure.

>>4878078
Draw coom for cardboard fetishists

>>4878080
vilppu teaches you to construct the mannequin in circles, boxes and cylinders and combine the 3 to do a more advanced mannequin

>>4878088
Is there a specific course or

>>4878011
you don't actually believe the opposite, do you?
that would be pretty pathetic.

the point of drawing a box (and any other construction method, including loomis shit) is LITERALLY because it is simpler to understand.

>>4877963
>this is your brain on minecraft

>>4878077
yes, it is just 3 ellipses. And all you need with no waste

>>4878080
I am aware they all use their own mannequin but it’s nothing like this. Usually it’s more of a simplified skeleton, ops are more perspective focused and beg friendly if that makes sense.
For instance, here you have a simple t as the pelvis compared to the very complex rotated and inclined ellipses in loomis’ mannequin.
Watts does utilizes something closer to these tho.
>>4878088
As i said vilppu’s box mannequin is much more imprecise and meant to be combined with the other three shapes he teaches.

>>4877952
My favorite artists never bothered with construction, so why should I?

>>4878107
you inferred the exact opposite of my intended meaning.

>This whole thread
literally none of you saying "I dont need the right" can even DO that.
post
your
work

>>4878145
Can you rewrite your post so the rest of us can understand it? Thank you.

>>4878138
Because your drawings, motivation and talent are probably complete ass, and that’s before you even start comparing yourself to them

>>4878157
I understood it just fine esl
There was like one typo

>39 replies
>no work

>>4878166
And what were you saying then?

someone unironically explain to me why i cant just learn anatomy and put it in perspective instead of boxes

>>4878170
Prove you can make a drawing using the methods on the right.

>>4878158
Keep projecting loser beg. I'm even being followed by some of my favorite artists.

>>4877952
I see a lot of people using a box to represent the ribcage but it never worked for me
like there's no define front and side plane with the way the ribs turn except for the costal cartilage but it's an inverted V plane
When you draw on top you basically have to curve into it like crazy, best represented with the picture top left
Feels like a simple oval would be more organic

>>4878176
Because you’ll learn neither and are ngmi.
In all seriousness, why can’t you understand it is just much easier to handle the perspective of a box in complex angles???

>>4878176
Assuming this is a real question.
You CAN just learn anatomy and put it in perspective instead of using boxes, that's what russian academic drawing classes do. (Iliya Mirochnik teaches this method.) But that method is done primarily for creating realistic renderings of human anatomy with heavy use of reference, which isn't what stylized art is about. Why would you learn the complicated thing and then try to apply another complicated thing [perspective] to it when you can learn a simple thing [the box] and manipulate that? Most of the people who struggle with learning do so because they're afraid of the simple forms. They cant draw them well and it terrifies them because there is no cop out for when your simple forms are bad but it is the fastest cure for ngmi.

>>4878169
This pathetic thread exemplifies /ic/ really well

Why do people in this thread not get it? The box isn't the goal. The box is a tool for drawing things with a sense of depth. Use a rounded form if you want but you can't feel the form if you can't draw any form to begin with.

>>4878138
>any famous artist uses boxes
just because you can't see it doesn't means it's not there

>>4878183
Then use a simple oval. It's a sliding scale from Accurate to Life -> Simple to manipulate.

Remember kids there are no rules, only tools

>>4878197
Perspective is harder to track on round forms tho.

>>4878169
then post your work or else you are just another bitch :)

>>4878072
this, there is no need to do the right, just jump right to the anatomy

>>4878131
...
...
...

>>4878200
how do you go from cube to meat?

>>4878223
using a organic mannequin

>>4878169
literally every thread

>>4878227
ur saying that i could just take a photo from dolls and trace it?

>>4878200
They sure as fuck didn't grind it like the monkeys on /ic/ want you to believe.

>>4878176
if you're unable to put a couple boxs into perspective, then you literally do not have the ability to put ribcages and pelvises into perspective.
if you do have the ability, then you can skip it.

like vilppu said: it's only important if you can't do it.

>>4878176
min 03:20
1st- Perspective
2nd- Figure Drawing
3rd- Anatomy
4th- Bridgman

https://youtu.be/Thh4JXnVtxM?t=200

>>4878223
an*
the box mannequin it's not the final goal, it's just another tool to help you pose the mannequin in different and hard pespectives, but surprise, people on /ic/ are brainlets and don't know how to rotate a box in perspective
>>4878231
you can but it's harder to pose those dolls and it's too obvious when you trace them

>>4878223
Use the cube to study the meat properly.

>>4878241
Might as well skip minecrafting and go deep meat

>>4878248
Then do it. But you cant do either so I suppose it doesn't really matter.

>>4878233
Most people can rip through the cube / basic 2 point stage pretty quickly, especially if they drew a little as kids. Some people here are like “I went through draw a box and loomis and I can’t figure out what’s wrong with this drawing...” and it’s clear they did not get a grasp of basic perspective at all from their study and if they’re telling the truth (and they didn’t just browse draw a box and draw a single loomis head and call it a day) then they absolutely do need to grind cubes and other solids until they get it, because I don’t know how else they can be helped if they actually want to get good.

>>4878238
>proko awkwardly rambles
>vandruff busts out hale
i wish there were a better format to consume vandruff content.

>>4878223
Subdivision.

>>4878269
loomis's perspective is impossible to understand, i just want to learn to draw and not do complex math

>>4878272
Just e-mail him. He's a nice guy.

>>4878290
PYW

>>4878269
Ah, fair enough.

>>4878292
>establishing contact with other humans
let's not go crazy now

>>4878295
we don't need to prove our point, it already has been proven with lots of profesional works and teachers, you should post your work to demonstrate that boxes are useles, but you won't because you are a beg :)

>>4878285
the problem isnt that its hard, its that he assumes a lot of perspective knowledge beforehand, most of what he gives you are techniques. go to a more comprehensive perspective book then go back to loomis

who did this
Cute art

>>4878183
For beginners solids with non-specific orientation are not good. Better they learn to box out the rib cage and work up to a more specific solid (although I don't disagree with your point in terms of a long term solution)

>>4878303
Ah, so you're a beginner piece of shit only parroting shit you've read.

>>4878303
this guy don't use boxes

>>4878285
Loomis's doesn't seem that mathematical to me, Robertson does for sure but that works for my brain.

Either way, the ultimate goal it to get you to understand basic perspective (at least 2 point) and how to draw simple solids in a perspective world. Once you can do that you can work up to a mannequin. Whatever resource helps you get to that point, go with it.

>>4878314
>hiperrealism
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, what's next? picasso was a good artist? that's for making me laugh i needed it

>>4878314
That guy uses a damn grid / projector just like all the other photocopier artists. I have yet to meet one of these guys that can draw the first thing from imagination.

>>4878317
wtf is this, there are more stuff like this shit in that book

>>4878322
like all realismtards, they can't even do 1 point perspective

>>4878321
Do better, pyw.

>>4878313
It's a fact that about a century's worth of art pedagogy can be easily accessed that insist upon simple perspective / solids as requisite information to succeed. If you disagree with all of them good luck to you, but the guy you're talking to is 100% correct.

>>4877952
Those boxy figures are awesome OP, ik you didnt draw them but where did you find them and where can i find more

>>4878324
So what? Everything starts simple and builds to complexity. Don't look at the craziest shit in the book and go "Well fuck I just can't do it".

>>4878334
@Bear_the_Mighty

>>4878321
picasso definitely understood perspective

>>4878324
it's just alberti's method m8

>>4878324
The text next to the image tells you what to do. It is only moving and intercepting points and lines

>>4878324
how about try not skipping everything that leads up to that page

>>4878388
first page on perspective

>>4878314
What is even the point

>>4878059
hobbies are supposed to be fun. how does it affect you if retards skip fundies and make thier art look like shit? if anything you only stand to benefit from more shitty artists, if youre so good

>>4877952
The right is easy. Drawing appealing faces is the hard part.

>>4878402
Ok, here's the deal, Loomis' text for this image is not sufficient to easily explain the complicated ass image. To clarify it, the "MP" system is just a quick and easy way to duplicate repeating objects like fence posts and sidewalk lines so that they're exactly spaced in perspective.

That said... Loomis is not famous for his perspective training, he's famous for his awesome head construction system and almost-as-awesome figure drawing instruction.

What a beginner needs from perspective is the ability to draw 2 vanishing points and know how to use them to draw boxes, cylinders and other basic geometry. There are better resources to get there than this particular Loomis book.

I think he does a lot of simpler perspective stuff in his other books like Figure Drawing For All It's Worth which is the best thing he ever did, but I'd still probably study just about anything else for perspective.

>>4877952
because i can see when my proportions are off and i want to learn how to do it by sight in most cases

>its another /beg/s vs /beg/s with no work posted in sight thread
Tiresome.

>>4878402
I was going to extend the comment but you were answered before, anyway I help you with some things so you can even begin to understand this image and pay attention in the future

This image is constructed from the human figures, possibly from the one in the center. Notice that as they are all at the same height from the ground their heads are above the horizon line.

1 - if you pay attention these lines are used to know the distance between the fences, it's the most basic way to transfer squares in perspective

2 - the same as above but applied to the floor, it is simply a matter of making a grid transferring the size of a tile

3 - that line is simply the center of the front of the house, the "X" is for finding that center in perspective. In case you have any doubts, the height of the house is given by the human figure

4 - the height of the fence is taken based on the human figure (approximately the waist)

5 - that point is the base of the figure (and therefore the ground), in this case is used to know the height that should have the figure of the front, besides being used for the fence that I explained above


Anyway Loomis has a book dedicated to perspective that explains a little better how to use perspective, look for "Successful Drawing". Go and study perspective instead of whining about how difficult it is

>>4878540
Yes no question should ever be answered on a theoretical basis, we should just do endless demos to satisfy the infinite number of what if's and why's from beginning artists who want to hear there's an easier way.

>>4877952
in a word: anatomy

>>4877952
The right is actually fun, I do it a lot. It forces you to put expression into the pose. Quick, low stress, and extensible. Great for warmups and rough ideas.

>>4878584
Good job with the hyperbole you disgenious faggot. And yes should demostrate your skills when debating the value of whether or not construction should be used during the learning stage of art, if your stance is so good then proving that you can back it up with undoubtably skills should be just as easy, right? Nope you mental midgets continue talking shit when you should've been drawing and its tiresome.

>>4877952
Honestly you aren't even wrong. I took some time to just draw hampton mannequins and I found my figure drawing skills improved tenfold, from reprehensible garbage to just regular garbage.

t. retard /beg/

>>4878695
Everyone in here is discussing drawing. Yours is the bitchy metacommentary (the element most removed from the topic at hand). Good news homie, if it makes you so mad... you don't have to read it.

>>4877952
I tried doing some studies of the box construction on the right. kind of interesting, but I don't think anyone actually constructs their figures like this, right? it feels too removed and clinical. the OP image is probably just for educational purposes. good exercise. did I do it okay?

>>4878740
>>4878239
read the thread,
those are pretty good copies, try to apply the mannequin to photos of people

>>4878740
People absolutely do construct tougher poses like this, usually starting with a gesture. Sometimes it's just a limb or two (usually the more foreshortened ones, to help get them right).

For easier poses you eventually don't need the literal construction, but the idea is definitely still there.

>>4877952
I've never seen the "T" hips thing before, I do kind of like it.

>>4878725
>no work posted
>passive agressive whining
Have fun being gay, none of this shit will make you a better artist.

>>4877952
I always find myself trying to do the box figure, limbs turn out okay, but the torso and pelvis boxes sometimes connect improperly, despite looking like they exist in the same space. I find it easier and more accurate to draw the figure by studying the skeleton itself.

>>4878778
My mannequins are literally the post right above your comic lol. Can we see yours or are you just gonna keep bitchin?

>>4878778
just my two cents, I'm a beginner but I learned something from this thread. working through Loomis and Scott Robertson now and I feel like a few posts from this thread really made it click why 3d forms applied to the figure are important and useful
>>4878751
this makes a lot of sense like how I've seen Kim jung gi draw, like how he draws fisheye views with no guidelines, he must have them in his head. and also how I've seen in moderndayjames channel how he does drawings that look like scotts method freehand, he must just have similar guidelines in his head. so it would make sense to draw 3d forms as long as i need them and i can skip them when i feel i no longer need as a guideline and can just hold it in my head.

>>4878804
100% This. KJG actually goes over the boxes thing literally every time someone asks how he does it. His mannequin is really similar to this one, he just doesn't draw it unless he's demonstrating it.

>>4878809
if he doesn't draw them when drawing for real why should i?

>>4878804
>and i can skip them when i feel i no longer need as a guideline and can just hold it in my head.
or also if i just wanted to make my drawing super accurate perfect protective grid can keep using them forever. or vice versa if i didnt care if it was a bit sloppy and sketchy

>>4878809
are there any good vids of him going through it?

inb4 cgpeers

>>4878740
>I don't think anyone actually constructs their figures like this, right?

"thinking" is a strong term for anything you attempt to do with that smooth brain of yours you fucking retard

>>4878813
If you don't need them, don't draw them. Only you know when you're good enough.

>>4878821
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP06EHog8B0

(you can see he's already done mannequins right when the video starts).

I recall seeing several better ones where he really goes into it, they may have been on facebook or instagram stream.

>>4878841
his cubes don't even shape the figure correctly, why draw a cube when your figures wont be inside it properly anyway?

>>4878828
maybe I was a little vague, but I mean stuff like drawing a T-block for the hips and putting literal ball joints everywhere. I feel like most people mentally skip these sorts of visualizations, they don't seem especially practical. I get the impression that even the artist of the OP image has their own shorthand construction method that doesn't necessarily line up with what they drew on the right
>>4878748
>>4878751
ahh, thank you. yeah, I can definitely understand people putting down cylinders for limbs and a box for the torso, these mannequins in particular just felt a little over-designed for a sketch phase

>>4878856
I mean getting it exact isn't the point but if you've got it better than he does draw some crazy shit on camera and we'll all see ya when you're famous.

>>4878887
>>4878314

>>4878891
That's from a photo, nobody needs to construct doing the photo-copy thing the photo already constructed it for you. Inventing figures is a different discipline.

So is anyone gonna be helpful and actually point how do I learn this? All the material out there already assumes you are an expert.

>>4878924
Yes! (But pic not related just doodling and was about to post anyway).

SO... you need to pick a mannequin system. The one up top is fine, Loomis did one in "Figure Drawing for All its Worth". Proko has one (and several demonstration videos.

The goal is to get basically boxes for chest pelvis head, cylinders for limbs (joints optional, a lot of people do balls but I think cubes are better for knees).

If you CAN'T already, you'll need to get good at boxes and cylinders in perspective. Don't go crazy and learn all of Scott Robertson's how to draw, just make sure you can draw a box and a cylinder and orient it fairly well. You'll get better.

Use a good set of proportions (Loomis is fine). Body is 8 head boxes tall, crotch is right in the center (4 head-boxes down). Just google "loomis proportions" in image search you don't have to go digging.

Now, just start by doing several dozen by copying a pose in a photo. You can use Croquis Cafe and just pause them. Draw your mannequin to match the photo, get it as good as you can, feel free to copy and paste both into photoshop layers so you can put the mannequin on top and see how close you got etc.

Then, you want to start coming up with your own poses. Start simple.

Eventually, once you're good at the mannequin, whats on the left will be much, much, easier. Add line quality, more specific anatomy, lots and lots of practice, maybe some color, VOILA!

>>4878924
literally loomis.

>>4878938
>If you CAN'T already, you'll need to get good at boxes and cylinders in perspective. Don't go crazy and learn all of Scott Robertson's how to draw, just make sure you can draw a box and a cylinder and orient it fairly well. You'll get better.
Where do I learn this? Scott Robertson assumes I already have a PhD on perspective

>>4878946
no, he doesn't. htd was my first perspective book and i had no issues with it. slow down, take your time, read what he has to say, practice. stop being a zoomer.

>>4877952
ARTIST NAME you shitposting faggot

>>4878953
bearthemighty

>>4878946
Lots of youtube videos, just look up 2 point perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_LbQviO1K4

>>4878957
I already can do this but it doesn't cover cylinders and it doesn't cover what to do when all the boxes are not facing the exact same direction

>>4878968
There's no trick, once you understand 2 point perspective you start drawing boxes freehand in various orientations (without drawing the vanishing points). Look at stuff in your room and imaging a box around something, or just draw a literal box in a bunch of different positions. Getting a good looking box freehand is a requirement, and the only answer is practice.

>>4878946
https://drawabox.com/lesson/250cylinders

>>4878974
But all the boxes on OPs image on a single figure are going towards wildly different VPs which is different from doing 2 point meme exercise of a bunch of boxes on the exact same orientation.

>>4879004
Right. That's what I said, you have to expand into freehand cubes and other solids, 2 drawn vanishing points and a ruler is the training wheels for this purpose. You have to take them off.

>>4879004
yes many facing different VPS. You have to use your eyes and intuition to tell what will look "right". Since there are many ways to that, imagees is showing mostly 3 VPS, that's why theyr dynamic

>>4879013
Let me rephrase the question. What is the trick to drawing different cubes on widly different orientations which make sense with each other within a given space in order to build a figure. If I just start throwing cubes willy nilly they might overlap, cross each other or be absolutely out of order and reason within a given scene on space

>>4879020
>Just use intuition
Perspective is anything but intuitive. There is a damn good reason it took 1400 years for someone to figure it out. Also if there isn't a formal and systemic approach to solve such issue that I can practice how am I gonna be able to internalize it in the first place?

>>4879025
Nobody knows.
I went through robertson, framed perspective, p made easy, scott mcloud, marshall lectures and a bunch of others
nobody has ever explained how to find the VP of a tilted cube in perspective. No I don't mean rotated where you just move the VP from the SP. I mean tilted as in the box goes into it's own 3P perspective

>>4879049
If the cube already exists, every line points directly to a VP (3 point by definition). Put a rule on any line and it should (theoretically) end on a VP. If it DOESN'T already exist you just estimate and draw a cube.

>>4877952
DAMMIT OP WHY WOULD YOU POST THIS AND NOT PROVIDE SOURCE TO THE ARTIST

>>4879049
Tilted cubes are just inclined planes, Ernest Norling goes over this in his book but he uses houses and an open book as an example. You can also use 3PP but it's unnecessary if you're merely tilting cubes, it's faster to rotate it along its axis using an ellipse. I think MDJ has a video on this on Youtube.

>>4878138
Post artists. Please. I want to see this.

>>4878285
I understood it just fine. It's basic perspective shit dude.

>>4878740
No, not really. You either do those as practice, for fun, or to demonstrate to others how to apply construction principles to figure drawing.

>>4878314
That guy is a faggot that copies photos, using a grid. I guarantee that he can barely draw a stick figure from imagination.

>>4878314
Can we gatekeep copypasta realism from being classified as art?

>>4879116
not when you still don't have the basic skills to do it.

you obviously need to do both to get good, unless you just want to copy stuff for the rest of your life.

just wanted to say that it's a good reminder to let the belly and the beck part out of the box-mannequin, just realized i can pose them that way way better.

>>4879043
After a while, you do develop and intuitive sense for how to freehand a cube, or a cylinder, or whatever. You unironically just gotta feeeeeel it, man. I mean, the OP image is enough to prove it's possible, they definitely weren't using VPs or guiding lines or anything. They just had a horizon line in mind and went at it, drawing what felt right.

>>4879162
The problem is not the free hand shapes. Its having the shapes be coherent in the same shared space when they are all using absolutely different vps

>>4879177
Yeah man. Look around your room. I'd bet that barely anything is aligned to the same vanishing points. With enough practice and experience, you just get a feel for eyeballing perspective.

>>4879177
You're overcomplicating this. You only need to be so accurate, and what's left (error) is diminished over time with practice. There is no magic bullet. At some point your ability to go "eh... that looks too long" kicks in.

epic fail!

>>4879206
But it works

>>4879206
Is it a fail if you park your car and it's not EXACTLY centered between the lines? No?

ALL constructive anatomy incorporates errors. The goal is to get close enough to make a pleasing image.

This is embarrassing. If you disagree with the premise, don't do it. If you think you can do better go for it. If you can't do better, why are you nitpicking people that are busy drawing better than you?

>>4879206
why would that be a fail? those boxes have clearly different vanishing points, you are constructing a human being not a tank...

>>4879177
Here I've drawn a bunch of solids, basically random, with random orientations, some touching, some not. They do not share vanishing points Can you get a feel for where they are relative to eachother, despite their imperfect nature? The cube definitely isn't right, the cylinder isn't sitting perfectly flat against the cube etc. but does it matter?

If you can basically imagine where they are in space, you'll be able to do the same with your drawings (at least eventually), so don't sweat it.

>>4879206
Turning of the head is forbidden

>>4878499
lol, it's the exact opposite.
figuring out faces only takes that much work. not saying it's easy, but figuring out bodies in-depth is really hard.

not saying that faces are easy, but bodies just take that much more work

Toriyama san answered this already.
He told his students to learn to draw in perspective correctly, and do it enough that it becomes intuitive so they can freehand it.

How many of you can even draw the ones on the right? A box is the simplest way of depicting form in space - it is literally made of XYZ coordinates, even a child can draw a box perfectly in space with a few hours of teaching. It is the perfect foundational form for drawing anything structural with the illusion of depth in linear perspective.

Stop coping and start studying.

>>4878138
stop paying attention to how your artist drew now, instead look how they drew when they were starting

>>4879255
obscenely based.

Seriously though, does anyone at all know who the artist for the OP image is? I've tried to look it up on several image search sites but no dice. Even cropping out the text in saucenao didn't do shit.

another box thread?

>>4879386
https://twitter.com/bear_the_mighty

>>4879440

>>4878482
Drawing boxes is fun

>>4879206
/beg/ containment thread

>>4879435
I’m gonna coom

>>4879386
>@Bear_the_Mighty

>>4878764
>that coque

>>4879206
Embarrassing, you should delete your post

>>4879206
You haven't fully understood perspective yet if you think that's a fail. Each vanishing point basically points at an axis and the only fixed axis is the one you rotate around, although you could do another rotate about another axis to rotate that too. All this shows is that the head is tilted to the side aka rotated about the axis perpendicular to the visible VP

>>4879206
I have a /beg/ question
In this drawing it is clear the artist used multiple VP's to create a pleasing and accurate figure
How many VP's should I ideally use when contructing a figure

>>4881241
Also /beg/ but gesture matters more for figures.

>>4879043
>There is a damn good reason it took 1400 years for someone to figure it out.
No. Something like it existed in Greco-Roman antiquity but linear perspective as we know it was basically single-handedly invented by one absolute mad lad over the course of a decade or so in the early 15th century.

>>4881241
I don't think with something like this you should concern yourself too much with vanishing points. That's more for drawing the setting, not individual figures. You just need to understand foreshortening and how to draw the shapes at different angles. You don't need a grid or vanishing points for that, even if they are there.

>>4881241
The real answer to this is the artist didn't choose specific vanishing points to do the figure (and definitely didn't construct regarding them using a ruler or anything).

This is why it's been stated several times in this thread that turning basic block forms must be done intuitively, because once you can do it freehand, you can do things like... tilt the hips relative to the chest block. How much won't be "12.5 degrees" but rather "however much feels just right".

Specificity is very not important for construction, you want to try to be within a range of accurate, but ultimately you will still have to adjust when the time comes to draw the actual anatomy as informed by the boxes.

>>4877952
I can't draw cylinders correctly ;_;

>>4881563
You can be pretty good at cylinders in a couple weeks if you really try, completely unironically.

>>4881563
you need to know how to draw boxes in order to draw cylinders

>>4877952
been seeing a lot of boxmen since this thread went up. you've done a good service OP.

>>4877952
You all not gonna make it degenerates, wtf is this thread even about. About fucking construction OP kys everybody not as stupid as you and fags in this thread know what it is, you all literally degenerates, just imagine...

>>4881634
No, but actually yes...

>>4881634
I know how to draw boxes it's just that my freehand cylinders are wonky. Maybe i should put them in boxes more.

>>4881661
So you can't do it then. You can't draw the boxmen?

>>4881634
No, but actually yes.....

>>4881661
Bro chill out. At least this thread is better than the 10 million twitter drama threads/sakimichan threads.

>>4881666
Hell yeah, if you need to box 'em up do it. In fact some people actually do the construction with just boxes (long boxes in place of cylinders). I don't think it's as good for foreshortening but to each his own.

Even in the 16th century they knew this.

>>4879206
Oh gosh... Is it bait... Pls

This probably didn't help, but it was therapeutic and relaxing to do while watching movies on the side.

>>4879206
Aha... Its called more than 1p perspective, shitty bait mate

>>4881681
That is fucking rad, never seen that before. You're totally right.

>>4881687
Fucking righteous. It reminds me of the "scale of the universe' images where you get so zoomed out that there are just spongey strings of galaxies.

I'd imagine your mannequins are pretty good, no?

>>4881241
It should be more intuitive, just set a few of them right as a orientir

>>4881701
Not sure, but they're fun ways to do studies atleast, you're forced to think about objects in space rather than lines on paper.

>>4879206
I hate this place so fucking much.

>>4881687
BASED. niggas out there be like waaaah how am I supposed to draw 250 boxes. Good shit my son

>>4881687
This is actually a fun warm up GG

>>4879190
you can't make money with heta-uma

>>4881699
Look for "Drawing Lessons from the Great Masters" by Robert Beverly Hale. That book has some other examples along with explanations by Hale on various topics related to drawing.

>>4883477
I have a couple volumes of da Vinci's sketchbooks and they're fucking rad. It's really crazy how much and how fast codified linear perspective changed art.

Nice after drawing 1000 boxes i can draw roblox people

Fuck studying.
All my homies hate studying.

>>4883622
>weebs are retarded
Duh, quit trying to save them

>>4883586
That's cool, is that digital or something that can be purchased?

>>4883683
I bought them for $2 each at a used book store. It was also "the Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci", not "sketchbooks". Apparently I did pretty well because on Amazon the paperbacks are $8/vol.

I went the gesture route, arguably more important to study than boxes. This took almost 10 min which is too slow. Gotta keep at it.

>>4883929
why is gesture more important?

>>4883950
I suppose it's subjective, but I'll at least explain my reasoning:
Drawing is like talking, you're explaining an idea to the viewer. When studying gesture, one of the goals is to communicate the pose. If you can accurately describe the feel of the pose, you can get that idea across to the viewer. Then your anatomy can be off or dead-on accurate, whatever you prefer, but your expression is still there. That's why you see so many different kinds of gesture drawing and no one can tell you 'how' to do it. It's just you, the pose, and your brain trying to talk it out.

>>4883929
Gesture and construction go hand in hand. Failure to study gesture results in stiff poses. Failure to study construction results in issues with feature placement, proportions, foreshortening and other issues.

Ill bite. I like drawing cylinder men more than boxmen

>>4883929
holy shit, did you really draw all that in less than ten minutes? it would probably take me about five minutes to draw each figure

>>4881687
Damn, now that's based.
You know, this would make for a pretty righteous wallpaper if it was colored in, actually.

>>4878300
kek

>>4878068
>those wrists
oh no no
>he went to med school for this

>>4881751
gr8 stuff. Do you happen to have a blog?

>>4878080
just proves nobody on here actually reads the material they claim to have read

what people trying to teach you are showing you: you cant draw these bodies until you can draw these bodies perfectly as blocks

what actually happens: you draw the bodies enough to the point where you can create the robo versions because they have easily defined shapes that are resultantly easy to visualize

and then afterwards you can completely miss the fucking point and also tell other newbies people they need to be able to draw block man first because you forgot your struggles

what people like op's image think theyre teaching: you cant draw these bodies until you can draw these bodies perfectly as simplified blocks first

what actually happens to people who dont give up drawing: you draw the bodies enough to the point where you can create the robo versions because they have easily defined shapes that are resultantly easy to visualize

and then afterwards you can completely miss the fucking point and also tell other newbies they need to be able to draw block man first because you forgot your struggles years ago

>>4879591
do it

>>4886567
what's actually being taught: thinking about things as collections of basic three dimensional solids, developing a sense of perspective, bog standard construction.

>>4881687
GMI

You tell me OP, I can do right and left ;)

>>4877952
literally just the Rockhe Kim Anatomy Book

>>4884009
this looks so nice!
also, >koichiposing

>>4886567
No you retard.
You literally just described Spongebob drawing a realistic head, and then erasing it to get a circle.

>>4877952
Op learned his shit from some dude assistant who had a course a few years back. Same with naf but they won’t tell you this and point you to vilppu like you’re born yesterday. I have his videos and that’s how I learned my boxman,but unfortunately you won’t be able to understand jack shit. Just do your best and copy the wisdom.

>>4887407
yes, thats what these "teachers" are doing in practice.

>>4887515
No. I struggled with drawing people well until I learned mannequinization and then turned back and applied it to what I knew.

There absolutely may be artists who fucked around enough that they figured it out on an intuitive level, but that is a long, long path compared to just "hammer out perspective solids and mannequins off and on for a few months and never have to worry about it again".

>>4887401
What is koichiposting?

Proko does all this technical shit, yet cant use any of it to create things from imagination. Shows you just how much of a complete waste of time it is. You need to let go of this stuff and move on eventually, and just accept everything you sketch will look weird for along time.

>>4888054
Why would you pick someone who is shit at something and say well there’s no point in doing it? Doesn’t that emphasise that you should be doing it more? He doesn’t practice constructing from imagination and is therefore bad at it. The fact that you think he’s bad at it suggests that you already don’t think thats standard

>>4878016
BearTheMighty

>>4887387
I would imagine that means that the statement isn't directed at you then, retard :y

>>4888054
No, Proko does not. Proko is an atelierfag that only really learned how to copy shit, he never practiced drawing from imagination, INVENTING new things, which is why he completely sucks at it. He admits as much himself.

Also, it's hilarious that you think that just naming ONE artist for your example as to why this is "useless", as opposed to literally every other artist on the face of the planet who does do this sort of thing and are successful at it, is going to prove your point. I mean for crying out loud the OP pic itself is an example of it working. You're a complete and utter dunning-kruger, you have no clue of what you're talking about at all.