/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>5196331
No

Yes, but it'll be rather messy.

>>5196331
/ic/ lacks originality, change my mind, you can't

Part of me still thinks this shit is some kind of elaborate psyop. Are there actual human beings out there that don't immediately think of pic 1?

>>5196351
For me its the other way around, if you are capable of 1 at all how the fuck are you struggling with art nigga just copy your brain hologram. If 1 was that real we would have way more Kim Jung Gis shitting all over the carpet left and right.

>>5196355
I mean even if you've got a perfect visualization in your head, you've still got to go through the process of taking what you see and recreating out on paper. Not as easy as it might otherwise suggest. Also checked

>>5196368

Nah if you can look at it you can do it you're full of shit hologram boy.

>>5196355
Everyone always ends up talking past each other when this topic comes up.
Can you “play” a song in your head by remembering what it sounds like? If you can, then you should know that it’s still not as good as hearing the song being played in real life, right? Something is missing if you just imagine it. That’s why the average person can’t just look at their mental images like they’re looking at a reference photo.
If “play a song in your head” means nothing to you then I don’t know what to tell you. Apparently aphantasia is usually accompanied by poor auditory imagination as well.

>>5196368
If you shit out holograms just focus on practicing observational drawing, you can achieve very good progress in 2 years of dedicated observational drawing. The lack of Kim Jung Gis really speaks by itself.

I think most people are 4, but we have 2 kind of people reporting their inner experience. On one side you have metaphysical sensorial dunning krugers who over report their sensory experience thinking they are 1 when they see 4. On the other hand you have people listening to these retards and thinking they are 5 when they cannot achieve 1. Anything beyond 3 is usually found in 1 individual every 100 years.

>>5196355
I see 4 but it's not a static image. It zooms in on the stem, it zooms out, it morphs into something else, suddenly the light set up and background color is different etc, Godzilla juggles 4 apples, it goes back to a single apple, etc. It looks as real as a vivid memory of a real event/place/person though.

>>5196355
my art looks like shit even when I use reference

>>5196443
>>5196396

>>5196351
Anon, it's just kids and normies coping with the fact that they can't focus when drawing so they have to assign themselves a defect
>"I dont suck at drawing; I have aphantasia/depression/mental illness xyz. I don't want to be responsible for my actions. Please give me special treatment."
Most people do see 1 but draw 2 or 3 due to the lack the skill.
3,4 and 5 only happen when it's something you've never seen before.

>>5196355
I struggle to draw simple objects that are right in front of me. Also, the accuracy of anything I visualize is obviously limited by my memory. If I haven't very carefully studied something and memorized its details and proportions, then while my visualization of it might be vivid, it won't be accurate to the real thing.

>>5196388
I don’t do music instruments but I can sing a song perfectly based on remembering it in my head.why would drawing be different.

>>5196508
Why do we need to play music irl if thinking about it in your head is just as good?
I don’t know what to tell you except, every single artist will tell you that drawing from imagination is harder than drawing from reference, but that doesn’t mean that every artist has aphantasia. It’s just part of the nature of mental imagery.

>>5196454
It's just people thinking that 1 means they should be able to "see" it and because they can't then they're a 5. You don't "see" shit. You build it in your mind. You feel its texture. You don't fucking project it on the back of your eyelids.

>>5196508
That is a really shitty metaphor
It's as simple as this: you can see something in your mind but that does NOT mean you can move your hands to draw it, nor that understand how the form of that thing works in your head

>>5196331
I'm a perfect 1, so I wouldn't know.

>>5196396
>Anything beyond 3 is usually found in 1 individual every 100 years.
by beyond you mean to be a 1, 2, or 3? or to be a 3, 4, or 5?
if it's the first, i think it's way more common than that, but i otherwise really like the points you made about people over and underrating ability
i know from reading about art history and studying/being interested in art in general that there are a whole lot of artists that can render the shit out of things that don't exist and there's no reference
i'll make a shitty argument
it goes like this
there are billions of people who have learned to write (we also have to count the dead since they qualify too)
to learn to write, you need to remember a lot of curves/shapes, group them into words, and then into sentences
this all happens pretty quickly for most people of average intelligence
there's a lot of pressure to learn to read/write because your life will be a living hell otherwise
no pressure exists for art
but i think if it were a necessary skill, people would practice it and it'd be obvious that 2s are the majority of people
most people will answer the question "what color is an apple and its stem" with "red and green" or maybe "red and brown" if they're thinking of a supermarket apple, so that visual library DOES exists, it's undeniable
2 is symbol drawing with color, something that i think overwhelmingly exists
but maybe you meant the other thing and we're agreeing with each other

>>5196337
You’re a big guy.

There are people like Tesla that can literally visualize something in front of them as if it were real, I've never heard the same thing for artists

>>5196514
No, I literally see it in HD as clear as if I saw it in real life

I think I'm 1, maybe 2, but I can "visualize" forms. I think my processing happens in the same place where spatial thinking does. It's all 3D models and shit. But the forms can be pretty wonky and shifty in my head.

I can recognize on paper what things should look like so with trial and error I can fix the forms that I create in my mind. Colour has been a struggle for me though, I need to use a lot of reference material to get things look natural, but I think I can fix that by studying how light works more

>>5196498
For those of you who say you struggle to draw, I wonder if that is actually the case. I have a theory and its hard to prove and articulate, seeing as I'm not a researcher or even necessarily a bright guy.

I think the average person is simply lacking the growth mindset which luckily can be taught/learned. It should be the first thing that is covered in *any* course with specific strategies on how to stay in that mindset for the topic at hand. You need realistic expectations for growth and keep that in check.

People wrongly estimate the number of failed attempts and the amount of total time that is required to finish something. If I were to try to draw an apple from memory, I would start by thinking of every detail that I can remember:

>sphere is the closest primitive
>top-heavy, lopsided
>belly button up top with a stem
>stubby round legs, 3-4 of them, unsure of exact amount, draw both
>dark red, blotchy, galactic-looking
>skin maybe gets lighter near the belly button? draw both
>smooth in texture with maybe tiny pores or dimples

Then I'd try to represent this as faithfully as I could. I would draw 100 apples (the size of a US quarter or so) and circle the one that I thought looked most believable. After all, if you showed me two photographs of an apple, one real and one fake, I could easily tell you which is the fake one.

To make sure I don't draw 100 of the same thing, I'd actively try to find different ways of thinking. I'd allow myself 3 hours to do the entire exercise. What happens if I draw within the bounds of a cube? From different angles? A cross-section (that's why we study anatomy, after all)? Maybe if I draw it attached to a tree, it will be more accurate (that visual could be stronger)?

A lot of us have drawn something before and thought "damn, that came out pretty good" only for the next thing to suck balls. No matter how much you progress, this will happen again and again. Work around it, and you'd be amazed at the results.

>>5196701
I hit the character limit on that, or was near it. I had to delete a bunch of shit.

Other apple questions:

Can I determine the angles of the sides? It can't be too steep (like a capital V) or it will fall over. I need to make sure I'm reconciling what I know about an apple with what is physically possible. Knowing the angle will also naturally help with the proportion, and vice versa.

What does construction look like? A large sphere with three tiny spheres as the legs? What if I swapped the spheres with something more pill shaped? Does that help?

What does an x-ray look like? In other words, what if we could see from the side how deep the belly button was from the top? Does this information help us when drawing the apple from different angles?

Each of these questions should be another drawing, or several drawings. If you like how two drawings are looking, see if you can combine them.

These questions make drawing from imagination almost trivial.

I'm still confused about how some people claim to be 1 but when you ask them about the details they don't know
Like that nigga says that he sees a person perfectly in his head but doesn't even know how many buttons are on their jacket? Just count them
I would say people are mostly 2-3 building shit in their head as they go along and focusing on it

>>5196701
>>5196735
me again

I suppose the question I'm asking is, "Do you struggle to draw, or do you have unrealistic expectations about the acceptable amount of failed attempts and time required, as well as no internal dialog happening alongside the drawing activity?"

I would argue people are overwhelmingly in the second category. Tearing up a page because the first 50 apples looks like shit is you being filtered by your impatience and lack of critical thinking, not you being a bad drawer.

Still can't believe so many people don't see objects in their mind like they do with their eyes
How do you even have dreams ?

>>5196355
Your brain fills in vague details, but consistancy and true understanding of the subject matter is a different story.

>>5196701
>>5196735
>>5196758
What happens if I draw an apple next to a banana, an orange, etc.? Does having other fruits on the paper strengthen my visual memory of the apple? I know that an orange is more spherical, so my apples need to not be so orange-like (apples and oranges, you know). I may not be able to draw a banana from memory, but maybe I can recall more details, and get there with fewer sketches?

If you follow-up this exercise with looking at photographs of fruit and drawing from reference, then you will have tremendous gains. The details you got right, those will be strengthened in your memory (we like when we're right and remember it), and the details you missed, well, now you have those fresh on your memory. More practice and you can commit them long-term.

>>5196735
>these questions make drawing from imagination almost trivial
pyw

>>5196789
I wouldn't be supporting a growth mindset if I responded to this with any other reply than this one:

Don't take my word for it. Why don't you try for yourself and see what happens?

Curiosity is invaluable. You need to get into the habit of wondering about the world around you.

>>5196842
Ok so you’re just another Dunning Krueger who thinks that a skill that people work for years to become competent at is “trivial”, got it.

>>5196849
Being doubted was a possibility I'd already accounted for, sorry to disappoint. I'm very much comfortable with you thinking whatever it is you'd like to think.

>>5196842
fuck you and your growth mindset, he said pyw so pyw

>>5196842
If you really want your claims to have any ground you will have to post your work

>>5196873
Just follow your own teachings and create something to show us as an example

>>5196986
I forgot to add, it'd be extremely fucking helpful if you did so and made it an image guide out of it after all. Otherwise yeah you're just another dunning krueger lmao

I can't see anything. I'm fucked.

>>5196873
I wouldn’t have even asked you to pyw if you didn’t use the word “trivial”. If drawing is so trivial then go ahead and trivially create some work for us.

>>5196701
I've taught myself a lot of skills, including other creative/artistic ones. Drawing is the only one where I've really struggled at all, much less just instantly encountered a seemingly impassable wall. I'm not expecting to start off good (or to ever really be good, I have very humble goals,) but usually I can just have fun with a skill and learn while working on my own silly projects. Drawing is so incomprehensible that I generally can't figure out how to even structure an attempt at drawing something. My internal monologue while trying to draw is largely just bringing up questions to which I do not have and cannot find answers. I use the same fundamentally flawed process and make the same mistakes every time because I can't even imagine an alternative.

Ask sycra

>>5196454
>brain disorders dont exist
Dude you are retarded, possibly terminally.

>>5196331
I was at 4 at best when started drawing, now i can vividly imagine it and turn around in my head, you just need practise

>>5196331
I’m a 0.000000001, where I visualize the anatomical structure of the apple and electromagnetic spectrum of light it will reflect in countless lighting conditions

>>5196355
>pulls brain out of head and traces the image projected onto neural synapses firing

>>5197166
>he doesn't simultaneously visualise every single atom in the universe, including those making up the apple as well as every single material object, and all the dark matter too.
ngmi

>>5196600
This might sound controversial but drawing skill and visual imagery are two different complete skillsets. Having good visual imagery skills will help your art a lot, drawing a lot will not improve your visual imagery skills however, you can build a visual library which uses primarly a memory element if your visual imaging is poor and can be totally dettached from visual imagery altogether, you can become a good artist without the ability to generate visual images on your mind (Glen Keane is a good example).

I would go as far as to say if you are missing the specific setup or configuration of brain wiring required for advanced visual imagery, it cannot be trained beyond past a certain point and the potential ceiling is quite low, specially if you are out of childhood. That would be in comparisson as trying to train color perception on a colorblind person. I would say a 5 can become a 4, a 4 can become a 3, but none of these can become a 1. 1 are genetic freaks, and not the seemingly unlimited amount of sensorial dunning krugers we get instead.

If people overstimate their intelligence or skill all the time to the point it becomes downright comedy, I wouldn't see why these same kind of people would overstimate their sensory experience.

>>5196331

Really, im not jerking my own cock, maybe it's an illusion, but I can imagine eyes like they are a 1. Actually just faces in general.

>>5196331
Why do you bully the disabled like this

>>5197143
Not him, but it's not like he sees mental illnesses as not real, but how normies use mental illnesses (or make up shit) to justify their lack of skills.
>lazy at work? just say you have work-related depression
>no one wants to be your friend? just say you have anxiety even though you're probably unlikeable or boring
etcetera

>>5196331
If you told me to go for 1, I could, but I might be a 2 by default.

>>5196331
I'm somewhere between a 3 and 4 and it freaks me out that there are 1s out there. I still don't know if this is some kind of elaborate troll but it makes me feel bad nonetheless

youre all retarded. that image is retarded because nobody is agreeing on definition or shared experience. we all experience similar things but you retards dont understand how to communicate it so you just assume other p[eoples imagination is drastically different.

go draw faggot buzzfeed memers

>>5198377
>assuming all minds operate on the same level
Yeah, that's why everyone is John Carmack levels of genius

>>5198386
>mmmm what about a logical extreme in bad faith?

hmm guess i never considered that hmmmm

>>5198377
Calm down a little

this is stupid. Nobody is able to perfectly visualize anything. Otherwise they'd be able to effectively have photographic memory, making them able to draw anything they can remember to a 100% perfection. Which isn't possible.

>>5196331
Holy shit can we stop with these "visualization" threads. the human brain simply doesn't work like that. It's pure garbage pseudo-science.

No you don't picture the object in your head and turn it blah blah blah. You have a vague, unfocused idea of what the object should look like and your brain will start "connecting the dots" as you start drawing the godamned thing.

Nobody does the turning object in mind like they can actually picture the Blender viewport, this is retarded.

>>5198439
Cope
>>5198448
And cope more

>>5196331
>Tfw you're 5,
All of those complaining because they have 3 or 4 consider yourself lucky, because at least you can see something. I can't visualize anything no matter how hard I try.

>>5198452
Based retard. He is the exception, the very extremely small number of autists who can do it. Noone in this thread who claims to be able to, can. And you know that because Stephen Wiltshire is one of the only recorded people who has is able to do this.

>>5196331
>if you're an NPC?
No

>>5198470
>Nobody can do this
>Except this exception
Based retard

>>5198452
Imagine setting up the expectation for artists to have a very rare brain condition as a bar of entry.

Imagine in fact not understanding that even the photographic memory guy does exactly what I said in >>5198448 . He is just doing it on a bigger scale.

He is not picturing the whole city scape in his brain in real time, he is connecting the dots and reactivating his visual memory with every detail he adds in the drawing.

>Draws building
>Activates memory of surroundings of said building
>Remember shorter building on the left, slanted building on the right etc ..
>Add landmarks
>Activates memory further
>etc etc ...

This is how your brain stiches an image together, it's always relative to something, always comparing. He doesn't have the city scape saved as a background in his mind like a fucking windows screencap.

>>5198480
i'm arguing that nobody in here who thinks they can do it, can do it. double retard.

>>5198480
We are not discussing maths, schizo

>>5196331
How common is not being able to see things in your head? I can make whole worlds down to really fine/pointlessly irrelevant details in my mind that are clear as day but the problem I run into is my hand is too retarded to accurately print out what I can see clear in my imagination. I always end up with an approximation. Is there a good way to get better at it aside "muh practice"

>>5196331
I never understood this image, I get how you can think you either can or can't, but how can your imagination be low resolution or desaturated, it doesn't work like that does it?

>>5196355
Memory isn't perfect nigga

>>5198439
>Nobody is able to perfectly visualize anything

Perfectly, no
Vividly, yes

>>5198448
>No you don't picture the object in your head and turn it

I do.

>Nobody does the turning object in mind like they can actually picture the Blender viewport

Before I make things in blender I make a mental composite of what i want. Its the reason why its so fun to use for me.

>>5199100
in that case what's stopping you from perfectly tracing a mental image of whatever you want to draw onto a piece of blank paper? Just visualize the object on the paper and draw its contours.

>>5199148
There's a difference between visualizing something in your head and hallucinating. I'm sure tibetan monks could probably do it

>>5199153
Can you visualize something while looking at a white piece of paper then what's stopping you from tracing?

>>5199148
>in that case what's stopping you from perfectly tracing a mental image of whatever you want to draw onto a piece of blank paper?

1-You keep using the word "perfect". I do not possess perfect motor skills/hand eye coordination nor a perfect memory. I cannot perfectly do anything.

2- I don't "trace" mental images, they act as a reference in my minds eye. It's comparable to drawing a live model or landscape.

>Just visualize the object on the paper and draw its contours.

Because it's a "dynamic" thing that I can adjust at will. As I work I make changes to the idea that make it better because your first draft always sucks.

>>5199167
If you can't do it perfectly then you don't have the image in your head from #1. That's the thing i'm arguing against.

>>5199153
Are you retarded?

>>5199186
>If you can't do it perfectly then you don't have the image in your head from #1.

It's far closer to #1 than #2


>That's the thing i'm arguing against.

You're arguing against a way to explain what high detail visualization "looks" like to people incapable of it themselves. It's pure semantics that serves no point but "um actually"

>>5199209
here's what i don't get: If you can imagine something alike #1, then what's stopping you from imagining it on the paper and drawing a copy of it without any preliminary sketches, with proper perspective and lighting and everything?

For a long time I thought my imagination was a bad thing, so I would try to stop using it if it meant I wouldn't imagine schizoshit.
I've gotten better. I can see 1 but usually it's temporary 2 or 3 second flashes of a coherent image, usually ripped away before I can put a pencil to paper, or midway through drawing, I try to imagine it again but it looks completely different and fucks up the pose/lighting/angle whatever. I will be better.

>>5199222
> then what's stopping you from imagining it on the paper and drawing a copy of it without any preliminary sketches


Remember how I keep saying "memory isn't perfect"? This includes things we imagine. Our brains are constantly tweaking and forgetting things. Also you don't need to trace information your brain already has because it's there already. Tracing a mental image is redundant.

>>5199191
Are you? I don't understand how so many people are mentally deficient when it comes to this topic, you must be a 5

>>5199167
The reason you can't actually replicate exactly what you are (or believe you are) picturing is partly because of motor skills yes.

But most importantly it's because, ONCE AGAIN, the human brain simply doesn't work like that.

You don't imagine a precise raster image, you imagine concepts and you are constantly comparing these concepts to other ones in your visual repertoire.

You are not picturing that precise object rotating in space in your mind I m sorry. What you are picturing is the rough idea, shape, direction of that object and you interpret that idea on paper.

>As I work I make changes to the idea that make it better because your first draft always sucks.

You refine/iterate your piece as you draw it precisely because you now have an actual image, that your brain is gonna compare to other things that are close to it.

This is also why even the best of the best don't iterate in their minds like fucking jedis. Thumbnailing, rough sketching, line of action, etc ... all of these are needed to give your brain an actual image it can then compare to other stuff you have seen before.

Even KJG doesn't have the image plastered in his mind when he starts drawing, he starts drawing a few lines and extrapolate everything from that. With every new line, he is constantly comparing what's on the paper with his visual repertoire.

I mean just think about it for a second : you don't draw completely dissociated elements left and right when you draw something right ? Every line starts in relation to what you have previously drawn.

Stop with this larping, this is setting up some weird unattainable expectations for people who wanna learn to draw.

>>5196331
I always thought I had shit visual memory/mind visualization but this thread is fucking with me hard, I see 1 but I don't see how it is that useful to drawing

Drawing something is like building something, unless you see all different steps and layers of your drawing, seeing a realistic picture doesn't help understanding how tf it's made
Or else we all would be able to copy any picture very easily
What's hard is not seeing something, it's transfering that data to your hand so you can slowly add up to it. And that's only aquired through hard work and experience

That picture seems like a bit of a meme 'cause the more complex image you see, the hardest it'll be to transcribe to drawing or doesn't that make sense?
I'd say the ideal brain is the one that internalized stylisation and that has to do with memory and practice, not god mode 3D brain

I image that's the true Kim Jong Gi brain, he doesn't see photorealistic images under all angles, he sees drawings he's made.

But I'm curious, people who see 3, 4 or 5, how are your dreams like? Vivid and weird or pretty basic? Wonder if there's a link there

>>5198452
This is what an actual 1 looks like, unlike the sensorial dunning krugers

>>5196396
wtf no, i see a 1 and can rotate it and zoom in and out, i can see the light hitting it in different angles as I write this, are you lying or you genuinely can't even imagine us seeing that in our minds

>>5199284
>what you are (or believe you are) picturing

I love how your entire argument is built on knowing exactly how every human mind on earth works.

>You refine/iterate your piece as you draw it precisely because you now have an actual image

If I can imagine anything why the fuck wouldn't I try out every conceivable variable in my head? Sometimes image-pose- hand-finger placement v 2.3.5 isn't what I want anymore because I though of something better.


>Stop with this larping, this is setting up some weird unattainable expectations for people who wanna learn to draw.

Because you can't think a certain no one else on earth can, got it

>>5199290
Wrong, that is pure memory, the thing we are discussing is a mix of imagination and memory, see, I mentioned how I can rotate it and see how the light and fresnel effect in the textures of the apple, that's good right? But ask me to rotate a city and I will do my best to imagine I am flying like a bird and seeing it, it works but it is not a real city and if you told me to draw a city that I have looked at it won{t happen, I can´t, same with the apple, just because I see it clear as day does't mean is a real apple that has existed in this world

>>5198372
And I can't believe you don't see a fucking apple when you think of an apple, you see a blob in the shape of it, for real?

>>5196743
>>5196743
I can, you tell me if the shirt has a pattern and I just imagine a pattern on it, I am imagining a girl with spider web leggings rn, you want me to count the holes on the strap on her shoes? Cause I will

>>5199331
Odds are you are just another dunning kruger, nothing personal I'm just playing by the numbers.

>>5199349
not that guy but
I don't get your point. To you people have either asperger brains or dunning kruger or a complete blank void trying to picture stuff.
It's an apple ffs
Many people can imagine a convincing apple because they've seen many and it's a simple object. It's not the same as imagining a complicated composition or a gundam or even say, a bike, to someone who has never studied how it actually looks.
It's not magic or delusion, it's a mix of memories, imagination and practice all of which are imperfect and we're all slave to our own perceptions and experience.

>>5199284
>You don't imagine a precise raster image,

Here's how I know you're a butthurt 5 trying to cope. Because visualization isn't just making a single jpeg it's creating an entire simulated reality.

>>5199368
no it's not cunt. That's your life goal, unless you're a one in a billion genius. That's not visualization, that's all-knowing, god-like visualization.
Visualization is a tool, not a super power.

>>5199368
Everyone does that, this is the first thing I told you. It's called, ... hu thinking.

>You imagine concepts
Yes genius you picture an idea, so a scene, a sensation, a voice or all of these things together. (an "entire simulated reality" ... fuck sake this is so cringe)

What your brain doesn't do is giving you actual granular details, precise color, lighting etc ... And if you think you can picture that actual detailed scene, you actually don't, those details are everchanging, always shifting as your brain is constantly comparing those bits and pieces with other similar things that you know.

And when you focus on those granular details (which you can), you lose the whole picture.

The funniest shit is that if you could actually perfectly draw what you picture at a certain point in time, you would realize how shifty your imagination actually is.

>>5199445
>That's your life goal, unless you're a one in a billion genius. That's not visualization, that's all-knowing, god-like visualization.
>Visualization is a tool, not a super power.

Dude, visualization to that degree is something so easy and fun I could do in elementary school. I did it so much I got in trouble for day dreaming too much. If you can't do that it's fine but don't try and force the horseshit that I can't image and rotate objects in my mind just because you can't.

>>5199455
> It's called, ... hu thinking.

Visualization is a part of thinking and you apparently can't do or even understand.

>Yes genius you picture an idea, so a scene, a sensation, a voice or all of these things together.

And you make alterations to them as you think to see different possibilities. You don't "trace" them

>What your brain doesn't do is giving you actual granular details, precise color, lighting etc

It does.Even down to the dust by the stem and oxidation marks. Your whole argument is based on your limitations not mine.

>>5196410
Bro I'm the same way. Maybe there's something wrong with use.

I see a normal apple except it's like it's dark and I have my glasses off
Sorta like picrel except more fuzzy
I wish the things I imagine would fill up my entire closed eye "field of vision" instead of being tiny as shit. However I've been told that it's because I should read more

Unironically

>>5199489
>It does.Even down to the dust by the stem and oxidation marks. Your whole argument is based on your limitations not mine.
Ok you beat me, the larp is just too strong. I'll just let you revel in it my guy.

>>5196331
Was a 5, now I'm a 4. I practice imagining stuff before I go to sleep

>>5199596
Do you have dementia?

>>5199581
It's better to admit your own personal limitations than to project them, anon. Your own insecurities are forcing you to try and tell others how they think and what they personally experienced. Solipsism is never the answer. Some people just think and process information differently than you don't take personally.

>>5196331
This is some internet age shit, right? Even the densest glue eater in my kindergarten could draw primitive kiddy shit from imagination. Being completely unable to visualize is a level of mental retardation I didn't realize could even exist.

>>5198448
Some people can draw with their eyes closed.

>>5199614
cringe

i dont get this at all. i'm a 5 but i can still "think" creatively. how on earth are you people really seeing images in your head? i find it genuinely unbelievable. does this mean i can never get good?
pic related is work

>>5199896
Honestly cringe is a pretty fair trade to not have aphantasia. I'll take a negative opinion from so random autist over a borderline mental/creative handicap anyday.

>>5198448
I am literally turning the apple while reading this, people really can't visualize a turning object?
I mean it's not perfectly clear, but it is a pretty realistic apple with detail and specks, and I can turn it. If that's what you meant.

I wish I could visualize never seeing this thread on /ic/ ever again

>>5196355
100% this.
if you can ACTUALLY see a perfect representation of reality in your head then it's simply a matter of patience to put the same thing on to a medium. and with time you should learn how to do it faster and more precicely.

this is of course far from what the reality is. you see people having fucked up perspectives, all sorts of mistakes, usually no shading even.

proof that people are fucking deluded or lying

>>5198372
You might be an npc if you're anything past a 2.

>>5196388
>Can you “play” a song in your head by remembering what it sounds like?
This is also an interesting question. Ironically while I read it I was listening to a song in my head. Which is kind of weird because you would think the subvocalisation of reading would interfere with it but no. For me it's not as good as actually listening to the song, it's on the same level as I would imagine the apple. But it can still be pretty good. It has happened that I've gotten chills or shed a tear from listening to a song in my head.

I can imagine different sounds/instruments but I think I often subvocalize the song also. Like for example, can you imagine the inception music horn sound? I bet most people can. If not all if they have heard it before. So yeah I think people talk past each other, but I also think people are deluded about what they actually imagine.

>>5200320
Think of it more as a psychedelic, painterly plein air sketch that captures a realistic impression of light but not the details and changes as you look at it. Atleast that's what it is for me.

>>5200320
ok go look at a reference and copy it perfectly with no mistakes. Should be even easier since it's right in front of you and not in your mind, right?

>>5200389
thats what i do.

the more time you spend the more realistic you can make it. you can spend a month drawing every pore on a face. personally i dont like spending more than a few hours at most.

I think one good way to test if you have aphantasia or not is to picture a character you don't know that well in your head and if you can see their features without having even known about them, you don't have aphantasia.

For example, Toad from Mario, what clothes does he wear? If you don't know, concentrate, try picturing him in your head and try again.

If you saw him wearing his vest and diaper thing, you don't have aphantasia

>>5200408
I don't know because I read your whole post at once and I saw the vest and diaper but I don't know if it was only because I read your post or not

>>5200389
>with no mistakes
also it's not about having no mistakes, it's about having mistakes that would fit your supposed capabilities.

for example a printer printing out a portrait, you would expect a mistake it would make is having one color only come out partially. you would never expect it to make the perspective of the face wrong.

likewise with your hands, i wouldn't expect you to be able to make perfect circles, lines, have no mistakes. but if you claim to see a perfect apple in your head then you should be able to over time build up an acurate representation of it.

>>5200408
That's just memory.

>>5200410
yeah i probably shouldve done a spoiler but i dont know how and was too lazy to look it up
Do another character then, off the top of the head: Tetra from wind waker, zangief, parappa the rapper
just as long as you dont know how they look like in words

>>5200412
I'm saying that even if I don't remember how they look like, I can still picture them in my head and remind myself. That's how I know I don't have it.

You guys can see anything? Hahaha NPC

>>5200431
one may call him a NGMI, Beg, Crab, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a NPC and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out"

>>5200411
> but if you claim to see a perfect apple in your head then you should be able to over time build up an acurate representation of it.

Hey #5 look in /beg/ and see how people fuck up drawings while having a real reference image to draw from. Having knowledge of somethings appearance doesn't mean you know how to effectively render it with the materials you are using or the hand control from in point stroke placement.

>can you draw from imagination if you do not have imagination?
???????????????????????

>>5200668
>Having knowledge of somethings appearance doesn't mean you know how to effectively render it with the materials you are using
Yes, I know, I tried painting with watercolor for the first time the other day and I can't say the result was great.
And that I can say that is what matters. Because with time I can make something better just by following the reference, which would be in your head for those claiming that.

What's stopping you from drawing from your perfect mental image if you paint digitally for example? just look at your mental image... pick the same color irl, draw, repeat.

>>5200698
>perfect mental image

You keep falling back to this because you have no argument . Nobody is claiming to have a flawless memory but it's a common ability for someone's mind to be able to generate detailed imagery. But remembering every single exact detail of every idea you've ever had is bullshit. Looking directly at the unchanging object you're drawing isn't even expect to yield perfect results.

>pick the same color irl, draw, repeat.

Because something like an apple isn't just 1 color that you can paint bucket. It's a blend of a variety of shades on a minut scale on top of light bouncing of its contours and textures. There are stains and discolorations and all of these have to mix in a believable way. Yes having the knowledge of the results you want is easy but the skill need to bring them to fruition is hard to master.

>>5200842
>You keep falling back to this because you have no argument .
You don't make sense. I'm not the one who said this, a lot of people claim to have it.

>Nobody is claiming to have a flawless memory
Having a flawless memory doesn't seem to have much to do with it. You're saying you're gonna forget an apple or your apple is gonna change every time you think about it? Thats a cop-out.

>Because something like an apple isn't just 1 color that you can paint bucket.
Do you take me for a retard? Unnecessary info.

Let's just say someone has a perfect mental image, (which i call bullshit on) then they should at least be able to draw it as well as they can draw a real reference. Minimum. Because they should be able to see it at the same time they draw.

Just thought of another comparison to op. Your peripheral vision. I guess your mental image actually pretty similar to how you sense things on the edge of your vision. So you could instead put a degree score from center of vision to the back of your head of how good you can imagine something in your mind.
It's actually pretty weird how you have these degrees of consciousness pretty much. It's not just on or off.

>>5199959
I'm also confused. Is it like the image is literally in front of your eyes?

So, will this thread help me get better at art or is it tumblr where people are wanting to be mentally ill?

>>5199959
On the flip side, I don't understand how people could be unable to visualize things. What does "thinking creatively" mean to you?

>>5201044
No, visualizations are not perceived to exist in objective 3D space. They aren't hallucinations. Do you have visual memories? It's like that, except they can be freely manipulated.

>>5200698
>What's stopping you from drawing from your perfect mental image if you paint digitally for example? just look at your mental image... pick the same color irl, draw, repeat.
Unless I have very carefully studied the subject in question, my mental image is not going to be particularly accurate. I'm limited by the strength of my memory if I want to visualize something that is true to life rather than simply being vivid. Also, maintaining a vivid mental image while keeping all of its fine details static requires a significant amount of concentration, which is a problem when drawing also demands so much focus. I know some mental tricks to help work around this, but it's still hard.

>>5198448
Most people here are schizos

>>5201154
>On the flip side, I don't understand how people could be unable to visualize things. What does "thinking creatively" mean to you?
well, i can't SEE anything whatsoever--certainly not anything like 1-5, but i can still sit here, close my eyes, and THINK about a... train chugging along underwater with schools of fish swimming all around, some sort of acid rave flashing through all the train windows in rapidly changing technicolor glory. i can't see any of it... but i can think it? and then try drawing it

>>5196758
Interesting points anon

>>5196355
You still need the technical ability to reproduce what's in your head

>>5196351
It's been overused to meaninglessness but the NPC meme started from a study about how some people cannot think with internal dialog. Politically it's heresy to say that everyone isn't a blank slate of equal capacity so it can't be discussed or studied further, but the evidence there is of cognitive difference between people is disturbing.

>>5201704
Yeah exactly. This I can relate to.
For example I've learned to fly helicopters 3D style so I can imagine turning the heli in any orientation in my head and how it will react and so forth. Although I can't SEE anything.
It's the people who claim to actually see something I'm calling bullshit on.

>>5202861
This is bullshit, everyone retain visuals in the same way. Long term episodic visual memory is one of the most researched subject in neurology. It's pretty well understood at this point.
People don't randomly process sugar in the liver in a completely different way.
The only difference is how fast and well you can create neuronal bonds.

>>5202977
>People don't randomly process sugar in the liver in a completely different way.
But people clearly have different ways of thinking about things. As Richard Feynmans example of how one person will keep track of time for example visually by seeing a clock and another auditory by counting. I doubt this has been researched much. An often (or always?) overlooked aspect of learning.

>>5202873
>Although I can't SEE anything.

>Because I can't do something no one else on earth can

>I know this by reading the thoughts of all humans who ever lived

Dude, you don't have a trait that others do. Let it go.

Fivers got dropped on their head as a baby one too many times

>>5200890
>You're saying you're gonna forget an apple or your apple is gonna change every time you think about it? Thats a cop-out.


It's about forgetting any of the thousands of unique details an apple or any object has. 1 thing out of place means it's not "perfect" and is essentially just a re creation.

Look at the night sky once and try to remember the exact placement of every star for more than 20 minutes. A night sky that is imagined on a comparable level of complexity will be comparably difficulty to flawlessly remember.

>>5201704
if youre thinking "see" as in literal see that's not it, everyone who says they can do that is lying to you or some one in a 100 million case. No one is seeing holograms or replacing the black when they close their eyes with color, that is bullshit.

the reason there's so much confusion over this is cause it's very hard to articulate exactly what's going on. There should be a unique word for where these images are because there's nothing in the english language that can describe it.
It's like a dimension inside your head where images appear and you sense them with a unique sense that's sort of similar to sight. I'm not making this up or suggesting I have some super special anime powers, it's not a unique trait or anything.

Describing this to people who don't have it is like trying to tell blind people what color is, which is why people who can do it end up describing it like there's a literal picture in their head when there is not

>>5203841
>No one is seeing holograms or replacing the black when they close their eyes with color, that is bullshit

But that too is very possible, closed-eye visualizations are even sharper and clearer than minds-eye visualizations

Are we all sure image projection isn't possible? When I look at Kim Jung Gi draw, it looks as if he's tracing an image in his mind on the paper.

I agree with whoever said we don't have the right language to explain this. Both people on 1 or 5 could be talking about the same thing.
David Kirsh says for example, there are multiple kinds of imagination. Like simulation, projection, construction, and we imagine differently depending on the medium and even the tools we use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU6gSMLsCrg

Like pic related, involves some kind of imaginary projection to solve the puzzle. Or parking a car, you need to project the size of the vehicle to see if it will fit in the space. Therefore you cannot have "true" aphantasia or you wouldn't even be able to walk.

For drawing specifically, there is a difference between having an imagine inside your head, or projecting that imagine into the paper, or how you need to simulate how the light will fall on a surface.
Sometimes people scribble or make loose strokes purely as imagination aids. There is a lot to explore about it. I

I think a lot of good artists just mastered a lot of these tools at a subconscious level, so not even them can explain how it works. It's very hard to talk about the most base level experiences.

recalling visual stimuli from memory is difficult, i just get an ephemeral flickering mess
i can paint an apple just fine, i know what the constituent parts of an apple are and how light interacts with it, but i can't bring forth an image from pure imagination.
i blame videogames, honestly.

>>5203814
The placement of stars is irrelevant to it looking like a night sky and you know that.
>Draw this apple perfectly
>No the only reason i cant is because i dont remember the location of each dot of the apple precicely.
Fuck you

>>5204382
>People can think
Well no shit. The question is HOW we think. Whether it's true visionary, auditory, or whatever ways are possible to think about stuff. And there seems to be real differences between people.

What do non playable characters from role playing games have to do with drawing?

For people who are 5: does that just apply to new images like if you're trying to create a brand new apple in your head or does it apply things you saw? Like can you summon up important memories of things you saw on command? Or are you left without the images and just the feelings they gave you?

>>5196331
normally with this exercise I get a 2 but when I'm doing it now I get a 5. Holy shit am I getting dumber?

>>5204553
It means I'd never be able to draw my parents from imagination despite living with them for over 20 years and looking at them every day. I ate an apple today and I can't really recall what it looked like. It was green and kinda big and I know the general shape of an apple, so I can draw "it", but can I visualize the apple I ate? No.

>>5204612
>It means I'd never be able to draw my parents from imagination despite living with them for over 20 years and looking at them every day.
Most good artists can't do that either.

>>5204612
It's how your brain is supposed to retain visual information. You are perfectly normal, get out this schizo thread.

The brain retains visual information first and foremost for pattern recognition. If you recognize your parents as soon as you see them, your brain is functioning normal.

>>5196605
belated 4u

>>5204451
>The placement of stars is irrelevant to it looking like a night sky and you know that.

Yes, this is exactly why the retarded "just trace mental images" argument low iq autists keep spouting is so bad.

>Draw this apple perfectly

"PERFECT" means total photo-realism on a literal pixel by pixel level from hand. Literally indistinguishable from reality. Sure I can draw a good looking apple from visual memory no problem but doing it "perfect" even with a photo reference is immensely challenging.

>>5196331
I'm like a 3 or a 4 and I can draw form imagination pretty well

>>5202861
Goes back to the days of Plato m8. There’s a whole herd of humanity who sees the shadows on the wall and doesn’t care enough to think about the 3d object casting them.
Humanity divides pretty well between the ones who gobble up information and the ones who actually want to learn things. And the great majority is the complacent ones who can google or snopes anything you say and then act like stuck up fucks because they think that makes them smarter than you, as if they figured anything out themselves.

i can even rotate the fucking apple and emulate different light sources wtf if you are a 3 or 4 kill yourself

>>5200890
>Do you take me for a retard?

It has been completely and totally proven that you are a complete fucking retard.

>then they should at least be able to draw it as well as they can draw a real reference

They can, the difference is human memory is limited and a reference is totally consistent. A painting from a photo reference will be more accurate in shape, light and color than a drawing from pure memory that while still "good" will be more of an approximation.

>>5205505
If you have nothing better to come with than empty insults and the drivel you manage to "think" up then you're worthless in the discussion, fuck off and kill yourself.

>>5205059
>"PERFECT" means total photo-realism on a literal pixel by pixel level from hand.
Your definitions are absurd and either unachievable or trivial depending how many "pixels" you'd use.
Nobody is talking about this shit you come up with. It's just cope.

>>5205505
You are literally too retarded understand that because the human mind has limited memory it's visual library will not be 100% accurate to every subject and that any image it generates will eventually have details forgotten and re created as time progresses. Too retarded to understand that visualization isn't the same as hallucination. Too retarded to see the world past solipsism. You have aphantasia and I pity your existence as an artist.

>>5205556
Only spergs, kids and /beg/s would ever use a term like perfect to describe art production as standard in any way.

Painting a convincing apple with light, texture, shadow, and color variants from ripeness,dust, reflection and oxidation solely from visualization is very doable. But to the same level of detail as a photo or by keeping 1 (unchanging in any capacity) mental image is absurd.

>>5205552
You are literally too retarded understand that because the human mind has limited memory it's visual library will not be 100% accurate to every subject and that any image it generates will eventually have details forgotten and re created as time progresses. Too retarded to understand that visualization isn't the same as hallucination. Too retarded to see the world past solipsism. You have aphantasia and I pity your existence as an artist.

>>5205608
Hey look the retarded monkey yaps on.
Are you even one of those who claim to SEE things in your mind or hallucinate it onto reality?

Drawing from imagination means drawing something you've already drawn before. That's just the truth. most artists wont tell you how many times they drew the same pose or angle or object.

>>5205666
Trips of truth. Fakery is a part of art. People want to make it seem like it comes straight from nothing or hide their techniques to impress. All good art ultimately comes from references. Prove me wrong.

I’m a 2 but with a little time it can evolve into 1. I’m not sure if you were supposed to go with your immediate image or with how far along you can flesh it out tho. An apple is sorta an easy example though. I tried with more complicated things like, my favorite Reimu fanart or a step ladder and I’m positive I get a lot wrong. For complicated things I spend most of the time imagining how it pieces together mechanically and then consider it far enough to get to 4 or 3. I’m not sure if it’s just me or if this is how it is for everyone but in my case it really comes down to how much time I feel is justified in visualizing the thing.
If anything though this exercise highlighted to me a weakness in my approach to drawing in that I usually start with just a sense of what I need to draw and the composition and then just wing it. It might be more to my benefit to spend more time visualizing things before I bring pencil to paper but I also tend to change a lot of things at the picture materializes.

>>5205666
It can also mean drawing something you have no idea what it looks like. Artists sometimes do the drawing without any research and end up making like tables or houses that look really stupid.

>>5196355
>you can literally see a perfect 100% realistic hand 24/7, so you should be able to recreate it on paper
>t. retard

>>5205744

>>5205751
Unless you’re that artist pedophile who Salon interviewed for their human face of pedophilia article. That guy had one hand and the other is a hook.

>>5196331
Who else is drawing apples as a drawing exercise now because of this thread?

>>5202977
>This is bullshit
You’re ignorant

>>5205660
>Are you even one of those who claim to SEE things

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia
Yes I'm not mentally handicapped and have full access to my imagination. I can't blame you for being in denial so hard, mental visualization is one of the greatest features you can possess.

>>5196331
For me I'm somewhat a 1. The apple I imagine is not a cartoon apple or a vague apple shape. It is an actual apple, but the image is not clear nor perfect.

Pic related kind of describes my experience. If I focus hard on certain aspects they'll be more detailed but I can't focus on the entire thing. Or at least, I THINK I can but in reality I know it's still a bit vague and my brain is just connecting dots. Because I can imagine characters in what I think is really good detail but when it comes to drawing them I just can't because I'm trying to take the detail that isn't actually there. And I'm very good at copying a reference, so my mind's eye is not a viable reference even though my brain makes it seem like it's very accurate.

Anyone else?

>>5202861
>the evidence there is of cognitive difference between people is disturbing.
???? what evidence.

>>5206061
My apple sings Dame da ne.

Test, for all you retards who say you can’t see the Apple, what about if I tell you to visualise the annoying orange? Can you still not see anything? What about the Apple logo?

>>5206147
You could take 30 minutes in your day and read actual summaries of papers on VLTM and the mechanisms of visual recollection.
People process and recant visual stimuli the same way like they use all their other organs the same way.
The only difference with these supposed outliers is how good/fast they are at absorbing information.
All the "vizualization" larpers here are tripping hard. Your mental image is just a concept, granular details are never fixed, you are just describing thinking about stuff which everyone can do. The fact you think you can retain this vivid detailed image in your mind is just cognitive bias, any rudimentary memorization exercise (think of something, draw it once, put it aside, wait 5 minutes, draw it again) would show you that you, in fact, retain very little granular visual information.

>>5206603
but mom said im special

>>5206603
Okay, Fiver

>>5206729
Cool cool, can you show me some work your rank 1 on the genjutsu anime power-level chart can produce ?
I'll respond with my level 5 literal NPC brain work.

>>5206741
Fiver once again missing the entire point of the discussion in the thread.

>>5206746
There isn't any point to miss, you are inventing some sort of anime power-chart for something that everybody does.
Your "visualization" doesn't translate to actual art on the canvas because it's not actually real. You are just having massive cognitive dissonance where you think you have something special but you really don't.
Do just one visual memorization exercise like I said before, you'll see how embarrassing you are right now.

>>5206827
>this sad sack sitting there justifying his empty mind while the rest of us dive into perfectly realized sensorium-saturated ultra fantasies at a whim
must suck for him ngl

>>5206838
I too am able to think anon, this is not a superpower I am so sorry.

>>5196331
I believe graphic designers are NPCs. I have never liked anything made by a graphic designer. They are little more than font selectors.

there is no creativity necessary, nor permitted in that field

>>5206827
You're right it's not special, and it's already been described in the thread multiple times why it's hard to translate it to art, you're really just going in circles. But the only embarrassment here are Fivers in denial like you. How do you even get enjoyment out of reading books if you don't visualize the scene and characters lol

>>5206859
do graphics designers make a lot of money?

>>5206860
>But the only embarrassment here are Fivers in denial like you. How do you even get enjoyment out of reading books if you don't visualize the scene and characters lol
Just imagine for a moment thinking people don't have the ability to uh ... imagine stuff, and then inventing an insult based on that.
You are deranged.

>>5206859
Are there even mods on this board holy shit what a pol just keeps leaking and leaking

>>5206906
It's only in response to solipsistic cunts that think everyone is on the same mental capability as them. That's the true derangement going on in this thread which is voiding it of actual of interesting discussion regarding visualization and memory in regards to art that could be had.

>>5206862
lol no pajeets took over. certainly some graphic designers make money but they're mostly old ass dudes who get paid shit loads to do nothing and make a big deal about it

>>5206205
>Yes I'm not mentally handicapped
You clearly are.

>I can't blame you for being in denial
What is it you think I'm in denial about?

>>5206827
>You are just having massive cognitive dissonance where you think you have something special but you really don't.
This 100% is my experience with them as well. The ones who claim to have superpowers are really the most retarded ones. The same ones who can't understand in their tiny little brains how someone can think without "using words". They don't understand how babies or animals can think if they don't know a language. Absulute retardation.

>>5206362
i had exactly the same experience, holy shit

>>5206936
>What is it you think I'm in denial about?

The research I just posted on the subject that has been around for years.
The biological foundation of the mind's eye is not fully understood. Studies using fMRI have shown that the lateral geniculate nucleus and the V1 area of the visual cortex are activated during mental imagery tasks.[25] Ratey writes:

The visual pathway is not a one-way street. Higher areas of the brain can also send visual input back to neurons in lower areas of the visual cortex. [...] As humans, we have the ability to see with the mind's eye—to have a perceptual experience in the absence of visual input. For example, PET scans have shown that when subjects, seated in a room, imagine they are at their front door starting to walk either to the left or right, activation begins in the visual association cortex, the parietal cortex, and the prefrontal cortex—all higher cognitive processing centers of the brain.[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_image#The_mind's_eye

If you ignore this again you are just trolling.

>>5207111
>What is it you think I'm in denial about?
>Posts wikipedia article about which area of the brain is activated during "mental imagery tasks"
Highly relevant mr. paperclip
I still don't know what it is you think I'm denying.

>>5207123
>What is it you think I'm in denial about?

A mental image or mental picture is an experience that, on most occasions, significantly resembles the experience of visually perceiving some object, event, or scene, but occurs when the relevant object, event, or scene is not actually present to the senses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_image

Aphantasia is the inability to visualize mental images,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia#Research

>>5205751
The difference is that you won't remember your hand necessarily, while the "1 people" specifically said they can imagine and thereby also remember a perfect photorealistic apple in their mind.
The hand is also much more complicated than an apple.

>>5207133
Yeah thank you mr obvious.
We are discussing how some people claim to see holograms they can overlay onto their vision while others (like me) can't actually see anything while imagining something but can still imagine an apple, a house or any object, rotate it in our minds for example but without actually seeing something.

>>5207153
>We are discussing how some people claim to see holograms they can overlay onto their vision

This is not how mental imagery works and no one has described it this way. We have told you multiple times it is not hallucination or projection. YOU assume this is how it works because it's the only way you can understand perception. We see things purely with our minds interdependently of our sight.

>>5207153
>how some people claim
>claim
>PET scans have shown
>activation begins in the visual association cortex, the parietal cortex, and the prefrontal cortex—all higher cognitive processing centers of the brain

>>5196758
I have an internal dialog happening while I draw, it's usually criticizing every single stroke I make and generally being unhappy with everything I'm doing.

>>5197095
>Drawing is so incomprehensible that I generally can't figure out how to even structure an attempt at drawing something. My internal monologue while trying to draw is largely just bringing up questions to which I do not have and cannot find answers.
This too. I know I'm doing something wrong, but I usually don't even know WHAT I'm doing wrong. I look at my picture and everything just looks wrong for some inexplicable reason, and I just can't quite put my finger on why.

>>5207153
Are you just an ESL?

>>5207186
>This is not how mental imagery works and no one has described it this way.
Yes they have, retard. Multiple people have explicitly said just this.

>>5207213
you cant see how people think by scanning the brain. only be given an indication as to which part of the brain does the thinking

>>5196743
I can imagine detailed things in my head, but I cannot focus on the details. The moment I try to, the entire picture vanishes. The best way I can describe it is like it's out of focus. Try describing something in your peripheral vision without changing what you're currently focusing on. That's basically what it's like.

>>5196384

Oh no, you're retarded! Gi himself says it took him 10 years to get to a good point in his art. If drawing from imagination worked the way your taking about, then there would actually be artists who have abundant natural talent and have no need to grind fundamentals to draw perfectly. Such artists don't exist.

>>5207226
A ctrl+f of this thread shows the only people using the term "hologram" and "overlay" are you and counter points to yours like
>>5203841
>No one is seeing holograms or replacing the black when they close their eyes with color, that is bullshit.

>the reason there's so much confusion over this is cause it's very hard to articulate exactly what's going on.
>Describing this to people who don't have it is like trying to tell blind people what color is

^^^^This here is why you need to shut your dipshit Fiver ass up about this.

>>5199230
>I can see 1 but usually it's temporary 2 or 3 second flashes of a coherent image, usually ripped away before I can put a pencil to paper, or midway through drawing, I try to imagine it again but it looks completely different and fucks up the pose/lighting/angle whatever.
Similar thing for me, the flashes at least. I can't hold the image in my mind, especially if I'm trying to do something else. Various little details also keep changing like you mentioned, such as the angle I'm imagining it from. I don't always have control over these sorts of things, not without concentrating on it.

Council of 1's. I think it has been thoroughly proven that 5's need to be automatically branded NGMI and ignored until a portfolio of significant quality is posted and judged by no less than five 1's.

>>5207270
I believe that's the absolute median for nearly everyone unless they just have superior concentration by practice (which doesnt have to be related to drawing)

I do wonder if anyone here has read this book and if it's helped them in anyway.

>>5207265
This isn't the only thread fagit. There's been more on this site over the last few days. If you don't know shit then don't write shit.

https://www.strawpoll.me/42640496

Let's settle this.

>>5207331
So you are arguing against the total possibility of the existence of a mental attribute based solely on your INTERPRETATION of a few written descriptions out of the hundreds if not thousands independent descriptions and peer reviewed studies of something that varies in experience from person to person on a purely cognitive level?

I have never described the experience of mental imagery as a hallucinatory hologram, so you arguing against its existence based on that is completely stupid.

>>5196331
im a 5 unless i focus real hard then im a 3.

>>5207658
>So you're saying...
No, I'm not, Cathy. You're self absorbed and you don't know what's going on. Just give it up.

>>5207658
I can imagine objects superimposed over what I see. It's like having double vision. I can see through it, but it's there

>>5207758
> you don't know what's going on.

You have aphantasia that's what going on.

>>5207845
>It's like having double vision. I can see through it, but it's there

I do this too (imaging a man running next to the car on a road trip) but I would describe it more as streaming real time optic data directly into your mental construct.

>>5207973
Yeah that sounds about right

>>5207845
I think I'm starting to manage to do this with drawing, I can very faintly superimpose the next few lines I intend to draw sometimes, like the 4th in the op pic. I hope I can get better at it.

Apparently Nikola Tesla was known for being able to super impose his visualization and that's how he worked things out

>>5198448
>>5198487
This.
Most cannot properly understand their thought process.

>>5208037
Oh look, another 5'er

>>5207973
If you're not interested in how peoples minds are different then why are you even here?

I can have an object in my mind and rotate it or do whatever I want. cut the apple, squeeze it, feel it.
But I still don't see anything. I don't think that is rare.

>>5208053
>Visualise a Zero Fighter
>Get a friend ( Provided you have one ) to ask you question about it, "what's its color, what's inside the cockpit, what's written on the letter sticked to the windshield."
>Have him write down all your answer, with the notes out of your sight obviously
>Have him ask you the same question twice after a long enough interval of time.

Oh my god! You'll give different answer! Shock and surprise!
What you're doing as they said is connecting the dots between everything you have in your visual library.

>>5208095
What a retarded post. That's just memorizing something, which can be done without the visual faculty. And I have zero idea why you'd give a different answer the second time. Mental visulization is much more than simply 'connecting the dots of your visual library' That's a really silly reductionist thing to say.

Also people can visualize something consistently, this has been known since ancient greece with mind palaces, else mind palaces wouldn't work if they were inconsistent.

>>5208114
>That's just memorizing something
No, if you can actually visualize your Zero and turn it around, you'd have no problem just turning it all around to focus on the details requested.

Mind palace works by associating concepts with trivial objects you have a better understanding and memory of you retards.

And this hasn't been known since ancient greece, people have wondered and theorized what chess players actually sees when playing blindfold since the 18th century at least.

>>5207301
>I believe that's the absolute median for nearly everyone unless they just have superior concentration by practice
I think it's the opposite. Most people of average intelligence do visualize things. Consider a shopping list. They might remember it instead by actually visualizing the specific object they need, the shape and branding. I think this makes some sense because it explains why a lot of people of average intelligence also have difficulty with math or other abstract subjects. They're go-to for doing anything is to visualize it in concrete terms, so when a problem asks you to generalize and just refer to any number in terms of a variable, they're stuck. They can't visualize n things. Negatives can be reinterpreted concretely so maybe they can handle that, but a variable cannot.

>>5208053
Anon please don't use the cute nickname you gave me on other people. I am your only fiver <3

>>5208095
I gave him a variation of this exercise, he won't ever try something like this. Anything that illustrates their mental image is not as reliable as they think it is would break the larp.

>>5208114
So your example of visualization is a mind palace? That doesn't make any sense. Anyone can imagine going through a place. That doesn't mean they can see it

>>5208124
But first is has to be memorized either way

>And this hasn't been known since ancient greece
Look at the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci

>>5208137
It's already been established multiple times by multiple people in the thread that mental imagery isn't perfect

>>5208141
Yes imagine, with imagination. not fucking see it like a hallucination or some clairvoyant bullshit you idiot

>the method of loci', an imaginal technique
>When desiring to remember a set of items the subject 'walks' through these loci in their imagination and commits an item to each one by forming an image between the item and any feature of that locus. Retrieval of items is achieved by 'walking' through the loci, allowing the latter to activate the desired items.

Keyword imagination, which is what the thread is all about dipshit

>>5208158
Nah you're projecting your own bullshit onto everyone else you fucking twat.
See
>>5207845

You act as if you're the only person and the blueprint to how all humans work you fucking autistic imbecile. Why don't you just fuck off and let others who aren't self centered retards like yourself answer instead.

>>5208082
>If you're not interested in how peoples minds are different then why are you even here?

I'm not the one who called other people's cognitive experience bullshit like >>5202873
>It's the people who claim to actually see something I'm calling bullshit on.

>But I still don't see anything. I don't think that is rare.

It's not rare it's called Aphantasia. That's why a posted an article explaining the lack of mental imagery.

>>5196331
Riddle me this.

Who the FUCK needs to close their eyes? That shit always confused me. "Close your eyes and imagine". IM NOT A CHILD I CAN JUST IMAGINE.

>>5207973
>but I would describe it more as streaming real time optic data directly into your mental construct
stop trying to become a fucking meme my guy. you're not streaming shit. it's called imagination and small kids can do it better than you.

>>5208555
>It's not rare it's called Aphantasia
Incorrect. He literally explained he has mental imagery, he just does not "see" it, and I'm assuming by that he means with his eyes. Aphantasia is when you have no mental imagery.

No one is a 1. The mental image you have that you think is a 1 is the same delusion that makes dreams make sense until you try describing them to someone.

The mental image falls apart when you try drawing it because you don't actually see it, when you see an apple, certain neurons are triggered, when you 'picture' an apple, those same neurons are triggered, making you think you see it, but the process isn't reversible. Anyone claiming to be a 1 that can't draw it is literally in a dream they can't wake up from.

>>5196331
I'm beyond 1.

Not only can see the apple but I can flip it, cut it, stretch it, and manipulate it in every which way. I can even smell it, feel it, and taste it. I can see every little moist dew within the apple. Every pore, hue shift and how the light would bounce off its surface and reflect.

>>5208614
Cope. Plenty of people are beyond 1. Go look at Kim Jung Gi and Karl Kopinski's works - you think they got their drawings from a reference they memorized?

>>5208626
Cope what, your lack of reading comprehension?

>>5208626
Unrelated, Gi himself said he only can visualize cubes, but he builds off of that, fill enough cubes with unique drawings and you get a cohesive huge mural.

>>5208606
> I'm assuming by that he means with his eyes.

I considered this but I can't describe the sensation of visualization or mental imagery without a word like see or sight, because that's what it feels like. A mental image is seeing with your minds eye separately from your real ones there no other way to put it as accurately.

>>5196331
I see something similar to 4 most often. I'm generally /int/, draw anime, mostly draw from imagination, rather lazy, and relatively young.
I can visualise boxes and angular shapes, although they fade if I don't focus/build too many. Do you really need more aid than that, anon?

>>5208659
I'd like to add that, amusingly, I have talked about this with non-artists I know before. People that leaned towards 1 had ADHD, ADD, and consumed more weed, and were generally academically average or poor, taking arts courses, or both. Most of the people that leaned towards 3-5 were in hard sciences and top achievers, or generally scored significantly better than the averages of their cohorts.
Of course, this is just anecdotal, but everything else in the thread is too.

>>5208648
Bullshit. I watched an interview of him and he said that he visualizes the whole scene in his head. When he visulizes the cubes he has to then visualize the content of that cube. Which again requires beyond 1 imagination.

>>5208644
Keep coping beg

>>5208158
Also, have you even tried building mental palaces? Memorising the layout of a building hardly requires you to be able to clearly visualise every element of said building, and associating a list of items/statements/facts with the aforementioned elements also doesn't require precise visualisation. The spatial factor is far more important than pure visualisation alone.
My visualisation is shit, and I've built myself a mental palace before, successfully. I don't regularly use the method because it's irritating to come up with absurd concepts to link to every single thing you have to memorise, and because I don't normally find myself having to memorise things that would actually require that specific degree of ordered recall.

>>5208672
>Most of the people that leaned towards 3-5 were in hard sciences and top achievers, or generally scored significantly better than the averages of their cohorts.
That's because they have the self-awareness to understand that what's in their mind isn't coherent even when it feels like it is. See >>5208614. It's nearly impossible to explain to people who don't want to hear it that they aren't as smart as they think. In the same way your brain pieces together the gaping hole in your vision as one continuous image, your brain smooths over large gaps of logic. The smarter you are, the more aware of these gaps you are. The dumber you are, the larger the dunning-kruger effect. The same thing applies to mental images as well, telling people you don't actually see what you think you see is nearly impossible.

>>5196331
I see 1 with my eyes open but im schizophrenic

>>5208795
Yeah, it's probably biased since my sample size isn't massive or anything, but I do wonder if there's a greater correlation somewhere. Then again, perhaps it could be argued that glossing over things might be more beneficial for artistic endeavours, although I do know a lot of people that have a career in/study science but do art as a major hobby. In any case, I don't know enough psychology/related to talk shop.
Nonetheless, I also wonder how good these anons that are apparently 1's are at translating their mental imagery down onto paper. If the picture already exists in their mind's eye, or if—as some anons have claimed—the image is practically projected at will, shouldn't it be far more easy to draw, almost akin to making every drawing a study?
>>5208818
Does it help with drawing? Significantly, like using a reference might help?

>>5208826
You should literally be able to trace it. If your mind's eye is that good you should be able to glassplate it. The reality the people claiming they have a 1 are the same people that have a million ideas but never execute on them. They shield themselves from realizing how broken their understanding actually is and lives in that pit of ignorance screeching at anyone that threatens to tear down that illusion.

>tfw can not only conjur up vivid detailed pictures in my head when I close my eyes but also imagine the texture and feel of stuff as well

NPC's livid

>>5208887
Accounting for blinking, I think it's more aptly compared to a study where you keep tabbing between your referencing and your canvas. But I do wonder why none of the 1's are doing much more than grandstanding. An imagination at #1 would be nice, hypothetically, but I'm more interested in the practical application of it all.

>>5208909
So can you draw that? Does it work like tracing your mental imagery, or, if you account for blinking, is it at least like heavily referencing your art/doing a study?

>>5208187
I have no idea why you assume I'm some random other poster in the thread but okay lol

>>5196331
I knew this girl who never, ever sketched. She just took an ink pen in her hand and drew some quality animu shit. Not gigagod-tier, but very impressive stuff. Not only faces, but complex poses and composition.
I asked her how she did it. She said she just pictured the image in her head, projected it to the paper, and inked onto the "sketch" she saw inside her mind.
She used this skill of hers to draw Haikyuu fan art.

>>5209009
Wow, you're fucking retarded. I linked that post to show what OTHER PEOPLE say.

>>5209095
>you're, your, you
>you, you're, you, yourself

Yea, your post was clearly indicating OTHER people and not me. You brainless mong. Guess you also have low verbal IQ as well has low visual IQ

>>5208555
>I'm not the one who called other people's cognitive experience bullshit like
Doesn't mean I'm not interested. This is what the evidence points towards. That is literally all it is. I'd have no problem if the truth would turn out to be that I'm lacking common mental capabilities. I'm not the one attempting to distort facts to make myself feel better pretending to be special. Don't underestimate how fucking emotionally driven people are and how much deception, denial, wishful thinking etc the average person will do.

>>5208614
>the same delusion that makes dreams make sense until you try describing them to someone.
this. so much this.

>>5208683
you think you're pretty special don't you.
the condescending way you talk while having no substance
you're a joke.

>>5209108
Go have your mental breakdown somewhere else, retard.

>>5208909
>I can imagine the texture and feel of stuff as well
wow, aren't you special? Are there people or even animals who CAN'T do this? they would if so be the special ones. this whole thing is retarded.

>>5209124
At least I have the mental capabilities to have a mental breakdown unlike you, NPC. Maybe I'll even visualize it fully inside my head.
But you were straight up implying I was the other poster else instead you would've indicated otherwise by comparing me to him which you didn't, retard.

>>5209128
>they would if so be the special ones
They'd just be the broken ones, the special ones would be able to take it to the extremes

>>5206909
Mods only care if it’s naked loli or blatant shitposting.
Welcome to /ic/ mother fuck

>>5196355
this is true but retards will misunderstand
the fact is almost no one sees 1, for anything, unless theyve taken great care to study that object or are already intimately familiar with it, because our brains dont like to hold onto useless info

>>5209110
>attempting to distort facts to make myself feel better pretending to be special

The fact that human memory isn't perfect so any reference made by pure recollection won't be as accurate or consistent as live or photo reference? Or the fact you can't understand that optic vision and minds eye are separate lines of sight?

>>5208887
>You should literally be able to trace it

If you can visualize you do not need to trace because your brain already knows where everything is. We have been trying to tell your dumbass this the whole thread. You don't lock yourself into final inks pre critique.

>>5208795
> their mind isn't coherent

If you recognize it as an apple than it is coherent it may not be consistent but it is coherent. My imagination apple has detail that makes it look closer to 1 than 2 3 or 4.

>don't want to hear it that they aren't as smart as they think

Visualization isn't about being smart. Like how being able to hear isn't a matter of intelligence.

>The smarter you are, the more aware of these gaps you are.

This is why I and other 1's use references for things we have unclear/unfamilar knowledge about. The empire state building I imagine is vivid but I know I don't remember the exact number of windows it has.

>>5208795
> your brain smooths over large gaps of logic

You brain USES logic to fill gaps in information, dumbass.

>The smarter you are, the more aware of these gaps you are.

The smarter you are the better you fill them in.

>>5209623
>>5209660
Okay, so it isn't tracing. Like I said, it's more akin to copying a reference or almost doing a study, right? So does that actually work for you, and do you have results you can post? Even if you don't, surely it wouldn't take you that long to do a study when your primary reference image is already so clearly visualised?

Please post work, I'm genuinely curious as to how well 1's can translate their imagination onto paper, and every anon that I have asked has not actually replied about it.

>>5209145
Hello fellow 18 year old

>>5196331
I can imagine stuff but its just easier to use references
Also there is no reason you guys need to argue in the thread

>>5206928
I doubt you know what you are even talking about

>>5209786
>I'm genuinely curious as to how well 1's can translate their imagination onto paper

How well you do it is a matter of both the time you put in and the technical skill you possess. The same as physical references. I can put in days rendering and adding detail or 40 minutes like this loose quickie. But yes I can and do draw things purely from my minds eye.

https://www.strawpoll.me/42640496

>>5208909

tfw can imagine fully 3 dimensional objects to the point where I can literally play video games in my own head by imagination entire 3 dimensional environments and npcs reacting to me in extremely dynamic ways.

>>5209122
Yeah I do feel special and what I say makes sense

I'm kind of wondering, what do people who aren't 1 or 2 do at their day jobs?

Playing movies in my head while nudging a mouse once every 10 minutes is what's kept me from killing myself for the last 8 years.

>>5210329
Sure you do

>>5213425
Cringe.

>>5213425
A kissless foreveralone virgin wrote this.