/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6589181
It's true

>>6589181
All that work and that's not even remotely close to how a butterfly flies.

did he draw anything else? I will go find out.

Art need not be mechanical. The end goal need not be accuracy (unless that's what you aim for) but something that's visually interesting.

is it just me or is the 2nd ellipse messed up here?

solution: draw butterflies from afar

>>6589199
Imagine doing all this to draw a hyper futa penis<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>>6589213
I don't know what that means but I guess it's something like this

>>6589191
Who is this?

>>6589236
rafael araujo

>>6589181
>>6589191

Why would you need to do all of this? Just use CGI at this point.

There's nothing more based than geometry

>>6589245
Making things by hand is rewarding.
You could say the same for any art now, "just use AI at this point"

>>6589245
The geometry is part of the art. he doesn't erase the lines after he is done.<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>>6589249
>>6589252
I know, technically is commendable. But skill wankery is not very appealing to me if the final result feels so esterile you could replace it by CGI and the result would be the same.

I do some autistic perspective work myself but a lot of what he's doing is beyond me. It doesn't look like he explains his "golden ratio" stuff anywhere. A shame.

>>6589181
>if only you had a computer in your brain that could make spatial calculations

How do I learn this power

>>6589267
pic related and a lot of autism

>>6589271
But look at the lines it seems there’s an actual purpose and harmony to them besides just measuring. I need to learn the significance of the numbers and their meaning. There’s something sacred about it.

>>6589275
looks like technical drawing to me.

>>6589275
No meaning, just really, really advanced perspective. This nigger's using calculus and sine wave calculations.
You'd be better off just making 3d shapes and taking pictures of them to use in your art. What he's doing isn't really worth much more than novelty and self-satisfaction. No practical purpose other than that.

>>6589282
>calculus and sine waves
Yeah, makes sense I should relearn mathematics to do this. It’s really beautiful to me, so yeah I guess I do just want to learn it for self-satisfaction. Understanding how things work or something.
>>6589276
I guess so, but I think there’s a beauty to it like in >>6589221 . I like how harmonious everything is have everything just come together like that is orgasmic.

>>6589181
>>6589191
>>6589199
>>6589221
>>6589276
literal schizophrenia. ill stick to symbol drawing.

>>6589256
Oh, it turns out he does. Wrote a book. It'll probably be years before I touch it because I'm scared of math autism, but here (You) go https://files.catbox.moe/f1hxtu.epub
>>6589289

>>6589181

kek. this is why art is a fucking science..

>>6589319
More like seeing is a science, in which case, no shit

>>6589319
Everything's a science, everything can be made into a science. You don't need to make art into a science, but this is the result of when you do.

>>6589327
>More like seeing is a science

no, ma dude. study the visualization and it is fucking science.

>>6589330
>Everything's a science

nope.

>>6589335
More like everything can be turned into a science. Name one thing and I'll turn it into a science (Read as: accurately overcomplicate it).

>>6589335
nta; depends what your definition of science is. modern science is, to most people, a belief systems. don't take my word for it: ask around for people to prove you beyond a doubt that the Earth is round.

Does anyone remember that thread just a few days ago about how that 1 anon brought up that there is secret art knowledge that only freemasons have access too? This looks like a glimpse of that.

>>6589347
Can you link it? sounds interesting.

>>6589332
It's all fucking science but art isn't science, you can apply science to it but it isn't inherently science

>>6589349
>>/ic/thread/S6578717

>>6589338
>More like everything can be turned into a science.

wrong. stop making people cry please..

>>6589353
Appreciate it

>>6589338
Ok, turn God into a science

>>6589247
if you had to do some more retarded descriptive, you would quickly change your mind

i guess it can be cool how it all comes together at the end, but thats where the fun ends

>>6589353
It's bullshit.
>Repeatedly asked for pic examples
>None given

Itt the guy is just doing Fibonacci and perspective.

>>6589357
God is science fiction, not science

>>6589365
Prove that scientifically

>>6589360

kek. realistic behavior of a steam drop inside of a plasma ray.. took two profs to draw the shit.

>>6589181
its easy as fuck, you just have to be good at drawing lines, squares, shapes, shading forms, exactly how the thing moves, common sense, spatial awareness, small penis, 35 years of experience, motivation, self discipline and passion. all of those things you can acquire by just fucking reading 3 super advanced books.

>>6589319
Err..
I freaking love science?

>>6589369
Prove you don't suck a millions dicks a day

bzzrt, u gay

>>6589379
I don't need to prove that wrong, it is true. Same as God<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>>6589381
You can't fool me, bot.

>>6589381
Only a bot would be able to suck millions of dicks a day, it is true

>>6589381
God to an ML machine is a human being so, yes, in that case I agree. You're also gay, a gay robot actually<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>>6589381
>>6589387
Robot battle! This is just like in my japanese anime!<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

Oh God, it's spreading! Don't quote a bot! They'll absorb you into the collective, resistance is futile.

>>6589391
You are involved
Don't be this much joyful

>>6589393
Beep.. boop..

I hate the internet

>>6589406
[Sad beep]

>>6589275
if the pics were more clean i could confirm my suspicions, but my guess is that the numbers are just so he doesnt get lost in which point connects to what, what plane is where etc

>>6589368
i thank god that i didnt go full retard and went with a version of civil engineering for mentally challenged
i only had to deal with retard geometric figures cut by equally retarded planes and other figures
the physics classes could be mostly done with equations and math stuff, when we had to draw out all the graphs i always died a little more inside

>>6589406
>>6589409
>>6589407

sad pepe..

>>6589416
>when we had to draw out all the graphs i always died a little more inside..

i fell you bro..
we both now know, why people went insane and took LCD, when trying to visualize the emotions and feelings..

>>6589245
>>6589254
>>6589292
the granular mechanical perspective lines are meant to be contrasted with the beautiful organic forms of nature. It's his statement as an artist, you autismos

>>6589181
eyeball it?

>>6589181
no one seriously think that

Why is he encaged like a wage?

still waiting for the youtube link to spoonfeed me how to draw like this

>>6589181
>draw a simple bounding box in perspective
>align edges of your complex object to the edges of the bounding box
wow that was so fucking difficult holy shit....

>>6589743
Math is truly an art in itself.

>>6592576
now you do it. those wing movement arcs look hard to me,

>>6592649
He literally laid the arcs down inside the box.

>>6592656
yeah, looks hard to draw the wing following it.
How do you draw the curve anyway? (irl)

>>6592663
The wings don't follow the arc, the wings follow outline of the box facing the same way as the wings.
The arc would have served the purpose of establishing precise symmetry of the wings.
If you look closer, the the furthest point (right-hand side for the viewer) of the wing is just long enough to "touch" the arc, meaning that point will at all times touch that arc.

As for how you draw the curves, as you can see he just winged (get it?) the arcs. There is a diagonal line following the box's "center", and the intersection between that diagonal line and the curve is where the falloff rate is the greatest for the arc-curve.

>>6592687
The wings don't follow the arc in the z-axis*

>>6592663
just, ah hah, wing it

>>6592687
right I thought he could have used a technique for getting true arcs(I'm sure there is, but not easy). They have detailed texture in perspective too, not easy to skew like that manually.
>draw a simple bounding box in perspective
>align edges of your complex object to the edges of the bounding box
>wow that was so fucking difficult holy shit....
Seems like bullshit if you are trying to replicate his results with only that instruction.

>>6592696
>right I thought he could have used a technique for getting true arcs(I'm sure there is, but not easy)
If you want to do that, there is a way to neatly approximate pi by subdividing a circle through halves with diagonals.

Description of the graph:
Red - Perfect circle as a point of reference.
Green - First diagonals.
Yellow - Second diagonals.
Magenta - Third diagonals.

Green should be easy to figure out.
I got yellow by dividing the empty spots next to the green diagonal in half.
I got magenta by dividing the empty spots next to the yellow diagonals in half.
You can see that magenta is already getting close to the circle's shape, the next step would already suffice for a semi-accurate drawing.

I didn't do a perfect job of it, but you get my point. Halving things will always get you the result you want.

>>6592731
I forgot to mention that I got lazy and guessed the mirrored diagonals for magenta.
You obviously need to repeat the diagonals on both sides if you want to start connecting them from the bottom left of the square to the top right of the square to form your "circle".

>>6589347
Here's another different glimpse
https://youtu.be/DHhgLnIvuAs

>Did Electrical engineering
>Only class I failed once in was the technical drawing class every engineering discipline needed to do, targeting mostly civil and mechanical
>Technical exploded view drawings still elude me
At least I can draw a straight line ha... ha...

>>6591192
the cube has sides which leads to deformation, meanwhile, the sphere having infinite sides leads to a more accurate depiction of space

>>6591192
going this route of complete autism, you won't produce much

How do you approach drawing figures in perspective? Whenever I try to make a boxy figure it always look so fucking stiff, not to mention there's the fact that every body part has its own vanishing points.

>>6589185
im sure you wrote a college textbook on it.

>>6592966
https://youtu.be/o7a7ZAqWBIs?t=73

>>6593028
fair enough.

>>6589181
going to be real, shit like this is why i'm ok with 'good enough' perspective, if I ever needed detail like >>6589276 I would just go into a 3d program, its not worth the time and effort to make 2d if you are demanding accuracy.

>>6589276
absolutely beautiful

>>6589181
KNEEL

>>6594168
Bruh lookin like him finna boutta bust a nut smdh

>>6589335
Frog posters are feds