Some people aren't meant to be great artist

[Anonymous No.2220510]

I've been drawing and painting my whole life, and I'm just ok at it, despite tens of thousands of hours practice.

I've seen kids on deviantart develop from scribbles to absolutely stunning artwork in just a few years.

Practice is needed, but time has little to do with the difference in talent between individuals.

And it's not just the finished work that varies.

Some people will work on their art for days to make something decent, while others can just shit out something amazing in a few hours.

Saying natural talent doesn't exist is just silly.

[Anonymous No.2220513]

>>2220510

I believe it doesn't exist. I worked hard as shit to get to where I am, and so did everyone else who is really good.

Time investment alone is a worthless measure, you have to invest both time and brain calories.

[Anonymous No.2220522]

Post your work and let us judge.

[Anonymous No.2220525]

>>2220510
post work or gtfo

[Anonymous No.2220531]

>tens of thousands of hours practice

Mindless repetition of a shoddy foundation isn't practice, you dumb queer.

[Anonymous No.2220533]

>>2220510
I would differentiate talent into two separate fields: technical Skill, and creative genius. I believe you are referring mostly to the first element, on wich I agree. Nowadays kids have access to an unthinkable technology for people in their 30's today. Little kids have and early access to touch screen technology, the synchronization between hand, eyes and brain is optimal. That's what I see on DA from young talent.
But the second element is a different thing, technical skill, and creative genius together is not that as easy to come by.
I see creative genius on guys like kekai kotaki, Ruanjia, Kim jung gi, etc.

So I believe that technical skill is a "talent" that can be build during the younger years through the right technological tools.
Creative genius still is hard to build into a person, but we're getting there with the spread of the internet, the visual library available today for the young people is inmense and that will have consequences too in the evolution of future talent.

[Anonymous No.2220535]

>>2220525
>>2220522
Here it is guys

[Anonymous No.2220537]

Time and Brain, you dumbo.

[Anonymous No.2220548]

>>2220513

I think you're naive assuming talent doesn't exist. It clearly exists, but you can compete with those people if you invest yourself in doing it. The world is not a fair place, some born better than others for whatever reason, that's how nature works.

[Anonymous No.2220554]

>>2220533
>creative genius

...is not what OP was talking about, but that's a nice tangent you've gone off on.

[Anonymous No.2220562]

>>2220510
Anyone saying talent doesn't exist is just in denial. The question is, what impact does it have ? Well, it does have one, typically how fast people learn and how far they can go. But talent without work is worthless. If you had never done maths at any time in your life, you'd suck at it and wouldn't know how to do basic shit. If you had done maths alot while being bad, you'd still achieve a certain level, maybe even good. If you were really talented and worked alot, you'd be extremely good.

It's the same for painting. I don't think it's a coincidence that Picasso had a father who was an artist. The human brain is adaptative and if people work alot on something they'll eventually get good at it. But some brains are simply better at adaptating than others.

[Anonymous No.2220599]

>>2220510
>Saying natural talent doesn't exist is just silly.

It doesn't.

Some people have the advantage of having a genuine interest from a young age. People often think that "natural talent" is something you are born with, that its this magical thing you have as soon as you pop out of your mothers womb. Other children will observe their surroundings in a different fashion than others, some will gear towards replicating landscapes, buildings or people in their paintings. Some find themselves more expressive in the musical field. Some want to pursue writing where others find photography more suitable. When someone is seen developing their technical skills in a small time span when they're older, its not this big "talent" they have in their head that needs to be unlocked. Its simply an interest they've had their whole lives until they find a way to put it to practice. Some kids will find themselves looking at buildings, dividing them into simple geometrical shapes, cutting them to symmetrical pieces and building them in their mind when they're playing with lets say legos for example. Later in their life they might find a strong interest in architecture that they haven't realized up until that point. They practice, find resources and maybe apply to a school for it. When someone doesn't develop their skills as fast as someone, its usually because that individual haven't had as strong of an interest to it, or maybe they were more expressive in something else as a child and later wanted to drop that and start painting.

Take this with a grain of salt ofcourse, because this is all an observation of mine and maybe people have different experiences and pasts.

Also, drawing is really technical when you break it down. It is something that you can learn, there are rules that you have to apply to be accurate. Even the most "naturally talented" at some point of their careers have opened a book on perspective or figure drawing.

[Anonymous No.2220607]

>>2220599
What I left out (character limit) is that some kids are subjected to different things. Maybe someones father was a painter or an architect and they kept seeing them work daily. If your parents kept playing a certain genre of music regularly, chances are that you will find a strong interest in that type of music.

[Anonymous No.2220615]

True man, Wish you had my genes because i am a god

[Anonymous No.2220619]

It doesn't take a genius to read through an anatomy book and learn anatomy you just need to apply yourself

Real talent comes in when you see a really cool idea and think shit why didn't I think of that.
Star wars is just samurais combined with sci fi

[Anonymous No.2220632]

coward, just grow some discipline. if not? drown.

[Anonymous No.2220635]

>all these young people
Talent matters in art just like it matters in everything else. Or do you think its realistic to say that the everyday average guy can become a weightlifting champion if he just tried hard enough?

[Anonymous No.2220643]

>>2220635
considering its a genetic thing? no but on physical plus will value? he would earn a spot.

[Anonymous No.2220644]

>>2220531
>Mindless repetition of a shoddy foundation isn't practice, you dumb queer.
This. It's not how many hours you put in, it's what you do in those hours that matters.

>>2220548
>I think you're naive assuming talent doesn't exist. It clearly exists, but you can compete with those people if you invest yourself in doing it. The world is not a fair place, some born better than others for whatever reason, that's how nature works.
Then you should be able to demonstrate this. Are you able to demonstrate talent in someone who isn't yet good at art?

[Anonymous No.2220645]

>>2220510
The key is being able to hold details in your mind clearly as you put them on the page.
If hone the ability to use images in your mind like a camera obscura the technical skill will follow naturally and simply.

[Anonymous No.2220646]

>>2220635
>Or do you think its realistic to say that the everyday average guy can become a weightlifting champion if he just tried hard enough?
Nobody has ever become a champion weightlifter by trying. They become champion weightlifters by lifting more weight than the other guys.

[Anonymous No.2220648]

Talent does exist to a degree in a sense that people learn different things faster then others.
For example I was better at math then anyone else in my class even though I didn't studied. When I think about high school there were alot of idiots that turned to geniuses in other subjects just because it clicked for them. It's the same with art that some people get better faster because they have a different mind set for learning that subject from the start.

[Anonymous No.2220674]

>>2220644
People are not robots made in a assembly line, some learn faster, others have better muscle gain, some have a genetic advantage to run, like black people. It's naive to assume that our brain don't differ as much as our body, because it's proven it does, at least how it functions, make relations, learn rates, etc.
Even for other animals you can raise them the same, show them the same things, etc, they will act different and probably one of them will do better than the other in different tasks.

[Anonymous No.2220677]

>>2220674
Except art is not the same as running. For running there are clear body types that are advantageous for certain things (thin ankle bones help long distance, fast twitch muscles help sprints). For art there are so many styles and disciplines within it, and brain chemistry and makeup is so poorly understood, and the brain is so plastic, that it's impossible to say with certainty anything about it.

[Anonymous No.2220680]

Can't tell if OP is faggit or shitposter.

[Anonymous No.2220682]

>>2220513
Post pics brah? Or even a short sketch.

[Anonymous No.2220685]

>>2220682

[Anonymous No.2220686]

>>2220677
Not him. Art prodigys do exist. It's a simple skillset; memorization, hand coordination, vision. Someone could be born, and some have been born, with an enhanced ability for any of these things.

[Anonymous No.2220688]

>>2220685
Not this time, nigga. I was asking the guy who said he's worked hard for years and succeeded, not the emo. I wanna see the sweet and tangy produce of someone with skill, which is rare on /ic/

[Anonymous No.2220694]

>>2220685
saved/10

[Anonymous No.2220697]

>>2220686
Most art prodigies were simply people who had access at a very young age to some form of rigid training (usually their father was an artist). So they appear to be prodigious simply because they begin their art journey a decade or two before most people. See: Bernini, Picasso, Sargent, Michelangelo, A. Wyeth.

Most people hailed as prodigies don't go on to do anything special when they are adults anyhow. Clearly many more things are at play than just "talent", which is a factor that can't even be measured.

[Anonymous No.2220698]

>>2220697
>Most people hailed as prodigies don't go on to do anything special when they are adults anyhow. Clearly many more things are at play than just "talent", which is a factor that can't even be measured.
That's true. But I'm only arguing that talent does exist, not that it's useful.

[Anonymous No.2220700]

It's not about time if you lack feedback to change and step ahead over and over, most great artists share one thing in common: they had good environment to grow as an artists.

It's simple, you have better chances if you're born in wealthier family, any of your parents is artist himself. Oh, and if you're asian too kek

[Anonymous No.2220703]

>>2220698
Wouldn't it be useful by definition if it exists? Talent is being naturally good at something.

[Anonymous No.2220709]

>>2220703
>being naturally good at something.

Elaborate on this, define it. What do you mean? Do you assume someone is born with a "magical gift"? Or do you think it is something that people just simply grow a strong interest in? What do you mean by "natural"? You are being very vague. Like you think that its something deeper than it seems, like a "gods gift" or something.

[Anonymous No.2220710]

>>2220703
Useful wasn't the right word. It's just that most of the time it doesn't get nourished enough to be worthwhile. Talent almost always makes the artist cocky, and then they end up just drawing anime.

[Anonymous No.2220719]

>>2220697
>Most people hailed as prodigies don't go on to do anything special when they are adults anyhow. Clearly many more things are at play than just "talent", which is a factor that can't even be measured.

That's right, but talent does exist, simple as that. Some people learn faster than others and that's talent and also a fact.
If the talent will be put to good use? I don't know, but it exist.

[Anonymous No.2220724]

>>2220719
I wonder how much faster some people actually learn than others. Someone may appear to learn much faster, but in reality they are simply getting better education than the people they are being compared to. Or instead of drawing an hour a day they draw 5 hours a day. Even if you have a study set up where everyone does the same exercises and get the same instructions and draws the exact same amount...well some people learn better in some ways than other ways. Maybe the one that "lags" behind a bit would actually have improved faster if taught in some other way.

Talent I think is often overblown or the result of misattributing where skill came from.

[Anonymous No.2220725]

Is talent just a trigger word for half of /ic/? You fuckers get so defensive about this shit. You don't personally gain or lose anything from the existence natural artistic talent.

[Anonymous No.2220728]

>>2220725
>You don't personally gain or lose anything from the existence natural artistic talent
Well if it exists and is an important factor in success, then some people may feel that they will lose out if it exists and they don't have it.

Mostly I think it's people getting upset over skill earned through hard work being trivialized by others as inborn talent.

[Anonymous No.2220744]

>>2220724

Well, people will say shit and ask for my work, but to be frank I learnt A LOT faster than my classmates when I attended an art school, compared to people who put in more hours than I did. I was always undisciplined and sloppy with studies, but drew everyday for 2~3 hours a day when some classmates were drawing 5~6 hours.

The only difference I can see is that I was a lot more involved with art, searching for new techniques, artists, etc. Consuming art everyday and reading about it while at work.

Maybe I'm being unfair with my own hard work, but I always thought my classmates evolved at a slower rate than I did... Much slower rate.
This will sound like total bullshit, but I even got better WITHOUT drawing for months, just consuming art and paying attention to it. Suddenly when I started drawing again I was better than before. lol

[Anonymous No.2220748]

>>2220744
I believe that. The majority of art is mental, not physical. Grinding out studies for hours on end is not the most efficient way to improve.

[Anonymous No.2220749]

>>2220744
It makes sense that someone who searches for techniques and looks at new styles and solves the problems they have in art would make more progress.

If you're just drawing without looking at how things work and act and are, you're just making shit up.

[Anonymous No.2220778]

>>2220531
>>2220644
Okay but what is the best way to put in those hours? How do you know whether or not you're spending your time efficiently and intelligently?

[Anonymous No.2220781]

>>2220778
If you're improving and getting closer to your goals at a reasonable pace it's efficient

If it's mindless grinding a là MMORPG then it's not efficient

[Anonymous No.2220784]

>>2220781
So if your goals are just to git gud, then is it just a matter of figuring out what works for you because different methods of learning work for different people?

[Anonymous No.2220790]

>>2220784
You're approaching this the wrong way

To 'git gud' is not a tangible goal

[Anonymous No.2220796]

>>2220790
Hmm, you're right.

Personally my goal right now is to understand human anatomy and to know how to place objects correctly in perspective.

I see a lot of conflicting statements on the right way to learn to do these things, and even though they seem very basic a lot of people including myself can't do this properly.

[Anonymous No.2220802]

>>2220796
Just set up a project

When you find difficulties try to solve them

Complete your project

Now you're better than before starting it! Good job!

[Anonymous No.2220806]

>>2220802
This seems like such a simple approach but probably the correct one. Maybe I just overthink things. Thanks for this talk, anon.

[Anonymous No.2220833]

>>2220744
I believe that talent is a storehouse of information. It can be cultivated passively and unconsciously drawn upon, but the greatest results come from active study. What I'm getting at is that one may have a natural inclination towards it, but it's absorbing different ideas and making new connections that makes one talented.

I improved immensely in a period I didn't have much time to actually draw just by studying technique and composition and looking at a shitton of art with a critical eye. When I got back into actually drawing, I didn't have the technical skill to apply it well, but it was better than my previous efforts by miles and I was better for it. I'm also very undisciplined, but I feel like I put more thought into things before I actually do them. A minute in the mind is worth ten in the fire, after all.

You can easily get better without actually drawing, but you have to have a mind attuned to it at the very least and more generally need to do something at least halfway akin to studying. I'd go more into what I think talent is versus skill, but fuck it.

[Anonymous No.2220835]

>>2220833
>You can easily get better without actually drawing
I think this is an interesting concept that's actually true. At least from my own experience, I would notice something about art pieces or read something about "common mistakes" and such, commit it to memory and then later when I draw my drawings would be improved slightly because I knew of something specific to avoid or to do.

[Anonymous No.2220862]

>>2220835
I think it's akin to someone who knows how to pick a lock in theory as opposed to someone who doesn't know shit. You have the idea of what you want and how to do it, it's just a matter of practice to get it right. You get that from looking at a ton of art with a critical eye. The "eye" is the thing that you are trying to cultivate more than anything else, I believe. You can get it just absorbing passively, it's better when you put thought into it and pair it with the method to produce it, but either way what we are all trying to cultivate is an artistic eye to catch mistakes and make the best thing we can.

There's a Vilppu video where he shows off some different ways to render the figure that really struck me. He does his usual contour lines, some hatching, and one with a different type of shading, but they all expressed the same thing. It was poignant because it not only made me see and think about how to place lines to express volume, but also that there are myriad approaches and applications. I bring this up because what seems like his style is more an application of technique. Everything he drew was clearly his, all was done in his way, but the way it was expressed was very different. This is what I mean by the eye, or I guess, talent. You need the tools to express a thing, which is a matter of skill, but the talent, the eye, isn't a matter of which tool to use, but how to apply it.

Related to Vilppu is that old master sketches are a great way to cultivate it. You learn ways of seeing things, of applying technique, of composing a subject that don't require application to gain from. You have to already have the eye and often work to improve it, but knowing what is right and being able to do it are two very different things and the former is without question, far more important.

[Anonymous No.2220887]

how do I know if I have talent

[Anonymous No.2220896]

>>2220887
Find someone who's worked exactly as hard as you, do the exact same thing, and see if you do it better. Good luck, the result of talent usually too small to calculate.

[Anonymous No.2220903]

>>2220887
>>2220896
Talent doesn't exist you shitheads. Stop being so lazy.

[Anonymous No.2220904]

>>2220896
this is all subjective and impossible to measure, not to mention it's only talent relative to that other person. If we're always talking about having talent to make it, how do you know if you do. What's the cutoff. Is there one ?

[Anonymous No.2220909]

>>2220903
See >>2220725
>>2220904
Talent can be as small as being 1% better at something than the average person, it isn't something so definitive. The only possible way to measure it is to compare against everyone else. I don't see what's the problem with that. It's a small boost in an ability some people are just naturally born with.

[Anonymous No.2220911]

>>2220903
It exists, it's just a question of what exactly it is. You can cultivate it, which shows it isn't entirely natural.

[Anonymous No.2220920]

>>2220725
not just /ic/ - the internet as a whole has this same immediate denial reaction to the idea of natural talent despite the fact that you meet these people every day.

i don't get what all the desperation to justify how so-and-so isn't REALLY inborn is about. it's an advantage, but effort is what counts at the end. natural talent is a head start in the marathon run to skill mastery, but anyone can make it to the finish line if they put the work in, and a head start doesn't mean shit if you don't put the work in.

and yet you see people being legit offended at the suggestion.

[Intelligent, nihilistic and wi(...) No.2220923]

>>2220887

It doesn't matter.

If you don't have talent (or if talent doesn't exist), then you'll have to work hard. Thinking that you're untalented would only discourage you. The world is full of people who thought or were told that they were bad and who still achieved success.

If you're talented, then you'll still have to work hard anyway. So what good would it make to know about it?

> Take Kim Jung Gi, people often says that he has some kind of gift, but in all his interviews he says that he's honing his skills everyday for hours and have been doing so since he was a kid.

[Anonymous No.2220924]

>>2220728
>I think it's people getting upset over skill earned through hard work being trivialized by others as inborn talent

DINGDINGDING, WE HAVE A WINNER.

[Anonymous No.2220932]

>>2220533
I actually think that massive visual library is hurting these young "talents". Instead of going out and learn about the subject they are painting they only look up images of the subject and get a surface level of understanding. Then they hide behind the rule of cool (especially aspiring concept artists).
An example is how many people that paint archers and have no idea about how a bow works.

My prediction is that a massive amount of these young talents are going to get stuck in the "this needs to be like this because this artist said it was so" instead of going "Why is this like this, and how does it work".

I am not saying it's wrong to rip stuff off or being inspired by some other work. It's just that the truly great artists knows how to take something, learn about it and then use it to their own favor.

[Anonymous No.2220974]

>>2220635

The average brain can do wonders, whereas the average body will meet its limits soon enough.

Art is mostly a mental activity, so what would stop someone to become good at it, given enough training?

As an example, the average guy can memorize an insane amount of stuff: learning to speak 5 languages or knowing all the Pokemons names and abilities, it's basically up to putting smart work for enough time into it. If it's hard, you'll just need more time. If you're not "talented", you'll just need more time. But nobody hits the limit of his memory.

Sure, art is more complex than memorizing a bunch of stuff, but it's more mental like memory than physical like weightlifting.

"I don't have enough talent" is just an excuse.

[Anonymous No.2220978]

IQ * hours practiced = skill

so you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.2220984]

It's important to learn how to depict the world, but talent is in my opinion more important than grinding anatomy 1000 hours a day.

You can do fucking everything Loomis tells you to but in the end your drawings will be dull and worthless if you lack talent.

[Anonymous No.2220987]

>>2220978
>>2220984
You're both retarded in your own special way. Now that's talent.

[Anonymous No.2220991]

Learning art does take a high IQ and fortunately there are just too many stupid people.

[Anonymous No.2220994]

>>2220978
>he thinks IQ is a real thing

[Anonymous No.2220995]

>>2220994
lol i sure wonder what you scored

[Anonymous No.2221008]

Take a look at your past drawings.
Ask your normalfag friend to draw a figure.
Look at the "new" stuff on deviant art.

People get so caught up at looking up at great artists, they forget to look back and see how far they've come.
It's not about how well you can draw or paint, really it's about what you do with your art.

There might be a painter who is more amazing than anyone you've looked up to, yet you never hear of him because he only paints for himself and maybe his wife. But there could be a mediocre artist (any novice concept artist EVER) who seems amazing because he has 500k followers on instagram, etc.

If you want to make a leap in skill and ideation, think of some controversial topic (Liberty of Religion) for example and make something that has your take on it. Once you're done, put it out into the world! Fuck the haters, your piece is here to stay!

Make something that matters.
Then and only then will you get better.

[Anonymous No.2221012]

>>2221008
See the thing, if you want to make a living you have to be able to compete and compare with the great artists.

[Anonymous No.2221017]

>>2221012
It's all subjective mayne.
Concept/anything design related I agree

Gallery work
Book covers
Editorials
Posters
Medical illustration

Is different because people are looking for a specific style. Or maybe they come across you and just happen to really like your stuff.

You just gotta meet the right person at the right time.

[Anonymous No.2221018]

>>2221017
no, a good artist can emulate any "style".

[Anonymous No.2221032]

>>2221018
You totally missed the point of my argument

[Anonymous No.2221036]

What I believe the point of the artist is not to be technically perfect, but to make what imagery they generate "theirs" : unique, recognizable and identifiable as that artist's own style.

Look at Picasso : weird and alien ,and thousands can do a more realistic portrayal of people,yet he revels in his oddities and made his style utterly HIS OWN. You may want to step back from your own work and consider what direction you can go with it that would be challenging and interesting for you to explore. Try simplifying your images drifting toward the abstract. Or try variants of color like Andy Warhol . Just cling to what makes your work yours.

[Anonymous No.2221057]

>>2221012
That's not really true. Vision and creativity are dandy, but there's always been and will always be a market for people who can translate a nice landscape to a canvas competently.

[Anonymous No.2221415]

>>2220903
Talent as in 'being born with the ability to do something' doesn't exist, but the ability to process a certain type of information faster, in larger quantities and to a higher degree of accuracy amounts to the same end result: Some people are able to get better at a subject more quickly and have a higher skill ceiling than others. I don't think it's as big of a deal as 'if you don't have talent you will never be successful', but if you want to be a great artist or a great public speaker you won't ever succeed if you are unable to get to the point where your skill reaches critical mass.

[Anonymous No.2221420]

>>2221415
>talent exists

But you want to call it something else, eh?

[Anonymous No.2221449]

>>2221420
No, I think what I'm talking about counts as talent, but the idea most people seem to asociate with the word is someone being better at something from the get go, so I wanted to specify that I don't think that is much of a factor.

[Anonymous No.2221635]

People who worry about talent are lazy low confidence plebs. They look at other artists who've put in thousands of hours on any particular skill to get good and call it "talent" so they can feel better about not working hard themselves.

Despite the zillion sketchbooks threads on CA that showed people go from stick figures to pro level over years of hard work lazy fuckers still need excuses why they cant do the same.

[Anonymous No.2221645]

>>2220510
Creative vision can be acquired.

[Anonymous No.2221646]

>>2221635
>Despite the zillion sketchbooks threads on CA that showed people go from stick figures to pro level over years of hard work

Those people were talented. If they weren't talented, they couldn't have become pro level.

[Anonymous No.2221653]

>>2221646
>Those people were talented. If they weren't talented, they couldn't have become pro level.
That's not what the accepted meaning of the term implies. Talent isn't supposed to show up only asfter someone has gotten good, you're supposed to tell beforehand. What you're describig isn't "talent", it's skill.

Those people couldn't have become pro level if they weren't skilled.

[Anonymous No.2221654]

>>2221653
>Talent isn't supposed to show up only asfter someone has gotten good

Talent is the reason they got gud. They couldn't have done it otherwise.

>What you're describig isn't "talent", it's skill

Skill they wouldn't have had without talent.

[Anonymous No.2221655]

>>2221654
I was hoping this amount of pathetic didn't actually exist, but thanks for proving >>2221635 right.

[Anonymous No.2221658]

>>2221635
>Despite the zillion sketchbooks threads on CA that showed people go from stick figures to pro level over years of hard work lazy fuckers still need excuses why they cant do the same.
God I miss that. That site had such an impact on me, it made me realize that I could achieve anything if I put in the work. It really showed what was possible and how much work was needed to do it.

[Anonymous No.2221668]

>>2221654
Eveyone has that talent though, it's generally called the "capacity to learn".

[Anonymous No.2221674]

>>2221654
So the way you can tell if someone is talented is to see if they've got skill. Skill acquired after years of work and dedicated practice.

So talent is "skill acquired through practice". Ok. And you either have it or you don't. Ok, then.

Just so we're clear.

[Anonymous No.2221681]

hey quitters, guess which famous artist did these drawings

[Anonymous No.2221683]

>>2221681
F.Frazzeli?

[Anonymous No.2221686]

>>2221681
That's cool, he was still using the original spelling of his name then! He must have been really fucking young when he did those though, especially since in the documentary on him they showed a rather accomplished still life by him at like age 8. Do you have dates on those?

[Anonymous No.2221717]

I recommend you choose to succeed.

[Anonymous No.2221724]

>>2221717

[Anonymous No.2221725]

>>2221724

[Anonymous No.2221726]

>>2221725

[Anonymous No.2221801]

>>2221686
1931-1932

[Anonymous No.2221836]

>>2221717
>>2221724
>>2221725
>>2221726
You inspire me anon, where did you found/get this?

[Anonymous No.2221842]

>>2221836
He probably made it. There's tons more examples like that that exist (maybe not in nice comparison images, but you can find their current and old work). This sort of improvement was relatively common on CA back in the day, you could literally watch people go from noob to pro over the course of several years.

[Anonymous No.2221844]

>>2221836
Not them, but it looks like it's from the noob-to-pro board on conceptart

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php/269717-noob-to-pro-a-list-of-CA-s-epic-progress-sketchbooks

[Anonymous No.2221852]

>>2221844
>mfw I'm on that list
Feels weird man

[Anonymous No.2221881]

>>2221852
>tfw I'm not on that list

[Anonymous No.2221939]

>>2221842
What happened to CA, why are there less of these noob to pro sketchbooks?

[Anonymous No.2221944]

>>2221836
I made them myself. Here have some more.

[Anonymous No.2221945]

>>2221944

[Anonymous No.2221946]

>>2221945
well made most of them anyways, I didn't do the 'before / after working hard' one

[Anonymous No.2221947]

>>2221946

[Anonymous No.2221948]

>>2221947

[Anonymous No.2221949]

>>2221948

[Anonymous No.2221950]

>>2221949

[Anonymous No.2221952]

>>2221950

[Anonymous No.2221954]

>>2221952

[Anonymous No.2221955]

>>2221954

[Anonymous No.2221957]

>>2221955

[Anonymous No.2221958]

>>2221957

[Anonymous No.2221959]

>>2221957
And your's truly - anon.

[Anonymous No.2221961]

>>2221959
whoops forgot image

[Anonymous No.2221963]

>>2221961
got any original artwork?

[Anonymous No.2221966]

>>2221963
nah I gave up art for a long time due to some RL issues and im just now getting back into it. But that progress pic is less than a year, about 8 months I think, working really hard about 12-15 hour days.

[Anonymous No.2222109]

>>2221952
Hm what is your source on this? I don't think a lot of those images are Ruanjia's, and I think think your timeline is off a bit. He was already famous for his skills around 2009 or perhaps a bit earlier.