/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3460504]

So I'm getting burned out reading through so much bullshit miscategorized as art instructionals, books, and tutorials. I am trying to understand what painting IS, but so far all I've seen is "how to paint a vase", "how to paint a portrait", "how to paint shadows", and other crap that explains nothing. It's almost like those kids books of how to draw animals and it only explains how to draw a specific singular image of some animal, but it doesn't explain the theory and idea of drawing. In the same way I haven't found anything good that explains how to actually paint, like a universal theory.

I realize that most artists are failures and so therefore the art industry has to push out mountains of horseshit to keep people buying useless garbage and having everyone falling for the "years of practice" meme, but this shit is not the way. You don't need years of practice if you have understanding. At most you will just need brain-eye-hand coordination, but the average person isn't far off from being able to develop this. We learned how to write english letters and sentences, right? Same thing, except because we had UNDERSTANDING, it didn't take YEARS ON END to learn how to WRITE FUCKING ENGLISH.

Is there somewhere that teaches how to paint? The guy at Ctrl-Paint does paint, but he doesn't know how he is doing it. He doesn't understand what or why he is doing what he is doing. And this is the case with many people on Youtube, they give all these examples of painting, but none of them seem to be able to abstract the process separate from their examples.

Is there anyone out there who knows and understands?

PS: "Understanding light and color spectrum" isn't how to paint. It's physics and is completely irrelevant to art.

[Anonymous No.3460507]

>>3460504
It's also possible that there is no theory or truth in art, it's all just a bunch of raw pragmatism and illusion, but this can't be the case because even music has theory behind it. Are there any philosopher artists who have understanding? Or do we only have a bunch of love hippies to try to distill understanding from, hence our years of wasted time and energy trying to get good to no avail?

[Anonymous No.3460520]

>>3460504
>I haven't found anything good that explains how to actually paint, like a universal theory.

No such thing exists, that I'm aware of.

I think you're way overthinking this, and looking for a unicorn here. Painting is simply a created illusion of reality, and there are no "rules" behind it, like music has physics that define notes and scales and the relationships between them. Your writing analogy is flawed, because while anyone can learn to write English, not everyone can write a best selling novel or classic of literature. It's the choices the artist, musician or writer makes using the same techniques and mediums that differentiate them - the difference between Monet and Manet is how they chose to put paint onto a canvas, what colors they used, what subject matter, etc.

Art skill, or dare I say it, talent, is not universal. You seem to be demanding a book that outlines and teach a universal. It doesn't exist. You bring yourself to the blank canvas. You learn the basic brushstrokes and the materials and how to mix color - anyone can do that, but it's the choices YOU make that define what happens next.

>You don't need years of practice if you have understanding.

This is where you are clearly misinformed. Success in art, or any artistic medium, be it painting, sculpture, playing the piano, or writing novels, takes years of practice and effort and thought. You can't skip that by reading a book. You can't read a book and go play football in the NFL, but you're demanding to do that with art.

If you expect someone to make a video that explains "You pick up the brush, and do this, because reasons", you're expecting your hand held to a ridiculous degree, and as I said, trying to skip the actual work of learning art by reading a book. It doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.3460522]

>>3460504
You seem like someone who thinks they're an intellectual but is actually retarded.

>it didn't take YEARS ON END to learn how to WRITE FUCKING ENGLISH.

It took you from the moment you were born to the moment you learned to read so 6-7 years even if it wasn't active studying it was a part of your daily life.

If this is not bait (which I hope no one has the time to put so much effort into bait) you just have to throw the philosophical to the crab bucket and start drawing.

[Anonymous No.3460527]

>>3460504
you realise the most celebrated artists created their own style, which meant they couldn't be instructed in it. They did their own experiments, like science, hypothesise and trial and error.
Suck it up faggot.
http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/

[Anonymous No.3460529]

Imho you're asking a good question. I'm afraid the answer is so obscure that you just need to work on the craft and get those little specks of "ohhh that makes sense" until that wordless concept starts to make some sense. I've been struggling with similar question, but with writing. It's odd how you just gotta wrestle with it blindly and eventually you'll just get that first "i see" feel.

[Anonymous No.3460531]

>>3460504
>like a universal theory.

Well this is your big problem. You're looking for a fucking shortcut and you think there exists one. There isn't.

Don't start off painting, you're going to hurt yourself. Worse, don't start off in art by digital painting.

Get a pencil, eraser, and printing paper. Then draw your cubes and spheres. If you can't even do this right, what chance do you have with a complex form such as the human body?

Get the basics first - crawl, walk, then run. Don't start off thinking that you're going to be some hot shot superstar that's going to be amazing.

We have a few theories and they're not universal, but they are helpful. Linear perspective would be one of them, and design theory such as the golden ratio is another - though some would say that this is a meme.

Don't treat art as a hard science where everything is figured out, just try to learn what people have already learned and build on top of it. Learn the fundies and move on from there.

As for instructors go to NMA. They're hardcore professional artists and some of them have worked on Disney.

[Anonymous No.3460533]

>>3460504
Here's your universal theory since you seem to have issues making things look real:
http://www.scratchapixel.com/lessons/3d-basic-rendering/global-illumination-path-tracing

Easy to implement in C, helps you fuck all for painting. If you could somehow run that program in your brain, you would be the most accurate realism painter that ever existed, but it still wouldn't get you close to the greats.

[Anonymous No.3460553]

>>3460504
If the Ctrl-Paint guy is way too much for you, perhaps you're just a fucking moron. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.3460560]

>>3460553
Nice reading comprehension, you piece of genetic trash.

[Anonymous No.3460565]

>>3460504
>"Understanding light and color spectrum" isn't how to paint.

if you are only interested in abstract art then fine but how the fuck do you expect to paint something real with out considering color and light.

I think you are looking for a shortcut technique and shitting on principles.

If it was that easy every one would be knocking out masterpieces.

[Anonymous No.3460571]

>>3460565
To add to this,

Techinque, as in how you apply marks on canvas, is something that you develop as you continue to paint and by analyizing others works.

You can have a primitive technique and paint something interesting if you develop your understanding of the principles of what makes an image work. Which in no way can be summarized in a paragraph. Especially by artists, since they are not scientists.

[Anonymous No.3460589]

>>3460565
>"how the fuck do you expect to paint something real with out considering color and light. "

Are you suggesting I can read a physics book about electricity and then by understanding those principles I will instantly become an electrical engineer? Of course understanding color and light is relevant, but it doesn't carry with it an automatic understanding of applied color/light principles (aka painting). At the same time I see a bunch of disjointed techniques scattered all over, without a unifying underlying theory.

>"Especially by artists, since they are not scientists."

Right, and unfortunately because of this a lot of people who would like to get understanding wind up grasping in the dark and wandering around, experimenting with random techniques and randomly getting good results, but still having no real understanding.

[Anonymous No.3460590]

>>3460520
This was an interesting reply, and I thought about it for a few minutes, and I distilled what you're saying to "Art has no truth in it; it is pure pragmatism". Is this really the case? There is no underlying method between different artists? Whatever works?

I understand that this is the case with some people sure, but I'm understanding you to say that each new artist has to reinvent the wheel for himself with tools (the techniques) he randomly picks up without instructions on how to properly use them.

[Anonymous No.3460591]

>>3460522
>"You seem like someone who thinks they're an intellectual but is actually retarded."

And? I'm not trying to get validation from people I'll never know. I here trying to get some insight from folks who might know what I'm getting at, and there are a few who are getting it, and have some thoughts or even possible solutions.

[Anonymous No.3460594]

>>3460527
Great comment, and that was an interesting article you linked. It is beginning to appear like this is the only real way forward, reinventing the wheel, using whatever random techniques show themselves to be useful in whatever way the artist discovers. I guess no one has taken a philosophical approach or tried to theorize it all.

[Anonymous No.3460596]

>>3460529
I can tell you do know what I'm trying to say. And yeah, I hear you. May we both get that understanding, my friend.

[Anonymous No.3460597]

>>3460531
This was a good comment in the same vein as some of the previous ones. I will consider what you, and the others, are saying here, as several of your are saying basically the same thing in different words, that art is about pragmatism basically, subjective pragmatism.

[Anonymous No.3460637]

>>3460589
I dont know you but i think you are very analytical and technically minded person. You probably dont like figuring things out by experimentation and arent willing to take a step until you have analised everything to make sure they makes sense.

As useful as that personalty is in many other fields, it will only hold you back in art. Most successful artists developed their skill after a lot of experimentation even when it is augmented by art school.

I suggest collecting as many paintings that YOU like and anaysing what they have in common. And what makes them appealing to you then try to deconstruct those things.

That isnt some thing you will get from a book or any course even though they might be helpful because most good artists are very intuitive and probably cant properly articulate what they are doing eventhough everybody loves their work.

[Anonymous No.3460644]

>>3460637
/thread /board

This post is the pill /ic/ needs to swallow.

[Anonymous No.3460647]

>>3460504
>book outlines the steps to construction
>shows you multiple angles from which to do this construction
>still can't figure out the theory and idea behind it
>spends all day reading instead of drawing
>insults successful artists instead of asking if something is wrong with the way he learns

[Anonymous No.3460653]

>>3460637
>"and arent willing to take a step until you have analised everything to make sure they makes sense. "

Yeah, you have a good read on me, the whole statement you made is pretty much the case, and this part I quoted is exactly what I end up doing in all areas.

>" it will only hold you back in art."

Yeah, I'm beginning to see that.

>"I suggest collecting as many paintings that YOU like and anaysing what they have in common. And what makes them appealing to you then try to deconstruct those things."

I will honestly try this out and see what happens. It makes sense.

That was a very good post, the entire thing. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

[Anonymous No.3460656]

>>3460647
The topic is about painting, not drawing.

[Anonymous No.3460664]

>>3460656
you brought up the analogy

[Anonymous No.3460687]

>>3460504
sounds like you want to learn psychology, not how to draw

[Anonymous No.3460708]

>>3460504
It does suck that with art in general so many people take the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality to learning art and just stick with the idea of learning everything through experimentation as people have done in the past instead of trying break down the process more concretely like other fields have done. You'll always have to experiment no matter what someone teaches you but I also feel that the fundamentals and such could be taught in a more (relatively) fail-proof way. Learning would still be hard but just not as uncertain.

>The guy at Ctrl-Paint does paint, but he doesn't know how he is doing it.

Have you looked through his paid videos? I've only skimmed them but the Digital Painting, Digital Color, and Digital Realism Starter Kit all should cover what you want. Though maybe his process perhaps doesn't define everything as clearly as he does with the shadows.

>Is there anyone out there who knows and understands?

There is a lot of overlap with Ctrl+Paint, but I feel Dorian Iten does a better job of breaking down things into clearly defined parts and going through those in a step-by-step way that's easy to understand and apply to other things. These 2 pictures show the checklist of concepts Dorian gives that make up a painting. From there you'll be in better shape to experiment and analyze other paintings.

His course Mastering Light & Form covers all of it and some other stuff in detail but you can't buy it now since he's making a new 2018 version. https://www.dorian-iten.com/ You can find the old version on CGPeers. A week ago he posted the Light Guide which covers a portion of what's in his full course. http://www.dorian-iten.com/light/

All that said, it might be something else you feel is missing. 1/2

[Anonymous No.3460709]

>>3460708
2/2

[Anonymous No.3460740]

painting is just drawing with a brush.

sure now you also have color, but color does not really matter.

[Anonymous No.3460783]

>>3460504
Read the books "Alla Prima " and "color and light "

[Anonymous No.3460811]

>>3460504
I'm just gonna jump in and here and also say that you have to know how to draw first.

Color is just a thing you pick based on feeling and a few rules of thumb AFTER you do everything else that requires drawing skills. Value, form, perspective, etc....

Go learn to draw first.

[Anonymous No.3460839]

matisse learned colour before construction et al (if he ever really learned construction)

[Anonymous No.3460845]

>The guy at Ctrl-Paint does paint, but he doesn't know how he is doing it. He doesn't understand what or why he is doing what he is doing

Your failure to understand his really basic fucking explanations is your failure to understand, not his.

[Anonymous No.3460862]

I'm sorry op but robots are never gonna make it. Go beep boop somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.3460875]

>>3460504
You just summarized why the years of practice thing is not a meme. Being good at art isn't something you can do quickly or abstract and define clearly. It's an intuitive thing that develops with practice. That's the reason no one can explain it. They just drew and drew and drew and watched and watched and watched until it's just ingrained. Writing can be taught because there's only 26 letters you have to learn and then learn a few grammar rules and that's it. Add to that the fact that writing doesn't require any special amount of hand-eye-coordination, while art does, an incredible amount of it.

[Anonymous No.3460889]

>>3460504
Go look up 3D modelling and look at how light is applied to light scenes. You'll see that the theory on lighting and color is applied scientifically and that you can use pure math to figure everything out.

Now youll understand all painting techniques are an abstraction of that model. There's even methods of painting where you layer your textures and lighting likenas if you're running a 3D model.

Go watch a video on basic lighting for 3D modeling and everything will be a lot clearer.

[Anonymous No.3460903]

>>3460862
This. Go into programming if you want to be a faggot machine so badly.

[Anonymous No.3460962]

or be like me. just paint. no need to read instruction books

[Anonymous No.3461734]

>>3460637
Oh shit I think this applies to me too, good post anon.

[Anonymous No.3461846]

>>3460504
>>3460637

Skip to 53:10 of this interview. whether you like the guys work or not, he is right about how books are useless by themselves to learn painting.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3irHKiTwfgc

[Anonymous No.3461855]

>>3461846>>
It's the guy who painted the logan poster. The 3d in that video is not his.

[Anonymous No.3461947]

>>3460962
we can tell that you haven't read a thing

[Anonymous No.3461988]

>>3460637
What I find appealing may not be what makes that particular work good the reason why it is good. I can't truly detect how x is doing great shit if my core foundation is lacking. Otherwise it would be poor imitation after poor imitation.

[Anonymous No.3462013]

>>3461988
>>3461988
I'm not implying that the fundamentals are useless and you shouldn't read books. But the books you read shouldn't be "how to paint an apple" or "how to draw a hand." since they are missing the big picture.

I was assuming op has already consumed enough art and fundamental courses he was dismissing. My point was once you have those foundations it's time to move on by yourself because you can't find your technique, style and taste by reading those same books.

You get that by actually painting and studying good paintings.

[Anonymous No.3462024]

>>3461988
I'm not implying that the fundamentals are useless and you shouldn't read books.

I was assuming op has already consumed enough art and fundamental books/courses he was dismissing. My point was once you have a few foundations to get started it's time to paint because you can't find your technique, style and taste by reading those same books. Because the artists can't articulate everything they are doing at the intuitive level which they accumulated with each painting that they did. The only thing they can explain to you is the things they are doing consciously.

You get that by actually painting and studying good paintings instead of being crippled by the complexity of painting. And hoping every thing will magically make sense at the same time.

[Anonymous No.3462039]

>>3460504
The closest thing to what you’re talking about (IMO the exact thing you’re looking for) is here:

https://virtualartacademy.com/tablet/index.html

It’s about $40/mo and you’re in it for the long haul because the guy is pretty militant about copyright protection and it’s designed as online courseware. There’s no way to effectively pirate it.
It’s a goldmine if you apply yourself, a money pit if you don’t.
It’s the shit though. Cheaper by far than art school in any event. .

[Anonymous No.3462094]

>>3462039
It has a vibe of those sites that over promise and under deliver. Does the guy do demonstrations?

[Anonymous No.3462114]

>>3462094
He does. Not as much as other sites. But certainly what’s needed.
I wish to fuck it was more like NMA. There is too much reading. But it really is what OP is looking for. On old Wet Canvas threads it seemed he was really autistic about protecting his content which gave the place an off-putting vibe. He seemed completely unable to reconcile how the internet devalues content with the amount of effort into course development.

In any event, there is a document that shows the entire curriculum mapped out over 4 years. If you look at it you will see that it is far more comprehensive and conceptually coherent than pretty much anything else out there.

Not for the faint of heart.

[Anonymous No.3462387]

>>3461846
Thanks, I really needed to hear that.

>>3460637
Good post.
I'd recommend saving pics that speak to you and later limiting your influences to 2-3 artists. You don't need too many cooks in the kitchen.
Also taking a sketch by your fav artist and drawing the same scene, but rotated a bit or in a sequence forces you to try and understand the techniques they're using.
Simplicity and graphic quality are good things to focus on.

[Anonymous No.3463220]

>>3462039
OP here, thanks for the recommendation, I am checking it out right now.

[Anonymous No.3463227]

>>3462039
The artwork displayed is laughable.

[Anonymous No.3463244]

I dont see how fundamental drawing/painting theory and principles are as unsatisfactory as you say they are.

Drawing is marking line(s) to project the edges of three-dimensional objects onto a two-dimensional surface. Where edges are the boundaries of contrasting light/color. The style in which these edges are presented, and even which are missing, is up to the artist to decide.

Painting is also projection, but instead of line, it's areas of color that are projected. You're trying to recreate/model the light that enters your eyes when you look at a particular scene (set of objects) from a particular angle.

Explaining the creative process where reality is dismissed for subjective or even imaginary interpretations is tricky, and even more so in music where every composition is a creation and not a recreation of a natural phenomenom.
You could model the creative process as an evolutionary system where ideas are generated and linked randomly, and then tested for how your mind responds to the output. Good ideas and combinations stick and bad ones are dismissed.

Lastly, knowing music theory doesnt make you good at composing and playing music, you still must grind for your skills. Art fundamentals fill the same roles and achieve the same as music theory, which is to give a logical framework. What you choose/can do with it is the definition of artistic ability.

[Anonymous No.3464051]

>>3463227
im not sure which work you looked at but some of the student work is weak while his is more than competant.
he knows his color (deeply), notan/design, brushwork etc as well as having a coherent if slightly arbitrary philosophy/organizing prinicple.

the reason why a lot of the student work is weak is because many of the students come to the course having neglected drawing (if they have any drawing ability at all). this is a common failing of many painters.

the other thing that takes getting used to, especially if all your influences are realist concept designers, mangakas and comic artists etc is that the teacher is coming mainly from the grand ol california style plein air / alla prima traditions (as well as the “hawthorne” impressionism light-focused stuff.

this doesnt matter however. everything applies no matter where you are planning to go or end up.

i defy you to find something closer to a “universal” or “general theory” of painting program (which is what the OP asked for).

if you want the ImagineFx fantasy art photoshop stuff you can get more focused training elsewhere but its not as sophosticated or comprehensive.

good luck!

[Anonymous No.3464108]

>>3464051
>i defy you to find something closer to a “universal” or “general theory” of painting program (which is what the OP asked for).

[Anonymous No.3464159]

>overthinking THIS HARD

Just fucking draw

[Anonymous No.3464160]

>>3464159
But what do I draw? What if it's a waste of time? What if people don't like that's i draw anime? What do I focus on? Do I focus on line? Rendering? What do I which and when? How do I just draw?

[Anonymous No.3464162]

>>3464160
>What if people don't like that's i draw anime?

Fuck them draw what you like.

now for me to follow my own advice..

[Anonymous No.3464739]

OP is trying to find find an "objectively correct" method of painting, not realizing that no such thing exists.

Art isn't a fucking science, there's no "correct" art. At best you can find some principles and ideas that are nigh-universal and methods that are arguably more efficient than others.

[Anonymous No.3464743]

>>3460504
just stop.
there is only one way to draw them, or at that, anything.
and thats to, get this, draw about 10000 pictures each one being about 1 hours worth of effort.
and that is the easiest way to get good.
there is no other way.
there will never be another way.
no book will enlighten you to another way.
no drug will show you a way.
no hack will give you the way.
no tablet will ease your way.


only time will give you a way.
but you still have to walk it.

[Anonymous No.3465588]

You are correct in your observation that instructions are incomplete, at the very least.
Nothing you read about it will truly make sense - until it does. I think learning art is a very complex process and we still haven't boiled down how to do it. The best we can do is list a bunch of general rules and exercises because we know there's a very high chance they will produce an epiphany of sorts.

All of it can only nudge you into the right direction, not guide you. One may understand the phrase "feel the form" but the true meaning of it does not become clear until you actually do feel it.

[Anonymous No.3465922]

>>3460591

>It took you from the moment you were born to the moment you learned to read so 6-7 years ...

he made a valid point though

[Anonymous No.3465943]

Just paint just draw. Or go be a fucking loser fuck off incel

[Anonymous No.3466978]

>>3460962
B-bogdanoff?

[Anonymous No.3466991]

>>3460596
This thread is still up? Cool. This question has been sitting in the back of my mind. At the moment I've come to the conclusion that art is all about utilizing and improving your inner eye. All that grinding is to improve your other "inner senses" you start to "feel" a texture, "feel" a gesture, maybe even "hear" an expression that indicates yelling. If your inner senses are strong and aligned with reality, you are capable of transfering that to paper. You draw a texture until it matches a feel you associate with that texture. Art makes you pay attention to things more, and it feeds your inner sensory memories.
Rest is just what you already know: Hand-eye coordination, choosing supplies that work best to achieve that feel you're after etc.
Maybe thats why errors in art are so bothersome that it may ruin the whole experience of looking at art. It doesn't take but one really uncomfortable error in anatomy, and your immersion is broken. All the focus goes into the mistake, and how it doesn't match your inner experience if you were the subject of the picture.
You shouldn't just draw lines, you'd better sculpt shapes.

I don't know, I'm most likely totally wrong, but that's what makes sense to me at the moment.

[Anonymous No.3467007]

>>3460504
just read schmid and draw outside.
painting isn't that complicated, you just make good shapes with good colors that relate to eachother correctly. knowing why they do comes from understanding light and your perception of it.
if you need more of a tutorial than that, look at robh ruppel's stuff
>https://broadviewgraphics.blogspot.com

the problem is you're trying to overthink everything instead of just training you eyes and you hands through work.

[Anonymous No.3467427]

>>3464160
Jesus fuck who cares you autist fuck. You draw what you like, regardless of what anyone thinks. Waste of time? Why the fuck are you even interested in art in the first place? Go learn something technical then.

[Anonymous No.3467439]

>>3467427
Drawing is a technical thing though.

[Anonymous No.3467460]

Just buy a coloring book.

[Anonymous No.3467463]

>>3467007
schmid is a bad source if you actually want to paint, his book is kind of a fairy tale about being l'artist. i'm not saying he's making it up mind you, just that his book is a bunch of pretty sounding waffle that won't help you at all in the slightest except for a think a little section on preparing canvas, and a few other little technical tidbits.