/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3669888]

Is there a better way to learn to draw if I'm good at programming?

Why is it that I can hold hundreds of lines of code in my head but can't picture a face or draw a circle?

[Anonymous No.3669914]

>>3669888
Start to practice, good clear imagination comes from experience. Do the same pose 100 times and you will be able to picture it without reference. Easy mode is to just draw cubes and learn to picture it rotating it in your mind. Maybe back when you first started programming you couldn't even picture any code.

[Anonymous No.3669916]

Anon

why dont you draw people in the form of code

[Anonymous No.3669917]

>>3669916


This gif is made using Ascii!

The possibilities are endless :)

draw a masterpiece of 1 and 0

[Anonymous No.3669919]

>>3669888
>can hold hundreds of lines of code in my head
can you really? am i this lowly when it comes to programming? i can run through an algorithm in my head fairly easily, i can't hold hundreds of lines of it, however.

[Anonymous No.3669920]

is there a better way to learn to draw if I'm good at fighting gremlins

[Anonymous No.3669923]

>>3669888
Why not just make a program that will draw for you?

[Anonymous No.3669934]

>>3669888
I doubt that you can retain hundreds of lines of code in your head. I've been a programmer for 15 years now and I can't. And I don't want to, it's useless.
I can, however, write hundreds of lines of code thoughtlessly when I have an algorithm to implement. Because I know exactly what I'm doing and how to achieve it.

Think of lines of code as line of drawings. Yes, you can memorize hundreds of lines... But if you only know them from memory, you'll always draw the same thing.

[Anonymous No.3669935]

>>3669888
>tfw programming is easy as piss but learning to draw is fucking impossible

[Anonymous No.3669963]

>>3669920
Make the gremlins draw for you in exchange of sparing their lives. Outcomes may vary.

>>3669888
It may be nonsense but, my clue is coding, comes from language and linear thinking which is something you have been doing your whole life. Drawing on the other hand, different side of the brain that does the above so, maybe you just haven't exercised your brain enough. Remember how you learnt the alphabet and how to write? You must start there, but with drawing.

[Anonymous No.3669967]

>>3669888
>Why is it that I can hold hundreds of lines of code in my head but can't picture a face or draw a circle?
Because you've been programming for years but drawing for mere hours.

[Anonymous No.3669986]

>>3669967
Probably not true. Most people start drawing when they are 1 year old or even younger. Kids don't start serious programming until ~15 years old

[Anonymous No.3670005]

>>3669986
Not that anon but I wrote a >>3669963 I also have first hand experiences on both areas.
Yeah, people may start doodling when they are that young but at that age you can't expect complex thoughts for real drawing to take place, everything is just impressions and going with the feeling, have fun, which is fine but it may not be for OPs current age.
Also programming comes from language structure, once you know the syntax and vocabulary, you can work on it as you have been doing for decades or whatever your age is since you started reading and writing.
But drawing, you probably quit doing it or barely give it enough attention after those young years. I don't know OPs story so it's a guess, but it's a feasible one. So I think along the same lines of >>3669967.
I'm just telling OP, you want something, get knowledge on how to learn the skill, the apply it. Same as with any other skill. Just some people seem terrible at recalling all the years that were involved in them learning something and all the piled up training required to advance in related subjects.

[Anonymous No.3670015]

>>3669986
who the fuck starts serious drawing at 1 years old? how do you know OP has been drawing since 1 or younger?

OP started drawing recently, and has been coding for years, that anon was right.

[Anonymous No.3670023]

If you learn to draw in a really logical way it should be fine. Theres a guy who's really good at construction and teaching this way. Andy something. Andy Lunis I think? Also watts vilppu hampton bridgman.

Drawing doesnt have to be about being a creative fairy that shits rainbows. In fact if you want to GMI you have to learn the fundamentals of art (negative space, value, line width, form, light, color, etc) the same way you have to learn the fundamentals of programming (von neumann architecture, pointers, recursion, types, functions, referential transparency, algos, data structures, etc). Unless you want to be the art equivalent of a javascript frontend webdev.

-t. software eng

[Anonymous No.3670049]

>>3670023
>Andy lunis
Kek but Scott Robertson is a lot more technical and logical than loomis.

[Anonymous No.3670149]

>>3669888
Take notes, right down rules/preferences about subjects you're studying, things like proportion & mechanics of the body help a lot when problem solving, test those rules. If you can problem solve and understand why you're thing looks crappy, you will learn a lot faster than just drawing figures never correcting. Think about goals you want to achieve with each exercise.

Watch videos, pause and try to do the exercise before you see how the teacher does it, you can compare and see how they had better composition exaggerating certain features, then next time you'll do that. Take time to do your own exercises based off the information you learned, and then come back to the videos.

[Anonymous No.3670196]

>>3669888
>can hold hundreds of lines of code in my head
That's not even how programming works. You're not constantly having to memorize every line of code, you're just remembering what your code does. A well-written program doesn't require good memorization if you're modulating each feature. All you need to remember is that x module does this, y module does that, etc.

Maybe this is why you're bad at drawing.

[Anonymous No.3670281]

>>3669888
Use your head(unless you don't mean thinking algorithms by "being good at programming"), and mostly do self critique

>>3669935
>t. never actually programmed

[Anonymous No.3670455]

>>3669888
it's because you're autistic

[Anonymous No.3671289]

>>3669923
Please don't do that. I don't want to lose the only thing I'm somewhat decent at.

[Anonymous No.3671580]

>>3669888
literally what you just said
brute force memorization
grind for years that muscle memory until you can simply just draw it out without thinking about it
dont even need fundies for this

[Anonymous No.3671585]

>>3669888
what's up with male programmers and drawing?
around 1/4th of my coworkers are frustrated painters

[Anonymous No.3671589]

>>3670049
robertson likes to talk like he knew technical stuff, but is as retarded as betty edwards. loomis or hampton are vastly superior

[Anonymous No.3671605]

>>3671589
Robertsons methods operate on very strict perspective rules, loomis and Hampton are both very good resources but they aren't as strict as Robertson.

[Anonymous No.3671997]

>>3671605
>very strict
you are not a real programmer right? both robertson books are full of mistakes
his error is trying to talk like a technical, academic teacher, when he's empirical and intuitive

[Anonymous No.3672050]

you can always skip the whole "drawing" step by doing grid replications and covering that shit in paint.

[Anonymous No.3672055]

>>3669888
cuz u didnt practice, is that such a foreign concept to you

honestly man we get these posts a lot and they always basically read like
>so i am really smart but how come i am also a super dumbass

PRACTICE!!! different types of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.3672199]

>>3672050
look at this everyone, and take the advice if you want your art to look this bad

[Anonymous No.3672201]

>>3672199
you'll literally never make anything as good as pict related

proof me wrong bozo

[Anonymous No.3672440]

>>3671997
tell you what, i am a programmer but you could be right, i won't lie i haven't actually read scott robertson's book, but moderndayjames who recommends it and basically parrots it for his perspective series uses very strict, almost mathematical perspective methods to draw. maybe there's more to the book that is pseudo science but not a lot of loomis' stuff especially, is as clear cut as the stuff i learned from those videos.

[Anonymous No.3672464]

>>3669888
start drawing instead of overthinking it

[Anonymous No.3672478]

>>3672440>>3671997
I'm actually following scott's how to draw and my experience with it is that it's not as technically dense as more architectural perspective books where measurements and translating plans and sizes accurately means having to do some trigonometry but all he teaches is helpful to apply on the fly techniques to build a good scaffolding to draw anything without having to worry if this line or that line is X degrees of or 2cm off. It's more practical than anything. I like it so far, it has some good insight but other things could use a deeper approach. I haven't finish it yet, I'm starting with environments. But I've done the 7 starting out chapters twice already.

I'm not sure what kind of mistakes he does though, I would like to hear which you mean.

[Anonymous No.3672668]

If you are a programmer thrn you should be familiar with Hackers and Painters no?

[Anonymous No.3672858]

>>3672478
not that guy but his ellipses are technically wrong and he doesn't explain a lot of things well, but all in all it doesn't make a difference. The way he draws is 90% accurate to what it would look like as a 3d model, and drawing things 100% accurately would take vanishing points far off the page, measurements, you'd have to use blue prints, ellipses would be a bitch, it would probably take you all day to draw something stiff/100% accurate, 3d model like, just for it to probably look like crap, and so you'd never want to draw that way again. Scott's short hand methods allows him to realize an idea that's fairly accurate in a few minutes.

[Anonymous No.3673209]

>>3672478
i remember some made up incorrect numbers to make coincide a drawing with a 3d render for a given FoV; a crazy idea about using different perspectives for the wheels and for the rest of the car; and the ellipses' short axis orientation, that would let to big errors far from the center of view, and it's supposed to be the whole basis for constructing squares in both books. pretty sure there was much more minute stuff.
my main issue with robertson's books is that they are dishonest by not stressing how fundamental is eyeballing, and instead insist in overcomplicated rules of thumb that he actually never use, besides the trivial cases given as examples

[Anonymous No.3673243]

>>3669888
Programming is easier

[Anonymous No.3673359]

>>3669888
>if I'm good at programming?
Dunning Krueger / post your work

[Anonymous No.3673387]

>>3669963
>linear thinking
drawing is way more linear than programming lmao

[Anonymous No.3673390]

>>3669888
OP you are not good at programming and you're a liar. No one memorizes "lines of code". You know how the system works and are able to jump between levels of abstraction with ease. You're a fucking brainlet, I'm a high level software engineer at Apple working on things your tiny brain couldn't even comprehend, that's that.

[Anonymous No.3673539]

>>3669963
Programming starts to get abstract as fuck. At that point it's not even about writing programs, it's about structure, maintainability, res-usability, performance, readability and most importantly, program design. Knowing how to write a functional calculator using the syntax is just the beginning of it.

[Anonymous No.3673546]

>>3673390
>at apple
ignored

anyway op, you have to learn to draw to be able to draw.

perhaps if the answer to your question is a tautology you shouldn't post a whole new thread for it, just a little fyi.

[Anonymous No.3673590]

>>3673387
>line drawing
Okay, I get the joke. But you know what I mean. Linear thinking is language and math. You can't write a sentence following a certain language structure, backwards and have it make sense.
But you can draw a picture mirrored and it still conveys it's meaning well enough, even upside down, although that might take some frowning.
Programming, follows the same principle as most languages. You either write the code as the structure dictates or it won't compile.
Also that made reference at the way we think and the sides of our brain we use. And the end point was that we are taught since we are little to deal with many tasks in a linear ways, so we are used from many years of practice to think that way, meanwhile divergent thinking tasks have a much smaller chunk invested during growth, which might be why OP finds coding easier than drawing.
But it's not something you can't retrain or start late to learn, we always adapt. So if he finds it hard, the just keep on doing it until it clicks.