/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4313400]

What's your opinion on sight size drawing? I saw they have that new sight size course on NMA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V2rBUwn4pQ

[Anonymous No.4313492]

It’s interesting that in the FAQ they cop to the fact that even though it gets called “classical realism”, in it’s current autistic form, it probably originated in the US with R.H. Gamell and Richard Lack.

[Anonymous No.4313499]

I actually think though, that if youbwant yo be a professional portrait artist its a cool way to impress the client - making them sit there the whole time, using a measuring stick, standing back and rushing forward to put a mark down and standing back again.
It’s got showmanship.

[Anonymous No.4313500]

I actually think though, that if you want to be a professional portrait artist its a cool way to impress the client - making them sit there the whole time, using a measuring stick, standing back and rushing forward to put a mark down and standing back again.
It’s got showmanship.

[Anonymous No.4313518]

useless shitty copying autism

[Anonymous No.4313537]

/beg/ tier skill

[Anonymous No.4313553]

>>4313492
based and redpilled.
Everyone who thinks this is the way classical art worked is deluded. Vilppu, Bridgman, Hogarth and even loomis are all so much closer in both spirit and technique to the greeks it isn't even funny.
I fucking hate sight-sizers so much

[Anonymous No.4313558]

>>4313400
It's a fine thing to learn, but it isn't a lot to learn. It's a collection of methodical approaches to transfer measurements and relationships to paper/canvas, with very little in the way of creative decision-making because that isn't the point for them. However, that likely will be important to any artist not working strictly within portraiture.

This is something that will train the eyes to see important relationships immediately, but it won't improve understanding of a subject any more than using a grid method would. It should be a part of everyone's repertoire, but it's a very small part. It's not a comprehensive approach to drawing.

[Anonymous No.4313560]

>>4313553

this is how the masters did it.

[Anonymous No.4313570]

>>4313400
>trying to make money off the free Bargue course
Can't wait to pirate this one.

[Anonymous No.4313575]

>>4313553
You're delusional if you think the Renaissance masters autistically constructed their drawings with spheres instead of drawing from life.

[Anonymous No.4313590]

hey kid u wanna be a new master

[Anonymous No.4313602]

>>4313575
>You're delusional if you think the Renaissance masters autistically constructed their drawings with spheres instead of drawing from life.

When we all know it was boxes.

[Anonymous No.4313604]

>>4313553
>>4313560
>>4313575
apparently the french artists didnt use sight size instead used comparative measurement. also they used stumps to render quickly.

[Anonymous No.4313609]

>>4313575
>You're delusional if you think the Renaissance masters autistically constructed their drawings with spheres

When we all know it was boxes.

[Anonymous No.4313612]

>>4313575
>You're delusional if you think the Renaissance masters autistically constructed their drawings with spheres

When we all know it was boxes.

[Anonymous No.4313620]

>>4313575

[Anonymous No.4313623]

>>4313604
Fuck stumps, real men only use pencil and soft eraser to render.

[Anonymous No.4313626]

>large canvas (bigger the better)
>photo reference
>graphite
Anybody can do this. Just draw a grid and start filling it in. That's all they are doing, but instead of drawing every square, they're just drawing some major lines they can use as reference for where the other boxes would have been drawn. If you put the time and effort, just about anybody can draw something photoreal when shown the technique. It's maybe an hour of explanation to this.

[Anonymous No.4313629]

[Anonymous No.4313633]

>>4313575
Anyone who has the slightest idea of art, even without reading into the history, can SEE that the figures of the renaissance were formed by an understanding of basic constructive shapes, Specially sphere box and cylinder.
Very few famous paintings from the renaissance are "realistic"

[Anonymous No.4313637]

>>4313575

[Anonymous No.4313639]

>>4313575
btfo

[Anonymous No.4313646]

>>4313623
Unless you use charcoal then you use a sock filled with charcoal.

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

[Anonymous No.4313648]

>>4313575
You need to check out the work by this obscure Renaissance artist named Michelangelo.

[Anonymous No.4313649]

>>4313575

[Anonymous No.4313663]

>>4313648
Haven't seen him using construction a single time in his sketches

[Anonymous No.4313672]

>>4313649
Please explain what the planes of the head have to do with construction

[Anonymous No.4313709]

>>4313672
That's like asking what 3D forms have to do with construction. Are you retarded or just newfag?

[Anonymous No.4313731]

>>4313663
Once it’s fully internalized you dont need to actually draw the fucking cylinders you boob. Raphael was partial to egg shapes. It was mostly circles and eggs back then. You can see a lot of the thinking in Durer’s sketchbooks. A couple of which have been posted above. The Cambiaso above obviously shows the use of what Steve Huston calls “box logic”.
its not like construction was a fully established thing and the masters were too cool for it or some shit. They were still working it all out.
They were searching for rules of thumb and helpful approaches all the time.

There was a lot of idealization as well so there were even more stifling formula in use. Actual standard poses and expressions and shit. The church had a lot to do with that. They often taught using tracing and copybooks too. Memory drawing was also important.

[Anonymous No.4313732]

>>4313672
>>4313575

Why this retard keeps coming here to just spill mental liquid shit and then get buttfucked by facts? This must be the very same faggot who says color is not important, kek, even if he was shitposting is patethic doing it here.

[Anonymous No.4313736]

>>4313731
> Actual standard poses and expressions and shit
That also had a lot to do with people mastering certain poses, angles and expressions and being able to draw them on a dime with barely a sketch line. Sort of like how comics artists draw all day at a con.

[Anonymous No.4313737]

>>4313731
Don't bother he's terminally stupid

[Anonymous No.4313778]

>>4313612
kim jun gi's ancestors

[Anonymous No.4313983]

>>4313575
How would Michelangelo sculpt David without knowing form and structure? That's what construction is.

[Anonymous No.4313985]

>>4313983

math.
that's how they did back then.

[Anonymous No.4314087]

sight sizing is an essential excercise to build your observation skill, it's something not to be relied on solely however unless you want to be an instagram artist

[Anonymous No.4314107]

>>4314087
>Instagram artist
What that means? Sight sizers have an outsized presence on Instagram?

[Anonymous No.4314173]

>>4313639
nice butthole on the back of the head there, Albrecht

[Anonymous No.4314196]

>>4313400
Someone sum up sight size drawing?

Are they actually drawing 1:1 like the video says? Doesn't look like it, the canvases are smaller than the people?

Am I retarded?

[Anonymous No.4314204]

>>4314196
hold arm out straight
use brush/pencil as measuring stick.
mark canvas.

[Anonymous No.4314271]

>>4314204
Isn't this recommended by every single drawing book ever written?

[Anonymous No.4314283]

>>4314271

yea pretty much.

[Anonymous No.4314597]

>>4314204
>>4314271
Its more than that ffs. It has to do with where your easel is relative to the subject and its not just about plotting points and making marks. The degree of observation intensifies over time to take in ever-more nuance. HEAVY emphasis on rendering accurately. Stuff like that.
It’s probably not at all useful for weebs. Drawing ‘realistically” from life/observation has to be your primary interest. If it is, this is about as good a method as there is. If it isnt, it’s near useless and a major time waster imo.

But if you actually want to know whats being taught why wouldnt you just watch the trailers and read the faq?

[Anonymous No.4314626]

>>4314597
You call us weebs, I call you a human camera.

[Anonymous No.4314644]

>>4314626
I don’t practice sight size - way more into construction. I meant weeb semi-affectionately in this case but I do think people who come in reducing whole methods to being black or white, shitty or great are fucking children though.

Fwiw, regarding the photograph analogy, at their best, sight sizers imo are not human cameras. More like serious photographers where they make a million formal decisions, consciously or not, before opening the shutter. Manipulating edge, value, light, dark, atmosphere, detail vs suggestion and so on are perfectly valid artistic concerns. And if I wanted to be a dick I would say they are more valid than weeb artistic concerns.

[Anonymous No.4314649]

>>4314626
I don’t practice sight size - way more into construction. I meant weeb semi-affectionately in this case but I do think people who come in reducing whole methods to being black or white, shitty or great are fucking children though.

Fwiw, regarding the photograph analogy, at their best, sight sizers imo are not human cameras. More like serious photographers where they make a million formal decisions, consciously or not, before opening the shutter. Manipulating edge, value, light, dark, atmosphere, detail vs suggestion and so on (to say nothing of composition and design ffs) are perfectly valid artistic concerns. And if I wanted to be a dick I would say they are more valid than weeb artistic concerns.

[Anonymous No.4314654]

>>4314626
I don’t practice sight size - way more into construction. I meant weeb semi-affectionately in this case but I do think people who come in reducing whole methods to being black or white, shitty or great, merely this or that, are fucking children though.

Fwiw, regarding the photograph analogy, at their best, sight sizers imo are not human cameras. More like serious photographers where they make a million formal decisions, consciously or not, before opening the shutter. Manipulating edge, value, light, dark, atmosphere, detail vs suggestion and so on (to say nothing of composition and design ffs) are perfectly valid artistic concerns. And if I wanted to be a dick I would say they are more valid than weeb artistic concerns.

[Anonymous No.4314892]

John Singer Sargent is a confirmed sight-sizer. If it was good enough for him, it's good enough for /ic/ shitters.

[Anonymous No.4315204]

>>4314892
If by ‘confirmed’ you mean that one note written by a client that described what it was like to sit for him and how he worked, yes, it definitely appears to describe sight size. At least in terms of working at a 1:1 scale with the canvas beside the sitter.

Its not the only way he worked by any stretch. He could draw and sketch freehand like a motherfucker. His plein air watercolors/underdrawings are loose as fuck. His stuff for the Boston Library mural was patched together from sketches and imagination.
He was a virtuoso like very few others.

[Anonymous No.4315893]

>>4315204

I know that. Still, people railing on sight-size in this thread is absolutely laughable while they most likely can’t even draw their own loli porn to save their lives. I went to an atelier that is run by someone who can trace his respective teacher (and theirs) back to Sargent, and it sure as hell taught sight-size for portraiture with a sitter, and it works great.

[Anonymous No.4315903]

>>4313400
Oh, I learned to do that in school. It's useful for studies and portraits. I liked it, it helped train me out of symbol drawing habits and my eyes are trained enough now that I can shit out quick sketches of people like it's nothing. Fun stuff, you should learn it. If nothing else it's tools you have for the future if you ever need to draw a subject very accurately

[Anonymous No.4315964]

>>4313400
meh, I'll pirate

[Anonymous No.4316159]

>>4313400
And how is this gonna help me draw anime? Get this scientology looking ass bullshit out of here.

[Anonymous No.4316318]

>>4315893
Really? May I ask who? I’ve heard that about Richard Schmidt but I don’t really see it in his work or methods.

[Anonymous No.4316778]

>>4314196
the distance from the object changes the size of how it is perceived; that is, by simply moving the canvas back and forth you adjust it to fit that object

[Anonymous No.4316794]

>>4316778
Yep. 1:1 means you take a visual measurement for the person and take it directly to the canvas without scaling it up or down. Not life size, but sight size

[Anonymous No.4317265]

>>4316778
Great googly moogly thats a fine bum.

[Anonymous No.4317768]

>>4313492
This! Sight size just meant a place on the floor, it seems Gamell started working this way as a suggestion from Willian Paxton, who himself was tying together his paris studio training which would have been relational measuring, with the Monet impressionism. There is several writing out there that soundly refute Sight Size as a method used before Gammell. Though with that said, I use sight size and comparative together when doing object or figure drawing, by doing comparative measuring at my easel and the stepping back to see it at a specific size and check.