/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.6252328]

This is a study by Bouguereau.. notice the lack of construction autism, he's just feeling the form, we need to learn from the masters

[Anonymous No.6252345]

>>6252328
This is nothing. Wait till you look at Ingres.

[Anonymous No.6252365]

Good 'ol /ic/.

The answer is that he's so good at drawing he doesn't need to construct anymore. Vilppu said this in his demonstration for Proko.

[Anonymous No.6252417]

>>6252345
Well?

[Anonymous No.6253517]

>>6252328
Take the example of Gustave Dore, he copied tons of art book from masters. Copying will make you a good artist simple as that

[Anonymous No.6253536]

Bernini said that when one is learning to be a sculptor that they should learn by copying sculpture. But he said, that they must only copy great sculpture. Copying anything less would be a very big mistake..
You can apply this to drawing

[Anonymous No.6253646]

>>6252365
Ill just skip construction
Straigth from no construction to no construction

[Anonymous No.6253801]

>>6253536
>Copying anything less would be a very big mistake..
It depends: if you're smart enough to understand where a lesser artist fails, you will also learn what not to do

>>6252328
ah, yet another construction thread with no definition of "construction", that will follow in the same eternal series of argument as always.

oh joy.

[Anonymous No.6253813]

>>6252365
The thing is, these people didn’t use construction since they were children. It was a light bulb moment early on in their education/training where it was like “oh, I get it” and then they discarded it’s use as a formal approach (I’ll come back to this). We have drawings from 13 year olds back then, they were insanely accurate and done by eye, and this is all due to a teacher or parent pointing out the bloody obvious in front of them that construction wouldn’t really help address.

The constructoid problem is rooted in treating abstract design systems as formal approaches to drawing. You can see this in Reilly head and figure diagrams - one of the more aesthetic design systems - because people literally symbol draw the energy lines without understanding what they are for and as a result draw them incorrectly. If I give you a photo of a portrait, and you can’t at least put the Reilly lines on that head properly, you aren’t ready for a construction system. Your eyes are weak and they need training of observation. You’re also probably drawing without looking, which will further not help.

What we have today, in large part, is a misunderstanding stemming from teachers feeding students nonsense because they were fed that when they were students. Construction is just one aspect of it, and it’s very hard to get someone to draw naturally if they spent years thinking that a pelvis is a box and a leg is a cylinder. And then shoehorning in a bad perspective because the teacher or /ic/ said so.

We have a lack of good draftsmen teaching people. Hampton’s own work shows he should have been an IT guy. He can’t draw the figure worth shit, in all honesty, because he sees everything through hardened eyes of construction, blocks, and planes. There are no planes or blocks on the figure. It’s a teaching design system.

[Anonymous No.6253816]

>>6252328
After you learn enough construction you won't need to use it anymore, it becomes innate. You understand that, right?

[Anonymous No.6253819]

>>6253813
I would be tempted to at this point say that the blackest pill is Kimon’s natural way to draw, but his own work leaves much to be desired and his book is full of shit work that’s inapplicable to any serious drawing undertaking. So the next best thing is pulling out as many Michelangelo figure studies as you can find and faithfully copying those. No construction, just lines and hatching that is done faintly and then built up on a series of layers getting closer to their relatively correct values and proportions. Anything else is mental masturbation. You’ll extract a design system from this even if you’re not trying.

[Anonymous No.6253837]

>>6253819
A student is much better off reading a book by, for example, John Vanderpoel because his approach is to present construction as a product of observation of the figure, rather than trying to shoehorn a figure into a construct that doesn’t have any point actually lining up. So he might say, for example, “the top eyelid is thicker than the bottom.” The wrong thing to do here would be to run and draw. The right is to look at the model you’re drawing, and see if you can locate this piece of knowledge as a fact from what is in front of you, and if so, put it into your drawing. His book is therefore almost all natural drawings with very little construction diagrams. Just the large statements.

[Anonymous No.6253839]

>>6253816
>it's real in my mind
Hilarious

[Anonymous No.6253842]

>>6252328
How did he do it without Erik Olsons 200 hour perspective course??? no loomis either wtf??

[Anonymous No.6253854]

>>6253819
It depends on the ever changing definition, but Michelangelo made plenty use of construction in figures. The element of observation doesn't matter because drawing at the time wasn't entirely seen as mere mimesis, so much as the human's idealized interpretation of models. Compositions were often invented before any models were present and all of this precluded using specific shapes to describe the form. Simplest example is his use of spheres ans cyllinders in the putti.
Overall I don't think you should be reliant on any one thing, but to discount the element of construction is a dumb idea.

[Anonymous No.6253862]

>>6253839
nta but you're a based retard kek

[Anonymous No.6253864]

>>6253862
Sorry you fell for the construction meme but you don't have to cope that hard.

[Anonymous No.6253867]

>>6253864
meds

[Anonymous No.6253892]

>>6253854
In the case where they use basic forms to highlight grand statements, that’s obviously an artistic choice. What we are talking about here is learning to draw. Not all of them went the way of Michelangelo. Titian for example has plentiful of life like renderings.

[Anonymous No.6253896]

>>6252328
Construction is a learning tool. Masters don't use construction because they do construction in their head.

[Anonymous No.6254019]

>>6253813
I only see 4 paragraphs of cope. Every great comic artist, animator, mangaka, and imaginative painter uses construction. At some point, when there's just so much proof for one side of the "debate", any dissent just looks silly

[Anonymous No.6254030]

>>6253896
>it's real in my mind I swear
LOL
That's like saying masters don't sketch or do studies, hilarious!

[Anonymous No.6254047]

>>6254030
>>it's real in my mind I swear
this but unironically ROFL xD

[Anonymous No.6254059]

>>6252328
Study by Sargent. He's feeling the rhythm here, no way constructoids could spin this as 'he's constructing in his head'

[Anonymous No.6254216]

>>6254019
No they don’t. They use it to explain basic drawing concepts to beglets. There’s actually a literal equivalent to this written by EAP where he tries to break down his own work in an essay called Philosophy of Composition for the purpose of teaching students, but he himself never wrote this way. Ditto with many other writers, musicians, etc.

Construction is the greatest filter on /ic/, self imposed torture beyond which nobody gets through, because in order to draw anything that isn’t a basic volume and have it look real, you need to abandon construction based approaches and use your eyes instead.

[Anonymous No.6254224]

this meme is so utterly bizarre because Huston and Vilppu constantly point out how masters use simple forms in their works. The literal 'anti-construction' approach recommended here is to learn spherical and box forms and glue them to gestures.

Here's Albert Durer's sketchbook lmao

[Anonymous No.6254231]

>>6254216
Watch that interview with Karl Kopinski for superani or whatever. Watch him just start drawing as he’s talking about his life. Sure he’s thinking about perspective and volumes, that’s a basic drawing skill. But to sit there and literally draw basic volumes in space and then having to fit a figure and everything else into it, is just fucking beg tiers of embarrassment.

Ditto for KJG but that’s an easy one.

Learn to draw.

[Anonymous No.6254236]

>>6254224
another master's sketchbook

[Anonymous No.6254239]

>>6254236
he's literally drawing simple forms under the drapery here

[Anonymous No.6254241]

>>6254239
cambiaso

[Anonymous No.6254242]

>>6254224
You should read up on Durer’s design system if you want to understand why he sketched this. It would behoove a diligent draftsman to ask themselves why would someone as experienced as Durer outline these proportions in a sketch book, when he very well knew the proportions of the human body. Maybe he was inventing something? Why did his figures never actually look like their real life counterparts? Surely he was able to capture things very accurately. So maybe drawing was used for different purposes than just capturing a likeness? Etc etc.

Marshall is a hack. They are selling you garbage.

[Anonymous No.6254247]

>>6254242
> Marshall
did i mention vandruff? You seem more impressed that great masters hide their construction is all.

[Anonymous No.6254249]

>>6254236
Demonstration drawing, especially when done with a pen like this meant to be permanent.

>>6254241
Composition study.

[Anonymous No.6254252]

>>6254249
> actual evidence of masters using construction for their own study as well as in completed works
t-that doesn't count anon

go be a crab somewhere else your thread sucks.

[Anonymous No.6254254]

>>6254247
No. Their use of construction is obvious. The question is for what. That’s what people are hung up on.

I assure you, an old master doesn’t need to draw the cylindrical eye line to place the eyes. Not even for a study. That would be absurd.

[Anonymous No.6254258]

>>6254254
> doesn’t need to draw the cylindrical eye line to place the eyes.
you mean its one of many tools they've acquired and learn to use properly in their lifelong pursuit of learning to draw. fascinating.

[Anonymous No.6254263]

Why are anti construction chads so knowledgeable??

[Anonymous No.6254273]

>>6254216
i don't think you understand what construction even is. When you get good you don't literally sketch out cylinders and boxes, you can do it in a looser manner. But no matter what, you're still working with the same basic principles of spheres, boxes, and cylinders, even if not explicitly drawn. Every form has symmetry, corners, cross-contours, rendering, and that's all construction.

What a stupid discussion

[Anonymous No.6254278]

>>6254273
>construction is when you don't construct
Epic

[Anonymous No.6254312]

>>6254278
Yeah they don’t understand the difference between forms and construction. This is why you have to spoonfeed it to them like they’re retards with no memory retention.

Listen, none of us are actually anti construction. That would be equally absurd. Most of us are pro-using your eyes. The /beg/ thread is full of people posting a photo reference of a figure or a head, next to a poor construction that’s out of proportion, doesn’t line up at all with major landmarks of the reference, and has bad line quality as well. Now these begs didn’t come up with this construction system on their own. Somebody told them that in order to draw the figure, they need to represent it as boxes and cylinders. For them to even be able to correct their own drawings at that stage, with so many things wrong and such a wrong approach, is just leading them down the wrong path further. This is why it’s a beg filter. Begs need to be shown and demonstrates how to use their eyes, as krenz has recently demonstrated. I’m willing to bet the people he ranted about all swear by construction, but in his words, they draw so bad they make him look bad.

[Anonymous No.6254330]

>>6254258
It’s something they acquired early on and let it be in the back of their mind. You have to contextualize drawing and art to time periods. Perspective wasn’t discovered or invented in the 15th century. It was formalized as a system, and mocked thereafter by artists of that time period, because it was seen as a tasteless thing to use in a picture to tell a story,

[Anonymous No.6254350]

>>6254330
> It’s something they acquired early on and let it be in the back of their mind.
you mean exactly as how its contextualized in beg books past > how to draw manga or similar traps.

[Anonymous No.6254355]

>>6254350
So this is where it gets thorny. A metric fuckton of how to draw books out there are beg traps - this includes KtD, Betty, etc. Firstly, the work in them is shit tier, and secondly, they do not lay out a path for people to progress. You can't build a story on scribbles and shaky linework even if you divide it into chapters with different headings and make it seem like there's a progression, you need to be taken far back to basics and taught the most rudimentary things.

I think Vilppu's book is amazing, but it's equally not for begs. There's so much in there that's missing, and even he himself cannot draw a portrait with likeness to save his fucking life. He's mannered himself into a system that he likes to use, and he sticks to it.

What these books are great for is an artist with some drawing capability who wants to try something else, or, in the most typical case, a classroom of art students who need to be given assignments with some kind of direction, because most of the early generations who have heard of Vilppu know his books from their art school curriculum (or his own classes) as opposed to going out (pre-internet) and hunting for this shit.

[Anonymous No.6254637]

>>6252328
he probably just prompted it

[Anonymous No.6255041]

>>6252328
to be fair, most older artists just measure things until they can do stuff like that without measuring. (which is still referenced imo)
construction is good for drawing from imagination though, but not the only way you can draw ever. it's literally not that black and white, just chill and draw

[Anonymous No.6255716]

>>6255041
Yup. I feel for krenz, to have students and to have to tell them to undo years of faulty drawing instruction that was pushed upon them by people who don’t know how to take an idea to a sketch to a finished piece. This is essentially what art instruction has become in the 20th century and why I encourage people to look at 19th century art instruction books and earlier. Far more people back then knew how to draw and prestigious artists were sought out to write books. Publishing houses invested big money to be able to publish words of these old masters.

Of course, I also have respect for krenz. I don’t care about the work but the fact that he bluntly told them they don’t know how to draw, is the first step towards a giant leap. I’m sure many of his followers would not think twice before suggesting what was suggested to them, without actually having first hand experience. Such is the fate of many art students.

Although I do not like using MBTI for anything really, I can’t help but feel that constructoids converge on personalities that are best suited to hard sciences, technologies, and accounting. Their inability to intuitively grasp “look, and draw” as both a beginning, and an end of what should be a joyful and enlightening journey, strikes me akin to trying to teach a fish to climb a tree. It’s simply not made for the task and pushing it won’t help. Pages and pages of rudimentary line exercises are torturous. Such time is best used to draw from life and train the hand and the eye in a far more natural way. Line quality, perspective knowledge, all these things improve in application when called upon.

[Anonymous No.6255720]

>>6254059
Construction isn't just drawing boxes you absolute retard.

[Anonymous No.6255739]

what are figure courses where they give actual examples of drawing a figure from imagination

even the constructoid courses has demonstrations copying a model

[Anonymous No.6255740]

>>6254249
pyw

[Anonymous No.6255761]

>>6254059
>no way constructoids could spin this as 'he's constructing in his head'
... You can see the circle forming the cranium and one of the construction lines for placement on the head of one of the two children on the left.

you anti-construction guys are wild.

[Anonymous No.6255768]

>>6255761
That’s midline, often used to help guide gesture of the entire figure. In this case he put that down to help see him more clearly where the person is looking. A visual reminder. The rest of the two figures, draped in clothing, have next to no construction. This is an observational block in treating both figures as one unified mass.

[Anonymous No.6255827]

>>6254278
>There’s only one way to construct
Tell me you don’t draw without telling me you don’t draw

[Anonymous No.6256069]

>>6254273
A part of your confusion here is basically this:

1) draw basic volumes
2) ???
3) get good at drawing so you don’t need the volumes

Constructoids suffer from Draw The Owl meme, except instead of two ovals they pile on poorly drawn volumes and hope that somewhere along the way a well proportioned figure with limbs that look like limbs and contours that resemble the human body will emerge. They literally have no path to improve, as there’s too large of a gap to cross because they’ve gone the wrong way. You can’t grind construction and hope to get good at drawing. It’s an instructional and analytical tool, not a method of literal drawing and so using it to begin drawing is awful and counterproductive.

Best to go back to basics and try a different route.

This is why drawing is hard. This is why so few people can execute a believable trompe-l'œil, and why so many people tire out and fall back on symbolic/stylized drawing patterns they’ve got into the habit of drawing.

[Anonymous No.6256074]

>>6253517
> cope will make you a good artist simple as that
can i finally teach you how to construct and you will find your piece?

[Anonymous No.6256079]

>>6255768
>A visual reminder
OH SHIT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE...... CONSTRUCTION? AGAIN? NO FUCKING WAY

[Anonymous No.6256081]

>>6254242
post your work

[Anonymous No.6256148]

>>6255716
can you suggest me some good 19th century art onstruction books?

[Anonymous No.6256153]

>>6256079
lines of action and gesture have nothing to do with construction retard