/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.6281161]

>People always tell you to just draw what you see
>Robert Beverly Hale tells you the opposite
who am I supposed to believe?

[Anonymous No.6281166]

Read the introduction to the Vilppu's drawing manual. He outlines this debate clearly. There are 2 main camps of artists: Idealists and realists. Idealists construct and design, while realists copy and mimic nature. Idealists take nature and make it into something better, while realists believe nature is the best that an artist should strive for. Basically, it's construction drawing vs the academic tradition.

That's not to say construction artists don't learn from nature.

[Anonymous No.6281175]

>>6281161
just do both you fucking loser

[Anonymous No.6281255]

>>6281166
sounds gay as fucks

[Anonymous No.6281364]

>>6281255
Construction chads won. Seethe, you realists

[Anonymous No.6281453]

>>6281161
This is what you can expect from constructoidism

[Anonymous No.6281458]

>>6281453
You also can expect this from constructionism

[Anonymous No.6281489]

>>6281161
draw what you feel

[Anonymous No.6281789]

>>6281458
that looks like a filthy cartoon.

[Anonymous No.6281822]

>>6281364
>an idiot

[Anonymous No.6281829]

>>6281822
this image was constructed. Nope you can't copy it from life :)

[Anonymous No.6281844]

>>6281789
it's a good filthy cartoon

[Anonymous No.6281904]

There is no "rule" that's universally true. Any rule you say, I can find a hundred images that break the rule.

[Anonymous No.6281919]

>>6281829
You don't need to construct anything to draw inane trannime tho

[Anonymous No.6281933]

>>6281919
you literally do, nonartist

[Anonymous No.6281938]

>>6281933
No you don't, at all,let alone at that garbage level
>nonartist
Indeed trannime isn't art and trannime craftsmen aren't artists

[Anonymous No.6281955]

>>6281938

[Anonymous No.6283083]

>>6281955
now post fkey or any non-garbage artist

[Anonymous No.6283087]

>>6283083
does not sound like you understand the debate between idealists and realists in the first place. You think Fkey sets up models and copies them for his work? No, he invents figures from his head. Whether he explicitly uses construction lines or not isn't the question. He invents and designs, which is something academics will never understand.

[Anonymous No.6283099]

>>6283083
pyw instead anon

[Anonymous No.6283115]

>>6283087
>you understand the debate
I understand that 1 guy said
>You don't need to construct anything to draw inane trannime tho >>6281919
to which you replied
>>6281933
>you literally do, nonartist
making you a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.6283116]

>>6283115
you don't understand construction at all

[Anonymous No.6283134]

>>6283116
be honest, do you even draw, retard?

[Anonymous No.6283141]

>>6283134
I see no refutation from you. Just nitpicks and insults. Good luck convincing any lurker reading this thread to not construct.

>pic related
a constructed Satania drawing

[Anonymous No.6283143]

>>6281161
Right, he's talking about the absolute Cro-Magnon of artists who haven't yet developed visual acuity to really draw what they see. If this is supposed to be some kind of a "Zinger!", it fails. A student who fastidiously draws what they see before them will, in a reasonable amount of time and with some applied thinking thrown into the mix, be able to capture an exacting image of what is really there, and then extrapolate from there what they would like to show off. But if all they draw is tranime, constructoid blockins with awful proprtions that look nothing like what is there, and almond eyes, then good luck with that.

Hale was a hack, like so many other teachers who couldn't actually draw worth shit. Analyzing is one thing, executing is another. See: Hampton, Nicolaides, Edwards, Dodson, the list is endless.

And he shouldn't be quoting Whistler. Dilettantes quoting great artists to shoehorn their own infantile agendas just make me sick to my stomach. Filthy pond scum.

Do not read second-hand accounts. Read Whistler, not Whistler-by-Hale.

[Anonymous No.6283145]

>>6281161
You draw what you see in the sense you break down a figure into bare forms and build from there, figures don't come in box forms but that doesn't mean you can't build ontop of a box form to give a sense of solidity and an organic form with a combination of spherical and box forms. In other words, this is called drawing.

[Anonymous No.6283187]

>>6283087
>you LITERALLY have to use construction
>n-no he’s doing it in his h-head, I swear!
every time

[Anonymous No.6283214]

>>6283187
are you one of those npc's who doesn't have an internal monologue? wouldn't be surprised...

[Anonymous No.6283334]

>>6283214
I’m sorry, I won the argument in my head, so you literally lost
ggez

[Anonymous No.6283968]

>>6281161

[Anonymous No.6286490]

>>6281161
draw from imagination

[Anonymous No.6286501]

>>6281161
>Robert Beverly Hale tells you the opposite
that's not what the text says.
he says that the beginner described in the text doesn't actually draw what he sees because he hasn't developed a sophisticated kind of "sight/visual interpretation" yet - which can be confirmed by looking at his drawing.

[Anonymous No.6287573]

>>6281161
believe the artist that makes work that you aspire to its not complicated.
if you wanna be a pro athlete and a football player tells you to bulk and a gymnast tells you to cut and stretch, the one you listen to depends on the one you want to follow
God you mongoloids are insufferably retarded and lazy, I hope none of you make it if this menial bullshit is a roadblock to you.