|
As I said, I'm trying to get into drawing from my head (with reference, of course), and I feel like it's time for me to hit artistic anatomy hard. I have books by Bridgman, Loomis, and Christopher Hart. I've read decent chunks of all of them, and I plan on hitting them all from cover to cover. Which one should I start with if my goal is to improve my ability to visualize the body moved around every which way? (Just so you don't think this question comes from a total novice, I know to continue drawing from life, which I do whenever I can. Also, I took a figure drawing class about 2-3 years ago; I want to take another when I can, but scheduling is a barrier.)
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
CloseFriend posted:As I said, I'm trying to get into drawing from my head (with reference, of course), and I feel like it's time for me to hit artistic anatomy hard. I have books by Bridgman, Loomis, and Christopher Hart. I've read decent chunks of all of them, and I plan on hitting them all from cover to cover. Which one should I start with if my goal is to improve my ability to visualize the body moved around every which way? (Just so you don't think this question comes from a total novice, I know to continue drawing from life, which I do whenever I can. Also, I took a figure drawing class about 2-3 years ago; I want to take another when I can, but scheduling is a barrier.) This one doesn't really have one set answer that works for everyone. You just need to find the style of construction drawing (or more specifically simplifying the anatomy into basic 3d shapes) that is the most intuitive to you. People always have their favorites and depending on who you ask you'll get a different answer on which approach is best. A lot of people love Loomis, Frazetta himself studied Bridgman, others prefer Hogarth, etc. Almost any method will have its champions. The method you choose to simplify anatomy with isn't as important as your depth of understanding of that chosen method. So I think you are on the right track, try a lot of methods and study a lot of things as you are doing now and then eventually focus on the ones that click the most with you. Having a firm grasp of perspective is also important for drawing a figure from any angle. Norling has a good book on perspective if you need a refresher but there are plenty of other good resources on the topic as well. Once you got a good understanding of your method of choice, and a solid grasp of perspective it should be doable for you to draw any figure from any angle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
TheMostFrench posted:Those are great resources! I'm grateful for stuff like proko which has come up in the past year or so, because I had never even heard of gesture/motion drawing until then, and had assumed people who drew that way just had a good grasp on anatomy. Sounds like you're doing pretty well! I've just started using a charcoal pencil to force myself to think about values and try to train myself to draw "heavy" or "light." What are you doing to learn/practice the light and shadow stuff? That Design Drawing book looks interesting; put in a hold for it at my library.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
TheMostFrench posted:Those are great resources! I'm grateful for stuff like proko which has come up in the past year or so, because I had never even heard of gesture/motion drawing until then, and had assumed people who drew that way just had a good grasp on anatomy. I'm going to have to order that second book. Now that I think on it, one of the things that really bugs me about DOTRSOTB is the author's love for smooth, flowing figures, and more abstract artists like Van Gogh and Piccasso. They're very technically skilled, but their drawings don't appeal to me, so it's a ton of work to plow through assignments when even the Platonic ideal of what the teacher is teaching doesn't appeal to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Throw away the Chris Hart books. Seeing his name in the same sentence with Bridgeman and Loomis was jarring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
What's the best way of transfering a drawing to canvas if you're not quite confident enough to go straight to painting. At the moment I'm doing my drawing on paper, going over the back of it with a graphite block, then tracing it back onto the canvas. (I only do small pieces, so there's no scaling issues) just really wondering if there's a better way to do it. I was thinking of carbon paper, but not sure how that would work with the acrylics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Hey everyone! I was looking at some older posts and saw that questions about grip came up a lot, so I thought I'd share this new Proko video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMC0Cx3Uk84 It's probably more relevant for people doing brushwork and pencil or charcoal, although you can grip a stylus higher with a "tripod" style when using the tablet to emphasize shoulder movement. I've been doing this for a couple of weeks, and I can definitely see the advantages, although it does take real effort to get used to it. Looking forward to my life drawing session tonight!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:What's the best way of transfering a drawing to canvas if you're not quite confident enough to go straight to painting. At the moment I'm doing my drawing on paper, going over the back of it with a graphite block, then tracing it back onto the canvas. (I only do small pieces, so there's no scaling issues) just really wondering if there's a better way to do it. I was thinking of carbon paper, but not sure how that would work with the acrylics. If you have access, I know people use projectors for this. Either overhead projectors or video projectors; they just project then trace the drawing onto the canvas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
vseslav.botkin posted:Hey everyone! I was looking at some older posts and saw that questions about grip came up a lot, so I thought I'd share this new Proko video: Thanks for the link! In terms of Proko videos, I thought I'd share another great one in case people in the thread haven't seen it: a drawing demo by Glenn Vilppu. He goes through the methodology of actually laying down the basic sketch lines and building on the drawing from those. I found it useful, since it gives me a sort of "guide" to work with when trying to do my own figure drawing of how to best construct objects before moving onto things like tone and texture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:What's the best way of transfering a drawing to canvas if you're not quite confident enough to go straight to painting. At the moment I'm doing my drawing on paper, going over the back of it with a graphite block, then tracing it back onto the canvas. (I only do small pieces, so there's no scaling issues) just really wondering if there's a better way to do it. I was thinking of carbon paper, but not sure how that would work with the acrylics. Why not just draw straight on the canvas and paint over it? I think that's common. Another common way to transfer drawings is by grids. Divide your drawing into even squares with a ruler (6x4? 10x8? whatever fits the amount of detail), divide the canvas into the same amount and draw in each square as individual parts. This method doesn't care at all about difference in size between first sketch and canvas, which can be very handy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:What's the best way of transfering a drawing to canvas if you're not quite confident enough to go straight to painting. At the moment I'm doing my drawing on paper, going over the back of it with a graphite block, then tracing it back onto the canvas. (I only do small pieces, so there's no scaling issues) just really wondering if there's a better way to do it. I was thinking of carbon paper, but not sure how that would work with the acrylics. If you can get one, a Camera Lucida would work. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/neolucida/neolucida-a-portable-camera-lucida-for-the-21st-ce
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Hey everyone! I've been practicing my gesture drawing for a week now, and it's time for a progress report. Gesture drawing is a fantastic foundation for anyone who wants to learn figure drawing. It's also great for beginners, because the rules are so simple. You take these two lines:  and you use them to capture the figure, like so:  (Source: Force: Dynamic Life Drawing for Animators, by Michael D. Mattesi) Being able to find these lines, and see what they represent and describe (things like gesture, gravity, motion, shape), is vital to dynamic, representational drawings, and is also extremely useful as a foundation for anatomy. To get some idea of what I'm going for, here's Proko doing some quick poses, and some critiques with Marshall Vandruff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I_egPHop9A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVxvFTYz210 Here's a few quick poses from my morning session (based on the samples from Proki's Yoni series, available here).  Most of these are a minute or less; I haven't quite managed to manage 30 second poses quite yet. Some are stronger than others, but I can already see considerable improvement over a week ago. On Wednesday, I attended a life drawing session with some friends; unfortunately, we arrived too late for the one-minute poses, but it was still really interesting to try to use what I've been practicing in a complex environment and trying to contend with the lighting and foreshortening and horrible music. Here's a sample:  This took about fifteen minutes. In gesture drawing, the ideal is to express one idea per line. I'm still working on that -- you can see some nervous skittering at the top of the head -- but I'm making progress: there's only a single line denoting the shift from the side to the back of the torso, and while I got the calf placement wrong repeatedly, I did it one line at a time. Part of the problem is that I'm still adjusting to using a charcoal pencil and a new grip, so I expect this to improve over time. (I have no idea what's going on with her back.) This week, I'll be continuing my gesture drawing sessions, but I'll also be adding in... The Bean! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0660Fuih7qo Comments and suggestions welcome. I hope some of you join the fun!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
I started watching the CtrlPaint videos, and upon trying to draw 20 phones I discovered after 3 that I can't draw a straight line from the shoulder to save my life. Should I just connect dots an inch apart until I can hit the second dot most of the time, or should I do something else to practice straight lines? EDIT: Apparently resting one's wrist on the paper makes it easier to keep the line straight. TwoQuestions fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:Should I just connect dots an inch apart until I can hit the second dot most of the time, or should I do something else to practice straight lines? That's a good method to practice with. The trick is that it's very hard to draw a straight line from any angle. Generally, the angle that works best for most people is to draw the line in a "northeast" direction (that is, drawing a line that moves towards the top-right of the paper), but feel free to experiment until you find the one that produces the straightest lines for you. The secret is to then simply rotate the paper so that you're always drawing the line in a northeast direction. A quick illustration:  Draw a line in the direction of the red arrow (northeast). Then, flip the paper 90 degrees to the left, so that it looks like this:  Then, draw a second line the same way, in the direction of the green arrow. You can keep repeating this until you eventually construct a box/cube/whatever straight-edged object you're drawing. It's a lot easier than trying to contort your arm into a weird pose to get a line down. Vermain fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
I wouldn't worry about it. You'll get better as you draw more and you'll never be perfect at it, so if you're just sketching, wing it and if you're doing something final, just use a ruler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
mutata posted:I wouldn't worry about it. You'll get better as you draw more and you'll never be perfect at it, so if you're just sketching, wing it and if you're doing something final, just use a ruler. Would you say the same thing for ovals/circles (using a compass)? I've been doing my damndest to practice them but it's really hard to get a proper representation of a more "perfect" circular form (like a machine-crafted cup or such) just doing it by hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Vermain posted:That's a good method to practice with. The trick is that it's very hard to draw a straight line from any angle. Generally, the angle that works best for most people is to draw the line in a "northeast" direction (that is, drawing a line that moves towards the top-right of the paper) That's only if you're right handed. It's not hard to find an angle that works, most people will do it subconsciously. Just learn to rotate the paper a lot rather than twist your arm, as you said. And no, don't use a compass unless you're literally doing a drafted background. I'd caution ruler use but with that you can at least get some variation; with a compass it's pretty much impossible, it will never fail to look out of place. And yeah, unless you're Giotto, drawing freehand circles is hard, but lucky for us they're only visible in their non-distorted form in approximately .001% of situations. Practice ellipses instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Vermain posted:Would you say the same thing for ovals/circles (using a compass)? I've been doing my damndest to practice them but it's really hard to get a proper representation of a more "perfect" circular form (like a machine-crafted cup or such) just doing it by hand. I've already seen considerable improvement on circles and straight lines by changing my grip and drawing more with the shoulder. It also helps to make a few "ghost" passes where you try the motion without touching the paper. Want to practice your ellipses on The Bean with me this week? C'mon, it'll be fun! We can be art buddies!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Your line quality, straight (enough) lines, and parabolas will get better with pen mileage. If you're doing some really precise drawings of technology or vehicles out something and you're doing the final inking or something, then guides like rulers and round edges can be useful. What you'll find if you try to go"gently caress it, I'm gonna use rulers and compasses for all my drawing!" is that your drawings will instantly look stiff, boring, sterile, dead, and wrong and you will hate drawing. If you just allow yourself to make some mistakes and develop your arm control over time, you can stop worrying about straights and ovals and eventually you'll be better at them. Essentially what I'm saying is don't worry about it, just keep drawing, keep it loose and expressive, and it'll take care of itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Vermain posted:Would you say the same thing for ovals/circles (using a compass)? I've been doing my damndest to practice them but it's really hard to get a proper representation of a more "perfect" circular form (like a machine-crafted cup or such) just doing it by hand. Scott Robertson said on the matter that you should practice doing freehand ellipses and circles, and draw them freehand when sketching. Then when you refine your sketch or take it beyond a sketch you use whatever you like to get it right. Something circular, ellipse guide, Photoshop tools.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
What're people's thoughts on formal methods for head drawing? I've been working on the Loomis method, and it seems quite promising (that is, I can tell that I'm looking at a simplified form of the head and can identify volume, etc.), but I'm not sure if it's best to learn a formal method like this and then work on actually drawing heads using it, or vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
My take on it: just draw a lot of heads from pictures, imagination, life, the mirror etc. Getting people to pose for you is probably the best, but hardest to get going. At the same time, look at whatever method works for you. Loomis' way of establishing the volume of the head works for you, so use that. Maybe Bridgman's way of thinking of planes of the nose works better for you, so you do that. And Vilppu's cheek bones work for you so you do that too. The methods aren't tailored packages that need to be whole to work, they're mostly just the methods drawing teachers had the most success in teaching their students through. So you take whatever works for you from wherever and keep working on the areas that don't make sense for you. These kinda show how I've tried to learn drawing heads. The first image shows sketches where I just tried to do the most basic Loomis method. The second one is more recent and now I've tried to build upon the Loomis method with stuff from other people. http://i.imgur.com/LH1eg53.jpg http://i.imgur.com/XsgZNvb.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice! The Loomis method has definitely helped me with regards to initial composition, in that I can generally set up the volume a lot more easily, but I still end up screwing around with the basic shape and contour a lot. I think the most helpful thing so far has been doing landmarking and angling a lot more with my faces, since it helps me to keep everything relatively proportionate.  Still have a long way to go (especially with line cleanliness - I'm so loving nervous when I draw!!! Augh!!!), but I'm definitely starting to see some improvements, which is what I've always been aiming for! I'm enjoying learning how to draw a tremendous amount if solely because it's both very easy to see improvement and very easy areas to keep working on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
The thing about the Loomis method is that it requires precision: if you're even a little bit off, everything else can get thrown out of whack very quickly. noggut, I hope you don't mind, but I used your #18 as a reference for this. The rule of thirds is applied here correctly, but since the initial sphere was off, and the side was a little too long, everything else gets distorted accordingly. But if we take the same features and apply them to a revised sphere, we can raise the chin, adjust the lips, shrink the nose down, expand the back of the head, and get something like this:  I've actually been spending some time tracing circles over people's heads. It's not the most exciting work, but it does help me to visualize this stuff more clearly. vseslav.botkin fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
That's a good point. In all honesty, I haven't been finding it to be a complete panacea to drawing the head - I inevitably end up mucking around with the size of the cranium and the placement of facial structures after the initial ball's down (especially when hair is present, since it necessarily requires a certain amount of guesswork). The use of Loomis' method for me right now is in helping to visualize the rough three dimensionality of the head and in helping to provide a good placement of the initial landmarks (brow ridge, nostrils) that I can then base the rest of the drawing around. Edit: Actually, since we were just discussing it a few posts above: is the Loomis method one case where using a compass is fine, since it's purely for construction lines/landmarking? Apologies if this is an annoying question; I'm unsure of how important having "perfect" circles is compared to ones that are reasonably round for something like this. I can generally get one on the third or fourth try now. Vermain fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Vermain posted:That's a good point. In all honesty, I haven't been finding it to be a complete panacea to drawing the head - I inevitably end up mucking around with the size of the cranium and the placement of facial structures after the initial ball's down (especially when hair is present, since it necessarily requires a certain amount of guesswork). The use of Loomis' method for me right now is in helping to visualize the rough three dimensionality of the head and in helping to provide a good placement of the initial landmarks (brow ridge, nostrils) that I can then base the rest of the drawing around. Yeah, but I'd generally say that you should consider drawing in the circle unassisted as practice instead of resorting to a compass. Your initial sketches will look marginally worse off, but you'll be building a much better foundation for the future in doing so
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
pandaK posted:Yeah, but I'd generally say that you should consider drawing in the circle unassisted as practice instead of resorting to a compass. Your initial sketches will look marginally worse off, but you'll be building a much better foundation for the future in doing so That's a good point - thanks for the advice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
pandaK posted:Yeah, but I'd generally say that you should consider drawing in the circle unassisted as practice instead of resorting to a compass. Your initial sketches will look marginally worse off, but you'll be building a much better foundation for the future in doing so Yeah this. Don't resort to a compass to get perfect circles just practice doing circles free hand. Also, I know it can be costly to get models or do a life drawing class but it should be said a mirror is cheap and you can practice with your own head. The loomis study is working for you so keep doing that but it helps to be able to compare those studies to an actual head and then look for the planes on the head itself. Get in the habit of taking life references and breaking them down into shapes based on both what you see and what you learn from Loomis (or any other method). Most of drawing is learning how to truly see and so you want to do what you can to combine construction and observational drawing so you get the benefits of both. If you focus entirely on precise construction methods without mixing in life studies, it will lead to stilted work. Especially if you use rulers/compasses/etc to get perfect lines/circles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Yeah, remaining flexible and flowing will always yield better results than getting caught up with precision. The fact is that while the Loomis construction kind of stuff is useful to study, the human body is not built to precise measurements and proportions. Even the rules of thumb we always like to roll out have vast libraries of exceptions. That said, they are good guidelines, but they are meant to be helps and guides and NOT rules that must be strictly adhered to. Let the rules of thumb inform your work and by all means, make an academic effort to study the anatomy, but don't let them take center stage. When you stay loose and "feel out" the forms, you'll struggle for a while but when things do finally start to mesh (and they will) you'll be in a MUCH stronger place. If you want to know what I mean by "loose" and "flowing", check this out for some examples: http://jigokuen.tumblr.com/ Imagine drawing those lines; what that would feel like. That's what I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
noggut posted:These kinda show how I've tried to learn drawing heads. The first image shows sketches where I just tried to do the most basic Loomis method. The second one is more recent and now I've tried to build upon the Loomis method with stuff from other people. Oh yeah, I forgot to ask: what stuff from other people are you using?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
TLDR: Kevin Chen and Frank J. Reilly I'm still trying to get a firm grip on the construction of the volume of the head, the cheekbones, the jaw and the brow, which are features Loomis kinda throws on without further explanation. I'm trying to learn from very constructional guys, mostly Kevin Chen. I don't think he's written any books, but he's got a huge sketch collection here, which I would pay a lot for if it was a book: http://www.angelfire.com/art3/kchendemos/ I particularly like his way of doing the brow. Got to get the hang of that. Contains stuff like:  Recently I discovered the Reilly method of construction, and I'm trying to make sense of the rhythms (as he calls them) of the face. They seem very abstract at times, though. He's long dead, and never released any books on his method, so what you can get are works from his students. From what I know none of those books are go-to buys, so I haven't bought any. Here are a bunch of links with demos of the method, though: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pbZw476tEsE/Rz0E0G9udoI/AAAAAAAAAgA/tLq4Ro0DW2w/s1600-h/mark-value_page.jpg http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/287/2379/1600/clarkline_page.2.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CXjxCzN0BqQ/TO81ClViHVI/AAAAAAAABbA/naNySiVDmy4/s1600/head01.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_CXjxCzN0BqQ/SpK7F5YMAxI/AAAAAAAAA30/MZ-V3g0D47E/s1600-h/8head1.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_CXjxCzN0BqQ/SpK7Fq7Fh4I/AAAAAAAAA3s/0B7LffnEh50/s1600-h/8head2.jpg http://deadoftheday.blogspot.no/ http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=60746 And from this I'm trying to get an understanding of the cheek bone, mostly. I've ordered Michael Hampton's book, Figure drawing: design and invention, because I like his very constructional approach to figure drawing. Hoping it will contain some good stuff on heads too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
noggut posted:I've ordered Michael Hampton's book, Figure drawing: design and invention, because I like his very constructional approach to figure drawing. Hoping it will contain some good stuff on heads too. IIRC he just uses the Loomis method.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
noggut posted:TLDR: Kevin Chen and Frank J. Reilly Reilly's approach is great and I use his principles more than probably anyone else's. The thing that's nice about Reilly is that he built the idea of aesthetic appeal into his figures as a primary element, not as a superficial later consideration. Rhythm lines train you to look for what is attractive and dynamic in whatever you're looking at. It also makes capturing likenesses a lot easier because of the way different aspects of the face flow into and relate to one another. Loomis was also a Bridgman student but I don't think he brought as much of an original style or voice to his work. Loomis also never quite mastered the oomph of Bridgman's concrete-slab approach to the figure. Better to go back to Bridgman, I think. The late Fred Fixler was a student of Reilly and put some good tips on his web site.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Alright, thanks for the advice! I've got Bridgman's Complete guide to drawing from life (yeah, it's chopped up) laying around, and I'm starting to realize that I read it before I could understand it. I thought it was about his lines and style because at that time I didn't properly understand how to construct volumes, and how important it would be for the everything. I'll give it another go. E: Ok, I'm looking at Bridgman again now, and I don't see how he's underrated, at least when it comes to heads. He's got some suggestions for division into volumes and planes which are basic but good, but I'm not getting much else from it. I don't like the proportions he's using, and with straight-out ugly drawings and perspective errors here and there it's not something I'd look at over other sources. noggut fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
I'm still a little unsure on how to best proceed. For reference: This took me about eight hours over various evenings. It started out as a quick scribble before I decided that I wanted to do it accurately. I think the result is mostly okay, but I could have done so many rough sketches in the same time it took me to get a suitcase "just right". What I wonder is, when you're new to drawing, is it better to do a lot of quick, basic sketches or to do only do a few still life drawings but put more effort into accuracy? I'm not sure if I should have spent so much time on this. Entenzahn fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
It's a valid question, and in the end, the answer is pretty much up to you. In fact, all artists at any level are constantly weighing which ideas or projects deserve their time and efforts. That said, I would say that when you're first starting out, the most important projects are the ones you find fun or enjoyable personally, because if you hate the stuff you're doing, you'll stop doing it all together. Long studies and short sketching both have their place, and you can learn a lot from both, but if you ask me, personally, when it comes to drawing and art, I think quantity breeds quality. For example, there's the oft-repeated, possibly-made up example of the quantity vs quality pottery class, and I feel that there's truth there whether the story is made up or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
What I like to do is intersperse my short sketches with long drawings, at a fairly high ratio (like, 20 sketches for every 1 long drawing). The value of longer drawing is that it really helps to drive home what parts you're struggling with that you might've been kind of glazing over in your sketches (or which might've looked better with less-clean lines), and it also gives you a nice benchmark as to your progress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Entenzahn posted:I'm still a little unsure on how to best proceed. For reference: Well the way I look at things, you get better at what you practice. If you want to study composition, or try to capture the dynamic/fluid qualities of a gesture or, learn more anatomy or whatever you can do that in a quick sketch and you'll get the biggest bang for you buck if you just sit down and do like 100 comp studies or 100 gestures etc. If you want to get better at say rendering and getting texture or super subtle value changes and not just blocking stuff out then that is going to require a longer drawing. Each of these kinds of exercises involve different skills that are related but also separate. Don't get me wrong, drawing anything at all will help, so don't be too crazy militant about all this if it will burn you out but if you want fast gains then being focused will help. For instance, if getting better fast is your highest priority you could do something like say, 1-2 long life studies. Then say you notice oh hey my shoulder girdle is all messed up on these people. So you then do 100 quick drawings of shoulders in a week (no details, just use value to mass in planes to differentiate them, double check to make sure stuff is connected/proportioned correctly between torso and arm but don't spend way too much time on any one of these). Then you do another life drawing, notice your values suck so then resolve to do 50 value spheres (tons of tutorials on these if you aren't sure how they are supposed to look) and then do 1-2 longer life drawings after it. Then you notice oh hey these drawings are kinda stiff. So do 100-200 gestures or whatever in a week, etc etc. Just repeat this forever and you'll be all set. Ultimately, use your quick exercises to tackle specific problems. Let longer pieces be a culmination of your toolkit as a whole. Remember quick exercises aren't about making a good looking drawing necessarily but rather to practice a specific skill so that you can use that new ability in your future work. And again if that doesn't sound like fun, you don't have to be that thorough. You can just do a bunch of life drawing and mix it in with drawing from imagination or even throw paint on a canvas or whatever you enjoy. Always take time to experiment and blow off steam. Persistence is still the most important thing so don't do anything that will burn you out. Just do what you can handle and what aligns with your personal goals. JuniperCake fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Entenzahn posted:I'm still a little unsure on how to best proceed. For reference: Everyone's given some solid advice, but I did want to mention a few things: In my own practice, I find it really helpful to break the work into smaller chunks. For example, I try to spend a little bit of time focusing on only finding contours, or only doing values, or only figuring out what angle something is at, like those tripod legs. Can you draw a box? Can you draw a box in perspective? If that gives you trouble, something like that toolbox is going to be even tougher. Give some thought to how you approach your drawings, as well. When I tried drawing that tripod, I immediately noticed we were dealing with a. boxes, b. some really long lines, c. some fairly subtle highlights and shadows, and d. a complex shape in perspective at the top. Using a charcoal pencil, I did a very light sketch of the negative space around the tripod, then went in and worked out the contours before finally going in and starting in on the shading. It's not brilliant (the perspective on the setting circle is particularly wonky), but having a consistent approach and going big to small really helps me get better results more quickly. Oh, and definitely check out Proko on Youtube if you haven't yet, too!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
If you can spare the dollars, Proko's premium content is fantastic. His portrait series has two long videos that show complete portrait drawings, both of which were highly useful for me. What it helped to show me was the methodical way in which an artist approaches a drawing. It's not just "start drawing"; it's plotting out the area you want to fill, defining large shapes, defining volumes and angles, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 11:01
|
|