/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6993233
Hard to write a new textbook telling anons to work on their fundies every time.

>>6944943
I like that korean perspective book but it's not focused on figures. You should at least be comfortable with the basic perspective rules so you can tell when something's going wrong.

>>6865858
No, just 250 boxes.

>>6826496

>>6786527
NOOO, for him to do same as pic rel is impossible!!!

>>6750606
EVERY fucking time I try to move forward, I realize I still don't understand perspective

>>6698319
>You really don't need to do that
Until you draw something without construction and the drawing turns out looking weird but you don't know why and how to fix it.
Now you spend the next 2 hours moving and redrawing tiny little lines in different areas in hopes that this was the thing that was wrong with the drawing.

With construction, you always know why something looks weird and how to fix it.
Even if you break and exaggerate anatomy, having construction guidelines always comes in handy.
Once you have mastered construction you can skip it and go straight to drawing the good stuff.

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

>>6598134
right here sir

What exercises did you do daily to escape /beg/?

>>6538774
No.

>>6511121
Boxes > Gestures > Constructive Anatomy

im sort of new, any book or resource to learn the stuff on the right?

I think it's a good way to wrap your head around perspective, mass, and proportion

>>6393874
>>6393819
You're supposed to do your construction with 3D shapes bro, doing them with 2d or "symbols" (pretty much what you're doing rn) counterintuitively requires more skill.

>>6382799
Stuff like this is just driving me nuts, sorry. But I'll try it out.

>>6382803
Yea I think my problem is trying to do it all from imagination. I should be referencing 3D models of boxes at least

>>6365437
No.