/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4404267
Painting studies from life helped me become more comfortable a lot faster with digital painting; theres no perfect photo to compare it to and forces you to think a lot harder about what you're seeing and putting down in terms of colour and light. Also keep trying to make full pieces instead of grinding fundies for years because the ability to finish a piece is something that also needs training. I'm not the best person to ask anyway for improvement as its been 8 years.

Pic related is advice from a much better artist. Goodluck m8

>>4004370

>>3971610
>Should you learn gesture before perspective or perspective before gesture?
>Should you learn figure drawing before both of those?
it literally does not matter. find something and do it.

>How do you use an art book effectively?
draw from the pictrures. make your own art and apply the knowledge from the books.

just draw brah

>>2862588
He "worked smart" as they say. Spent most his time playing vidya.
Very mindful and critical of his study process

>>2689482
Figure out what really jumps out as looking shitty, look for ways to fix that, try again.

This thread is a goddamn trainwreck. Why do so many people recommend Dynamic Sketching to novices? It's a great course, but it's just not appropriate. All their novice enthusiasm gets burned up drawing lines and ellipses, then they get sick of it and give up.

>>2663698
Feng Zhu recommends that novices start by spending six months simply drawing pictures of stuff they think looks cool. Only then does he say they should start intense study.

Feng Zhu, Peter Han, and Scott Robertson only teach students who have been admitted to their respective schools -- not novices, but beginners who are dedicated enough to enroll in (and pay for) design school.

DrawABox is not the best OP can get for free.

>>2663793
1. That pen is fine. Cheap BIC pens are fine. Cheap pencils are fine. Just draw.
2. DrawABox is the worst version of this course in existence. If you really want to start with this method, then go find a copy of Peter Han's Dynamic Sketching videos, or a copy of Scott Robertson's How to Draw book. I would suggest you do what Feng Zhu recommends, though, and simply draw every day for 6 months -- doesn't matter what, just do it and think about what you're doing.

>all these people saying feng zhu
The guy advocates a terrible approach to practice, doesn't care about art, and is widely known to be a piece of shit who cares more about your money than your development.

He also doesn't come here.

>>2576100

>>2036425
Could you post some of your work?
I think perhaps you are studying wrong.
If you aren't "getting it" by doing the kinds of studies you are, you should try completely different ways to approach it. In my experience it's all about your perspective on making art and it takes a very individualistic approach to find that sweet spot of how to learn to make it

>>1963471

>>1960435

>>1959830
It gets posted pretty much every day to every other day, it's even getting posted on reddit art communities now. You won't get this until you get some drawing repetition, under your belt. But it's super eye opening, enjoy.
>>/ic/?task=search2&search_tripcode=!!ikpS7QjdRfb

I'm not sure why he didn't spell it out but I think it's because it can't be any more clearer. Drawing ability can only be uncovered/learned visually. If you're a beginner you need to focus on getting good at linear drawing, read about fundamentals(yes read loomis, ignore the diagrams) Read pre-school/kindergarden books about art, it's all there! Then you get to tehmeh's nice message. Basically it's an eloquent way of saying, whatever your weakness is, hammer it over and over til it clicks. Structure your training toward what you wanna do. It's a lot of mind over matter stuff. Then you factor in Anthony Jones's words and you discover how to learn even further.

You will no longer learn any of this outside of the internet. Nobody cares, the future is science and math. Fend for yourselves now.

How do I start getting into drawing porn as a beginner?

I've been copying every page in FWAP for a couple of weeks now, and I'm in this little funk right now after I was btfo by these goddamn baby heads on pg 34. I'm just having doubts as to whether I'm following the right path in terms of what I'm learning, especially after reconsidering pic-related and a lot of other advice I've picked up while lurking on this board for awhile. Do I continue with this book, or do I try drawing my ideas out and correcting them somehow? Maybe my biggest question should be: how do I start figuring shit out?

I have higher aspirations, but porn feels like the easiest way for me to get my foot in the door where drawing from imagination is concerned, and it would be nice to get commissions when I'm back in college.

>>1911581
>>1911581
the problem isn't the style.
the book is fucking shit for so many reasons.

not even op

>>1845693
Scott Robertson talks in a video about this; one of the advantages of going to an art school is that you can get critique by professionals(your teachers) and your class. When you dont go to school you have to find a community like this elsewhere and that's where /ic/ comes into play now that most art communities have gone to shit.
Sure /ic/ is often bitter but it's also honest. You have to filter what's legit critique and what's just some faggot insulting you because he has a bad day.

As for the "Needs more Loomis": pic related

>>1830845

>>1813911

>>1800069
then let's check if it's the same tripcode.

>>1794770
loomis a shit

his technique is old and outdated and his blooks look like shit and barely teach you anything useful. i had much more success with hampton's figure drawing.
loomis uses references for his drawings, hampton does not. loomis doesn't even understand how to teach you anything useful, he often skips important parts of the process as if everything was self-evident(probably because he uses references). loomis whole "start with a sphere and them build spheres on another sphere" thing really isn't helpful if you are a beginner that needs to understand form. cubes are much better and easier abstractions that you can build on.

>>1772487
try to apply what they are teaching while watching the video, just pause it and draw or take notes.
that's why books are great(i prefer having physical books than digital because they are much more comfortable to handle) and they really give you the chance to come back at any time and revisit the topic.

i am currently watching scott robertson's videos and it's so interesting seeing how he works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0zl5NnEAyU

here for example he is showing off drawings he did 15 years ago and explains how line weight works and how these drawings helped him get better and how he experimented with his drawings. you really get the impression that he has a lot of fun doing what he does.

i think of getting a sketchbook sooner or later and trying to do what he does with them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfU0LkDaw7M

he sees them as a project where he draws and gives himself the possibility to fail. he makes a good point when he says that people always want to have that perfect looking sketchbook but failing is an important part of the learning process and when you are done with your sketchbook you can still cut out the best drawings and put them together in a folder or something. it's really about experimenting and trying to learn.
what he also does a lot is taking notes before he starts drawing and then incorporate what he wrote down.
btw. he does say to use a lot of reference in the beginning so you can build your visual library.

what i am saying is that the learning process can be a very dynamic one and the idea is that by doing something you are already progressing(more or less).

also pic always relevant

>>1761029
if loomis doesn't work for you(because he is shit) give other artists a try.
when i tried to get back into drawing and started with loomis everything looked like shit. i knew i was better than the crap that i produced with loomis' "help" and so i checked out hampton and it's just on another level.