/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3278482
vilppu's drawing manual and some figure drawing sessions

Draw from life, look for references with interesting poses, practice a ton

>>3278482
Practice anatomy

>>3278482
What's so special about this pose anon

>>3278496
It's not the pose, it's the artist. He seems to have a really good grasp of natural perspective.

>>3278482
Become a pedophile.

>>3278482
1. perfect understanding of perspective
2. mileage

you're welcome.

>>3278558
>perfect understanding of perspective
>wheel not placed at the correct height and improperly aligned
pls. pls, anon. pls!

>>3278524
no he doesn't

>>3278524
>dick
ugh, please tell me someone edited that onto the original image

>>3278490
>>3278491
>>3278492

op btfo

magic pill = not found

>>3278638
im not sure if that was the artist's intent or not but it pays to break the rules for a better composition

>>3278659
yeah it's clearly intentional to get a foreground element in there. i was just messing around

>>3278652
Someone edited that onto the original image. Jurion actually detests dicks and has never drawn one in an erotic manner.

>>3278482
https://twitter.com/SakimiChanArt/status/935964714223521792 Sakimichan seems to know, has to do with composition apparently. Did anyone get this? There has to be at least one patron of her on this board.

>>3278482
interesting

>>3278821
How did you find that, anon?

Not that using reference is bad or anything, but the pose + anatomy stylization seemed well within Jurion's skill set. I'm surprised he used a ref.

>>3278482
>>3278821
wtf I hate JJfrenchie now

>>3278831
I was thinking the same thing. How strange

>>3278831
I just had it floating around in my figure folder, got it from one of this boards reference threads maybe a year or two ago. Hell of a coincidence.
doesnt take away from his art though, I still absolutely love his stuff

>>3278840
>>3278836
Wow, what are the odds. And yeah, I didn't mean that as any disrespect to him. It's relieving to see that even amazing artists will use refs.

>>3278821
>uses a ref
>manages to fuck up the left foot
lol

>>3278860
nah its just being blocked by the base of the crane in the forground

>>3278870
I'm talking about the other one, it is impossible to make your foot point that way without the knee also doing so.

>>3278872
>tfw can't unsee it now
Just get out of here, anon. Unlike you, I want to enjoy looking at art with ignorance.

>>3278872
goddamnt

>>3278821
>>3278831
it's such a common pose with models, i could tell OP was referenced without even the proof

>>3278891
to be more specific, it's an unnatural pose
figures that strike a pose will always look bland and referenced

>>3278482
>>3278821
The real lesson here is:
"Draw poses from reference"

>>3278898
you shouldn't be drawing figures in poses
they need to be mid-action in order to be interesting

>>3278821
>there are retards here who don't trace over models/posers for basic outlines
>instead spend years drawing boxes while others are actually productive and get paid for their work

Lust after little boys. That's how.

>>3278831
It's a common pose, maybe he saw it (liked it) and recreated it, maybe he just drew it from imagination, the pose being in his mental library.
I hardly proof of him using that specific reference (not that it matters), since he drew way harder poses in at more extreme angles.
Although i'm sure it'll be enough for some morons to start parrotting the "tracing" meme.

>>3279105
I don't think he traced it at all, it wouldn't look half as good if he did. I do however think he used that exact image, everything down to the fingers match

>>3278655
this. OPlet btfo, still bound to never make it like the rest of us

>>3278524
this image is a terrible example of his grasp of perspective though. The figure in the front stands on a completely different ground plane, not following the same perspective as the background at all.

>>3278821
>artists use references
welcome to 1600

>>3279284
all this doesn't really matter if the end result looks good.
only nitpicky artists that have no idea what it actually means to draw for a living will care about stuff like this.

>>3279308
t. Proko

>>3279312
This.
Tools not Rules.

>>3279333
>compares jurion to proko
t. dumbass

>>3278821
HO SHIT that artist BTFO. Can't even come up with an original pose. based /ic/ shattering idols

>>3279580
gr8b8m8

>>3278482
Not impressed. I could do better

>>3280570
>doesnt do better

>>3280570
>could
>but I never will
That's your problem, dunning kruger.

>>3280587
Did this when I was 16

>>3280650
>having to see this more than once
Yeah, uh, well done bro

>>3278482
just draw thinking about the "weight" of the body, more than the proportions/anatomy

Did this last year

Wha? Not better?

>>3280650
>>3280655
I hope for you this is bait.

>>3280650
>>3280655
This is objectively pretty terrible

>>3280841
Why?

>>3278492
Having a deep understanding of the human body doesn't mean you have the ability to construct interesting poses.

>>3278831
>>3278850
Nearly all illustrative artists use reference. The only kind that don't are animators because their drawings are meant to facilitate the motion of the whole (The animation) versus the motion of a moment (The illustration)

>>3280948
Please tell us more.
Not about Illustrators or animators.
Tell us more about your life as the village idiot. What's it like?

>>3280948
The great yev-san uses no reference!

>>3280948
Nah, you're exaggerating this a bit. Highly stylized illustrators don't use a lot of references either.
Especially those that create a lot of content in a short amount of time, like comic book artists or people that are good at drafting/sketching.

>>3279312

The dude's reflection has a mustache, when one isn't drawn on the actual dude. It doesn't look good. It's shitty

>>3281035
>>3281035
this, I literally thought there was supposed to be multiple people in the room. this guy doesn't know shit

>>3280611
>doesn do better even if he tried

>>3280948
Animators use reference more than anyone.

>>3281138
No we don't.

>>3281159
Fucking lol if you really think that wasn't heavily referenced. They were rotoscoping only a few years earlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lQEXbRcLRs

>>3281170
>rotoscoping a man tumbling through the air
lol
Fleicsher Studios stopped doing rotoscoping around that time because they realized it looked like crap, even then it was being phased out since the rotoing was grunt work for their lesser experienced animators.

>>3281172
You actually think they went from tracing straight to realistic animation purely from imagination? Every book from that time on how to animate tells you to use reference, even for things you think you know. Some things can be from imagination, like essentially a ball flying through the air, but Popeye throwing a rug and pulling it back hand over hand? That's a very complicated movement, even for the best of the best. Everyone back then used reference, everyone today uses reference, and everyone in the future is going to use reference. now shut up

>>3281035
It's clearly a fast sketch and he probably didn't even care.
The grasping at straws in this thread is phenomenal.

>>3281200
"This dancing girl action is built like stacking building blocks—one on top of another. The first drawings are rhythm-scribbles. As each is made the drawings are flipped to study how the action is progressing. When complete, and all the sketches are on the pegs, the actions may be revised, and revised, like changing dots in the pages of a flip-book. This girl's leg did not swing high and wide at first. I made a series of scribbles over the first crude sketches that revised this action. Then, these roughs were made of what I imagined seeing in these forms."
-Preston Blair

You develop an intuition to see how scribbles should move when you become an animator.
Disney likes to sell it like it is impossible to work without reference, it does help, but there is much more imagination going on in Disney stuff than they would like to have you believe.

>>3278524
it's not a terrible picture but the guy looks too tall in the foreground and the face looks different

>>3281253
Do you work for Disney?

>>3281261
No.

>>3281268
Oh.

>>3281278
what I meant to say was, yes. Sometimes I get those two confused, sorry

>>3280847
Poor composition. Abysmal use of colour. Highly inefficient and unattractive brushwork. Poor shape design. No edge control. Looks completely flat despite being an incredibly rudimentary one-point perspective layout. No understanding of forms occupying three-dimensional space. No sense of scale. Abysmal values. Image posted sideways.

>>3278901
or you can move a figure in your mind and not be a hack.

>>3280650
>"I could do better"

>>3280650
I am fucking sick of people who cannot draw and think they can do better than others. You are shit.

>>3282510
post work