No rules only tools. You need to use what ever works best for you to get the job done.

>>2307494
Use your eyes. Art is not about mechanical copying.

you can't measure unconciously if you've not done it a lot of hours while feeling pain

The most fundamental, is to use your pencil. To measure. But honestly, i think the best way is to use mathematics fully to plot your work.

>>2307496

This is partially true. Experimentation can be valuable, but is worthless without training.

>>2307507

This is a postmodernist shill attempting to shift the narrative and plant seeds of doubt into the value of well-made hand crafted art. This is a straw man argument. No one who advocates for measuring also thinks art is about mechanical copying. Also, mechanical copying is a buzzword, and is relatively meaningless outside of the context of actually machine-made art. To be able to copy something with the precision of a machine is an ability worthy of praise, not contempt. It takes many years of training to achieve a high level of precision in copying. Again, do not listen to this kind of rhetoric, he likely works for a "Creative Solutions LLC" hired by Sotheby's and wants us all to think that Pollock's art is actually worth millions of dollars.

>>2307508

This is closer to the truth. Like all skills, drawing accurately without measuring can only be achieved after years and years of measuring. People don't like this because it means they have to work hard.

>>2307511

Obviously, using your pencil when drawing is important. Who would suggest otherwise? This is extreme and unnecessary. If you want to use mathematics to plot your work your should study computer graphics instead of drawing.

I find measuring is suuuper helpful when you just can't quite figure out how that arm is resting on that leg.

But there is a level of design when reality just doesn't look as attractive as it could be, that's where designing the figure a certain way looks better than reality.

Force by Matessi or however you spell his name comes to mind.

>>2307521
>This is a postmodernist shill attempting to blahblahblah
I think you are making a lot of assumptions. I think accuracy and skill are very important, but I don't think one should rely on things like plumb lines or rulers or sight size. Better to just train your eye to see those relationships just as well, then you have a deeper understanding of things and can have a more intuitive workflow that doesn't get interrupted by measuring.

Measuring is a good beginners way to start drawing realistic proportions and getting confident in their artistic skill. It's also just as valid for working professionals to use. Leyendecker would do drawings from life using measurements that he would then transfer to a canvas and paint for his illustrations.

However, I'd still strongly recommend learning to build a figure without measuring, because it will help you construct figures when you can't get a model or decent reference.

That being said, you do what you need to so your can get the job done

>>2307530

not him, but what about during studies? You could certainly help yourself internalize the measurements etc. if you measure and learn while just doing a study.

I personally believe that the hyperrealism movement that's been popular in (some circles of) fine art for decades is awfully unexpressive, though.

>>2307530
>quotes me as saying blahblahblah

Why should I take anything you say seriously? I think you are making a lot of assumptions when you use "mechanical copying" as an insult, as it reveals quite a lot about your values.

>I think accuracy and skill are very important, BUT

That's your problem, there is no "but". Where are you getting the evidence to support your idea that it is a bad thing when people "rely on plumb lines, rules or sight- size". Have you seen the type of art that people make when those techniques are not taught? Apparently not. You seem to not understand the implications of what you are saying. When training is absent, a skill vacuum is created and postmodernists who believe in aesthetic relativism ("all things are equally beautiful") takes over, and we get what is currently some of the worst art ever made by humans in human history being sold by the thousands and thousands at galleries like Gagosian, Feur and Zwirner.

>>2307534

This is all true.

>>2307494
you dont even know what is meant by "measuring" what makes you think you would even understand the difference?

I used to measure a lot but now I find myself needing it only sparingly. With time you can nail down shapes better using your eyes.
My parents were architects and they can measure distances pretty accurately by looking, it is kinda the same thing. Once you measure enough times you just guess accurately.

>>2307543
I feel both of us at this point are basically making a lot of assumptions about the other and then misunderstanding the point being made. Probably we see things more similarly than we might expect. You seem to think that a lack of measuring devices equates a lack of skill, which is not what I am arguing for. I don't really have the time or energy to do a full response, but I guess my point was that measuring can quickly become a mechanical process that can create very stiff or dull work. Just compare (most) academic art to someone who doesn't measure in that way at all--people like Wilhelm M Busch, Sorolla, or Kollwitz. They relied on intuition first and built in observational skills and could draw out the emotion of things properly and more effectively than someone with a plumb line and ruler and knitting needle.

I should also note that I am a fan of a lot of Academic art, but I do feel it has its drawbacks and the true masters of the tradition are in fact those that have abandoned it after the fact (the Peredvizhniki come to mind).