>>2528288
I think so. It helps with control and line work. I used to trace stuff long before I ever tried drawing freehand.

I'm not talking about tracing sorry if my post was misleading i meant like looking at a drawing and trying to re draw it if this explains better

>>2528288
Well yes and no.

It allows you to understand some techniques and bases, but after awhile you'll only be able to know that specific drawing.

Lets say for instance you perfect a certain pose and show people that skill, when they ask you to do it in a different pose you won't know how to typically because you've spent time learning how to draw that one specific instance. You know the reasoning behind it, but can't apply it elsewhere, so while your skills have improved, it's only marginally. Now using a wide variety of reference material is a good thing though, tons of artists actually do that, but they don't focus on a singular picture for instance, they have varying poses, lighting, tilts, etc.

Got it thanks, I'll try to draw different poses, shapes etc from now on

>>2528288

It's generally inferior to life drawing (drawing things and people around you, doing still life, portrait etc.) if you want to learn fundamentals and train your eye, but redrawing existing paintings/drawings/illustrations faithfully expands your visual library and familiarizes you with variety or styles and techniques if you bother breaking down other artist's process.

As usual in case of /ic/, I would give one advice:

1. Don't obsess over one thing, do variety of things*.

*some examples of "things": techniques, styles, ideas, sexual partners, fundamentals, food, music, M&Ms.

>>2528288
>I've been re-drawing for a while now but whenever i try to make something of my own i struggle alot.
>I've been re-drawing for a while now
>for a while now

that's the problem, doing something over and over will make you better at that thing, and less at others. here's how theoretically you do it:
>first you draw from life (what you like)
>then you do a master study (of somebody which draws what you like how you like) to see what decisions and why they make them
>then you draw again from life using what you leaned
>???
>profit (barely now you should be able to draw from imagination)

>>2528288
I don't think re-drawing is the word you're looking for. Re-drawing implies you're taking something you've drawn before and drawing it again. What you're referring to is copying, which is looking at a drawing someone else made and trying to re-create it.

it's not useless if you do it right.

It's not about re-drawing, per se. It's about how it's re-drawn.

When people do studies of other people's paintings, they aren't setting out to re-create the painting, they're setting out to re-create the methods used to make the painting. That's where the learning element comes in. Figuring out HOW Bouguereau rendered skin or HOW Sargent managed to convey so much through his stroke economy is worth more than, say, laying down a grid and xeroxing the piece.

With line drawing, it's along the same lines (badum ching). Pick pictures that will teach you about how that artist decided what line weight where, how they conveyed motion through a static piece, how they used hatching for depth, etc.

To what extent do you folks think reference can be used in place of life drawing, as a temporary measure, specifically as it fits into the pattern and balance of studying both art and reality?