Anybody knows any good ressources for learning Design?
and I mean actual Designing. Real Designing Prinicples.
For the past few days I have been digging through tutorials, gumroads and workshops and everysingle time its complete bollocks
A nice fancy title like: Rules of Design. Then the commentator goes on like "I will put his here, you know, because its somehow really cool." "And I think I will add this, yeah! That's so cool!" (most of them were AAA guys, mind you)
Am I just missing something? Is Concept Design really like this?
To design from scratch (with or without spec) on the fly and narrate can be challenging for some people. I don't entirely blame them.
Most "good" resources are behind a paywall that some call school. The closest thing you can get is probably Design Cinema but Feng talks really fast but it's the closest I've gotten to getting decent advice in this area. Also he acknowledges that to go in-depth would be time-consuming and says that's what school is for, and I'm sure that's what most people (professionals/people who can give good advice) think as well. Also Scott Robertson's books are great and only like $20.
I went to art school for all that and it helps to have it beaten into you critique after critique, but I think studying graphic design principles translates really well into painting and drawing. Graphic design emphasises things like hierarchy with scale, boldness, limited color palette, value, positive/negative space, etc. These are basic design principles you will get in a community college design 1 course. Of course you'll be stuck doing boring shit like painting swatches and gluing cut out bits of paper, but it translates later. I had weird realizations in art school later on near graduation, everything goes back to those boring foundation classes. I never consciously thought about that stuff, but when I looked at my more successful work, it all tied into the principles of the boring paint swatches and glued paper exercises. I do recommend looking into graphic design books because they're more likely to emphasize these foundation skills than someone just "feeling" a painting. Things like scale, I personally had to consciously acknowledge every time I made a piece until it was ingrained in me to "just feel it". Some of my best illustrator friends are the ones that started as graphic design majors and switched to illustration.
>>2568300
It's mostly just practice and doing tons of thumbnails/sketches. Watch Eytan Zana's gumroads (color and light or something like that) and "read" the Skillful Huntsman
Syd Mead's Gnomon videos also depict the lenghty process of producing actually good looking and well designed pieces.
It's good that you're thinking about design at all though, most people here are just rendering fetishists and don't know anything about design.
Skilful Huntsman
FZD school on YouTube
This one youtuber that isn't sycra nor Proko...syrinx? Something like that. He has good stuff on design
Dig a little deeper than the garbage that is Gumroad.
I could probably find a few more but these have more content than any paid tutorial you'll find.
>Lots of general to advanced information.
theartcenter blogspot co uk/
>Environment design and breakdown.
bakenius blogspot co uk/2015/11/backgrounddesign-how-to-look-for-visual.html
>General design theory and concept design
www.autodestruct.com/
I'm a retard that struggles to post multiple links and not get flagged as spam.
>>2568352
Also Scott Roberson.
For design you must think often in cinematographic terms. For example vehicle instead of in 3/4 view you can draw it with relatively big wide lens distortion.
On a character if some detail is important draw it in magnification next to character.
It's all about presenting idea the best you can, need to have clear goals and for example in environments which areas put focus on and what don't detail.
Again about lens - if you want to show towering structure, get it close to object and draw like you'd photographed it from below. Rules of photography and cinematography help with design.
>>2568300
There aren't any rules. The entire point of design is to make shit look cool. For that you draw from experience, from other artists, from photos, machinery, movies, landscapes etc. That's why we do studies
Thanks for all the tips & recommendation guys. Really appreciate it.
I've already checked the stuff from Scott Robertson; as far as I know there is a third book coming. "How to Design". that'll be worth a look, i guess.
>>2568352
>Sinyx
>Good at design
Kek
>>2568352
>skillful huntsman
outdated work, no real design principles, but it covers process and iteration ok.
>fzd
feng's moneymaking scam. teaches you next to nothing. look at their student work and how garbage 90% of it is.
>youtubers
getting attention on youtube is 80% marketing and personality. might as well watch pewdiepie to try to become a starcraft pro,
>>2568359
conflating design with composition. shooting angle of a design matters but to learn you must create designs that are beautiful from all angles. quit being such a faggot
OP, check out Universal Principles of Design by Lidwell Holden and Buffer and do your own research of timeless and classic designs. Take notes on how the viewer/user interacts with them and how that interaction is shaped by the design.
For light reading in entertainment design Autodestruct blog is OK.
>>2568419
> Universal Principles of Design by Lidwell Holden and Buffer
now this looks promising. thanks
>>2568451
no problem. be careful asking around ic for advice - most people here love it give it without knowing what they're talking about.
>>2568369
lol
>>2568369
ArtCenter grad here, you're full of shit. There are basics you can check for in a piece that will strengthen the read of it.
1. Scale variations (if a piece has shit the same size all over it, it will be uninteresting).
2. Value Variations / Grouping - don't just have a bunch of midtone fuckery all over. Group your dark values over here, your highlights over there, etc.
3. Simplified shape / silhouette - Always close off your shapes. If it's a portrait and someone is wearing a super wrinkly coat, feel free to draw all the wrinkles on the inside of the main shape, but simplify the outer silhouette. If it reads well as a thumbnail, it'll read well as a full sized image.
4. Simplified color - Keep 1-3 colors unless you really know what you're doing. Just like values, group the colors unless you want your piece to look like vomit. Don't mess up your value read with color. Value > Color
5. Composition - this comes mostly from experience after numerous critiques, but fill the space out meaningfully and don't allow shapes to guide an eye outside of the work unless you intend to move them into the next piece for example.
- This list goes on, but these are things you learn after a long time and a lot of effort. You can actually break down these concepts into actual words to explain why some work is more appealing than others. Constantly look at your work at thumbnail size or stand at the back of the room and look at it. If it's an uninteresting mush, your value grouping/shapes/scale/color, etc could be improved. The key is knowing what is falling short, but that's where tons of practice and critiques help. Critiques here suck, if you don't plan to go to art school, probably find some local friends that can sit around for several hours dissecting each other's work.
>>2568419
>Universal Principles of Design by Lidwell Holden and Buffer
Thanks man. I downloaded it and read it, it's very good. Also his 5 minute "lectures" that are on torrents are nice as well as "Deconstructing Product Design"
>>2568759
Those are all generalizing and can be/have been broken successfully. What you have been taught at Art Center is a rather specific set of approaches that can lead to interesting design but also cut off other options within the umbrella of design. It's an approach that leads to consistent results but let's face it they can be bordering on the formulaic at times (you can spot a ACCD grad very easily by their shape language and approach). If you think you can lay down a set of ground rules on things then you simply haven't looked at enough art or nature.
>>2568792
>Those are all generalizing and can be/have been broken successfully.
Only by those who understand them though.
>>2568759
Nice. Do you have a blog? Not gonna make fun, I swear, I'm just interested in art center students' work
>>2568814
Yes and no. People have broken them intentionally, sure. Other people have broken them by being ignorant of them even being a thing.
There's the whole argument that even laying down sets of these rules is harmful since it can start to inform your decisions without you even being aware of it (hence it no longer become a decision but rather an automatic thing). Mullins discusses this a bit in his Gnomon lecture series and how certain rules can limit you without realizing it. Why does a composition need to be rectangular? Why can't you leave the white of the canvas showing? etc.
>>2568792
I do not entirely agree with you on that.
Basically, what we're talking about are the rules of visual language. We use them because they WORK. And it doesn't matter if it is about a painting, sculpture, costume or object, the rules can be applied to any of them.
If they are used and the results are formulaic, it is not the fault of the rules, but of the person using them, either due to inexperience, because of trends, or whatever.
Yes, artists sometimes purposefully break the rules, but it can easily go wrong. Sometimes it works and it can be awesome. And if any rule is broken successfully, it is because the artist has a solid understanding of the rules and knows what [s]he's doing.
>>2568826
>There's the whole argument that even laying down sets of these rules is harmful since it can start to inform your decisions without you even being aware of it (hence it no longer become a decision but rather an automatic thing).
That's like having an argument whether it might be harmful for a novelist to understand the basic rules of grammar because it might limit him in his decision making.
Understanding the rules allows you to make conscious, informed decisions and then break them when you see fit. Yes, many intermediate artists go through a phase where they will be heavily limited and formulaic in their approach, sticking very closely to the rules. That problem tends to go away with experience. The other option however, to never learn the basics at all means you will forever be nothing but an amateur who hopes he gets lucky each time he draws something. If you are a hobbyist that's perfectly fine, but it's not something clients look for in a professional.
>>2568836
Hm, well I get that, but I also think it is a dangerous mindset to say "NO YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG THERE ARE RULES LET ME LIST THEM OUT FOR YOU...".
Having a very absolute approach in art can be deadly. And that person comes from an Art Center background which is a school that teaches a very commercial and repeatable process.
>>2568839
>That's like having an argument whether it might be harmful for a novelist to understand the basic rules of grammar because it might limit him in his decision making.
No, I think it is more akin to how high school teaches you how to write essays. At least when I was in high school they would say things like "never used first person", "it must be exactly 5 paragraphs long", "the body paragraphs need exactly X sentences", "the intro needs to have the first line hook you in" etc. And while most people realize how limiting this is and might throw away a few of them, they may never take the risk to explore other ways of writing that might make their work even stronger.
Probably it is better to do away with calling them "rules" and rather say use some other term that properly implies that they are not overly concrete and are instead loose tools that can be used at times to help reach certain solutions.
>>2568759
current art center student here. hate the attitude of the other students in my term. half of them are 19 or 20 year old who want to party and don't give a shit about art. the ones whose attitudes I admired are considering leaving the school. without a dept chair the place is a wreck and ED has the "pay us and shut up" attitude of something like illustration. i'm honestly considering taking a term or 2 off so maybe Guillaume can fix this mess. what are your thoughts?
PS sean's class was alright tho
>>2568862
wait, i thought art center was one of the great schools?
>>2568836
This
A well designed flag works because it follows these principles. A well designed movie works because it follows these principles. It's why a static shot from a Wes Anderson film is more visually appealing than some exploding, shit everywhere cacophony of dark mess in a Michael Bay film. Sure, the Bay film scene may have a "Wow, look at all the detail and rendering!" effect up front, it's quickly forgettable.
I do more than just illustration, I do sculpture, writing, playing music, and these basic design principles carry over into other forms of creating just like you said. Scale is the big one. Have your big bold move and complement that with little accents. Have your hard edges vs. soft edges. Have your dark values vs light values. Connect things in a meaningful way..a group of highlights, a group of shadows. Your intricacies are going to shine much more given the context to do so.
If you're going to break these rules, knowing them helps you make a conscious effort to break them in a meaningful, impactful way. The Beatles jumping out of a 4/4 time signature into a different world on one beat but having it interconnect with that new storyline/emotion and then dragging that back into the place it started, connecting it for a crescendo. That's knowing the rules and breaking them.
These devices have worked from Renaissance paintings up to contemporary illustrations in a hipster zine. If it's visually appealing, these devices are likely being implemented.
>>2568862
I was illustration , but I found ignoring the kids that don't care helps. Be the little asshole over-achiever that does extra work, gets your shit done and surround yourself with the peers that do work their asses off. They push you through with friendly competition.
The dumb young kids by 4th or 5th term either drop out or surprise you by whipping into incredible shape. It's crazy. So many people that I thought were talentless losers dragging the school down, I'd count on them to dropout, then I'd have another class with them 2 terms later and they're the fucking rockstars of the class. It's pretty insane.
My experience with faculty was way different than yours, my teachers and department chair were super supportive. I could call or message them off term even if I wasn't in a class with them and get feedback and they loved hearing from me and helping me out. My department chair as well, she's super sweet and still emails me to check in with e even though I've graduated. She has gotten me in touch with people to get work. It goes back to being one of the ones determined to do well though. Show that you significantly want success and to improve and they see that, admire it, and love helping you out with it. The teachers really do want to see you succeed. Most of them don't teach because they need the job, they teach because they like watching younger artists grow and succeed. At least in illustration, I'm sure it's the same in ED though.
>>2568867
it's not great right now. scott robertson's left, jaime's not here anymore, the ED dept had no chair for a year, they're accepting too many students because they want tuition money (teachers can't get around to critiquing everybody or have to rush their critique) and they're doing affirmative action acceptances, which drops the work quality of the term like a rock.
furthermore a lot of these kids are going to portfolio prep schools, where some guy essentially makes your entrance portfolio for you. the huge difference between portfolio work and classwork is completely depressing.
i'm still learning stuff but i've noticed a lot of that, more and more, that knowledge is coming from outside of school.
>>2568910
I've had the theory that the reason there is a drop in the program/students is that the talent no longer is all funnelled into just ACCD but instead is being split up between other schools now that teach similar things or have teachers that are alumni from there (CGMA, Red Engine, etc), as well as online schools like Schoolism or Gumroad things, so people will teach themselves rather than pay a fortune for what is now no longer a monopoly on that information.
Is this true?
Also more info on Jaime pls.
>>2568906
hoping you're right. i'll drop some of my teachers and line and see if anything happens.
thanks famalam
>>2568916
jaime was only in town for some hollywood gig and decided to teach at ac while he was here. he ended up doing a mentorship with ross tran, but it sounded like the sessions would basically amount to him telling ross to fuck off and paint more (can't blame him ross seems like a douche). the job ended and he moved :\
>>2568921
So how long was he there for? And he only mentored Ross?
>>2568917
Just like you said about the over-crowded classes in relation to what I was saying about being the over-achiever. Don't think you can be the "silent genius." The school is designed around being a real world working environment, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. You can watch some of your peers be "the suck up" and get all the attention, then envy that person as they get more and more things given to them. Featured on the website, featured on a giant instagram blog, etc, etc...or you can be that asshole and have people envy you instead, talk shit behind your back. I'm an introvert by nature, but sometimes you have to suck it up and put yourself out there at the risk of humiliation and failure to get things. Now that I'm out and working, it's no different. I have to be the one to approach art directors with my ideas and work, they're not going to come to me because I have a sweet website. After the 5th time you nag them with a promo, they call you for work.
Squeaky Wheel.
>>2568927
like a year, man. they left his name up on the site for a while after he left tho, probably to shill off of his fame.
>>2568300
>got crap
>>2568886
>Michael Bay films
Check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q
>>2568998
>Every Frame a Painting
how about no
>>2569012
What's wrong?
>>2569012
He's just showing a youtube video that discusses that cinematography broken down.
Michael Bay's style is ramped up bullshit the entire time, so nothing really looks interesting or epic because in contrast, it's so much fucking information in your face constantly. If a painting is all highlights, it makes the dramatic highlight on the nose irrelevant.
>>2569023
(cont.)
I think we can discuss this awful Thomas Kinkade painting as an example of shit being too many explosions like a Michael Bay film. I don't think it's a coincidence that these hideous shitpile paintings appeal to the same demographic of Middle Americans that would pay to see the new Transformers film on opening weekend. It's a lot of, "Wow, so many shiny things!"
Had Kinkade learned to limit his highlights, he would have been a whole different artist. The guy died wealthy though and so is his estate, so I'm not sure what's good or bad. He's definitely a joke in the art world, though his business mindset was much appreciated, his work itself is laughed at as pure kitsch garbage. So who knows how he would have ended up had he a chosen a route of refined work. He wouldn't end up on hideous calendars and decorative plates in old ladies' China cabinets, but he'd likely be much more respected artistically by his peers. He could have been successful in another plane of existence and garnered respect as well, We'll never know, but his paintings are the Middle America Michael Bay 'splosions of the painting world.
If you want to be rich but not respected, turn your shit way the fuck up into sensory overload. The funny thing is that Kinkade is actually an Art Center dropout. He was poor as shit and couldn't afford to keep going. Just an odd fact.
>>2569044
compare the "highlights everywhere" approach of image making to this Gregory Crewdson photograph.
He knows how to compose an image. He limits the color palette. He guides your eye from foreground to background and around the shadows and back. He keeps your eye in the space dissecting it and it appears to be much more vivid and have a lot more going on than it really does because of his limited highlights. Look at this compared to the thumbnail of the Thomas Kinkade painting. Which looks more appealing and which looks like vomit?
>>2569044
> He characterized himself as "Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Light," a phrase he protected through trademark but one originally attributed to the British master J. M. W. Turner (1775–1851).[4] It has been estimated that 1 in every 20 American homes owns a copy of one of his paintings
What the fuck
>>2569063
Yep.
>>2568841
Ok, I see what's the issue here.
You misunderstand the usage of the word 'rules' here. I guess it is better to say 'principles'.
They are design principles to be used to optimize visual communication and establish a connection with the viewer. So, yes, they are incerdibly useful and there is therefore no reason not to use them to your advantage.
Once you know and understand the principles, you can choose to deviate from them. I do not see for where you get this extreme idea from.
