How much did this girl practice to achieve so much growth in 2 years?
Oh sorry forgot to include source link
https://www.instagram.com/p/BG-vGjkRCOS/
>>2578062
She probably practiced properly instead of tracing anime
Ask her via instagram and post her reply here
>>2578062
Maybe she actually practiced, studied, and applied what she learned to her drawings? :)
She probably practiced her sighting and rendering; It's unlikely she could actually draw anything meaningful without ref.
>>2578105
You sound like a womeme
Since when copying photos is considered as practicing ?
>>2578111
it's how van gogh learned how to draw
>>2578111
She's obviously got better at rendering, so yeah, I'd consider it practice
>>2578117
You know he died with no recognition of his work, broken with no money and alcoholic.
>>2578125
and yet he's still achieved more than you ever will
>>2578125
So did Edgar Allan Poe, your point?
>>2578110
Man, your radar is broken. Badly.
>>2578136
stop talking about the gay/female spotting radar gun jeszus. It will only summon the tranny.
>>2578125
so will you
lmao
>>2578136
No, what I'm saying is that you sound like a passive aggressive little bitch.
Just like a woman
>>2578125
But his art lives on which is pretty much the greatest achievement in the art world. Who doesn't want to be immortalized for their art?
>>2578136
>found the tranny
>>2578062
Better rendering but it still looks off. Keep practicing.
>>2578062
Her skill level actually looks about the same construction wise. Only difference is that the one on the right is a finished rendering. If it was just as unfinished as the 2 on the left, it would look just as bad considering the proportions are completely fucked up.
Done by the same girl, using reference
>>2578262
The nose and ear look incorrect but the hair looks great IMO
No structure lol
>>2578099
This
Ask that bitch to draw from imagination
>>2578125
You are literally the most retarded person I've ever heard
>>2578268
it's garbage
"drawing what you see and not what you think it is" is something that can be learned by scrubs in 1 year
>>2578850
This is the most ignorant reply of them all.
Drawing what you think you see is literally the most wrong way to draw. Go study at an atelier and tell them you want to draw what you THINK you see.
Drawing is seeing. You measure, you check, you put down marks and check again. You should be drawing what you see. The fact that you think "drawing what you see" is meme-tier 1yr beginner novice shit proves this board is complete garbage.
Post your work and show us your amazing life drawings.
>>2578988
>I know to post just shit artwork
>>2578991
there is
>drawing what you ''think'' you see, aka symbol drawing
>drawing what you see, aka human copy machine
>drawing what you see and think, aka looking and measuring then drawing
>drawing what you think, aka drawing from imagination
learn the difference
>>2578996
And so there's no value in drawing what you see? Assuming it's only learned by scrubs and takes a year to master, I suppose the human copy machines are just wasting their lives?
Becase realist painters would vehemently disagree.
But then again this is /ic/ where everyone's opinion is more right than anyone else's
>>2578988
It looks so incredibly flat, this is why you should work on fundamentals before you try to show off.
>>2578062
only normies think this is skill.
those are just studies. why isn't she creating something on her own from imagination. she is just copying photos.
>>2578996
>Drawing from imagination isn't a refined form of symbol drawing.
>>2579014
realistic painters fall in the
>drawing what you see and think
OP pic is
>drawing what you see
>>2579054
yes it is, but it's after you did the entire circle so there is skill involved
>>2579053
Aren't you supposed to study from photos/life and make it realistic? Isn't that how you practice fundamentals and git gud?
You can't draw from imagination until you understand how to imagine something properly. Life teaches you how to draw properly.
Starting from life/photo reference makes the most sense to me... someone correct me if I'm wrong.
>>2579061
It is best to use reference when creating fine art. The final product will be far better than what is drawn just from imagination.
>>2579104
So I should never draw from reference unless I want to do fine art? How does that work?
Why can't I draw from imagination but also draw portraits like in OP's pic? This whole thread seems to have fallen off the rails.
I'm not shitting on imaginative drawing but a lot of people in here seem to shit on drawing from life/reference. I genuinely fail to see how this is wasted practice.
Can anyone here draw & render a portrait as detailed as OP's pic? Or is that skillset not necessary to draw cartoons/animu?
>>2579181
rendering is pretty decent in ops pic. Not enough contrast for me personally. ic is just a salty bunch and hates everything not sargent tier.
Does she have ligameme
>>2579181
Honestly I have never been able to get a straight answer from ic on this either
>>2579181
>>2579061
>Aren't you supposed to study from photos/life and make it realistic?
You don't study by copying what you see, you study by analysing and breaking down what you see. The OP image shows a mindless copy of what was in front of them that didn't teach the artist anything at all and because the artist didn't understand what they were copying, it looks very amateurish.
>>2579192
>You don't learn anything by hardcore measuring, learning to render perfect value, and creating forms as realistically as possible
Yep it all adds up.
>>2579061
There's a right way and a wrong way to use a reference. OP pic is mindless copying which is boring as fuck to look at and shows a clear lack of understanding for how the subject actually works.
Drawing from life is essential to understanding how a subject works and how to translate that into a 2D image, but you have to use your brain. The mere act of using a reference won't make you a great artist, anymore than simply dragging a pencil across a page will make you a great artist. There's more to it.
You might as well leap across a stage in a Peter Pan rig and tell everyone you're practicing for Olympic long jumping.
>>2579197
You sure as shit don't learn enough.
You'll also get a perfect likeness and probably a good grind on colour mixing if you zoom the fuck in and painstakingly re-create every pixel, but you won't learn much about what you're drawing.
>>2578062
>Literally a xerox machine
I am not impressed. The fact that she had no clue how to draw the torso is a tell tale sign she does not know how to draw
>>2579204
pretty sure she draws better than 96% of the 30 posters ITT
>>2579197
> hardcore measuring, learning to render perfect value, and creating forms as realistically as possible
Well, the artist in question definitely did none of those things, so why are we talking about some hypothetical concept here? Most of the time, artists who just copy what they see fucking suck at any of the things you mentioned because they just copy without understanding what it is they copy. Proper realist painters don't just copy like some shit tier DA portrait faggot.
>>2579205
There is a 97.4% chance that you are wrong and projecting because you happen to be one of the 3,14159% of posters ITT who are worse than that terrible artist.
>>2579198
>>2579202
OK so how should someone actually draw from life? There is genuine value in trying to be as realistic as possible.
So should someone draw with a constructionist attitude where they block out the major shapes and work down into the details?
I always see people drawing portraits starting from one random part of the face like the mouth or the eye. This seems like the wrong way to draw from life where you just start copying one area and move out from there.
So is the proper way of life drawing where you construct shapes and move into details? Sorta like pic related
For example let's take the attached pic. I refuse to believe this attached pic shows "no skill".
You may think it's useless to draw accurate depictions. But if that's the case then you also feel painting realistically is also useless. So why do people hire artists to do realist paintings?
I'm looking for /ic/ to tell me what type of life drawing is "acceptable" to create. If the answer is "no lifelike/realistic drawings are ever worth it" then I'm pretty sure this whole board is a meme
>>2579231
It's lifeless and stiff. Also, the eyes are too close. This doesn't show any skill except copying.
>>2579231
I love how the head tries to win perspective then it all goes horribly wrong with the torso.
>>2579181
I never said a reference is only used for fine art, reference is used for many things. It's good to practice drawing from imagination but you should always try to find references for paintings and finished pieces so you can create the best product you can.
>>2579233
Uhuh so what about the attached painting. Just as non-skilled and lifeless?
This is called realism. This is life drawing.
I'd really like one of these /ic/ critics to tell me what type of life drawing is "acceptable" in their eyes.
ALL life drawing is meant to look like copying. It's the process that looks different. But then again nobody has actually offered a proper way to do realistic drawing, so I'm going to assume nobody here has any experience with it whatsoever
>>2579231
You have to be painterly when copying and alter some details to better fit your drawing. Realist painters are more abstract than you realize.
>>2579231
Are you really too fucking stupid to understand the difference between some shit tier celebrity photocopy and a proper realism drawing? It's not about the act of drawing realistically, it's about UNDERSTANDING what you see vs mindlessly copying what you see.
The latter leads to all these beginner mistakes you see in the OP image or the portrait you posted. Flat as fuck, wonky perspective, terrible proportions, no value grouping whatsoever, overdetailing everything with no understanding how and what to simplify etc.
>>2579244
>talks a bunch of shit
>continues to post other professionals work and not his own
/ic/ - pretend know-it-alls
>>2579244
>Are you really too fucking stupid to understand the difference
Yep I guess so because you're not explaining it at all. You keep explaining it as "draw what you see but don't JUST do that"
OK great so how does someone properly draw from life? Do you actually know or are you just vaguely hinting at something you don't understand?
We're all here to learn so if you have information, books, links, or whatever then spill it. Maybe cut out the vague "understand what you see" and actually explain what that means & how to do it.
>>2579240
When exactly did you move the goalposts acting like /ic/ is somehow against all realism? Is this your first day on this board or something? /ic/ sucks the dicks of realism painters more than anything else. What we are arguing about here is artists who copy what they see without understanding it at all.
Thus leading to terrible looking drawings like >>2579231 and >>2578062 as opposed to the artist you just posted who has a very good understanding of what it is he is painting. If you really can't tell the difference between the portrait you just posted and those shit portraits, then there really is no helping you.
>>2579240
>Comparing symboldrawing facebook girl that in the end is just a polished turd to a good solid painting
>ALL life drawing is meant to look like copying. It's the process that looks different. But then again nobody has actually offered a proper way to do realistic drawing, so I'm going to assume nobody here has any experience with it whatsoever
if you need to ask, you are a joke, there's a beginner thread and a sticky
>>2579244
this.
>>2578062
Two years is too much time. You can hop from absolute beginner to this level in two months.
>>2579250
The entire purpose of this board is art/critique. Maybe you don't want to help explain the difference, but if that's the case then why even bother posting?
Are we not all here to learn?
I'm more than willing to learn if someone would stop being vague and actually explain the differences.
It's obviously a difference in technique. So how is that performed?
And how can you tell the differences between what you call photocopying vs realism?
>>2579248
I told you several times already. You ANALYZE and BREAK DOWN what you see. You try to understand the light source. You look at the negative space, you think about the form when you are drawing, you are conscious of the horizon line and draw the figure in proper perspective, you squint your eyes to simplify the shadows etc. VS you do maybe a little bit of measuring and then you procceed to copy exactly what you see on autopilot without thinking about anything at all.
The former approach results in something like >>2579244 or >>2579240
the latter results in something like >>2579231 and >>2578062
>>2579227
this should answer some questions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymp3748rXEE
>>2579253
I did it in 2 minutes bruh, get on my levul
>>2579266
This actually didn't help as much as I hoped. He's saying to not use construction when you draw, but he does advocate life drawing.
From what I can tell constructing the forms first is the best way to draw from life. Then you move in and make it more detailed. This guy seems to advocate the opposite, but only when you're skilled enough.
The vid kinda raises more questions than it answers but I think I see where you're going
>>2578062
>muh photo copied pencil drawing
Why do normies eat this shit up?
>>2579297
Kill yourself for using /r9k/ terms. But going back to the question, people that are not invested in art are so easily impressed that you just need to be able to draw objects in 3D for them to shit their pants.
We are impressed if someone does great out of imagination but they just don't care they don't know better.
>>2578062
>On the left
What I thought bad drawings looked like before browsing /ic/.
>On the right
What I think bad drawings look like after browsing /ic/ for a year.
[spoiler]I can't draw at all, I just like coming here to look at your guys' art and you turned me into a gross cynic.[/spoiler]
>>2579266
This is actually pretty helpful. Thanks for sharing
>>2579331
>if the pencil wasn't there I would think this is a photo xD
I think it's something like that.
>>2578988
what about those posts isn't true?
>>2579399
Nothing except they provide no actual information beyond opinions.
It's basically just "haha you suck at art" but not explaining why or how to get better. It's baseless 4chan shitposting which adds no value to the conversation or anyone reading it.
>>2579412
what about they lack construction knowledge you don't understand?
>>2579412
Do you have some kind of a reading comprehension problem? Every one of those posts explained their point of view pretty clearly, and if your problem is that they weren't polite enough then why the fuck are you on ic?
>>2579412
Except 2 of the three are arguing form over shape; Something that, from the looks of it, you don't understand.
>>2579266
>>2579286
>>2579227
Constructing must be the last step before rendering.
Life drawing is the opposite of constructing.
What most retards don't get is:
>Sketching.
Loose, fluid, very light guidelines you can correct very easily. Best for life drawing.
>Constructing.
Adding solid 3d shapes you can measure and relate. Takes time, but the results seem to be more accurate.
You first draw the gesture, then construct, then clean up, and finally you render or whatever. In theory.
Some dudes entirely skip construction drawing, while some others struggle with Loomis, which is good if you want to git gud at anatomy and proportions.
Anyways. Always make corrections if something feels off. don't fall in love with your goddamn sketches. That's why you must draw very light lines.
>>2579417
>>2579420
>>2579335
thanks for the kek
>>2578117
Bargue plates != photos, dipshit.
>>2579423
a lot of greatly successful draftsmen use and used sight-size. Nothing wrong with it. It just takes years compared to construction.
Idk about you guys but when I draw people from life I observe and simplify then construct.
>>2578136
Fuck off whiny triggered idiot.
>>2579423
>Life drawing is the opposite of constructing.
wait, wut?
>>2579231
>You may think it's useless to draw accurate depictions. But if that's the case then you also feel painting realistically is also useless.
You're confusing the process for the result.
There's nothing wrong with drawing realistically, but this drawing does not show any significant understanding of the subject.
Pic related could be called somewhat stylised, but it very clearly shows an understanding of 3D forms, lighting, as well as artistry in deciding what elements to show in detail and what can be lost to shadows. It creates a sense of depth and solidity, and will take an artist much further.
What you've posted is just dull to look at, it's superficial rendering with no sense of solidity to it (look at the armpit for example), no indication that the artist has any understanding of what's going on beneath the skin, the hair is flat and uniform, etc.
To say this takes 'no skill' may be a slight exaggerating, but any skill it requires/teaches won't get you anywhere in art. It's a party trick. It's like memorising a single piano piece rather than actually learning and understanding music theory - sure you can hit all the notes, but it probably won't sound as dynamic without understanding how the piece works, and you'll be at a complete loss asked if you can play anything else or, heaven forbid, actually compose something.
It's not a skill, it's dead-end effort.
Never mistake 'something that I'm not currently able to do' with 'something really good'.
>>2579186
Kill yourself
grow up you fucking tards.
Its obvious she used a fucking B&W filter and digital editing.
>>2580160
Good response and points anon.
>>2578850
or anyone in high school that has a tinge of "talent"
>>2579262
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPRvewfTzOI&t=0m17s
this whole conversation.
>>2580020
>sight-size vs construction
what's the difference?
>>2580160
I agree with all of this. And it'd be helpful to explain the actual differences between drawing this stuff.
So when drawing a pose or portrait for realism, do you start with the forms first? Then work into the lights/halftones?
Someone else commented that sight-size takes years of practice compared to "construction". This is confusing because AFAIK these two terms mean completely different things.
Construction is a method like pic related where you construct the basic forms first, then work inward. This is what I think you're saying would be the best way to draw instead of human photocopier.
Sight-size is drawing something at its exact size on paper(rather than comparative measuring).
One term explains how you measure, the other explains how you technically execute. Are they somehow related?
tl;dr I think we can all agree that understanding forms and lighting is necessary for a good life drawing. So what's the difference between the shit drawings in this thread vs. the good ones? What actual process was used differently to achieve a better result?
>>2580476
In sight-size you have a drawing grid on the paper and in front of your viewing plane/ on your photo reference. Then you copy the lines you see.
In construction you construct the shapes through rhythm lines, mannequin, anatomical knowledge etc.
>>2578147
fooking wrekt m80
>M-MUH LOOMIS
>I BET I CAN DRAW BETTER FROM IMAGINATION
fucking /ic/
I'd still love to know an answer on this >>2580487
Still in the early stages of learning to draw from life/reference. If the goal is realism how should one start when looking at a blank sheet of paper?
The only info I've seen relates to breaking down shapes and marking outlines to reconstruct the designs better.
>>2582697
It's not about drawing from imagination though.
All she's doing is being a copying machine. It's no better than grid drawings. It's a cute skill to have, but it doesn't show that she actually understands how to draw form. She won't be able to draw anything that's not a photo.
>>2582704
>but it doesn't show that she actually understands how to draw form
What exactly demonstrates that someone knows how to draw form? How would someone practice this so that they don't end up being a human xerox?
>>2582925
1. Draw a box
2. Rotate/move box in space
3. Build something out of boxes (see Vilppu)
And there you have it, a very basic understanding of form.
>>2582925
>How would someone practice this so that they don't end up being a human xerox?
C O N S T R U C T I O N
>>2582704
>All she's doing is being a copying machine. It's no better than grid drawings
Dürer did grid drawings. And he is pretty fucking great. Only the product matters.
>>2582996
and her product is shit
>>2583015
Sure! Is Dürers though?
>>2578125
>>2579472
Good on you for admitting it. (I'm not being a sarcastic cunt, I really mean it)
>>2582704
Yeah surely being able to measure just by sight and maintain decent value relationships is a 'cute skill' that shows 'no understanding'
lmao
As if you could make that drawing by luck
>>2582700
It's not something you'll learn in the space of a thread. It's a complex field with heaps of angles that will take you years to understand. Read books, watch vids, etc, no one else can do this for you.
>>2578111
>Proportions
>Line quality
>Rendering
>Possibly studying the figure
No clue to be honest.
>>2578062
My brother improved even more than that in just a few days,
I guided him though.
>>2583424
post his work
What the hells the matter with you neckbeards, she's a fine artist. Not super amazing but she's clearly been putting in work.
>>2579231
One thing that should try while working on portraits is to have an eye more prominent than the other.
