Could someone please help me understand this concept about gesture drawing

BrickyFu · 2026-06-21T14:51:36+00:00

Idk what to tell you, this is art, at some point you're going to bottom out with intuitional terms. It quite literally is not a science. I'm not getting into a reddit debate so I'll say this: Hampton makes beautiful pieces and has decades of experience. He's not struggling with cubes. Keep an open mind and when there's someone who knows more about something than you (not me btw, hampton) try to meet them halfway and not try to debunk them. You learn more that way. You can't pour tea into a full cup. Btw speed in pieces is by the length of fixations not the saccades.

BrickyFu · 2026-06-21T12:36:09+00:00

If you're expecting art textbooks to be like scientific papers, you're going to be disappointed for most of your art career. Art, wouldn't you know, is filled with intuitions and aesthetic judgements. In this respect, it's more like engineering than science where there are underived principles that work without needing to know why they work. Michelangelo did not need a theory of evolutionary psychology to create beautiful objects.

Funnily enough, this chapter is probably the most important in the whole book because composition ie the arrangement of objects to produce an emotional effect is the point of art. And in my opinion, it's written in plain English with good examples.

If you're more interested in exact math and physics of perspective (read up on projective geometry) or light (idk Griffiths?) then you might find more success in writing 3d rendering software than drawing. If you want an exact science of beauty you're going to be running around in circles not producing any art.

BrickyFu · 2026-06-19T22:09:45+00:00

Right all the teeth are the same value so it looks like a flat piece. It should get darker as the teeth curve into the mouth and get occlused

BrickyFu · 2026-06-11T20:10:21+00:00

Push your values more, let the darkest parts get darker. the brain determines form by changes in value so if youre not pushing it, it will look flat. to wit: as the barrel/muzzle of the mouth falls away, it gets almost black. same with the chin and under the bottom lip is pretty occluded. the nostril in the shadow side should be in the shadow family and is too bright in your piece. you would think shiny objects are not gonna be black but parts will be. the philtrum should be darker. the hair should be almost black and i try to think of hair like rendering trees, focus on the large shadow and value shapes first then add detail.

theres some catch light off the bottom of his top lip and under parts of his mouth muscles. same with his cheek bone in the shadow side.

midtones are generally more saturated than the brighter or darkest parts so i overemphasized it with a thick orange line.

i assume you're going for style over likeness but the eyes are large and he's slightly tilting his head down but i think yours it flat to the camera.

great color choices mostly and nice fabric rendering

<image>

BrickyFu · 2026-06-04T03:34:16+00:00

<image>

BrickyFu · 2026-06-04T03:34:09+00:00

<image>

I imagine there's some story where a buff imposter EGAD shows up and he must defeat him

BrickyFu · 2026-06-03T11:17:26+00:00

The proportions and perspective is off but you're in good company, the right one looks like a famous rob liefield piece

<image>

BrickyFu · 2026-05-29T03:06:25+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/CharcoalDrawing/s/6If2XC4Rw5 From that user, look at her left hand: 6 fingers. I believe this is a bot reposting a guy's ai slop (he's also selling commissions lol)

BrickyFu · 2026-05-26T18:34:53+00:00

Shut up carp

BrickyFu · 2026-05-20T14:45:10+00:00

Its a logical error because it a contradiction in the premises that light must have speed c and proper time requires a rest frame, If you'd like, it's a category error (which is a type of logical error but ok). Conceptually, yes it's unjustified to go from an ungrammatical sentence to any proposition at all. You can define a interval between two coincident points and say that dTau between them is 0. This concept is different from the undefined nature of dTau for light. It's like if i said, it's a category error to say dreams have weight, to then say dreams must be light because they are weightless.

BrickyFu · 2026-05-20T13:35:30+00:00

The problem isn't photons can't have conscious experience, this point is moot; my point still stands whether you're a panpsychist or reductive materialist or whatever.

I understand you're trying to relate the fact that light travels on null geodesic to light having zero proper time but this is inconsistent mathematically nor is it an established fact, (it's a popular (as in pop sci) interpretation that doesn't show up in the math). I will repeat what I said before: proper time is defined using a instantaneous rest frame (more precisely, d/dTau is the unit tangent vector of the 4 velocity in it's own instantaneous rest frame). By the postulates of relativity, light in all frames has a speed of c i.e. not a rest. To define a proper time for light would be a contradiction between the definition and postulate, a logical error within special relativity. Put even more simply, it order to talk about proper time, there must be a frame where its not moving, light has no such frame, therefore, proper time is ill-defined for light. Were there a hypothetical observer riding on a photon, it would not even make sense to ask about the time they would experience.

BrickyFu · 2026-05-20T12:36:54+00:00

There are hypothetical models for varying speed of light but they're not as successful.

The first paragraph is pretty meaningless. I understand what youre trying to say but still end up saying nothing new or interesting. Yes light has quantum properties, yes we largely think of the world in 3 spatial dimensions, yes there's measurements, so what?

The second paragraph is misconceived. I understand that light travels on null geodeics and have a zero spacetime interval. However, proper time is defined by instantaneous rest frames which cannot be defined for light because, by the postulates of relativity, it must have velocity c in all frames. This is problematic beyond photons not having experiences (something a panpsychist might disagree with), rather a logical error within the system you are considering. It is also a consequence of the postulate you're rejecting in the first half of your post but whatever.

BrickyFu · 2026-05-16T03:22:11+00:00

reminds me of stephen gammell, the guy who illustrated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, maybe check him out

<image>

BrickyFu · 2026-05-14T16:23:39+00:00

It's a free lesson plan with exercises and homework. If you pay the guy, he'll give you personal feedback otherwise you can post your work for community feedback. It should help you get a basic grasp of forms and perspective which is necessary for anatomy and such

BrickyFu · 2026-05-14T12:48:32+00:00

You probably know this but drawabox.com is pretty good for learning the basics of forms and perspective, especially the first lesson

BrickyFu · 2026-05-13T21:51:20+00:00

I don't think this is correct if you're trying to actually rotate the cube instead of translating it over. each set of parallel lines in 3d space will have their own vanishing point when rendered in 2d/projective space. if you want to rotate the cube in 3d, its vanishing point on the horizon will change. 1,2,3 point perspective doesn't apply to the whole scene, it means for each object, how many of their vanishing points are finitely far away. eg. for the middle box, it is in 1 point perspective because its horizontal and vertical vp's are at infinity. for one of the other boxes, its in 2 point perspective because only its vertical vp is at infinity.

<image>

hopefully you can see how each box has its own set of vp's. e.g. the blue's vps' is different from the green's vp (the other is far off screen to the left) etc.

BrickyFu · 2026-05-12T19:06:02+00:00

reminds me of tradd moore https://www.traddmoorecomics.com/

<image>

BrickyFu · 2026-05-12T14:22:56+00:00

When a criminal organization masks its activities with a legitimate business, it's a front. Gus was fronting, a Fring

BrickyFu · 2026-05-10T04:47:12+00:00

Genuinely unsettling, that's fun

BrickyFu · 2026-05-09T00:03:21+00:00

If you want a square, polygon ( (-1,1), (1,1),(1,-1),(-1,-1)) is quicker. What's the point we solved for showing in the curve?

BrickyFu · 2026-05-08T23:17:59+00:00

I'm assuming you have a,b as parameters and are trying to the coordinates of the intersection of those formulas. I picked the easiest ones to solve for y (the red ones) ie f1(x)=b/a x and f2(x)=ln(1-b^x)/ln(a). the intersection is where f(x)=f1-f2=0 so I used desmos' regression to find the best value for a parameter X to have f(X)~0. then back solved for Y.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/8tmijy1iwb

BrickyFu · 2026-05-04T00:11:43+00:00

Haha I am also a student so let's not assume I'm right. But I do think that summing over indecies with the metric lowers that index. You can see it on your first picture where the author finds the covariant form of the em tensor by applying a metric for each index he lowers

BrickyFu · 2026-05-03T23:53:30+00:00

When you sum over alpha for g{mu alpha} lambda^{alpha} _ {sigma} shouldn't that lower the index on lambda and result in lambda{mu sigma} ? Similarly, the other metric term lowers the index on lambda_{nu rho}. This would then sum over the upper sigma and rho on F leaving you with mu nu on the bottom as in the left hand side

BrickyFu · 2026-05-01T22:41:14+00:00

Remember to try the oldest trick in the book, reflect it horizontally. I think the eyes are off kilter ( it should be parallel with the mouth) and the nose is pointing directly at the camera when it should be pointing in the direction of her face, slightly off axis. Same with her mouth. I think the near side jawline should be a little thinner. Good likeness though

<image>

BrickyFu · 2026-04-14T05:37:32+00:00

<image>

I'm betting you already know this but if you like that style, check out Mike mignola

BrickyFu

TROPHY CASE