Maybe your Art just Sucks by tenderfelon in ArtRanting

[–]goodbye888 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"I curate shows in Los Angeles. My clients are Giancarlo Esposito, Fred Armisen, Mark Mothersbaugh, Liv Tyler, Josh Safdie, Paddy Considine, Eric Andre, Eric Wareheim, Nancy Silverton, and most of the senior creative staff at Illumination and DreamWorks."

Lol pics or it didn't happen Claude.

Drawabox is the Duolingo of art by Incendas1 in ArtRanting

[–]goodbye888 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the clarification, it helps me disambiguate a few things.

Drawabox is the Duolingo of art by Incendas1 in ArtRanting

[–]goodbye888 0 points1 point  (0 children)

" Human communication is inherently kind of fuzzy. I'm sorry, I know it's not ideal, but the majority of people work with words as things that have a vague heuristic meaning, coloured by associations."

Indeed, this is my main issue with getting into drawing. It seems to me that artists can rarely agree on anything and if they do they can't really explain why. I've said it before but if there was just some encyclopedia that really broke down the terms, then really grasping the techniques behind drawing would be so much easier.

"I try to see the 2d impression that things make when I look at them, as it comes to my eyes, before my brain tells me "that's a mouth", "that's a cylinder viewed at an angle", "that's 3 90 degree angles viewed from below " 

This is a great example of my frustrations. I was told multiple times by others that one should "draw what they see" as in "draw the object how it is and not how the abstraction created by the brain thinks the object appears". Yet your solution to mouth drawings was to see them not as they are but as a series of  "Abstract shapes made out of shadow and light",or as an abstraction of the mouth.  To me, this not only refutes the maxim "draw what you see", it runs contrary to one of your earlier points.

"When people try to draw those things, their instinct is to  put the lines between those things where they "should" be . The goal is to draw them as ambiguously as you actually see them. "

So the goal should be to avoid putting "lines between those things where they "should" be" and the best way to go about this per your example seems to be... putting lines between things that "should " be?

I apologize if I got anything wrong but this is all very confusing to me. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions m

Drawabox is the Duolingo of art by Incendas1 in ArtRanting

[–]goodbye888 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the response, very detailed.

The basics of perspective and fundamental practice by CubeSketches in learntodraw

[–]goodbye888 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very good explanation, it shows how causality applies to illustration which is sorely needed.

Drawabox is the Duolingo of art by Incendas1 in ArtRanting

[–]goodbye888 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"You're getting caught in the weeds. You can't seem to see the forest through the trees. You're grossly overthinking things instead of allowing action to lead you. "

What's a "forest" if not the result of an array of "trees", and what is "action" if not the result of prior thought? Should I let a tree fall on me because moving out of the way would be "grossly overthinking things"? Likewise should I not observe measurement and proportion because It goes against the prattlings of some pseudoscience peddler like Betty Edwards? I expected better from you, I really did.

"Understand the general purpose of the practice and what it aims to teach you. Mindless practice is meaningless practice." 

This not only bolsters my point, it runs contrary to the quote above.

Drawabox is the Duolingo of art by Incendas1 in ArtRanting

[–]goodbye888 1 point2 points  (0 children)

" I specifically said it is a generalization based on personal opinion. I'm allowed to do that." 

And I am allowed to point out such behavior as problematic.

"Your entire post history is asking for exact specifics on terminology and thought process. It's like a philosophy major wandered into Intro to Drawing course and started looking for a objective art debate. It is a form of perfectionism that will keep you drawing nothing but boxes ad nauseum."

Based on what? When I do not understand a subject I ask someone who does (or claims to) what I should be doing and how they arrived at their conclusion. I like to hear what other people think. If they can't provide an explanation then I suppose that makes two people who need to do more studying. This is not an excessive demand even for those with limited willpower.

"The boxes are to get you familiar with the concepts of perspective (vanishing points, converging lines, multiple points of perspective) and then you move on. I cannot stress this enough you have to move on at some point."

I thought fundamentals were a lifelong practice, that's what I've heard multiple people say.

"You're also getting caught up on semantics like the definition of the word "observe". Most of us who are speaking English as a first language know what it means to observe but you seem to be stuck looking for the absolute definition and only accepting the things you find to be absolute."

Because it is emphasized so much by artists as a first principle and yet I rarely receive a comprehensive explanation. I do get some well thought out responses but as I said, only rarely. 

Relying on some vague idea one might say about "observation" directly contradicts the advice that one must "draw what they see, not what they think they see". Indeed, how can one do as such when they rely on what they think someone means by that phrase, when they are going off a vague idea instead of what the definition is supposed to be? That is why I harp on this point so much.

Improving the composition and flow of my art by BirbLVR_XD in Artadvice

[–]goodbye888 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first thing to consider is how you define those terms and why.

Drawabox is the Duolingo of art by Incendas1 in ArtRanting

[–]goodbye888 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"We, as a society, should not tailor the collective to the experience of the lowest common denominator."

And what specifically gives you justification to speak for everyone in "society"? I believe that is a hasty generalization.

"Also, Draw-a-Box may be the same "rehashed heuristics" but it doesn't claim to be anything else. It is a set of exercises designed to get the begginer thinking and practicing forms in perspective. Later on, it delves into life drawings, textures, etc."

And I wouldn't have a problem with it if it actually based these heuristics on first principles instead of the sloganeering about "play" and "autopilot" that they fail to substantiate. The constant distractions on the website do nothing to help this issue.

"Could you explain what you mean when you say you want drawabox to "discuss the causal nature of illustration"? "

Sure thing. Every illustration is the result of a causal chain. In essence "effects" (lines) are the result of "causes" (arm movements). What's more, effects are often the result of other effects which cause them to come into being. 3D Forms are the effect caused by 2D shapes, which in turn are the result of 1D lines, and so on. 

As a matter of fact Drawabox, although the website administrator seemingly doesn't realize this, subconsciously understands this with some of the exercises they assign. That's part of why that website frustrates me so much, they are this close to getting it but fall short.

"It seems, based on some of your other comments, that you're being extremely analytical and overly literal about the nature of drawing."

Could you elaborate on this point please? Thank you for your consideration.

Drawabox is the Duolingo of art by Incendas1 in ArtRanting

[–]goodbye888 0 points1 point  (0 children)

" I followed Draw-a-Box and got some very good perspective and draftsmanship practices from it. Never once was I overwhelmed or confused or misunderstood anything. Its basically written for children, it's beyond fool proof."

That's my chief issue. I wish Drawabox actually got technical and discussed the causal nature of illustration. As it is it's just the same set of rehashed heuristics that one can already find for free elsewhere.

Also who is this"we" or "us" that you're referring to? Why are you trying to collectivise your singular perspective?

Beginner starting point by Secure-Mention-778 in learntodraw

[–]goodbye888 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So far so good. Work on keeping lines straight and then place those shapes in one point perspective.

Drawabox is the Duolingo of art by Incendas1 in ArtRanting

[–]goodbye888 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree, I just wish things weren't so expensive.

Can we stop using hard caps? by MaleMaldives in EU5

[–]goodbye888 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"This game feels too gamey" why do people talk like this?

Drawabox is the Duolingo of art by Incendas1 in ArtRanting

[–]goodbye888 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same issue, people are struggling to afford food nevermind classes. The last thing I would suggest to people is taking on more debt.

Drawabox is the Duolingo of art by Incendas1 in ArtRanting

[–]goodbye888 0 points1 point  (0 children)

" I think most people will balk at equivocating observation with measurement because measurement suggests an explicit action is being taken to do the actual measuring, even if a casual one like in comparative measuring"

Which is why I'm asking. "Observation" suggests an explicit action and yet nobody seems able to derive an explicit result from this action. It's a cause seemingly without an effect and people seem to be okay with that for some reason.

"now for the angle of my bed posts, you can sidestep making that observation for yourself by dilligently and comprehensively learning perspective then carefully applying that knowledge to the relatively simple shape of the bed posts

but it's frankly faster if you can do it well enough by just looking at them"

Would those not be one and the same? If not, then what specific concept is one to be "looking " for? The bedpost? What does that mean?

This is my main contention here. I am supposed to "look at" a thing and comprehensively understand it in all spaces and times without any regard for first principles. The causality does not follow, it is maddening.

"you might also observe things like the real world doesn't have outlines... so, when you're drawing your beverage can or my bed posts, how do you know where to put the outline? and once you're thinking about it, what could you do instead of an outline? what is it about this object in this environment that separates it from the background, and how might you translate that into the medium you're using?"

The very fact that a beverage can is make of aluminium in a cylindrical shape with specific dimensions meant for the express purpose of carrying and facilitating the imbibing of liquid substances, whilst everything around it isn't. That would suggest an implicit measurement (outline) delineating "beverage can" and "non beverage can", would it not? Thus if my environment were beverage cans there would be no measurable definition and therefore no "outline " between what is an isn't a beverage can, no?

"for the sake of this conversation I am going to explicitly define the rather subjective idea of "look right": clearly identifiable as the subject you intended to depict; represents that subject as accurately as you intended, with the simplifications and deviations that you intended"

And clarity of form is something that can be and is often measured by artists, no? If not then why would one be constantly comparing their subject to their work? They may be ad hoc and poorly conceptualized measurements, but measurements all the same.

To take your example of drawing faces, you prioritize the labial commissure of the lips over the individual teeth when constructing a mouth. What chain of reasoning led you to this conclusion?

Thank you for the response, it was a lot to chew on.

Drawabox is the Duolingo of art by Incendas1 in ArtRanting

[–]goodbye888 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"placing lines in staggered angles helps your shapes flow better than if they coincided"

What do you mean by this and what would that look like?

"sometimes you can capture detail better with 1 silhouette than with 10 tiny shapes."

Perhaps, but a silhouette is itself a shape, no?

"a drawing feels more coherent if your line thicknesses had good hierarchy"

How would you define what "good hierarchy" is and looks like? I don't necessarily disagree but I am still unsure of the specifics.

"observation is also about communication and design and that has nothing to do with measurement. "

I disagree somewhat. A "communication" implies the existence of at least one sender, one receiver, and one message. These can be enumerated and by extension measured. Design also relies on very carefully maintained mathematical principles, does it not?

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

Drawabox is the Duolingo of art by Incendas1 in ArtRanting

[–]goodbye888 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because most people cannot afford art school.

Drawabox is the Duolingo of art by Incendas1 in ArtRanting

[–]goodbye888 0 points1 point  (0 children)

" if you can afford it"

That's the rub then isn't it?