Faster or slower?

Good question. I think a complete well rendered pice should be the aggregate of knowledge one learns many thumb nails and quick studies. Better to do that than run right in spend hours rendering a pice, hoping the anatomy and comosition is correct.
I'm interested to hear other opinions.

You guys ever hear the story about the art class with the students making pots?

>>2357860
oh yeah, when it comes to art and practicing

quantity comes over quality. where was that story from again? the art spirit? or was it art and fear?

anyway, I have decided to do both
but detail studies will be done just every once in a while

I will see what I can do from there
I'll get back in a year to tell you about it anon!

they are different exercises
which ever one you do the most, you will be good at (naturally). Consider sparth (30min spitpaint)- fast, efficient workflow; ruan- slower but fundamentally sound

>>2357611
Do short, pencil studies mostly from reference. Do a couple or two well rendered in a while.

Do well rendered studies from imagination. Make a couple sketches just to make sure you already understand the subject.

>>2357860
I haven't.

>>2357611
since you need to ask this: short is better

>>2357860
please, do tell anon

>>2357860
story time please

>>2357906
>>2357944
not the anon you asked, but here is what I remember:

>a class is is split in 2
>first half get the assignment to make the best pot in the world
>second half get the assignment to make as many pots possible
>both groups get 1 month time limit
>at the end of the month, the second half of the class was better at making pots since they made so many, while the other half was behind for spending too much time on thinking what makes a perfect pot perfect

>>2358020
dood, that twerks my cheeky breekis.

>>2357611
speed is a result of knowing something

most anon just make bad shit fast.

File: _marijuana_meme_willy_wonka[1].jpg (98KB, 510x507px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 510x507px

>>2357860
The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the "quantity" group: fifty pound of pots rated an "A", forty pounds a "B", and so on. Those being graded on "quality", however, needed to produce only one pot -- albeit a perfect one -- to get an "A". Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity. It seems that while the "quantity" group was busily churning out piles of work - and learning from their mistakes -- the "quality" group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay.

excerpt from Art & Fear, by David Bayles

>>2357611

I think it's far better to commit more mistakes over and over until you get it right as soon as possible rather than keep slowly rendering it until it becomes right.

I remember this from a portfolio review.

" Only put your work that you think is best. It doesn't matter whether you did it for two weeks or 3 hours as long as it looked better.

If your 3 hours of painting looked more aesthetically sound than what you did in 2 weeks. Put the former and don't be attached to how long you spent in a painting if it doesn't look good."

Just my two cents OP