Post your current/recent studies from existing references.
Value/color/figure/composition/line anything goes as long as you post the reference used with the study as well.
never understood the point of copying like this. youre not learning anything besides how to copy that presise style on these precise paintings. if youre interested in actually learning, do a normal still life and try to actually innovate and think through what youre doing
or adapt this style and do your own painting with it. use it as a refernce, but straight out copying these doesnt serve much i think.
i think youre achieveing very little by these.
I've done one once where I tried to copy it one to one and then applied it to something from imagination.
Working through it first helps you understand a bit more than just referencing it.
Good points, I agree.
I tend to lose focus when I try to "innovate" my own painting style as I am not quite there yet with my skills. Doing these copies is kind of my own awkward way at taking a stab at things I do not understand. Sounds silly, but it really does help me out a lot.
Feel free to post your own studies or observational drawings in the thread!
Seriously? Someone's still life drawing/painting is just his intepretation of real-life scene. If you copy it over, you simplify it even further and chances are that with this you will lose vital information.
Moreover, look at the pic in OP. Original artist already decided what is important to him - light on two vases, two or three flowers and a pattern on the cloth. He disregarded the rest, so you have just so little space to orient yourself around the drawing.
If you copy straight from real life, you decide what is important and how much detail you want to give. Maybe if you'd draw these flowers from real life your petals would be more detailed. Maybe cloth would fold better, maybe lines would be sharper and some values better.
Additionally, in life drawing you aren't skipping the process of breaking down the scene and deciding the composition and you are learning how to get values and shapes from "fully rendered" objects. Notice that if you copy someone's still life you just basically smudge it.
So, overall - you are learning a lot less. You aren't developing your eye, your sense of composition and values, you aren't improving identifying shapes as much. Ultimately your exercise seems pointless.
The conceptart photo reference push really fucked up the learning process for a lot of people. There were far too many wannabe Dave Rapoza types doing the MMA photo "studies" or taking after Miles Johnston and doing Master studies because that's what was assumed to be correct. All it really resulted in was people improving their ability to copy side by side images without understanding the underlying forms.
Here we are today where people are still doing that, or shilling gumroad workflow videos... what a time to be learning to draw!
That's not really a fault of the exercise as it is a fault with the mindset. If you are too stupid to learn from a photo, chances are you are also too stupid to learn from life. People who mindlessly copy photos without trying to understand the underlying forms would also mindlessly copy life.
Nowadays is actually the best time to learn to draw. You have literally access to any information you want and the only thing limiting you is your own lack of ambition and stupidity. Which is why idiots like you get so butthurt and defeatist, because they know they have it easier than any artist in history, yet they still suck.
We've always been able to learn from life, having an excess of mediocre artists pushing their garbage out there isn't an improvement as it just obfuscates the importance on fundamentals for people starting out. Now we get people talking about Noahbradleys scamcamp or using photobash tier mentorships as there in.
You are correct though, the exercise isn't at fault it just wasn't clear for most at the time and i'm mostly commenting on it as an observer. People would photostudy because they knew it'd give a pleasing result and were afraid of drawing something weaker.
It was mainly forums like eatpoo that pushed heavily for drawing from life.
Honing your ability to observe and translate to a canvas is important.
It shouldn't be the end goal but it should definitely be something someone knows what to do. It teaches you to measure and compare, make sure you do something right, and how to render convincingly. And if you're thinking while you do it, you can learn all sorts about forms, materials, color, value, etc.
This is just not true. Copying like this teaches you alot. I dont understand why people insist on everything being completely black and white like this, it's true that trying to understand what you're studying will benefit you more than when you just copy, but you still learn alot from replicating something.
nobodys going black and white, and even though replicating CAN teach you something as same as copying it teaches you little in comparison to doing your own life studies, or just adapting the stylization
straight our replicating the work teaches you little, and you have to be already sort of advanced to get the right amount from it
nobodys being black and white, its just this is nearly useless in comparison to reworking, adapting or doing irl studies.