What do you think? Is this really the ultimate training for artists?

>>2696842
not all artist have the same goals, therefore they might need different fundamentals levels and in different order with focus on one or the other

>>2696842
add how to draw manga

>>2696842
You should learn perspective early on, but the first book? I wouldn't recommend that.

>>2696846

why not? it's the most basic of all skills related to drawing, you need to think in 3D as soon as possible

>>2696842
You need Keys to Drawing or god forbid DotRsotB as the first book

>>269684
you don't need the money for these books, you can find them all online.
I would also say a intuos wacom art medium will suffice

>>2696857

>DotRsotB

u wot m8

File: 3yw.jpg (128KB, 1558x221px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1558x221px

This pic is from another chan not /ic/ I saved a while ago. The thing that perplexes me is that there are dozens of teenage girls who can render anime really really good and I can bet your ass the never cracked open a James Gurney book let alone heard of the guy. What they did was they kept drawing and sponging off community tutorial and applying the application to their work instead of lying to themselves they're working on FDFAIW claiming they're doing "studies". If they get stuck I see them on youtube pull up refs and fill in the details they don't know. The result turns out to be far better than anything this board could produce in terms of anime style.

This board is the only place on the internet that claims an unproven regime to get good is the way to get better while elsewhere on the internet we have kids who are dropping left punches and decking the floor because they actually >draw more< and apply what they are doing rather than "study".

---

Now the problem with your image is it
- it moves into figure drawing too soon
-without studying form and moving into hampton you will be fucked because of the overlapping ideas. So Drawabox/dynamic sketching should come before this.
-you'd be lying to yourself that loomis, the meme book, actually is helping you all through the way
-force is for animation so unless you want to do animation it's a fine book but unnecessary for anime illustration in the sense of kawaii desu
-h2 render is good
-color and light is good but everything useful is already on his free blog
-the skillful huntsman? for me I'd just replace it for X artist artbook

----
tl;dr just draw and find resources on what you want to draw and don't take advice from somebody who didn't post work

>>2696863
Did you even read the sticky?

Needs more observational drawing. Scott Robertson's stuff could also suck the life out of a beginner. I mean why move on from basic perspective to advanced straight away?

>>2696877

Isn't Anthony Rider / Force / Loomis observational enough?

>>2696864
tl;dr just draw and find resources on what you want to draw and don't take advice from somebody who didn't post work

Most correct part of your post, now post your work.

>>2696882
I wan't giving advice, I was giving my 2 pennies on the op.

>>2696883
Opinion discarded.

>>2696884
like I care

>>2696864

that's pretty much staying on your comfort zone anon, I wouldn't recommend it, while I don't understand perspective and pretty much suck at backgrounds I force myself to study it because I know it's fundamental, even if I like drawing animu girls with no backgrounds

File: the_basics___using_references_by_shattered_earth-d48cakt.png (3MB, 600x6667px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 600x6667px

>>2696889
But see, what are you studying backgrounds for and how do you exactly do it? Simple set-up of background just consists of plotting the vanishing point and horizon line, reference point etc etc. In the end you are going to do multiple composite shot of your character until you get the one you like. Maybe you take a photo yourself from somewhere and use that to base off from.

Perspective/background for comic books? Just start making comics. Doesn't matter how bad it is, there are Japanese probably worse than you and are published without knowing heavy perspective. You can apply perspective as your draw and learn.

Studying the palette of an artists background? That's not perspective.

You are "studying" things that lead to no merit. Like drawing 10000 poses that amount to nothing rather than making an art piece to show the audience. We're really like actors, or magicians--the audience doesn't know how we get to the end of the act or how many times we had to take time out to get an arm right by studying ref, but they loved our performance and paid us. The audience isn't paying you for your rehearsals, they are paying you for the performance.

>>2696910

>what are you studying backgrounds for and how do you exactly do it?

I study backgrounds to make complete pictures and illustrations, a lot of my favorite artist can make both interesting characters and fascinating backgrounds, while my main motivation are characters I don't want to be one of those artist whose arsenal are nothing but characters

I do basic studies like one or two points perspective, I still can't fully grasp it but I'm on it

>You are "studying" things that lead to no merit. Like drawing 10000 poses that amount to nothing rather than making an art piece to show the audience. We're really like actors, or magicians--the audience doesn't know how we get to the end of the act or how many times we had to take time out to get an arm right by studying ref, but they loved our performance and paid us. The audience isn't paying you for your rehearsals, they are paying you for the performance.

I'm not saying improving by doing things that you like is wrong, but if you know you are lacking in something that you need to reach a certain style or level, you have to go through things like doing 10000 poses, said poses are not your work, but will benefit your work, you're not doing those poses in order to imitate an style, you're doing thoses poses to understand that style, knowing how it works, in other words, you do studies to have a better understanding of things and expand your arsenal. I just want to get to a level where I feel comfortable with my fundamentals

File: 57775215_p0_master1200.jpg (317KB, 500x800px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 500x800px

>>2696930
>in other words, you do studies to have a better understanding of things and expand your arsenal

Sure, and I don't disagree with that. If you suck at hands, study hands--but be applying it to something tangible.

What I'm disagreeing with is /ic/s mentality of an unproven grinding methods like they're playing world of warcraft. You've seen it I'm sure, people claiming to be studying X person for weeks on end and don't make any final art pieces because in the back of their mind they're telling themselves that "yes, this 50 thousandth pose will finally make me be able to draw Y pose one day for Z illustration, pic related". False way of going about it in my opinion, as there will always be challenging poses (see previous image).

The person in OPs image just listed off a bunch of books in an arbitrary order and does not tailor to everyone's learning style. I then mentioned a lot of people elsewhere on the internet haven't heard of half the books in that image and are doing far better than the majority of this board. Take it for what you will but I think studying pasted resources from nobodies should be taken lightly coming from this board.


And then there is the topic of making your art tell a story. No amount of studying will make you a creative person. That is another topic for another day.

>>2696864
This in a nutshell. But it isn't just /ic/ that has this idea. There are way too many art places where people believe the same crap because there is so much uncertainty and lack of knowledge bad ideas win.

Although I like the amount of work OP put into it. It is something to build on and not let to go to waste.

So in detail:
- The whole course assumes you have artists who can already draw at a very high level, so the first 3 books can be axed.
- the other books are second rate
- figure drawing matters zero, except you want some tips to make more money when you draw people for money
- force matters zero
- rendering, uhm, nope, there are better books
- color and light, dunno, i found better tutorials online
- the skillful huntsman is a bad joke

If it was a general course, it would be way too loopsided, too, and miss a lot of basic stuff.

For a beginner it is completely useless, even after you have done the things the sticky advises for, for the reasons >>2696864 talked about.

>tfw i've been wanting to learn how to draw seriously for over a year but i can't because /ic/ won't decide on which book is best to start with

>>2696945
>not just drawing from life and doing value studies regardless of books

File: malfoy.gif (618KB, 245x135px) Image search: [Google]

618KB, 245x135px

>>2696938
point taken

>>2696842
It's Anthony Ryder with a 'y', not Rider with an 'i'.

https://www.amazon.com/Artists-Complete-Guide-Figure-Drawing/dp/0823003035

>>2696979

Thanks! fixed

I find it funny that the figure drawing is pushed so early, when you have no grasp of basic shapes proper, and doing the figure before first doing the head is just poor taste, sans for some quick sketches.

Is this your average western program? Because that would explain a lot.

>>2696938
>>2696910
>>2696864

Finally, someone has said it
This should be in the sticky

File: constanza.gif (1MB, 400x275px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x275px

>>2696938
>"yes, this 50 thousandth pose will finally make me be able to draw Y pose one day for Z illustration..."


i've been on that mindset, doing tons of stuff that you SHOULD do because someone told so in order to be able doing the artwork that i wanted to make

What i realized was that simple start doing, failing miserably and then doing studies, copies, tutorials about what you can't do is a way better approach than simple doing 1000 gestures. Also, keeping a small and concise study schedule doesn't hurt, like doing some online course or doing exercises from a book.

>>2696941
>Rendering, uhm, nope, there are better books
>color and light, dunno, i found better tutorials online
sure, post them.

>>2697297

it's called the internet

here let me spoodfeed you one source: schoolism

File: vlc_2016-09-22_21-41-40.png (603KB, 1123x632px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 1123x632px

I did about 2/3 of Perspective made easy a while ago, I was alright but I think it's pretty bare bones, If you want to learn perspective the right way I recommend Erik Olson introduction to basic perspective 1-10. They are heavy as fuck but unless you do a shitload of studies doing Perspective made easy only is going to make you go back to perspective in the future.

>>2696864
>all tutorials and books tell you to copy shit

This is wrong from the beggining, while it is true that if you do something 1000 times you will get better at it, it's missing the point that the faster, yet harder way to get there it's by understanding it, that's what good books do.

>>2697331

Where in my post does it say tutorial and book copying? If you are referring to the image you are taking things out of context.

>>2696938
Thank you for introducing me to poppuqn. Don't know how I hadn't had discovered him earlier.

Ive actually read and studied 8 of the books, these are a great collection indeed.

But the idea of studying art in a linear way is kinda silly in my opinion, you have to loop trough these books severeal times over the years

>>2696864

This comes into relevance if you want to draw from imagination.

>https://design.tutsplus.com/articles/why-is-it-so-hard-to-draw-from-imagination-heres-how-to-do-it--cms-22967

>>2697402
???

>>2697402
this is very helpful. wow I've literally spent the last year copying shit...

>>2697631
Copying is still useful. Do not worry.

>>2696864
>Just want to get better at drawing

Fuck off negro-testi-ball bouncy dude!

>>2697402
How is this not in the sticky? Holy shit. This is what everyone wants to know all in one place.

>>2696938
>No amount of studying will make you creative

That's where you're wrong though.
The studying of composition will give you a firm basis that will make you appear to be creative. You just won't be naturally creative/imaginative, but you can learn it like anything else.

>>2697689
>The studying of composition will give you a firm basis that will make you appear to be creative.
Explain

>>2697692
Your work will pale in comparison to an intuitive persons, but you can still create interesting compositions by studying master works, "rules", and the fundamentals.

File: 51Pzrts9tkL.jpg (34KB, 368x500px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 368x500px

Has anyone the Anthony Ruder book?

File: 1471219412052.jpg (71KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x750px

>>2697689

>The studying of composition will give you a firm basis that will make you appear to be creative.
Composition is mostly instinctual. A book can only tell you so much.
>You just won't be naturally creative/imaginative, but you can learn it like anything else
You don't "learn" to have imagination. If you are a boring person in real life with issues that will reflect in your work. For example, you avoid capturing funny expressions or character interacting. The worst of artists on the web still manage to use their creativity and expression because they have something to tell to their viewers unlike the person studying the old masters because /ic/ said so.

>>2697711
What a book can tell you is enough to make passable composition even if your instincts are very poor. If you want to get composition that is beyond passable, simply look at what the old masters do. A lot of their work is deceptively complicated when it actually just leads the eye via gestural lines. If you look at what they do, you can do it to your own work whether you're creative or not. People that glance at it will consider you creative, but they won't know any better.

There's a way around everything.

>>2697711
I've seen people with severe depression who live horribly boring lives create extremely interesting and beautiful artwork, so that's BS.

>>2697712
>There's a way around everything.

like the points I made
>>2697717
good for you

>>2696852
I actually agree with you on this. Thinking back to like, middleschool art classes where all they teach you is a vague attempt at fundamentals, then a pottery piece or some "step by step you can't fuck it up too much" project.

But damn come perspective time a few kids who weren't artistic could grasp it because it's just drawing fucking lines.

Now applying perspective to a regular drawing (such as drawing an arm coming towards the viewer) would probably be a little advanced to start on right away bt boxes and other simple shapes, then applying them to like, different views of a vase, or some shit? That's perfect for beginners.

>>2697708

It's fucking fantastic, teaches you to draw from life the academic way and understand how light and shading works, plus the way the guy talks is super inspiring

>>2696842
is /ic/ the ultimate place to train as an artist?

>>2697752
it literally is.
because it's the last place you want to train as an artist.

>>2697232
NIGGER THE STICKY IS OPEN SOURCE WRITE IT IN.

>>2697752
It's where the people with no other choice come.

>>2697752
Yes and no.

/ic/ can be great in that people are brutal and objective. Got to lose the ego and focus on drawing and that's probably down anonimity.

Of course you also get shitposting and shit slinging but if you can pick the good advice from the bad you will go far.

>>2697402
>>2697685
>How is this not in the sticky? Holy shit. This is what everyone wants to know all in one place.
I dunno, it's really good.

>>2697751
not sure if new Riven Pheonix

>>2697402
MODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDS

THIS. IN STICKY.

NOW

>>2697870
I can't believe such vital information is a mystery. It's in almost every single page of draw-a-box, but it's never clear cut and dry.

I can't believe you're even posting "STICKY, NOW!"

Why bother posting art-books if the average anon on here isn't even breaking forms apart.

It's insane. It's asinine. It's a shining example of everything wrong with this art forum for a new artist.

What a disconcerting state of affairs.

I agree; this needs to be in the sticky and so does draw-a-box (as an easy, legal, and free alternative to Peter Han's art courses.)

I'm upset I don't have the power invested in me to do so. This board is in desperate need of an update. I see so many new artists in the beginner thread that aren't even thinking in terms of form. They conceal it with thoughtless shading. I can't sit there and catch all of them, but hopefully a warning/updated link at the top of the image board will.

>>2698368
save us

File: Fig_1_Sir_Joshua_Reynolds_The_Age_of_Innocence._Painted_circa_1788._Frame_contemporary_with_picture._From_Houghton,_2005,_24..jpg (137KB, 642x735px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 642x735px

>>2698368
>everything wrong with this art forum for a new artist.
hah, you got me, anon.

>>2698368
The "one stop beginner's guide" is probably the biggest offender. It needs to be re-organized. Art books practically take predominance over fundamentals.

How can it truly be labeled a "beginners guide" when you can easily get burned by the disorganization of it all? A lot of people see draw-a-box as a "bad" source, yet it's a wonderful, easily-accessible fundamental course for someone new to drawing.

Is how to render really good? It's expensive as fuck where I live, but I need rendering resources.

>>2698407
It is good, but check the artbook thread if you want it for free

>>2698373

Any other stuff to begin with? I went with the sticky but some books really do seem to be too difficult to understand or feel like I should learn something before that

>>2696842
I'm pretty sure the original copypasta is:

>1: Read Perspective Made Easy and do all the exercises.
>2: Read How to Draw by Scott Robertson and do all the exercises and watch the videos.
>3: Read Figure Drawing by Andrew Loomis and/or Michael Hampton and do all the exercises.
>4: Read Drawing the Head and Hands by Loomis and do all the exercises.
>5: Read Force by Michael Mattesi.
>6: Read How to Render by Scott Robertson and do all the exercises.
>7: Read Color and Light by James Gurney and do all the exercises.

>There you go, with 4 hours of focused practice a day (don't check your smartphone every 30 seconds) this training will last a whole year or a bit more. Also you need money to buy the books and a cintiq or intuos pro and ellipse templates etc.

>After you complete that just do what you want for a while, explore styles, what you like to paint and such. THEN make a list of the things you are not good at and you want to learn and get to it.

I question the validity of adding Framed Ink before learning figure drawing, and also adding 2 more figure drawing books. The 4 books you added aren't bad, but they're not necessary and a little redundant. If you felt like adding something, an introduction to digital painting like Ctrl+Paint would be more useful to most people. It's still a nice book collection, OP.

>>2697402
>>2696864
I always figured the whole imagination thing was a figure of speech. I didn't realize people could actually picture things in their head. Feels kind of bad not being able to do that, or even understand how someone could. What do you do when you are unable to visualize anything?

>>2697329
Vandruff gives everything Olson does, but in much shorter manner

>>2698799
if you can e.g. call up an image of the face of your parents in your mind, you have imagination.

Artists put together different such images in their mind and try to manipulate them. A lot of beginners do it unconsciously, and think they are creative, but in reality they just remember what they have seen and their minds put some sparkly filters on it because they liked that.

And because you look at memories of things you have seen you need to train things like drawing from life or sight-size to be better at analysing these images. And unlike what you see in reality, these images are a mess and inconsistent, so you need to think a lot more to make sure what you got is actually drawable or how you want to draw it.

>>2699024
>if you can e.g. call up an image of the face of your parents in your mind, you have imagination
That's the thing, though. I can't. Never have been able to, really. Sights, sounds, pictures, shapes, what have you. Picturing them in my head just isn't something I can do. That's why I thought it was just an expression for so long. Since I couldn't do it, why could someone else? Yet, what surprises me the most, is that I draw from memory well enough. I'm not sure what to think about that one. Maybe since that's how I look at anything I come across. I detail it verbally and explain how it looks, what defining details it has, and how it's put together. Instead of seeing somebodies face, I recall my own thoughts on what their face looked like. Receding hair line, a particular hair style, eyes such a distance away from each other, x eye color, any unique features, and so on. It can make it awkward when I'm unable to recognize someone after a few years initially, but I've learned to play it off. Shit, though. That's weird. I thought everyone did it like that.

>>2699129
No, everyone is the same. Artistic talent doesn't exist. Everyone can visualize

>>2697683
I'm interested classical academic art. I don't really care about drawing mecha and shit. I don't want to be a concept artist/ charachter designer/ cartoonist or whatever. I want to do oil paintings in the academic tradition, and experiment with expression by showing my personal vision of what I find beautiful in the real world.. so there are a few books there that may help me but not many....

>>2697708
if you go to the artbook thread right now it is there

>>2699129
You can still use all the features and facts to construct an image the same way. Mental images are very unreliable anyway and just end up as child tier shit without construction or decades of practice.

>>2699162
Not sure if ignorant or just trolling. Its called aphantasia

>>2699435
>Not sure if ignorant or just trolling. Its called aphantasia

Not him and I'm not going to say it doesn't exist, but don't put too much confidence in a condition people came up with last year, based almost entirely on compiling subjective experiences of individuals who have literally no other frame of reference. I'd recommend you wait and see further studies come out rather than calling people retarded over it.

>>2699474
I would put more confidence in it then "everyone is the same". Didn't call him retarded just ignorant, as in he is very uneducated on the subject.

>>2699474
>aphantasia
This. Aphantasia is a meme.

With the "Right side of the brain" method you can copy any photo without knowing perspective, lighting, anatomy, etc.
The method takes less than a week to understand.

If people could really visualize vivid realistic images they could just use the method to copy them to paper and skip all learning.

We imagine in impressions, not objectively correct images. This becomes more clear the more you draw. Imagination can be flawed but you don't see it until it becomes a drawing.

>>2699811
>This becomes more clear the more you draw.
Does it really? That's cool as fuck then.

>>2696842
there are no exercises in framed ink

try reading the books before making your next infographic

>>2699409
juliette aristides has some that you may be interested in

File: 63.jpg (132KB, 593x698px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 593x698px

>>2696842
>Ultimate Training for artists

So what would be the main goal of this?
Im a bit of a beginner but I know how important technique and fundamentals are; they shouldnt be ignored. On the other hand, how do you cultivate "artistry"?
A lot of the art I love doesn't seem to require a DEEP knowledge of the human figure, anatomy or even perspective; its more about the overall composition.

A comparison I can make that relates to music is that theres great musicians who study all their scales, learn music theory and get extremely proficient. Then theres people who fuck around in ableton, learn three chords and start making music; and some of them end up making the most amazing music.

I know a lot of well regarded abstract painters were also really studied in the fundamentals, and were excellent draughtsmen.
But I also know of painters like Basquiat, and Matisse, Chagall, etc who seemed to focus on other things....even though im sure in a lot of cases their art was amazing because they also understood fundamentals.

So anyways, if your goal is to make more expressionist, symbolist, or abstract art, should i still take this hardcore linear approach? Or should i just try to paint as much as I can, and sprinkle in some fundementals?

>>2696842
I like to think of theory as increasing your potential.
So a good portion of training would just be making pieces that apply the fuck out of everything.

>>2702472
Wait, I think you're on to something. Tell me more.

>>2702473
Alright. I'm a little old fashioned, so I mentally compare crafts theory to learning form in weightlifting.

Without proper form, your progress and potential is fairly limited - if somewhat doable, with commitment. But even with proper form, you still have to push yourself. To continue this analogy, instead of adding weight and reps, you'd be doing more ambitious pieces that incorporate everything.

You can put your nose to the grindstone as much as you want, but without ambition your progress is going to be stunted. A bad example, but everyone knows of cartoonists who plateaued aeons ago despite drawing every day. Course they lacked both theory and execution, but you know.

I might be talking out my ass, but it's a mindset to training that's worked for me. Might not work with the clinical curriculum people are looking for, but I've always been more a fan of the apprenticeship system.

>>2702421
She's one of my FAV's I would love to study at her atilier

>>2702456
its for commercial artists. you can't directly train the stuff you're mentioning so your best bet is still to study the fundamentals.

that way when you make art you're CHOSING to not incorporate perspective/anatomy/etc. instead of being forced to because you don't have a clue how to replicate life accurately

>>2696910
This is called building a visual library

>>2702800
what?

>>2702803
The picture on using references. You're building a library in your head.