Master Copy WIP

File: IMG_9645.jpg (1016KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1016KB, 3264x2448px

(1/4)

File: IMG_9955.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

(2/4)

File: IMG_0250.jpg (880KB, 1710x2674px) Image search: [Google]

880KB, 1710x2674px

(3/4)

I think it looks pretty good. Do you just do long-term studies or do you have shorter-term projects that you work on?

I expect you'll get lots of assholes on this board who are going to tell you "any idot can copy a drawing over 3 months", personally I respect what you achieved but I'm still curious whether you have other artistic pursuits. The skillset required for a long term project like that is quite different from the one required to do shorter-term projects.

File: 1477030721991.jpg (72KB, 871x621px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 871x621px

>3264x2448
>sideways

>3 months

Are you sight-sizing?

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-23 at 16.50.31.png (351KB, 586x424px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 586x424px

>>2722179
Op this is good

the only very slight thing I can see is here.
Add more emphasis here to push the leg into the hips / show how it's moving out
I see you've already have it in maybe the camera doesn't pick it up.

Whats the point of this?

File: Pleinaircarbon.jpg (60KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 960x960px

>>2722188
>>2722423
Thank you, I'm doing this for the sole purpose of improving my technical abilities as well as my observation skills. Since I've done a few bargue copys, i have noticed a huge improvement in my regular work.
>>2722394
Yeah
>>2722189
>PostingWithAnIphone.jpg
>>2722403
Thanks I'll try to push the form a bit more there.

you didn't do a very good job. you got the measurements but none of the texture or expressiveness of the original. don't take bargue plate drawing and apply it to master copies. adapt to what it is you are drawing. that smoothed out texture might work for bargue plates cause they are pretty textureless (but not completely like you seem to think they are from your studies) but you need to imitate master copies down to the grain on the paper as best as you can with your materials. and you didnt even try to do that.

You remind me of this teacher i know at an atelier I use for open studios. He teaches basically what you are doing. He makes you recreate the mona lisa sight-size down the cracks in the paint. Like. Why. Drawing is and always has been a means of expressing ideas, mostly those which will eventually take a more developed form in a different medium. You are punishing yourself and beating the creativity out of drawing because of some contorted need for people to see you as "talented". Well, they really dont care. You're spending 3 months doing something that besides me and your instructors/fellow students, will not be viewed by anyone for more than a moment. Why dont you use your time doing something functional?

>>2722179
Really nice work.
It doesn't look like you use pencils. Are you using graphite powder?

>>2722490

Modernist art shill detected. Exercises like these aren't about creativity just like practicing scales on the piano aren't. Do you think music schools teach their students to just be creative all day? Fuck no.

>>2722179

I think a contributing reason you're not getting a lot of texture is that the original likely was produced at a smaller size. The charcoal on the original is more porous and was obviously applied faster with more confidence and economy. I think you've reach a point with diminishing returns for slow, steady and smooth Bargue style studies. I think it would suit you well to try to render in a more bold fashion. Try to be more direct and economic in your mark making.

>>2722490

>you're creative and special sweetums just nourish that ;)

People call them EXERCISES for a reason, it's training, it's practice. It's not creative expression and letting out your deep tormented soul on the canvas.

>>2722518
why cant it be both?

I'm really as curious as to why you'd work on such a simple "study" for 3 months. What are you studying, exactly?

>>2722537
My guess:
-hand-eye coordination
-proportions
-using a particular medium
-form, light & shade
-what the artist did to achieve a certain effect
-anatomy
-how to finish

Three months does seem like an unusually long time for a single copy, though.

>>2722537
>>2722542

Yeah, but I doubt he worked on it full time for three months. The number of hours is more interesting.

>>2722544
i feel like it's probably waaaaay more hours than it should've taken. this things overworked to hell for such an underwhelming piece of cuck

File: 1447449600450.gif (2MB, 412x229px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 412x229px

>>2722179
>3 months

>>2722179
Just had to post cause retards are shitting up the thread. You clearly know how to take your time with a piece, it looks amazing.

>>2722179
Ok, is it me or is his left biceps and triceps too thin?
Im quite a bit more muscular myself, but im close enough in definition to say there is a huuuge difference in my arm in the same pose
My arm would almost be the width of my head, his seems tiny as hell especially compared to that really well defined biceps on his right hand

>>2722504
I dont mean "creativity" I mean the part drawings play in actually creating things. Drawing's proper and most effective place is as a sandbox for ideas which will eventually become something MORE than a drawing. Technology, architecture, film scenes, character/concept design; these are things which make great use of drawing as a developmental tool. Drawings alone have very little merit in a world of more advanced media platforms. Spending three months on a drawing using a soulless copying technique is a lot like trying to build a full sized house out of popsicle sticks.

What did you learn from this?

>>2722550
>>2722651
Envious dorks.

I'm envious too, I'm nowhere near this level of technical prowess. Makes me do a cry.

Great job on the piece! The use of light and shadow is amazing and you have great understanding of your media. Dumb people on this board don't understand that some exercises are helpful in certain ways. Tell all the other master artist like Michelangelo or Rembrandt that spending months on a study is worthless.

>>2723614
>Tell all the other master artist like Michelangelo or Rembrandt that spending months on a study is worthless.
except they could've drawn this better in 30 minutes

>>2722504
>The charcoal on the original is more porous
I'm pretty sure the original was a painting. Also, it's pretty clear that this was mostly an anatomy study, not a technique study, so texture would not be relevant. ie: You're full of bullshit

>>2723629
>except they could've drawn this better in 30 minutes

You honestly think they could just pop out this level of detail and finish in 30 minutes?

>>2723648
yes? there's not much detail and finish it's just overworked. they could accomplish it in an economy of line and texture in 30 minutes.

/ic/ really thinks you can accomplish what the masters did overnight? stop being so coddled by your parents telling you you can do anything. you aren't even close.

>>2722179
>last 3 months.

I admire your patience. Been a long time since my old italian ass has seen a patient artist on the internet. you're bound to do great things if you can keep up the great work. I'm getting excited just thinking of all the good that comes from a campaign such as this one.

That being said, don't be afraid to exaggerate the edges a bit more than what is seen. It's going be scary when you've spent 6 months on a piece, and you're delivering the final passes, but if the goal is truly education, then the piece will only ever be finished when it's ruined. These things take time, but if you stay timid for too long, you'll only end up with a sfumato copy. When it's all said and done, you'll know when to stop.

My only advice for you, is to not make the rookie mistake of copying the texture of the various mediums involved in the original. There's nothing wrong with this, but there's not much to gain from meticulously copying the paper texture for example. The texture can be deliberately recreated in charcoal or graphite, but it always pales in comparison to the spontaneity that comes with the original medium. The next time you work on something similar for extended amount of time, be sure to invest in mediums that are as close to the ones used in the original as possible. You find that a lot of details are merely suggested with masterful strokes, as opposed to being rendered into existence.

>>2723659
>Been a long time since my old italian ass has seen a patient artist on the internet
Where have you been looking? There's loads of artists who spend months on images.

>>2723657
I completely disagree. Sure, they could put out an anatomically correct, beautifully shaded drawing in a short amount of time, but there's no way anyone could get this level of finish in 30 minutes. And I know I'm probably going to get shit on for this, but I've not even seen a drawing by Michelangelo that was even close to this level of realism or finish, mainly because his drawings were studies for later paintings.

I really think you're completely missing the point of trying to replicate something like this.

>/ic/ really thinks you can accomplish what the masters did overnight? stop being so coddled by your parents telling you you can do anything. you aren't even close.

What are you even attempting to address with this bit?

>>2723664
>Where have you been looking? There's loads of artists who spend months on images.

Not the original person you're asking, but you certainly won't find that kind of thing here. I don't think I could find a single image on /ic right now that even attempts to focus on finish or a complete rendering aside from OP.

Everyone seems to only want to do throw out quick gesture or color studies.

>>2723702
>I really think you're completely missing the point of trying to replicate something like this
I'm not that other guy you're responding to, but I'll counter it and say OP is missing the point. The way he's doing 3 months on a sight size master copy with no understanding of things and just mindlessly copying shapes and overrendering things show this. This exercise is a waste of time and not how the masters would draw at all. Even the best modern "masters" of doing these sight size things pale in comparison to the 19thC masters.

>>2723703
>but you certainly won't find that kind of thing here
I never said you would find it here. There are a million ateliers and people doing this type of work though and a lot of it gets posted online.

>Everyone seems to only want to do throw out quick gesture or color studies
Because you can learn more doing lots of those things than spending 3 months on a single drawing. Also because most people here want to get into illustration or the entertainment industry, in which both the pay and the deadlines are such that you need to work really quickly and you need a more thorough understanding of things than copying a reference, so that mileage is very important.

>>2723712
I didn't mean to come across like I was putting down gesture or color studies, because they definitely have their uses.

I was just trying to say here is not the place to look for time intensive, fleshed out, finished pieces.

>>2723712
>The way he's doing 3 months on a sight size master copy with no understanding of things

What? No understanding? Do you really think you can throw out those kinds of subtle shadows and transitions with no understanding of what you're doing? The technical skill to create that type of texture and shade, as well as the observational skills to assemble it all isn't just some accident.

Hell, even just wanting to replicate that level of finish (a look I am very found of for pencil or other dry media) requires studies exactly like this. You don't just do quick studies, then magically pull that type of rendering out of your ass. You have to actually practice doing it if it's the look you want.

>>2723742
>Do you really think you can throw out those kinds of subtle shadows and transitions with no understanding of what you're doing
give someone three months they can draw anything. good luck making a living selling 4 drawings a year. i sold a painting for $600 that took me 5 hours. learn to work fast you can't make a living making "masterpieces"

>>2723742
>Do you really think you can throw out those kinds of subtle shadows and transitions with no understanding of what you're doing?
Well he knows how to copy 2d shapes, and he has patience. There's not really any understanding of the forms he's drawing though, and no analyzation of the choices made by the original artist either which is what I am talking about. He's too concerned with a smooth finish and showing off, when he's making errors in the structure of things, and not capturing a lot of the actual subtleties of form and edge and shape in the original.

>19th century masters
>michelangelo etc.

This infuriates me. It is the TWENTY FIRST century, and you can bet your ass that if michelangelo had been born in the 1990s he wouldnt be doing bargue studies for 3 months at a time. He would be leading a team at pixar or bethesda or an ad agency.

OP you clearly have a generous amount of focus, patience, and passion. I recommend you redirect towards something that actually matters because the path youre on now leads to a community college in scottsdale where you will have the privilege of teaching burnouts and seventy-somethings about how to use a zorn palette.

>>2723754
If anyone could reach this level of technical skill in three months, beginner threads on /ic would not exist. You have proof right on this board, go into any reference thread and watch the shit that comes out of it.

Or better yet, sit down and draw something of this level of finish and accuracy. Not that "oh, you guys get the gist, it's easy to see the direction I was going" shit, but actually try it. Or just post one of your perfect, $600 five hour paintings if you've done it already.

>>2723761
Why do you think it's impossible to have a smooth finish as well as an understanding of structure?

It's clear the drawing is anatomically accurate. What about it makes you think OP doesn't understand what he drew?

File: september-22-2016-3.jpg (835KB, 1000x731px) Image search: [Google]

835KB, 1000x731px

>>2723790
$600. 5 hours. And i know it's perfect because I took /ic/'s crits until they didn't have any more. So your words (or lack thereof) not mine.

theres plenty of great crits in this thread, hopefully OP takes some of them to heart. there's little merit to this drawing as is, so hopefully the next one is better and takes less time. 3 months is too long for this piece.

>>2723798
Do.. Do you not understand that this is a completely stylized piece that obviously has completely different goals than OP's drawing?

Shit, Chauncy? Is that you?

>>2723803
all art has the same goals you retard. to be good.

>>2723792
>Why do you think it's impossible to have a smooth finish as well as an understanding of structure?
I never said that. Lots of artists have smooth finishes with lots of understanding. The French academics like Gerome and Bouguereau are good examples.

>It's clear the drawing is anatomically accurate. What about it makes you think OP doesn't understand what he drew?
The process for one is a dead giveaway, but mostly it's just he has accidentally made numerous small errors that betray his lack of understanding. Just small subtle things in how he control certain edges and shapes. It's really obvious in the hair where the original looks and feels like hair, but his is a flat weird shape with some random nondescriptive highlights that don't help. The structure of the head in the original is solid too but in his its a little wonky and he's showing some of the forms incorrectly. Or if you want more anatomical things look at how the original shows the structure of the collarbone and the way the arm and shoulder feel tense, you can see it in how the pectoral is being pulled and how the deltoid wraps over the tubercle of the humerus, or how the veins feel like they are popping out of the arm and have this wavering veiny quality to them. You can literally go through every section in the image and find little things like this where he doesn't have the planes changing properly and isn't showing the form well. His just loses all of this information into a mushy blended mess of the approximate values.

>>2723798

Thumbnail reads really good, that's why I know this is a good painting.

>>2723805
"Good" is entirely subjective and not every painting has the same goals of even being "good". Many are done for self fulfillment, or to make a statement or as a record of an event or time or for one of plenty of other possible reasons.

>>2723809
There's more to art than thumbnails.

>>2723805
Fuck. It is you.

>>2723811
I'd recommend not going down the rabbit hole this dude calls conversation. He's never able to stay on topic, but always has a lot of shit to say.

Both of you will invariably leave the conversation having gained nothing.

>>2723798
hahaha
fucking brian
almost fell for it

>>2723842
Lol, still you.

>>2723798
>600 dollarydoos for DUDE STROKES LMAO xD

Gag. congrats on your future in thrift store art

>>2723875
you guys get so rustled so easily

>>2722179
destroy your copy and start again, this time finish it in one sitting.

>>2723890
But that invalidates nothing.

File: briansmasterpeice.jpg (504KB, 1000x745px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 1000x745px

>>2723890
Well, when someone this shit claims to be the world's next greatest artist, it does tend to annoy people

>>2724696
thats a good painting tho

>>2724697
we know you think so, brian.