Drawing without skeleton

Short answer: yes

You'll waste more time trying to fix errors if you try to do it this way, especially without a clear reference/sketch. Talking from experience (yet I make this mistake a lot). Make the sketch, then once you're set, add details.

You'll have to graduate from skeletons eventually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymp3748rXEE

>>2914621
what a recipe for inconsistency

>>2914621
>conscious/unconscious competence
>you have to/don't have to think about what you are doing
That's not what that is at all, it's literally just the inversion of the first 2 stages, ffs. Ultra-skilled people are not aware how much they know and how difficult it is for normal people to understand what they are doing.

>>2914603
oh look at that, its our resident proko/expert of the arts

File: 1450469352202.jpg (118KB, 500x473px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 500x473px

Can we please stop talking about skeletons?

>>2914658
Huh?

>>2914596
>Is that a bad habit?
Not inherently.

If you can do works that look good without doing undersketches/construction then good for you.

Sometimes it's good to just go "straight ahead" to loosen up and just doodle.

>>2914596
Id say he's capable of doing that because he's drawing is so fucking small that it doesn't even matter.
Try pulling that off on a full page spread and see how It works out for you

>>2914621
This is what I'm gonna do: get good at construction, draw until stuff like perspective becomes more intuitive to me (already is, in fact, I find myself applying perspective a lot more now when drawing freestyle after practicing a shit ton of boxes/linear perspective), rely less on construction after getting good. Of course, construction will be necessary for more unfamiliar subjects. e.g: if I decide to start drawing dragons, I'll have to start off by relying heavily on construction and reference to make good looking dragons. Once I draw a dozen or so, it'll be easier for me to draw them more comfortably. This is pretty much how normie tier artists "get good" anyway, draw the same subject over and over again (anime girls, eagles, whatever) and eventually build up enough intuition to draw it more quickly, effectively, spontaneously.

The level of construction and perspective used by guys like Scott Robertson just feels too rigid to me, but there's no denying that it leads to nice, realistic looking stuff.

>>2914628
You sacrifice consistency for spontaneity and creativity. I'd rather have the latter.

For beginners, do the mannekin / construction. The people who don't do it usually have the mileage to do it intuitively. When you're starting out your feature placement and proportions are going to be fucking garbage anyway, so even if your stuff looks a little more stiff it's worth it to really make sure you get it.

>>2915593
this.
Construction is like a pair of training wheels.
Eventually, you'll become a big-kid-artist and you won't need to draw your construction lines.

File: kim jung gi2.jpg (18KB, 221x269px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 221x269px

>>2914603
agreed,it is sort of not recommendable.
>unless you have been drawing for 40+ years and can see invisible construction lines.

not that a lot (if no all) of these weeb DA faggots don't even do full illustrations.it's just some autistic character against a flat bg.In said case it would actually be stupid to do construction lines.

TLDR: If you are a beginner do(simple) construction lines

>>2914596
you don't always have to draw the construction
experienced artist can carve out shapes, even if they only use outlines, but they always think of the form

>>2914596

I tell you a secret no one tells you about, ESPECIALLY here on /ic/:

Construction drawing, and especially Loomis results in stiff figures and lack of organic shapes, especially among the middle-tier artists.

You should use construction to better your understanding, but it's for you. If you will use non stop techniques without understanding and be a braindead sissy retard that doesn't figure things for himself/herself, you can quite easily be stuck even with best books and resources the same way beginning artists from deviantart tend to be stuck on just copying from shit art.

I'll give you better examples than the artist in OP: sinix. He doesn't construct his figures or faces when he invents them and if you go by what he showed in his old sketchbooks, he basically copied a lot, did a lot of different faces and expressions and then tweaked them by himself and tried to invent based on those.

In that way his shapes are good and poses aren't stiff as hell. But it requires milleage (not even much, he isn't type "you MUST do 8-12h drawing every day) and being analytic. Very analytic and observant about your work.

>>2914596

Your arms won't be able to hold the pen if you draw without your skeleton.

>>2915716
you are jumping to conclusions. OP didn't specify what skeleton had been used for drawing.

>>2914621
lel you know that Sinix is actually trying to fix this bad style of his right?

His biggest problem right now is that his work lacks consistency and is full of anatomical and proportional issues. He says he's trying to fix this by studying more anatomy and proportions. Basically, what he's saying is that he's studying construction again.

This anti-constructionist thing is actually his major art block right now and he doesn't even realize it because he turned a bad habit into a style. Now he's doubling back to fix it.

>>2915620
>>2916081
Which is it?

>>2916087
The best artists draw with construction.

They have just gotten to a point where they can internalize it and no longer make it an obvious process in their work.

When a beginner sees this, they mistake it as the artist bypassing the use of guidelines.

This is what happened to Sinix. He saw the loose style from artists like Kim Jung Gi and assumed that they probably don't use guidelines. But of course they do, that's what keeps their work looking good and consistent.

Kim Jung Gi himself actually has videos on youtube teaching construction. So why do we assume artists like him don't use it?

Sinix uses construction. He might not admit it but he's just internalized it. Although now he's making a claim that you don't need it because he wants to make his style popular. What he doesn't tell you is how dependent he is on it even now.

You don't leave construction or level past it. You just become better at it. You can get to the point where construction is so easy for you that you can start bending the rules a bit. That's how you go from stiff poses to more loose, energetic, and organic poses.

>>2916081

Nice try, Proko.

As it says in the video, construction lines are for beginners. You'll never get about a mid-tier artist if you always use them. Sinix isn't trying to fix that (maybe i'm wrong, but i've never once seen him use construction guidelines). He keeps affirming that he loves that energetic inaccurate stuff over stiff accuracy anyday.

If you look at his life drawing stuff, he seems pretty capable of nailing proportions and realistic anatomy. Then again, studying anatomy and proportions doesn't actually imply that you are using construction lines or not. I tthink you missed seeing the distinction there.

Sinix's main art block is his love for ugly bug-eyed girls and shit like that. He spent too much time with Sycra and is obsessed with refining an ugly style.

>>2914596

If you're a beginner doing such a thing is pretty reckless.

Honestly I would say the best way to handle something like this is with sketches. Do sketches/sketch pages without using much construction (I do this a lot when out, studying, or just taking an in general break) in some sketch book, and kinda grab a feel for sticking to your proportion perspective and such without referencing your own material, or construction methods.

That being said, if I do a full blown posted illustration, like something for a commission or job, or if I'm looking to attempt stuff I'm not used to constructing is definitely suggested. I generally start with a super loose sketch for my base in all cases, but I still continue with something more solid and placed in perspective with eye measured form, wrapping lines etc.

Also the reason you may not see some professionals use construction on a piece usually comes down to visual memory of the subject and purely thought process. They have a lot of knowledge in mind. It's the difference between being a new programmer and looking up functions every couple of lines of codes, and being an expert and just typing stuff out. You need the mileage to really get to that point reliably, that's it.

>>2915562
>You sacrifice consistency for spontaneity and creativity. I'd rather have the latter.

Until you need to draw the same thing more than once right? Which is not rare, especially if you ever want a job doing art. If you're doing concept art for a something, there will be a characters or objects that need to stay consistent, you might need to draw the same thing from different angles. If you're doing comicbooks, superman can't look different on every panel. If you're doing fucking animation, characters can't look different on every frame.

Also you seem to presume that you can't have both creativity and consistency which is just wrong.

>>2916081
>Sinix is actually trying to fix this bad style of his
source?

>>2915562
>You sacrifice consistency for spontaneity and creativity. I'd rather have the latter.

There are 13 year olds on youtube right the fuck now who are more creative and have better art than sinix and draw using construction/copying refs and they don't have
1. an annoying pretentious voice
2. use meme software like corel
3. play teacher

>>2916480
Source

>>2916481
no

call me names if you want now

>>2916482
Mr. Names, can you link the 13 year old artist's youtube channel, please?

>>2916487

no

>>2916471
He talks about it in his last sketchbook

File: ___48_by_sinix-d4n78l9.jpg (89KB, 1180x677px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1180x677px

>>2914621

>this is what your work looks like when you graduate from skeletons

>>2916692
Amazing.

File: 1438455641803.jpg (30KB, 291x320px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 291x320px

>>2916692
hehehe

File: Joost.png (1MB, 736x920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 736x920px

I'd say discarding the skeleton is a good vehicle to create raw likenesses or quickly map enrichment shapes
Here's the last piece of work I drew without a skeleton. It's not good; but the point is that it's a doodle that can be noodled into something more convincing, just like everything else

>>2916792
lol

>>2916336
I think anon was speaking from a design perspective. Sometimes just getting down something can be helpful, even if it's not filled with accurate construction.
Once you have something down it's easier to break it down into shapes that can be easily recreated via the fundamentals. Not everything has to be constructed so formulaically, but you can always go back and add construction later.

>>2916802
:( I'm trying I swear down

Alright, you guys have thrown my name around enough to summon me.

I'll stick by what I said in the video. Construction methods are great for speeding up the learning process, but your end goal is always to abandon them.

You can say that they've simply been internalized, which is somewhat true. The important thing is that you start to value energetic and appealing lines more than pure accuracy.

The basic path works like this: learn proportions -> learn anatomy -> learn appeal

Halfway through learning anatomy, you should be learning the type of anatomical subtlety that strays away from construction. Aesthetics and appeal are where you've internalized things enough to allow some wiggle room and focus on the interactions between shapes and lines.

I don't know why you treat this as some edgy concept. Every professional I know abandons construction to some degree. Maybe that's why your high school art teacher never made it, because they never learned that appeal was way more important than realism.

Anyway, I'm a lazy fucker with plenty of lousy art in my back collection, but I've looked at more art than anyone I know and I've met more artists than anyone I know. If there is one thing I'm confident on, it's art theory and how to get good... (which I personally don't work hard enough at).

>>2916946
S-sinix?

File: proko.jpg (103KB, 900x835px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 900x835px

Alright, since Sinx came to battle I need to defend myself

I will never stop believing that construction is necessary, they are your base you simply can't master the advanced techniques without a solid grasp at the basic fundamentals

Some may say that some veteran artists abandon the construction for smooth and more natural lines, but thats not entirely true they still use the construction, making the lines smooth is not a hard task for them

The right path looks like this: Learn Construction > Learn Anatomy > Get so good at Construction it just becomes a second nature to you internalize it and apply it however you want

Halfway through learning construction you should be learning how to sketch properly, to make your lines smooth and lively, how to apply pressure when necessary to create the perfect silhouette, never going to solid shapes because live is organic and full of curves

I don't know why you treat this as some ''amateur'' concept, Every professional I know still uses construction to some degree, maybe thats why every tutorial done by every decent artist they always explain the important to the guidelines which are construction skeleton, while artists without bases are just freelancing cunts who never worked on any solid project in their lives simply because their art lacks consistency

I am a very determined and active man with a lot of good artwork in front of me at my desk, but I have looked at more art than anyone in this board and I have met more artists than anyone in this board, If there is one thing I'm confident on, its art practice and how to get really good ( which personally is something you need to work hard at )

>>2916972

I don't mind responding again. I don't know why you call it defending yourself either. You're probably 90% on the same page as me.

You're making a distinction between internalizing guidelines and not using them. You're going to tread into some philosophical debate of what level of consciousness falls into the category of "using" something and what doesn't.

Guidelines are by definition an amateur concept. That's not a bad thing. "Amateur" things just mean the common building blocks that people start with. Tutorials always mention them because they're designed for the widest range of skill levels.

Even Kim Jung Gi will often go into talking about boxes, not because he uses them, because that's the best way to explain things to a beginner. If you interpret that to mean he still "uses" them, I feel like that's a big misunderstanding.

Anyway, the more words I write, the more redundant this conversation feels.

Bottom line for me. You can learn to draw a head by starting with a circle every time, but you're never going to reach your potential until you outgrow that ugly constraint. Steve Huston even touches on this in his Proko interview.

Could just be a matter of taste, personally, I'm really into artists like Tan Zhi Hui, that represent the antithesis of strict constructionism: https://www.artstation.com/artist/kudaman

>>2916972
>I am a very determined and active man with a lot of good artwork in front of me at my desk, but I have looked at more art than anyone in this board and I have met more artists than anyone in this board, If there is one thing I'm confident on, its art practice and how to get really good ( which personally is something you need to work hard at )
>Those heads
Of course you love construction, you're still learning how to draw and visualize these things.
Once you understand the structure of a head decently, you won't need to draw out all the lines. In fact, they might even bring down the appearance of your work.