Construction vs Old School

Why not both.

>>2932653
Yeah this is an option too, still I hate the constructive method, I find it too technical and I hate having to go through so many books and shit. My master at the Atelier also suggested me to mainly grind figures and take a life drawing class.
Still, I aim to go for design and mainly digital stuff, so maybe contruction could help me a lot more.

I know some basic perspective is required everywhere, just don't know if I should use it for everything or balance stuff

>>2932656
Construction is a tool to help you make drawing easier. If you can't draw a good image with construction, you sure as hell won't be able to freehand it, having to do all the perspective and anatomy stuff in your head.

>>2932656
I'm an atelier student too.
Imo you should balance it, basic construction is enough to begin with, you don't need much.

See it as: You can make a painting by setting up the whole setting, hiring a model, buying clothing for the model, making the costume, every prop or being able to make the painting mostly by construction and memory.

I feel like I make a basic construction and work mostly from memory, how I remember bodyparts of models look and use models/refs to fix my work. The more construction I learn the easier painting gets, but I like using refs and models to make figures look more real. Hope this is a little helpful. You get better at everything over time as long as you are conciously drawing a lot.

>>2932650
kjg seems to be more on grinding part than construction (which is way he doesn't need to sketch before) so lately that's what I've been doing

>>2932747
cant you grind on construction though? what exactly is he grinding? not arguing legitimately curious

File: 1480227866796.jpg (262KB, 731x1024px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 731x1024px

As far as I've always understood it, you're "supposed" to grind construction for anatomy until you arrive at a point where you no longer need to physically draw the bones/construction to make your subject look true to life.
So once you get to that point, you ""should"" be able to jump right into the muscles or fabric of whatever your drawing, in the case of anatomy.

I'm only now getting to this point with some of my drawings, and it's only for the specific areas that I know the best, and it seems to be the best route for me. It allows me to focus more on design and values rather than having to set up the piece a lot.

File: 3076579920_4eb06330_0517.jpg (1MB, 1438x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1438x1000px

>>2932768
As far as I know, he just draws everything all the time, and has gained an intuitive sense of perspective and the form of things, and can basically draw anything from imagination now.
I think many people have to practice their fundamentals very deliberately, and then some people like KJG don't even stop long enough to think about what they need to learn, and so they don't need to

>>2932650
Hard to say. I don't find studying Loomis' or Hampton's figure construction very helpful. Maybe it was helpful and I just don't know it.
But I find the idea of construction important to working from imagination. By a classic approach, you mean like pure observational drawing right? Drawing stuff from life (or ref) as accurately as you can? Like Bargue plates too?
Well, I think observational drawing is the most important fundamental, because being able to extract information from reference hinges on your ability to observe and copy.
But I think you have to know what your goal is. For me, it's drawing and painting pictures mostly from imagination.
So, I have to think about what will get me closer to that. If I want to make pictures from imagination, I need to do that: make pictures from imagination.
There are skills involved in that which aren't practiced by studying Loomis or grinding figures and still lives. Like designing and finishing an image. Considering all the elements together, knowing where figures should be, deciding on the perspective, getting the right composition, thinking about what figures are doing and how that will affect their musculature and stuff, and so on. Doing those things by yourself are their own skills. So I'd need to practice doing it all from imagination, then let reference be my teacher and fix my mistakes afterward. From that, a sense of construction might emerge just because you need it, and you're not just copying something.

the approach taught in ateliers shouldn't really be called classical, there is no evidence that this is the way that artists of the past drew. http://mrartroom.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/5/4/29546293/concerning_the_sight-size_method_.pdf

>>2932829
very interesting

File: pizza time.jpg (47KB, 1280x534px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1280x534px

>>2932650
pizza

>>2932843
me too though, im hungry as a motherfucker

File: Vilppu 2.jpg (14KB, 255x193px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 255x193px

>>2932843
You have disgraced this thread for the last time

I'm not a fan of either contemporary 'art tradition'.

The post-18th century 'spend 400 hours copying a single object millimetre by millilitre' atelier tradition is kind of trash and there's no evidence to support that's how they used to draw back in the day. It also doesn't translate to well into imaginative drawing.

The kind of constructive animation/comic book art tradition of 'boxes and cylinders lmao' I don't really like either. It feels to constrictive and arbitrary. People aren't actually boxes and cylinders. Although it is essential to get a good understanding of form I think it can be more intuitively acquired just by drawing a lot, and applying yourself.
Also, again, there's really no evidence that's how they used to draw back in the day. Vilppu for example likes to make a lot of call backs to Renaissance masters, but we have absolutely zero idea of how they used to construct their drawing.

I think the best approach lies right in the middle. Draw a lot from reference, apply that knowledge while drawing from imagination. The technique itself is not as important.

File: Raffaello_Sanzio_-_Nude_Garzone_Study_for_the_Disputa_-_WGA18933.jpg (189KB, 1205x800px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1205x800px

The atelier methods commonly referred to as "classical approach" are not classical or old school at all. Here is an example that is neither of the two common contemporary approaches to drawing.

>>2932829
Agreed. It's a cheap and easy way of drawing that produces striking results to non-artists and beginner artists. It's also not only sight size which is fraudulent but also the whole Bargue method of copying outlines and shadows with straight lines.

Captcha: STOP. Stop this atelier meme.

>>2933001
I am so confused now. I thought ateliers were the most legit way to go.

>>2933006
It can be a good education, but just recognize it's a very narrow approach to art and doesn't have the same history that is often claimed.

>>2933011
>it's a very narrow approach to art

After reading this thread that makes a lot of sense now. Any recommendations to look into to expand your art horizon in regards to schooling/discipline?

File: IMG_0472.jpg (226KB, 1600x1109px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1600x1109px

>>2932991
There are sketches from Renaissance masters their basic way of drawing is to draw directly and confidently, either from using their imagination or using a reference. In very few cases there are "gesture" flows but most cases are drawn directly and brought to completion according to the artist's need for that drawing. Sometimes, especially for more finished studies, there are loose grooves created by sharp metal pen.

Vilppu referencing Renaissance examples is more about demonstrating how his constructions can be used, not that the Renaissance masters used the constructions themselves.

File: Study for the Massacre of the Innocents.jpg (110KB, 800x462px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 800x462px

>>2933019
Example where some looser gesture lines are shown on the woman's leg, but that's a rare case of the initial lay in being undefined to that degree. The figure of the man shows initial lay in, with some lines corrected in the subsequent passing over. Note the arm. The whole figure was likely drawn in that manner first.

The line quality of thick and thin contrast is often given more importance than either the atelier methods or contemporary constructive method teaches.

>>2933017
Study the drawings you want to emulate closest. Reverse engineer the method. I think before 1800s are good because they will teach you how to draw quickly.

>>2932650
i think just describing the mass when you describe the mass is best. i don't really get describing the mass with boxes and then doing it again later the usual way, seems redundant.

if you're doing a line drawing, like in a cartoon or a comic or something then 3d construction makes sense though, of course.

perhaps if one is used to line drawings then using boxes and what not for everything is more comfortable, and obviously everyone should just do whatever works best for them.

>>2932843
i literally just watched the peter parker death grips video. polease

>>2932991
I'm pretty sure the boxes and cylinders construction method is a recent meme in art. I think the general consensus on construction of figures was using rounded forms without sharp corners as it seems Renaissance artists constructed this way all the way to mid-century cartoonists and illustrators. The hard edges of the box and cylinder method kills the flow of forms and introduces unnecessary perspective problems.

>>2933001

I've found my Bargue training to be immensely useful when doing master studies and basically anything that involves copying something in a literal fashion. I didn't find it to translate well to things like plein air painting or urban sketching when you need to do a large amount of abstraction and can't be too literal about your shapes. However, I have since started to understand how the basic angular shape abstraction taught in the Bargue method is still useful just used in a more loose fashion. Ateliers will teach you a lot of good stuff but the scope is rather narrow.

>>2933054

Because KJG's figures are so stiff and lifeless, right? You have gotten the box meme all wrong. It's not used so much in a literal manner as it is a conceptual tool too get the perspective right. In case you didn't know KJG doesn't draw his boxes unless he's teaching, he just visualizes them constantly. All artists that draw convincing figures in perspective from imagination uses this conceptual tool in some form.

>>2933054
I'm sorry anon. I'm not sure you're gonna make it.

File: leljustdrawboxesfaget.jpg (62KB, 564x682px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 564x682px

>old masters didn't use boxes

>>2933105
>implying most of us here don't know about Luca Cambiaso because Vilppu mentions him a lot
>implying Luca Cambiaso is standard

>>2933105
I can't read the signature, but who did this?

Sorry for the awful question. Please forgive me.

Cool thread, was discussing this with someone yesterday, his teacher mainly teaches academic atelier style drawing, which makes me slightly angry, but only because the way it is taught to him, is kind of in the narrow way, where the students dont know what they are missing out on, in terms of having good volume control etc.

If you want to be an animator for example, volume control and gesture is super important, and figure invention ofcourse, as a direct product of those two skills - if you cant turn volume, squash/stretch etc, its really hard to animate well.

But i would say the same goes for designing,

Another side to drawing is what i would compare to basic graphic design and gestalt principles, how to arrange things in abstractly pleasing ways, whether those be thumbnails compositions, massing out the shapes of a background, or doing detail work like ornamentation design, costumes- from the smaller to the bigger shapes in a sense its just abstract form arrangement pushed either two dimensionally, or three dimensionally.

Like a lot of other anons stated, its probably not either or though, its healthy to train a certain observational precision, which is beneficial in terms of acutely judging proportions etc, but you should also at the same time hone your ability to manipulate form and turn things in space, and to be able to exagerrate and ideate quickly, using drawing more as a spatial thought tool :-)

>>2932656
If you go the peter han route. construction is more organic but the robertson route is light math

File: atlier art.jpg (596KB, 1024x777px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 1024x777px

>>2933168
>atelier

just googled that term because i've never heard it before. its like bargue plates? would you use this technique for drawing from imagination? It seems like it is just for hardcore measuring a still life and transposing it into 2d shapes on paper, then spending hours carefully layering graphite for the rendering

File: zwoT4MZ.jpg (234KB, 1441x906px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1441x906px

"Bohoo perspective is too boring I just wanna draw things I'm comfortable with please give me reasons to do that"

That's how you sound right now. Constructive method is the SUPERIOR method and the quicker way to improve. Especially if you want to be a comic book artist or animator. I suppose with illustration it doesn't matter that much(james gurney can't draw from imagination) but if you have any hope of becoming a decent animator or comic book artist you NEED construction.


The watts atelier method is based on using a model. Yes, there is some degree of construction involved but it's mostly for an artist that wants to work from reference.

Methods by Krenz cushart are designed for artists who want to work from imagination. If for example, you're drawing a character and you want to draw that same character from a completely different dynamic angle, atelier method is useless.

TLDR: Quit being a pussy, Grind hardcore perspective: Scott Robertson, Krenz Cushart Rotation method and there will be a LOT less backtracking.

>>2933397
this, i don't know anyone who hasn't done construction who can decently draw from imagination

>>2933397
Is there any proper material on the 'krenz method'? Except for a handful of pictures and two really short videos I've been unable to find anything

File: 6e667ef8d12c0e80daf28fbb600e4af2.jpg (7KB, 236x179px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 236x179px

>>2933426
Yes, Like I just said, Scott Robertson. Krenz Cusharts perspective knowledge is derived from that book. If you check the scraps in his deviantart you'll pretty much find all his anatomy studies.

On his gumroad you'll find videos covering perspective on figures. Other than that it really just comes down to being able to rotate the box from every angle and then putting that within the figure or body parts.

>>2933387
if you can't draw what's right in front of you how can you even intend to draw what's in your mind

>there are people who literally avoid observing nature and building a visual library

>>2933450
straw man. Artists have been drawing what's in front of them for centuries without the Bargue method.

>>2933466
artists have been drawing what's in front of them for centuries... in ateliers for example

>straw man
you must be very dumb. there's your straw man

So what is the best method to git gud fast?

>>2933397
Where did Krenz learn his methods? Surely he isn't some philosopher of the arts and derived such methods out of nowhere. You hear about these chink anomalies all the time and you look back at their older work and see too strong of a transition as if they were handed a pill that grants them knowledge by aliens from the outer icy dome. Not just krenz, but more and more of them spring up out of nowhere if you follow asian social media. Someone somewhere must be teaching them this.

Scott Robertson has nothing to do with "his" (I put that in quotes, because we don't know if it's really HIS methods) box studies. I will find out where. It's my mission. And when I do I, too, will transition.

>>2933476
you don't git gud fast

the best advice would be to not waste time, be project oriented and learn to know if something looks bad, and why it looks bad. having a good eye is mandatory to draw and to improve

>>2933477
are you stupid? these are just boxes, there's nothing simpler than that

you can't headbutt into stuff grinding until you suddenly become good, or hoard books and images until you finally 'get it'

'getting it' means being efficient in portraying what's in your mind. if you can't even comprehend how a box would look like, then grab a box yourself and turn it around until you do. do you people even know what studying is? do you even comprehend what improving conveys?

>>2933477
Loomis does the exact same thing in his figure drawing book but retards like you need to be spoon-fed everything.

>>2933499
No, he does not. I see were itching to call someone a retard, though.
>>2933483
>'getting it' means being efficient in portraying what's in your mind
bull fucking shit, I will find out and leave you all behind then come back here and say "lol, just draw boxes"

These artist struggled and then found a way, hide how they got to where they are by saying "lol just draw" or a variant of that. It's so infuriating. They didn't just wake up one morning and "got it" by accident like a scientist accidentally dropping a disruptive chemical in their formula that transforms their research forever. Someone had to be pulling the strings somewhere. They had apprenticeship.

>>2932781
Have you seen KJG teach? He teaches construction method. He doesn't put the cubes and tubes on paper, but imagines them and uses them to help him draw.

>>2932781
He can do both, go look at his FB page and the photos from classes he teaches.
Its pretty clear he see value in a balance of the two approaches.

>>2933510
I literally just told you that he derived his methods from Scott Robertson and just build on top of that. It's not fucking rocket science, animators were rotating forms before krenz even existed, it makes sense to start with basic forms like boxes before moving on to complex forms like the human body.

>>2933514
>>2933516
That's true, he does both when teaching, but the question is: Did he apply construction AFTER the fact, in order to teach how he sees things intuitively from lots of experience?
Or did he actively study construction before, at some point actually building up his drawings from basic geometric building blocks, and it's not just something he basically picked up from drawing from observation?
The impression I've got from him was that he just draws a ridiculous amount observationally, and over time sort of picked up his idea of construction which he visualizes. But I don't really know.

>>2933520
And to clarify, he is using construction since he visualizes everything as boxes when he draws...
But I'm just not sure if he actually had to study that, or if it's just what he got because he draws so much all the time

>>2933520
You aren't making sense. Without construction, he wouldn't be good to begin with.

>>2933524
Read this >>2933523
I know he uses construction. But it was my impression that he never studied construction/construction methods, he just gained it from a massive amount of observational drawing

>>2933510
I literally said that it's not 'just drawing boxes'

You must have some kind of severe brain damage

>>2933517
Robertson's methods don't belong to Robertson. Robertson is a salesman and the only one of the few who actually made a book on constructing perspective forms in depth. Just goes to show you how much this field withholds information from others unless you pay a pretty penny to learn from Gods kept away in a rosary fortress known as Hollywood. If it wasn't for him we'd still be looking to loomis and confused. His books have only been available in recent years.

Besides that
>animators were rotating forms before krenz even existed
looks like we have found a clue. Please show me these animators who have presented knowledge that krenz is using before krenz could potty train himself. Read carefully, I said presented knowledge for all to see, in the same format as krenz.

You won't find it. Anomalies were trained. They're students of masters whos friends tipped them off to masters in a circlejerk of masters.
>>2933527
either you replied to me twice or you are the other idiot calling me names

>>2933526
Pretty sure he's studied perspective. That perspective knowledge just transferred down to his figure knowledge.

>>2933526
>he just gained it from a massive amount of observational drawing
If you just imagine and draw boxes without linking it to the real world and your visual library/memory it's going to be a very ineffective method to learn how to draw

>>2933510
Uh, yes, he does. You obviously haven't gone through his books.

Loomis uses box units to place a subject in space, Krenz does the same thing. He even cites Loomis in his perspective tutorial.

>>2933540
But you don't get what I'm saying. Nobody wakes up and just GETS that from reading loomis. Not until someone else tells you.

>>2932650
Thanks /ic/ now I don't know what to do, I used to do some Kushart exercice / Hampton book while drawing from life

File: 3405613._SX540_.jpg (48KB, 540x391px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 540x391px

I don't get what this thread is about. There are plenty of ateliers that teach both sight sized and comparative. There are ateliers that teach you sculpting and construction-based approaches. There are ateliers that focus on imaginative drawing and memory training/drawing from memory.

There isn't a one-way approach that all ateliers teach. The ARC website has a list of them and they all tend to do their own thing.

Bargue plates aren't a be all and end all. It's meant to make you accurate at things like:

1. Seeing abstract shapes, angles (anti-symbol drawing).
2. How a single light source scenario works including light/shadow separation and how to model reflected lighting.
3. Values and how to render forms.
4. Moving into construction (make your own Bargue).
5. Getting good and precise at using the tools.

You apply these lessons to life and imaginative drawing.

As someone else posted above, "Drawing Lessons From The Great Masters" has a good breakdown of some of the methods used by old masters, including plenty of box-like figure construction.

Archive.org has plenty of 19th and 18th century books that detail how the old masters were trained and taught. Old masters made copies of old masters. Dutch Golden Age produced some of the most intricate still life paintings and techniques.

>>2933541
Tf are you on about you retard? Cushart practiced construction, learning from artists like Loomis and Scott Robertson( which he cites in his tutorials) and then overtime improved his construction skills. Literally, what is the fucking mystery here?

>>2933541
I get what you are saying - you can't look at it and make sense of it right away, someone has to point it out to you.

Loomis does point it out in the book however, and artists have been using similar methods dating back centuries. Da Vinci has notes showing him breaking down proportions of a face into boxes.

>>2933474
In "ateliers" that are not at all like the atelier method of the late nineteenth century, and much less like the "ateliers" found today. Needing to know how to draw what's in front of you is not an argument for following the Bargue or being in some made up 20th atelier system. There are much better ways of drawing from observation that would be a better art in itself as well as aid in drawing from imagination. The original argument of the person you first responded to is the efficiency of Bargue.


>person A questions the efficiency of Bargue
>>but you need to draw what's in front of you first (implying Bargue is needed at all)
>person B mentions it's a non sequitur strawman and that drawing from observation=!=Bargue only
>>some artists back then drew from observation in an atelier (type a) (notice the change of argument from Bargue to all ateliers which did not even use Bargue, employing another strawman)
>therefore reiterating the implication that Bargue which is part of an atelier (type b) is great for learning
>implying because they are also called ateliers they must have been the same

Your whole argument is
>Bargue because it's part of what's called an atelier system and some artists sometimes drew in an atelier which is only nominally the same as late nineteenth century to contemporary atelier

>you must be very dumb. there's your straw man
That's not a strawman.

>>2933571
>that are not at all like the atelier method of the late nineteenth century,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_art#Academic_training

>>2933543
It's also about how they consider themselves traditional and are passing on centuries-old knowledge when most of what they teach are 19th and 20th century, even the ones who don't teach sigh-size. Even most of the ones who teach "comparative" drawing are essentially like sight-size without having to be the same size as they see; Using plumb lines, angles, copying mechanically, to produce an accurate likeness of the posed model in a studio lighting. Even the ones that do teach construction don't do it in any traditional way, as >>2932991 somewhat points out. There are some that teach construction methods that are so minute, whereas there are almost no examples of anything half as complex that can be observed from old master drawings.

The painting techniques are also different.

A simple way of figuring out whether it is traditional or not: look at their works, and compare them to the masters they claim to derive their knowledge from. They are completely different, which naturally should lead one to believe that the teaching methods employed are different than those of how the old masters learned their craft.

File: goltzius.jpg (331KB, 989x1000px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 989x1000px

I've always wanted what kind of method these Dutch dudes from the 16th century used to employ.

The early Baroque/Northern Mannerism style.

If you look at pic related it shows a good command of form, but I doubt the dude was using boxes and cylinders. And he could have used some reference, but he obviously had to do a lot on his own here.

File: harmensz muller.jpg (189KB, 975x678px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 975x678px

>>2933596
Another dude from the same period.

>>2933586

I think a lot of this wasn't directly discussed because it was assumed more or less "obvious" back then. Mind you we have no idea how the fuck the old masters did some things because nobody wrote the damn things down.

Having said that, how far back do you care to go? Joshua Reynolds founded the Royal Academy in 18th century and he made a mention of the subject on "to produce an accurate likeness" and to copy old masters - http://www.authorama.com/seven-discourses-on-art-5.html

>>2933596
>>2933599
the old masters used the least time consuming method, which involved studying references like mad and adjusting them on the go, instead of drawing boxes and cylinders and trying to figure out how the body looks from that

>>2933571
>le argument meme
learn to read then come back

>>2933600
>Mind you we have no idea how the fuck the old masters did some things because nobody wrote the damn things down.
what are sketches and studies then?

>>2933586

Just to continue from here >>2933600

We can go even further back: Da Vinci said in his notes (The Pracice of Painting): "To draw anude figure from nature, or anything else, hold in your hand a plumb-line to enable you to judge the relative position of objects."

"When you draw take care to set up a principal line which you must observe all throughout the object you are drawing; everything should bear relation to the direction of the principal line."

>>2933585
I don't understand your point. That only shows the progression of learning in French academies in the nineteenth century. It's a very limited slice of the history of learning drawing and painting. Unless by atelier you meant only French, in which case, Italian masters have done drawings from observation without it and produced better results. If by atelier you mean including what is generally called atelier which is simply a studio with a master-apprentice system (regardless of nationality), then the practices of sixteenth century up to eighteenth century are indeed very different from late nineteenth century practice. Even the drawing procedures of eighteenth century France in the Royal Academy are different from late nineteenth century or even most of the nineteenth. I know this because I have seen many of them in real life.

It doesn't even tell you how the plaster cast copies were made. If you want to get technical, ateliers are separate from the academy, which is state-run. The Bargue plates were published in 1866 which is what I meant by late nineteenth century method, and it's not even known to what extent it was issued by teaching.

>>2933607
le meme meme

>>2933610
>what are sketches and studies then?

I'm really referring to some of their painting methods.

To continue (once again) from >>2933615

They used viewfinders and other tools back then. It's all standard but I guess somewhere along the way they stopped discussing methods per-se.

I don't think the 18th/19th century approach was any significantly different compared to before.

Albert Boime wrote about this in his research book on Nineteenth Century French Academy Training - there was a lot of movement of artists between Italy and France and they shared their methods. He starts by discussing 17th century training onwards.

>>2933618
>If you want to get technical, ateliers are separate from the academy, which is state-run.

Many french art academies used to be private until they were consolidated into the state-run ones sometime in the 17th century.

>>2933615
No doubt they knew such tricks as that, but there isn't much visual evidence in the drawings to suggest that it's as heavily used. Most of old master drawings are quite spirited sketches, and were no doubt greater at drawing from imagination than one who is dependent on visual measuring. I think one of the dangers of trying to reconstruct a teaching practice is that we could take something that possibly isn't really a large part of their working practice, and imagine it as having been very crucial, since there are so few other written examples. But to an experienced artist, especially one who can already draw from imagination with expertise, such measuring methods only need to be used when they find difficulty.

>>2933641

I absolutely agree. There's a metric fuckton about their work practice that we don't know. I err on the side that people like Da Vinci commented on the day-to-day fare, so I'd wager that there isn't really anything mind blowing for them to withhold from training artists.

Plumb lines are not something I see seasoned artists use at the atelier regularly. Sometimes to confirm but most of the time it's by eye. The whole purpose of using the plumb line is to get the inexperienced artists to start seeing more clearly where and how things overlap and the perceived vs. the actual.

Eventually though, the training wheels have to come off.

>>2933620
Would there happen to be a scan of "The Academy and French Painting in the Nineteenth Century" book floating around somewhere?
The prices for a copy on amazon are considerable: 7 Used from £84.69

File: Drawings-Leonardo-da-Vinci-circle-florence-illuminated-manuscript-facsimile-03.jpg (205KB, 1200x674px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1200x674px

>>2933641
Heres a da Leonardo drawing for a comission notice the square grid

File: 48b536480cf60b3e22b7377ce30b34ee.jpg (46KB, 564x447px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 564x447px

>>2933755

File: dd9954866033621427f54af683cb7e8c.jpg (58KB, 525x700px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 525x700px

>>2933758
codex Huygens

>>2933596
They were using eggs instead of boxes and cylinders.

>>2933477
>Where did Krenz learn his methods?
Most likely from Scott Robertson and Feng Zhu. He mentioned them both in his tutorial about rotating the human figure in accurate perspective (On gumroad).

His method his based off techniques for product sketching because they guarantee accuracy.

>>2933450
>if you can't draw what's right in front of you how can you even intend to draw what's in your mind

two totally different skillsets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h4-2HRHaHI

>>2933719

Unfortunately I haven't come across one myself. I found a more reasonably priced version on ebay last year so I may have to end up finding a way to scan mine.

>>2933450
You can do the latter without the former.

t. someone who has been grinding "drawing what's in front of him" for 8 months now. I'm super good at it now, I can draw anything that I'm looking at (besides super detailed texture). Other art, still life stuff, etc. I have good line control because of it, and I can use reference effectively, and my eyes are more observant overall, but I can't draw from imagination nearly as well. You need a good understanding of perspective, form and constructions for that. Or you can just grind the fuck out of a one subject until you can draw it easily without construction etc.

>>2933397

Gurney has created his own world filled with dinosaurs and made up cities with detailed buildings and made up technology, and you're telling us he can't draw from imagination?

Yes, he uses maquettes to create reference for light and perspective but those are rather crude and lack a lot of information. You can't do what he does unless you're a master at drawing from imagination too. Such retarded thing to say bro

So you guys seem to know your shit. Now how should I proceed in your opinion? I'm going through perspective made easy and I'm already a bit comfortable drawing from reference, what should I do next? Which exercises and books do you suggest?

>>2934040

I'll put it to you like this: the opening question is fairly loaded and you shouldn't see it that way. It's a very narrow and antiquated way to look at it.

Today you have several things that previous centuries did not have at all, and these are I think game changers in how we should approach training and working methods.

Firstly, your standard drawing tools will always be top quality and very cheap. High quality graphites and charcoals, high quality paper.

You've got digital painting instead of having to have people voyage out to get a rare pigment for you like the Ultramarine Blue. With digital you have almost no restrictions (good and bad thing I suppose) so you can use colors to your heart's content.

You've got 3D modeling and digital sculpting software. You can gain a good understanding of how perspective, lighting and shadows work with mathematical precision. Sculpting software can help with volumetric understanding. Furthermore you can construct full 3D scenes but that's a separate topic here.

And then you've got things like photography, a massive lexicon of art books on each individual topic, and so on. Want to figure out a particular architectural style? Someone's written a book that details how architecture of that style is constructed bottom up, what materials are used and so on.

What ateliers try to do is offset the terrible training in draftsmanship and painting that most art schools today suffer from. And they looked at how the old artists were trained, how their educational systems worked, and what was the body of work they output, and they tried to follow a similar structure to it while being accepting of people's daily busy lives. I think the results of these schools speak for themselves.

Ateliers are not a replacement for any of the above however, and really none of the above are by themselves replaceable.

So the key here, as others have mentioned, is to find a balance in all these ways and apply them together.

>>2934065
mind posting your work

>>2934040
I would start memorizing anatomy starting with hands. get comfortable at drawing them from imagination

>>2934065

To wrap this up, a better Q is: "Should I invest 3-5 years at a traditional atelier, or a school that focuses on concept and construction, or self-teach using books?"

The ateliers are complete fucking grinders, there's no doubt about that. The 400 hours is an exaggeration but not too far off. You end up coming to terms with the fact that you're not done until the damn thing is rendered to the best of your ability, so forget about tracking the hours. Upside: you learn early on what it's like to work on a thing until it's complete.

Teachers at ateliers have diverse education and employment backgrounds (films, comics, animation, etc). These ateliers didn't exist in their youth in numbers that they do today, so most of them didn't get this sort of training early on.

What this means is that even within the strict curriculum, they will advise you to explore topics that ateliers do not teach so you can get more practice in that particular area which you can then apply to your working methods in addition to the atelier training.

Concept/design-driven approaches like ArtCenter and Robertson, Peter Han, Feng and FZD etc expect a lot more out of you upfront and the only way to succeed at their schedule and come out on top is to be ready at the start. Robertson has an extensive training background thanks to his dad being an illustrator, so by the time he hit ArtCenter he was way ahead of the curve. You will likely not be in this position.

What this means is that the portfolios you see coming out of these schools are a combination of the student's background and whatever the school taught them on top of this. I would say gauging your output based on their output is self-deceiving. Ateliers are more honest in this regard.

The last one of course is mandatory. You want Perspective Made Easy, Jack Hamm's Drawing Scenery, Robertson/Hampton, and a variety of others. The "what do you suggest?" list is too long.

File: 1420654639336.png (514KB, 1280x704px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 1280x704px

>>2934091

>>2934135
That's a funny joke, I've never seen it before. Thanks.

Where does a beginner start with the construction method?

Drawabox, Scott Robertson, but from where then?

>>2933755
By visual measurement is meant the 2d approach to drawing where angles and shapes are abstractly placed on the paper for guide, not the use of mechanical perspective to aid them with putting figures squarely on the right place in space especially for complex paintings.

They probably used it more, but it's also common practice to trace the same image on a fresh sheet which would not have the messy construction of spacial lines.

>>2932650
if you ask me (and you're choosing) it depends a little on whether you care about developing style or like, structural consistency/accuracy if that makes any sense. but I think both totally work

>>2932821
this is a good post

>>2933542
inb4 that's what happens when you ask a tough question like that :)

>>2934135

It's easy to have knowledge in the form of writing if you been at art for long. I want to see your work for such good advice you present.

The thing is, all the good artist on /ic/ never give extended advice. They either redline (in depth) or their advice sounds like >>2934111
short and simple.

When you type all that out it sounds like you're speaking to your 2nd half on what you should do, rather than the anon requesting advice.

>>2934335
i have no idea what you're responding to but I agree with the idea of "just keep it simple", I think that's important. Like you can try and read some of these paragraphs and try to have the most diverse, complex and multifaceted education ever all at the start of your journey, or you can pick one thing at a time, and improve. tldr; consider what you value, trying to imitate artistic masters or making yourself happy, it might be a mix of both

>>2934382
why won't you post work?

>>2934395
.....

>>2933146
Luca Cambiaso fampai

>>2934572
So I guess you won't post your work, huh? Unless you are tehmeh or the likes you probably are just another guy who knows more than he draws.

>>2935237

I'm still waiting for your work.

>>2934004
Please do. I'm sure many here would appreciate your work in that regard.

where is the work?

post your work already

>>2933599
Looks like they used a bag of potatoes for reference.

>>2933833
This is why the bodies of their figures look like they're wrapped in omelettes. They even used yellowish paper.

File: a.png (38KB, 174x228px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 174x228px

Learn the fundies, learn anatomy. Learn how to draw backgrounds and objects. That simple

>>2934040
>So you guys seem to know your shit.

First mistake you're making on /ic/.

>>2933599
gross

File: dinotopia.jpg (383KB, 1400x661px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1400x661px

>>2933397
I generally agree with the importance of perspective but do you actually know what James Gurney is even fucking famous for?

File: lsp.png (167KB, 518x504px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 518x504px

>>2933599

File: Arthurs-Strutter[1].jpg (234KB, 512x600px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 512x600px

>>2939726
Do you? Gurney barely draws anything from imagination.

>>2939955

OHHHHH SHIEETTTTT

>>2939955
This seems like a waste of time 2BQH

>>2940225
How? He kitbashed it so it didn't even take that long to make probably, and it's posable and he can easy try out different angles and lighting. He also used it in a book which required multiple illustrations featuring the same vehicle. Building it like that was a really smart choice in my opinion.

>>2940235

It probably was a reasonable time investment once upon a time. I don't know when he did it.

Obviously though today the smart money would be to get a basic proficiency with some 3d modelling software.

>>2933397
Mkay, redpill me on this, If I get the krenz tutorial I'll upload it, why would I want to though? It looks like fairly basic shit.

>>2940247
It woudl take longer to do that in 3d than to do a traditional kitbash. 3d is also less convenient for trying different lighting situations and exploring different angles since there is a different quality to having something in front of you. Plus yeah that was done like 20 years ago when 3d wasn't as advanced, and he's a traditional artist so isn't interested in learning the digital side of things as much.

>>2940302
It's already been uploaded I think. It is basic stuff but his teaching helps some people understand it in a practical way better.

NO RULES JUST TOOLS YOU DUMB MOTHER FUCKERS