Why practice realism if I just wanna make cartoons?

File: 012.jpg (157KB, 736x946px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 736x946px

When I mean super realistic I mean stuff like this

File: prokopenko.jpg (95KB, 549x700px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 549x700px

Also here's an example from Proko's realist drawing work.

Clearly he's adept at realism. But we also know his kangaroo speaks volumes on his imaginative illustration skills.

Is detailed realism just a meme?

File: 444.jpg (34KB, 550x369px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 550x369px

One more example to show what I mean.

Why would an (aspiring) illustrator spend this much time rendering all those little muscles? Why would an illustrator even bother measuring so precisely to get drawings like this pic? Does that really help develop anything valuable for cartoons/illustration/storyboarding?

>>2948391
Didn't we already have this thread recently, even with that exact same proko drawing?

Here's your answer: you will get good at doing what you do a lot of. If you spend your time doing realist art you will get good at doing realism, but you won't be able to do much else. If you spend time on stylized work you will get good at stylized work, but won't be able to do realism. There's some crossover between things, sure, but mostly you should be focusing on the type of work that is your end goal.

AMB is an awful illustrator but a good animator and I think his advice is pretty topical here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZOdOGu-Q60

>>2948391
read below

>>2948408

Please dont give this advice to anyone again.

In order to be able to think spatially it helps to do a lot of lifedrawing, since you are practicing simplification of form, and precision.

Regardless of how stylized you draw - realize, and this is important - that you are making an abstraction, yes - i said it, an abstraction, of something.

So, a cartoon figure, is a symbol/abstraction for the real deal - but, if you do not know the source material, you will hit a wall, you will simply not know what your are simplifying and abstracting, and it is so easy to tell in peoples drawings.

The surface of a drawing can be deceiving, because you do not see the scaffolding or structural elements that the person who made it thought of.

Quote from richard williams' the animators survivalkit, on the importance of lifedrawing:

"He found a formula for drawing comic rabbits:
This formula for drawing comic rabbits paid.

Till in the end he could not change the tragic habits

This formula for drawing comic rabbits made."


We are all constantly drawing upon the source material around us, subconsciously or otherwise, dont miss out on learning about the wondrous planet you find yourself on - drawing then becomes a tool for exploration and scientific inquiry.

Inquiries into movement, functionality, optics, perception, emotions - psychology.

I see this all the time, but why would you want to limit yourself - go into your field with passion and curiosity, you will undoubtedly find so many interesting things.

>>2948408
>>2948431

Oh and sorry, let me elaborate, part of your advice is true - practise makes perfect.

But you are giving a watered down answer that doesnt adress some important things :-)

He found a formula for drawing comic rabbits:
The formula for drawing comic rabbits paid.
So in the end he could not change the tragic habits
This formula for drawing comic rabbits made.

— Robert Graves

>>2948391
Why be on /ic/ if you can just be on /co/?

>>2948431
>>2948432
I mean nothing you said contradicts what I said. I phrased my post in that way to try to counteract the meme here that you need to be a master of realism before being "allowed" to do other things. That image that gets posted around of some Russian Academic drawing next to a simple anime girl saying you need the first to do the second is very misleading. Good anime artists can't draw realistically that well. They work in a stylized manner and practice in a stylized manner. They are studying some of the same concept like construction and form but the way they choose to show it is pretty different. Even that page of Yoh Yoshinari's "realistic" studies that gets posted by that one anon here a lot isn't particularly realistic and is still pretty stylized. Life drawing too does not go against the point of what I am saying. But do it in a way that benefits your goals. Doing loads of 30 second to 5 minute poses is what you want if your goal is to be an animator. You are practicing short poses and quick drawing, so you will get good at that and be good at animating and understanding quick action. If you want to draw/paint like a 19thC realist then you might attend an atelier where you do 50 hour poses, and it gives the time to explore the finest nuances of form and shifts in value and edge. Doing that type of exercise will have a lot less value for an animator though.

File: 1474131783825.gif (2MB, 360x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x240px

>>2948436

>>2948441
see, this is a better answer.

But the ambiguity of the first post, led me to post what i did.

>>2948436
Thank you for correcting me, i only remembered it from the book :-)

File: fdsa.jpg (232KB, 960x781px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 960x781px

>>2948431
I agree that life drawing is super important. But there's a huge difference between trying to be pixel-perfect with every mark, vs drawing from a constructionist attitude where you re-build the object using forms.

At least, this is how I understand it after following DrawABox.

There are two "types" of life drawing. One is meant for complete perfect accuracy(AKA realism). The other is meant for studying forms, perspective, and values, but all in a simpler style. You are building ideas from life but the goal is not to reach a finish like any of the above pics.

I think the attached image is really what "drawing from life" should be for a cartoonist. I cannot imagine why a cartoonist would bother getting Proko detailed with any of their drawings ever... I agree with this anon>>2948441

Why do a 50hr figure drawing? Eventually you'd get diminishing returns where you're learning a skill that you simply won't apply to most stylized work. for very detailed illustration? Maybe. But simple comics or storyboards? Doubtful(IMO)

>>2948483
I think we all agree on this, the three of us.

I know what you are implying, and i think you are right for the most part - i was simply trying to say that it is important to know structure in order to be able to simplify.

I think though, after you reach a certain level it is surely beneficial to do the 50h study, to push your spectrum, getting the last 20% of that long hour drawing, will teach some interesting things - and i also think if you study intensely, you will be able to simplify with much more efficiency.

Agreed, however, that in the beginning, especially if you are not interested in academic drawing purely for academic drawings sake, one is better of pursuing a more general understanding of volume, and how to manipulate and flatten it at will :-)))

>>2948391
Rubber hose is the most bare bones cartooning style and it is perfectly functional in 3D so no shame in it. More detailed styles are built up from that same gestural noodley framework or at least they used to be.

>>2948431
Richard Willians spends a good chunk of his book telling people not to do stupid stuff like linearly inbetweening the end of rotating limbs. Lets get real his book is for inbetweening slaves, not cartoonists. Any talk about life drawing is him bragging to the plebeians at that point.

>>2948615
wouldnt say inbetweening slaves, its a pretty good book that has a lot of solid information to get one a good headstart with animation.

But, i only quoted it, because it came to mind while thinking of the problem that occurs if you stick to much to stylizing things in a certain way, it will build certain habits that will be hard to get rid of, unless you have done a lot of drawing in various ways previously.

thank you for your input :-))

File: 15802929_1673271952690345_89731895562076160_n.jpg (118KB, 1080x1349px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1080x1349px

>>2948615
>>2948969
How do you describe work like this? Can this be done mostly through constructionist imaginative drawing? Or does it require more realist rendering?

What if I just wanna draw cute Disney-style wafius and dont wanna draw realist kneecaps or noses finely rendered to perfection?

File: z.png (118KB, 550x1334px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 550x1334px

>>2948969
>has a lot of solid information to get one a good headstart with animation
This is a good point too but I think animation is different than illustration or stylized cartoony/webcomic shit

>>2948974
Again, the point is not that you actually render everything, but you simplify or stylize the shapes or forms of the knee cap for example, but it would be mostly guesswork if you have not done some lifedrawing.

What i initially meant was not that you have to go to an atelier and copy bargue plates and do 100 hour drawings, but that you should indeed study the human body - its range of motion, how to simplify certain areas.

Its all about range though, if you push really far and you really understand that kneecap - you can simplify it really fast, because you know what the essential visual information that communicates "kneecap" is.

The drawings you posted show a decent basic sense of anatomy. And again, inventing from your head is so much easier if you know what sort of information to put in there, it makes your idea more believable (not in the realistic sense) but artists or non artists can quickly see if something looks off, or broken - no matter how stylized.

I was just looking through an evangelion art book, and its crazy how much the anatomy and the shapes are pushed, without it looking really weird, i think thats a sign of immense skill - to know exactly where and how to push something, and make it look natural.


So to sum it up, lifedrawing is one of the most simple and beneficial things to do to strengthen your drawing skills, regardless of stylization.

its easy to forget this, and i do myself sometime, and then the only remedy is just to get back into it :-)

File: ck.jpg (33KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x400px

>>2948981
How far do you typically take your life drawing work? If ataleir/bargue detail isn't necesserily needed then what should a typical "life drawing" session look like?

Pic is from a Proko figure course I've been thinking of buying. Do you know if his lessons teach a good way to draw from life? Or do you have any opinions on drawabox?

File: img002.jpg (922KB, 5100x3300px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 5100x3300px

>>2948987
the place im at the lifedrawing sessions are twice weekly, and deal mainly with poses in the range of 30 seconds to 5 minutes (which are the final ones)

mostly the poses are 30 seconds or 1-2 minutes.

The focus is primarily on gesture and simplification on volume, i can post some of my drawings, but i actually need to focus a lot on volumetrics in the simplest sense, i have neglected that for a while now.

Also, i know of proko, have watched 1-2 videos i think, a long time ago, and i dont know what drawabox is so i cant give you my opinion of that.

I was taught a bit of drawing mainly from a sort of vilppu perspective, building form from inside out, starting with the gestural rhythm and then using that as a thread to put the "beads" (the forms) on.

but you know, theres good books like vilppu, or gotfried bammes etc, i think the more you sample from different ones, the better. the point is not to try and draw like vilppu, or proko or hampton or whoever, but to learn a certain way of thinking - adding tools to your toolbox, but not in a way that restrains your artistic sensibilities. I think thats why i like vilppu maybe - because i dont like his drawings from an aestethic point of view, but they are really instructional to look at, so from a learning POV i think they are pretty good.

I only have stuff from previous sessions scanned, and im a little bit embarresed showing these to you, but in the vein of learning i guess its alright.

File: 1.jpg (281KB, 1000x498px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1000x498px

>>2948995
woah, forgot the rez on these..

File: 2.jpg (276KB, 1000x534px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1000x534px

>>2949000

But yeah, i dont think these are good examples, i have to get back to drawing in a more simplified volumetric sense again.

too caught up in shapes and flatness, because ive had a little love affair with abstract things and graphic design..

Animation and cartoons work well because to a degree they are grounded in realism. In order for your work to be believable and have life you have to take into account certain principles. Pretty much any animator or cartoonist will tell you how important life drawing is and how much the study of form and gesture will improve one's work.

>>2948391
they're not telling you to learn to render and draw something realistic, that's just ic being retarded. What they mean to say is that you should LEARN how everything works in reality.
If you have no interest in being able to render something to make it look realistic then don't do it. But learn how muscles work, learn the placements of all the bones, learn how to convey form etc etc

>>2949017
>Pretty much any animator or cartoonist will tell you how important life drawing is

Literally zero people in this thread have said life drawing doesn't matter. Of course it matters.

The discussion is how much DETAIL is required for that life drawing. Should cartoonists practice life drawing with extreme detail & rendering like in classical fine art ateliers? Or can you become a skilled animator/illustrator without ever pushing life drawing to that level of detail?

File: 1475716268277.png (1MB, 1280x899px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x899px

>>2949029
You probably can, it's just fun to push yourself to render something 100% of your ability once in a while.

But I mean if you wanna make something like the Simpsons or South Park you don't really need to do that. If you wanna make waifus you should know the subtle curves of the body and to do that you gotta look at real people then decide how much detail you personally need.

>>2948391
>I understand the value of drawing from life
Then you're good. Knowing there is something to get from it is all (at least) I would ask from you. It's your decision whether or not to engage with that.

Oh and for everyone in this thread here - i really appreciate the dialogue and the tone thereof.

A nice sober exchange of information and thoughts.

Good job :-)

>>2949098
>a nice sober exchange of information and thoughts
we've transcended this board

Fundamentals are universal whether you're doing highly stylized work or realism.
Fundamentals are based on reality.
You do the math.

>>2949081
I always thought she was the hottest sister when I was a kid, anyone else?

>>2949081
oh g-god

>>2948396
why is her neck so long? why is her face shaped like a trapezium? what the fuck is that wonky eye? does she have aids on her mouth? and that snot on the right side of her nose? why is her face indented? was she punched in the eyebrows with a baseball bat? and you really listen to this faggot?

File: ed-edd-eddy-turkey-baster.jpg (69KB, 445x339px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 445x339px

>>2949122
>>2949147
Double D is a lucky boy

>>2949003
>>2949000
These are really lovely, anon. I'm taking a life drawing class (where we hardly ever do short poses...), so these are inspiring.

>>2948391
cartoons are based on reality, to simplify reality you have to know reality mäch

File: 10507850_723448544400250_801625541_n.jpg (105KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 640x640px

>>2949239
OK but does a cartoonist really need to practice this much detail from reality?

Why is rendering this much detail valuable for someone who never wants to create work at this level of detail?

File: browsing co.jpg (30KB, 310x325px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 310x325px

>>2949241

That's more of an exercise in shading than construction. You should really read the replies already provided, they're on the money.

>>2949243
I agree this thread has already been answered. I've gotten my fill and thank you very much to everyone contributing congenially.

What I'm not sure is why ppl keep responding with generic "bro u gotta draw from life" replies... such as

>>2949239
>>2949106
>>2949017

The very first OP stated that life drawing is important. Of course it's necessary and valuable. For everyone.

This thread is not questioning "should I draw from life?"

This thread is asking "As an aspiring cartoonist, how finely should I render when drawing from life?"

Stop being lazy
Drawing cartoon is NOT "easier" and if you think like that you will never be a good artist.

The magic of drawing cartoon is the capacity of translating a LOT of information through simple strokes.

If you don't understand the world as an artist, you will never be able to translate the world to a cartoon.

Stop being lazy, sit your ass in a chair and study some art. Otherwise you're just agreeing with some people about cartoons being dumb and not-art.

>>2949298
Wise, wise words.

>>2949264
>how finely should I render
empty your cup.

>>2949241

Rendering isn't as important, but understanding is.

Fully rendered studies are something that enhance understanding of a subject, as long as you don't switch your brain off and go into photocopy mode.

I used to worship realism, nowadays I trend towards more stylized stuff, but I still understand that if I want to stylize a subject I should understand the subject, and spending a few hours on a detailed study can really make you examine it and think about it.

>>2951207
But if someone doesn't really wanna be "that" good maybe they don't need to study the subject that much?

idk I'm a shit noob and do this as a hobby so don't listen to me. But I can't ever imagine wanting to create realism like that