Is this the secret to God Status?

No Peter.

>those fucking sphere box cylinder and cone in the back as well
Gi only uses boxes anyways.
Can Peter even understand Korean?

>>3040600
being asian?

yes

The dynamic bible is a pretty nice reference document for the sort of mindset. It's definitely not 'the secret'.

By the time it was published KJG had already got gud, I'm pretty sure.

The secret is be autistic.

Kim Jung Gi literally draws non-stop, and has been doing so for decades. Everything else is bullshit. I am absolutely convinced the 'muh boxes' is something Kim makes up so he can teach plebs, or somewhat explain what's going on the inside of his mind, but it hardly matters.

>>3040634
>I am absolutely convinced the 'muh boxes' is something Kim makes up so he can teach plebs, or somewhat explain what's going on the inside of his mind, but it hardly matters.

I think more the latter than the former.

KJG doesn't need to draw boxes, he knows how the forms work because he's been drawing them constantly for ages. But the boxes and basic shapes are an abstraction of the mindset. I think virtually any artist who draws well from imagination knows how to simplify forms, rather than memorizing how any given shape rotates in space individually.

If you can rotate a cylinder, you can rotate basically any cylindrical object.

>>3040641
Obviously, he understands form, but I personally doubt he ever did the whole box/cylcinder mannequin people shit. I think it's just something he does when teaching. It's pretty common for teachers from any discipline to teach shit they themselves never did. It's because they forgot what it was like to be a pleb, and what they did to get gud, so they just make something up that appears to make sense, but they themselves never did.

It's the same shit when you look at master drawings from the renaissance. The niggas obviously understood form, but in all their sketches that survived there's not a single box or cylinder. People constantly bring up Cambiaso with his box people, but his sketches are literally the only thing we have as proof of construction being used back then, and Cambiaso is coincidently also pretty trash.

I 100% think it's just mileage, and knowing perspective. KJG draws a shit ton from reference, and then he draws a shit ton from imagination, and his knowledge of perspective is there to glue it all together and bridge the gap between drawing from reference and imaginative drawing. Like, when he places objects inside a box, sure I believe that's how he actually thinks. But the mannequin people, I don't buy that shit.

File: 6b572bfc1bea3d7ba5a91915a9e5364c.jpg (120KB, 736x520px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 736x520px

>>3040668
> only plebs use mannequins

>>3040634
actually he only does about 4 hours a day, i saw him in seattle

>>3040634
Keep telling yourself that and making up reasons to stay mediocre

>>3040668
>but I personally doubt he ever did the whole box/cylcinder mannequin people shit.

Well unless you have a trove of his old drawings or heard it from the horse's mouth, it's only an opinion. It seems more likely that he is teaching what he found effective in the absence of other evidence. Has he ever talked about what sorts of books he read / people he studied under to learn that I'm unaware of, or are you just projecting your dislike of boxes onto him and just assuming he never once used them?

You can get the same results with raw mileage, but it's taught so much because it's a useful fucking system.

>>3040600
Maybe?
Grab Peter Han's lectures and grab the PDF to Dynamic Bible.

File: hobos.jpg (156KB, 600x762px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 600x762px

>>3040668
Ehhhh, theoretically yes. Practically no.
Even if you can rotate simple forms in perfect perspective if you don't have at least a decent visual memory of what something looks like from multiple angles you'll still get the angles you didn't specifically study wrong.What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what method you use, so long as it makes the process faster and simpler and you can use it for everything. /ic/'s fixation on perfect geometric form is unnecessary, the only way to get good at drawing living creatures and humans from memory is by practicing with REFERENCE first. Really what drawing from memory is just like speaking a language. You don't learn how to write a book in English by writing a novel but you don't think about abstract grammatical concepts when talking either. The only way you get better at saying what you want in a language is by studying references (analyzing poses, studying other artists and imitating their techniques) and just talking a lot (the "just draw a lot" meme).
Doing boxes teaches you basics but gets more and more complicated the more extreme the poses get and doesn't have the same inherent flow simple organic shapes have (bean bag, simplified "noodle" arms for gesture and volumes). Using shapes as opposed to perfect geometric forms for drawing humans is like the difference between being able to creatively choosing your words to talk as opposed to having only a couple rehearsed line to talk to people with. Sure, you can be consistent and the effect will be relatively good but you lose the freedom and flow the latter provides.
TL;DR Learning basic geometry is critical for being able to think in 3D and feel the depth in drawings but after that point it's more about what works for you rather than using a geometric formula.
Contrary to what /ic/ says you don't need Loomis to "make it" drawing humans. Just look at Kienan Lafferty or any other professional cartoonist.

File: doggo.jpg (8KB, 250x237px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x237px

>>3041048
Sorry, I meant to reply to
>>3040641

i think peter's approach to drawing is really good. i don't kno what's all in the book tho. he's definitely obsessed w/ things like insects/animals/military airplanes/cars. he knows a lot about them.

>>3041048
But I want to draw pretty girls, not fat dirty homeless men

>>3041120
Then stop doing self portraits lad

File: dest.gif (1MB, 320x188px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x188px

>>3041123

>>3041120
Okay. Then apply the same concept of shapes to women and just change the shapes. That's the beauty of drawing with shapes, you can customize the shapes you need for each situation as long as you have a basic understanding of form
Here's some examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOyQW4KMAk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWRF9GpRCNI

>>3040668
Do idiots like you not understand that drawing with perspective in mind IS construction? Literally the only difference is whether you draw it out on paper or do it in your head. Drawing out mannequins, perspective grids etc is simply a way to make this whole process easier for you as you.

Someone like you who got frustrated that he can't draw well with construction will NEVER in a million years be able to draw like KJG. How could you possibly do the advanced, very difficult version of something when you can't even do the easy one?

KJG is so good, he can skip construction entirely and do all the perspective stuff in his head. You are so bad, you are desperately trying to convince yourself that you don't need construction because there are artists like KJG who don't. The difference between you and KJG is like night and day.

File: RIP.jpg (218KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 960x540px

>>3041123
KEK
RIP anon

>>3041135
this is a great image.

I went to a KJG talk a few years back. Can confirm- he attributes much of his success to mileage. He talked about how he uses the box in his mind to layout figures in foreshortened poses, but most of his drawings are automatic.

One example KJG gave was when he was in school, him and a friend would draw all throughout the day on a specific topic. So if "giraffe" or whatever was their focus, the entire day would be dedicated to drawing giraffes in different angles, poses, and actions, and mentioned he would fill entire notebooks in a single day doing this. Every day was a different topic and everyday he would fill up at least one notebook.

>>3040790
For every artist that use mannequins I see 9 others that don't. Go watch artists livestream or draw on YouTube, 90% of the time they just scribble some shit in and ink directly on top of that.
The only people pushing mannequins are teachers, interestingly enough.
>>3040854
>you need to draw an enormous amount to get gud
>'oh wow keep telling yourself that, u fukken deafist :DD

Are you retarded, my man?

>It seems more likely that he is teaching what he found effective in the absence

That would seem reasonable, but more often than this is not the case. I can't point to any case studies, but it's a very common for many teachers (not only in drawing, all disciplines) to retroactively make shit up, and teach something they never actually did.
Also, I don't have any hate towards boxes or construction. In fact I have used construction extensively for several years, a la Vilppu and Michael Hampton, and all that shit. And it's exactly because of that extensive experience I think it's a bullshit system.

>>3041134
Nice projection there, homo.

Construction here I specifically define as drawing mannequins, don't argue semantics.

I can construct just fine. In fact, if I have been doing it for years, and that's exactly why I think it's bullshit, and I if could do it all again I'd opt for a more naturalistic method.
Also, don't pretend construction is somehow some necessary key to success. The construction meme pretty much started in the early 20th century. Before that there is absolutely zero evidence, again except for those shitty Cambiaso drawings.
Even today, go watch any half-way decent artist draw, none of those faggots use construction in the way it is taught by any of the teachers today. Even comic book artists that draw a bunch of shit from all kinds of angles always just rough their shit in, and ink over top of that.

>>3041171
i'm sorry you were too retarded to understand construction anon.
And yes, using construction and perspective in your mind is still construction, and something you practice by actually doing it on paper first, and yes construction is used by pretty much every artist that works from imagination.
plus what you said about zero evidence is plainly wrong because those methods literally come from studying renaissance master drawings, which all of them show clear understanding of planes and corners

File: ¹ÌÄ̶õÁ©·Î4.jpg (64KB, 400x540px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 400x540px

>>3041171
>Construction started in the 20th century

Are you fucking stupid? Construction was derived from the old masters. Just because they aren't literally drawing boxes doesn't mean they aren't thinking about those basic forms. Anyone with half a brain cell could look at these sketches and clearly see how Michelangelo was thinking about construction.

>>3041328
How the fuck did Michelangelo have such a detailed drawing without anatomy references in depth books and images? No way a body would be enough unless you were able to see very well for whatever reason.

>>3041341
>No way a body would be enough unless you were able to see very well for whatever reason.
The old masters did have anatomy books and they also would study and dissect actual human cadavers (sometimes illegally).

File: CP_MICHELANGELO_creation-of-adam-study3.jpg (2MB, 1500x1136px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x1136px

>>3041295
Alright, faggot. I guess KJG is 'constructing' his drawings because the shit that goes on in his mind, even though that's not all what is colloquially meant with construction.

>plus what you said about zero evidence is plainly wrong

Literally show me one drawing that isn't Cambiaso or the like 2 Durer drawings made by the old masters that show them using construction as taught by contemporary teachers like Vilppu or Michael Hampton. Pro tip: you can't.

>>3041328
>Construction was derived from the old masters
100% empirically false. Constructions is something that literally got made up in the 20th century.

>literally drawing boxes doesn't mean they aren't thinking about those basic forms

'Thinking about stuff' is not construction. If he's not 'literally drawing boxes (or cylinders, or whatever the fuck)' then it's not construction.

>Michelangelo was thinking about construction

He can think about all he wants, be he's not using construction. You're calling me fucking stupid, yet the picture you posted exactly proves my point. You can see Mike just used direct drawing. He literally just draws in the mass using contours. Just because he, quite obviously, was aware of forms doesn't make it construction.

Construction as being taught by Vilppu et al. is a meme.

File: Demonstration .jpg (69KB, 400x540px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 400x540px

>>3041561
Are you really this dense? It's quite clear by the way Michelangelo exaggerates the contours of his drawing that he's thinking about construction. Hell, look at his right arm and you can literally see a cylinder there. Construction isn't limited to using literal boxes cylinders, many artists break down the body using more complex geometric shapes, but that doesn't mean there is no construction there. If an artist doesn't apply construction to a drawing, do you know what happens? It ends up flat.

>>3041561
>>'Thinking about stuff' is not construction. If he's not 'literally drawing boxes (or cylinders, or whatever the fuck)' then it's not construction.

Ifyou're at the stage where you can conceive and visualise forms in your mind before putting pencil to paper then there is no need to draw them first.

'Construction' is just an effective way to block-in from imagination allowing the easier application of perspective, lighting, etc. some people don't need to block in as much.

>>3041344
> they also would study and dissect actual human cadavers
This wasn't a trend. You're specifically talking about da Vinci.

>>3041803
Michelangelo also worked from cadavers. It's not a trend, it was done off and on from the ancient greeks, up until modern times. I studied from a cadaver for an "anatomy for artists" class I took in college.
I think it's lack of popularity was over having to work quickly, because of no refrigeration. Also, it's easier to get corpses these days, with people who will their bodies to the cause - during Da Vinci's day, nobody wanted their relatives cut open publically. The whole thing about it being banned is a myth - DaVinci worked from a body from an elderly person he was friends with, who gave him permission before he died.
Today, it's a useful thing to experience, but with the amount of 3d tech and advances in photography and such, it's less needed.

>>3041344
It was never illegal, that's a myth that's been dispelled. The Church forbade the process of boiling flesh from bones (a whole 'nother subject), not cutting them open to study them.

>>3041341
Michelangelo studied the human form from a young age. He had an incredible memory for details, and he put in the grind hours to get to the level of skill he had. He would go sketch workmen in the fields, or cutting stone, because they had more defined muscles, and he would hire models to pose. He also studied Roman and Greek statues that were being dug up and studied all over Europe.

>>3040634
im convinced hes a little weird, too.

File: Draw 2a.jpg (66KB, 550x390px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 550x390px

>>3041728
In this piece, he was working from a live model, it's pretty obvious. He did a lot of studies like this, from models. He was probably doing some sort of construction in his head, unconsciously, for sure.
A better example is this sketch he did, which shows some form of construction.

>>3041341
gee i dont know m8, its not like he had human beings to observe or anything

>>3041835
No fucking shit. Most people who draw a lot are weird, it's not a rare thing.

>>3041826
>I studied from a cadaver for an "anatomy for artists" class I took in college.
did you get to dissect it?
did it have nice tits/penis

>>3043133
>did it have nice tits/penis
corpses generally don't seem to have nice tits or penisses. in life drawing classes I have seen quite nice tits and penisses though

>>3043135
my gore folder disagrees with you

>>3043140
i guess i've mostly just seen corpses of old age

>>3043140
Can you upload the folder?

Guys, here's a history lesson.

Renaissance: people draw by construction, boxes cylinders and so on.

Dutch Masters: sight size, comparative measurement, camera obscura, etc.

These are the two time-tested methods to draw. If KJG can draw out of nowhere and for some reason he's lying about using construction, you shouldn't care. These two are the two time tested ways.

>>3040600
In my humble opinion, there's really nothing special about KJG
I've seen countless artists draw without laying out any shapes on paper.

He just does so to a higher degree and it's become is shtick to draw cluttered images with crazy compositions. Glenn vilppu can draw without visible construction, so can Peter Han, and Feng Zhu hell, even Scott Robertson can do that.

It requires working through the "dry" stuff first based on a discussion scott had with one of his students during a sketchbook exploration video on his youtube channel.

>>3043299
I hope you're trolling. Peter Han, Feng zhu, and Scott are nowhere near KJG.

>>3040616
>tfw not asian
how do I become asian

>>3043361
put your pointer fingers on your upper eylids, apply light presure and move your hands outwards a small amount

If you're drawing from imagination, you need the mindset of a constructionist. That is, the mindset that allows you to be conscious of the imaginary 3D space on the paper, and the perspective of the objects within that space. You don't actually have to follow construction at all, but it helps significantly and helps you achieve that mindset. Internalizing primitive shapes and the effects of perspective on those shapes helps one understand more complex forms in perspective, which is absolutely necessary for drawing from imagination. Once perspective and the primitive shapes are internalized, the artist does not have to rely heavily on construction (though it is always useful when drawing unfamiliar subjects). When you internalize these things, you develop intuition for how things "should" look before you even draw them, you will have a sense for how a leg should look from a certain angle, how wrapping lines would look around a form, what parts of an object would be obscured due to the viewing angle, etc.

>>3043361
>tfw asian
>haven't made it yet

>>3043299
KJG draws fucking car engines in fisheye perspective from scratch, he's a monster.

>>3040668
>>3041561

Did you talk about this a couple of months back too? I remember a good thread we had on this topic. It covered slightly different ground, the other side had marginally better arguments in that one but in any case I think you're right overall. Unfortunately I didn't save it so I can't point to it.

What we're trying to find out is exactly what the successful people did, in what order they did it, and what they thought at every step - and these things are basically always different from what they say they did, and what they advise us to do.

The nonsense on all the emphasis about construction is essentially a religion. The great people said this was true, therefore it's true, damn anyone who says otherwise.

My method of constructing a figure could be seen as having been influenced by Loomis and Hampton. And I've read parts of Loomis and Hampton. In my opinion I would've preferred not having read them, or having only spent 10 minutes on them rather than the amount that I actually did. "But it helps your mindset in the background in the future" is the same garbage colleges peddle in gen ed to justify the existence of various departments.

If someone succeeds, they constructed. If someone fails, they didn't.

Construction is always right.

>>3043361
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUdkzI5YMOk
I want some of that visual-spatial iq

File: urwrong.png (92KB, 638x177px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 638x177px

>>3040634
nah

>>3041561

File: urwrong2.png (86KB, 612x160px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 612x160px

>>3044133
>>3041561
fuck forgot the picture

So If I do a lot of Life drawing using perspective and basic geometric shapes, it should increase my sense of depth. Obviously a lo of work but I think it's worth it.

>>3043955
>The next video is about how Jews are the smartest race

Suck my dick /pol/. We'll always win.

>>3044377

Jews have the highest Verbal IQ average, and propensity to be manic, with a side dish of higher risk for mental illness (paranoid schizophrenia and anxiety mostly).


Asians are still better when it comes to visual-spatial IQ, and I suspect Italians can't be too far behind either.

>>3044383
>High risk of mental illness
Oh shit that's why I am friends with so many Jews

>>3044386

I believe a positive thing about mental illness, or just being higher up in the schizophrenic spectrum is that you get a much better capacity to connect seemingly random ideas together, thus making you more creative.
If you take a drug that increases the level of dopamine in your D2 receptor (such as Amphetamines), your ability to see images your mind, and to come up with ideas should sky rocket. At least, that's what happens to me.

>>3040616

Sure, just ignore the fact Peter Han's teacher, who taught him everything he knows wasn't Asian, but Italian. Funny how Italians have the highest IQ in Europe, and made for the world's best inventors.

>>3044624

Peter Han was taught by Jewish male.

>>3040668
Construction is just a method to understand form...

>>3040867
This
>>3041171
You are seriously missing the point. Construction is nothing more than a method to understand form. It's not "required", and I don't believe there's anyone who teaches it saying so. Artists don't use mannequins or construction all the time when drawing because they understand form well, and have it just instinctively in their head. If you do construction enough (or don't! Just learn form another way), you'll be able to do the same. Reading what you're saying, it sounds like you think construction is something that was taught to be "the way to draw", when you've completely missed the point of the entire concept. You're complaining because good artists don't construct, and maybe they didn't, it really doesn't matter. They're all just ways to teach how to see in 3D and construct forms in perspective. That's all drawing is.

File: norm9.jpg (86KB, 800x530px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x530px

>>3044648


>Straight Nose
>Prominent Eye brows
>Ear lobe
>Clear med look
No sir, this man was no Jew.

>>3041827
Michelangelo studied them in secret at night though, it might not have been against the law, against the church maybe, which kinda was the gov at the time.

>>3041826
you went to artcenter?

>>3044129 >>3044136

What book is this from?

File: lmao.jpg (46KB, 1075x673px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1075x673px

>>3040668
>>3041171
>>3041561

This thread is golden.

File: 1470678932866.jpg (69KB, 636x616px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 636x616px

>>3040634
>boxes are their excuse for teaching
>not autism is my excuse for not working as hard as them
u sure m8

>>3046217
second that