Is sight-size worth spending serious time studying? Is the whole

Mostly a late 19th century and early 20th century trend masquerading as the true way of the old masters.

>>3057600
>19c. trend

You don't know what you're talking about.

>>3057585
is it not just like putting the easel at a distance so the irl thing and the drawing look the same size to you?

it can't really hurt, can it? give it a go and see if it makes seeing errors in your drawing or whatever easier, and if it does, do it for a couple of weeks and see if your 'eye' feels trained.

you should definitely do the brague plates though, sight-size or no, they're very useful. i can't count the amount of times i've seen that exact brague foot in some painting or illustration.

File: Bargue%20-%200195c.png (189KB, 400x538px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 400x538px

Only for the traps.

>>3057641
As a complete method of drawing and teaching, it is quite specific to that era, even if some parts of it have been used for a long time. Actually, it is not even known how wide spread Bargue and closely related methods were, so trend may even be an exaggeration.

>>3057674
Pretty sure that's just a 12 year old boy, pedo.

File: image.jpg (248KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 768x1024px

>>3057878
Difficult to say, since earlier methods made use of the graph.

>>3057936
>graph
Grid I meant.

>>3057585
>just a meme to justify not grinding construction

If anything it's construction that's a meme. That aside, you don't have to go full retard with sight-size and literally spend hundreds of hours copying a single subject, but learning to see is probably one of the most important things you could learn.

>>3057585
Construction is for imagination. Sight-size / learning to "see" is for life drawing

"training you eye to see" is real but the comparative method is more effective for learning that so I wouldn't bother with sight-size

>>3057585
If you want to do realism, yes.
If you want to draw anything stylized, no.

>>3057585
it's just pretty impractical and limiting as your only method of drawing.

>>3057936
The purpose of 19th century (modern?) sight-size: ultimately to fool the eye with a 1:1 reproduction from where the artist stands, in full value, and to train the artist in the most subtle gradation.

That image: A representation of a curious and extremely rare method that demonstrates some properties of perspective made by an artist who is unusually interested in optics and proportion, the 1:1 ratio result being incidental to the relationship of the screen to the paper grid rather than by necessity as in atelier sight-size.

>>3057585
Can anyone recommend cool sculptings like OP's image?

>>3057585
>/ic/ spewing buzzwords to justify not studying
I bet you don't study your construction either, what's your excuse for that?

File: tumblr_luvd5dAs6L1r6y3vao1_1280.png (810KB, 783x501px) Image search: [Google]

810KB, 783x501px

>>3057585

It's worth your time as an exercise, even if it's not a method you'll often apply for your finished work. People don't lift weights for the fun of it, they do it to build muscle.

Construction practice is great for drawing from the imagination, but it doesn't often give you an appreciation for the subtle nuances that bring drawings to life - taking your time to push through a sight-size drawing will do just that. It's like those subtle value shifts that really push a form to feel tangible, after you've gotten the general tone down.

Aside from training your eye to see nuances, it also trains other skills that are frequently lacking in digital artists; like patience, and the ability to plan your piece out.

>>3058971
Because construction is a meme.

File: 1459298238319.jpg (55KB, 616x519px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 616x519px

>>3059079
this better be bait anon

>>3059101
you are the bait

>>3057585

Not useful for stylized stuff, construction is useful.

However, it's useful as a means of studying stuff. I use construction and sight-size

>>3059079
This is true. Artists who rely on construction lack talent so they can't figure out why some other artists wouldn't use construction.

>>3060127
rely?
you don't "rely" on construction. construction is just what you do when you understand the forms of your subject, or want to understand the forms of your subject

>>3057674
Why is the left leg longer? I'm sure it was an extremely accurate reproduction of his model rather than a mistake, so what's going on?

File: 215px-Doryphoros_MAN_Napoli_Inv6011-2.jpg (14KB, 215x400px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 215x400px

>>3060268
take note of how the boy's hips are tilted.
one leg is pretty straight, and on the opposite side, his hip is lower, thus his leg is lower and he has to bend his knee and move his foot back a bit.

File: 5zNjskV[1].png (116KB, 392x254px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 392x254px

>>3060296
Ah I see, didn't notice that
>semi-related captcha

>>3060320
holy fuck that middle image

File: 0-Salviati-Francesco-attributed-Cupid-c1550-75-drawing-Prado.jpg (474KB, 1305x1466px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 1305x1466px

>>3060264
Yes, rely. There are drawings that are much more direct, ranging from sketches to finished works. Or do you consider those constructing as well? Hardly -- when there are methods that are definitely and nominatively constructive, the which often go to such extremes that you'd think they're making a robot. Understanding form does not mean you have to construct. Now, there may be some semblance of construction, but extending the meaning to them would make the term meaningless.

Why RELY on construction when much greater artists than these sophists of construction did not go to such lengths and were greater for it?

It's worth to spend time doing it so you can do studies properly and draw from imagination measuring with your mind, but that's it.

>>3060439
I regard constuction primarily as a learning method. Yes you don't really need to autistically draw construction lines and boxes or whatever if you have a really good understanding of form - but where are you going to get that understanding from?

It's a tool for teaching students how to regard everything they draw as 3D forms and translate them into 2D drawings with perspective.

It's much harder to learn that from simply copying. Of course copying methods aren't created equal either, the best imo is comparative method from real life, worst is tracing from photos and other 2D images. Sight size and grid method and similar fall somewhere in between. More restrictive and rigid than the comparative method, but require more thinking than tracing still.

File: img_0587.jpg (433KB, 949x982px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 949x982px

>>3058285
>>3060481

There's a difference between sight-size and comparative? I thought they were synonymous with the same pencil/plumb-line "looking for relationships" shtick?

>>3061617
In sight-size you place the canvas so the drawing is exactly the same size as the subject from your vantage point. The benefit is that you can take EXACT measurements using something like a ruler and translate them directly to the canvas. It's a very precise method that relies on the model, the canvas and the artist all staying in the exact same spots while taking measurements. (For example you need to mark the spot where you have to stand to look at the model, using a tape on the floor for example)

There's no evidence that this method was used historically by the masters or ateliers, it's a late 20th century invention.

Comparative means you just look at the model and measure things purely by eye (though you may use thumb / pencil or similar if you think it helps) There's no restrictions to the placing or size of the drawing surface.

>>3061617
>>3061656
Here's a more indepth article explaining the differences: http://www.swedishacademyofrealistart.se/academy/sight-size/

It's heavily biased in favour of comparative, but I would tend to agree

>>3061657
>>3061656
I'll never make it because I hate, hate comparative measurement methods. I love construction but it's incredibly limited in terms of nuances and so much harder to pull off. Fuck me. Fuck art, it's the only discipline that rewards you for not using your brain.

File: maybe he should have used sight size.png (338KB, 597x413px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 597x413px

>>3061657
>Found the article convincing
>Look up the author
>His artwork is pic related
every fucking time

>>3060481
What the fuck are you on about? Why would you ever need to learn construction if your objective is to work by comparative measurement or sight size? It's completely useless. Stop theorycrafting.

>>3061780
Only things I find wrong about that have to do with the colour choices and composition. The actual figure is fine.

>>3061787
>your objective is to work by comparative measurement or sight size
That's where you go wrong
Nah I don't mean you're wrong if that's all you want to do but lol construction is for if you want to draw something out of imagination. If you rely on reference all the time all you learn is how to draw from reference. It will ultimately limit you in what you can do creatively speaking.

>>3060481
I greatly suspect past artist developed understanding of form through experience of principally drawing from nature, either of sculpture or living humans, and designs of masters before them, in addition to being taught by a master, who would have taught them to draw in their own mature way. Surely they would have drawn cylinders and boxes and cones, and one would intuitively conceive of the limbs and parts of figures as behaving likewise; but to conceive does not mean one constructs, especially no where near like modern construction of the quarter-twentieth century to present. The drawings of the artist which approaches closest to modern construction, Cambiaso, are so rudimentary and special. Even the term construction has a modern ring.

Now, construction is certainly preferable to any modern atelier revival methods, unless one wants to draw accurate copies. Yet most examples of work done by training in the atelier methods have a peculiar staleness. I cannot say for comparative because the term is quite vague, as it could either mean something which includes a method of drawing or simply an effect of drawing from a model. Construction is also a method which many beginning artists will find easy to learn under because of the prevalence of teachers in this method both recent and active. However, the earlier the student can wean from construction into sure, natural, lively drawing, the better.