Does this happen to you too?

Also, does anyone else get like one second after-images of the things you see in your mind imposed in real life?

Keep your eyes closed while you draw then.

It's just your brain tricking you into thinking you can see it all perfectly for you.

File: oº1.jpg (86KB, 546x659px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 546x659px

>>3116302
>Keep your eyes closed while you draw then.

Holy shit, this might actually work

File: RorCat_test.jpg (105KB, 585x810px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 585x810px

>>3116280
What we have in our mind isn't a clear vision, it's just the mind translating things. I've an eye which is seeing badly but my brain takes vision from both eyes and corrects it on the fly, so I can see clearly anyway. I only realize it when I close the good eye. An example is this picture: our brain is making a cat out of that mess. Same thing happens if you remember a building, you'll be unable to say how many windows it has but you'll remember it with windows anyway, it will seem more vivid than it is.
Trust no one, not even your brain.

Sometimes, after I drew for a while, my mental images get worse, like sketchy and infused with all the mistakes I make when drawing and I can't seem to imagine anything vividly anymore for a while.
>>3116281
Can't say I ever experienced that. Did you ever try to trace it, at least for a sketch or something?

>>3116351
>Did you ever try to trace it, at least for a sketch or something?

To be honest, I have not. It last so little it's difficult and despite being able (or believe I am able to) to see the desing with details, it is hard to remember what to draw were relying from short term memory while I have a blank piece of paper infront of me.
-


There's one thing I want to test, and that's making a canvas in Photoshop that very noisy in texture. Sometimes when I stare at textures like that, I can see entire scenes/designs out of the shapes my brain picks from the mess, it would be cool if I could trace some of it, but it might be difficult since they tend to transform into something else, as soon as I move my eyes just a bit.

>>3116316

I am a bit skeptical about your words. I do agree designs I have not studied are some sort of compressed file with not a lot of info, but other designs I do have practiced are easy to see in my mind. Something simple, like a square in a perspective grid is very easy to see, even the ellipse that would fit in all the sides.
Yesterday, I tried to close my eyes, imagine an ellipse and then draw what I saw, they were better ellipses than the ones I am able to do with my eyes open when my mind goes all blank

It's a strange habit to kick. I still have it and am working on it, but essentially your brain is working completely different from your eye. Your eye sees it for how it is and that's it. Your brain is taking symbol clues and forming them to make a reality you can visualize and draw information from. For example, if you were drawing an oval coffee table... there is such a perspective where the top of the table will be a circle. You can see this is your mind and start to draw that, but if you're still focusing on drawing an oval coffee table in a certain perspective, there are ways your brain can trick you into drawing an oval and not a circle. Instead you need to think about how you're drawing, not what you're drawing. The what comes from the brain. The how is the eye. It's a very simplified example, I know, and most of us should be able to get by without drawing the oval, but add more dynamic shapes and your mind will start to dumb down as much as possible to visualize an entire scene in a short time by using simple symbols that have been previously stored in your brain

>>3116311

Not op but I tried it and the harder the focus, the worse the images become. I get 12/10 masterpieces if i just think about THING in 0.1 seconds, but it only decays from there.

The neurons for imagination are genius tier, but the neurons to put things in practice are worse than retarded.

File: 1502285605302.jpg (68KB, 600x560px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x560px

>>3117136

Op here, I totally relate to you, pal. I have to depend on mild stimulants like Coffee and Adderall to get things done. sucks ass being able to see finished pieces in your head, but not having the skills to actually create them and having to push through years of grind.


Same thing with music too, I can come up with pieces in my head but I have no idea how to play piano by ear or notate down that I hear.

>>3116280
>I can see clearly in my mind
>I can't draw
>how do I learn to see in my mind while drawing?
How about you just learn to draw? You don't need to see things in your head, you need to see them on a canvas. There's nothing in your head but grey goo, stop kidding yourself.

>>3117136
>12/10 masterpieces
no you don't. All your brain is doing is giving you a chemical high and making you FEEL accomplished. Actual genius is achieving things in the real world.

Anyone can FEEL like a genius without having to prove anything

>>3117290
>There's nothing in your head but grey goo, stop kidding yourself.


I honestly can't tell if you are trolling, or you seriously can't visualize things in your mind and think people who can are lying. To say there's nothing in my head because I cannot draw it outright, it's like asking you to see a photo for 2 seconds, and then expect you to draw it from memory fully, and if you fail, well I guess the photo was never real.


Kinda silly, don't you think? I can visualize, but I can't keep that ''mental photo'' stable while I do other things.

>>3117406
>and if you fail, well I guess the photo was never real.
The photo was never real in the first place because memory isn't real, it's a recreation of information.

>>3117410

>The photo was never real in the first place, because photons are not real, it's a recreation of visual information
What do you think memory is? Some fucking magical energy that channels from the void world at will, or something? Jesus Christ, son.
Can you see a square in your mind and rotate it? Yes or no?

>>3117410
>it's a recreation of information.

True, and the recreation could be good enough for you to see beautiful things in your mind, do you not agree?

File: 1427295713378.jpg (23KB, 280x280px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 280x280px

>OP admits he can't draw
>people still want to argue with him about brains

File: Progress Re1.jpg (513KB, 1750x1750px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1750x1750px

>>3117424

I can draw a bit, I am not completely new. Just not good yet.


Also, this topic is fascinating by itself. I would expect even people who have never picked up a pencil to chime in and share their thoughts on the matter.

>>3116280
I think we can't to do it
Just we see all and nothing in our brain, we don't see frames, we see all situation. But in drawing we must to be in frame(paper) and compositions frames

File: 1451788802799.gif (443KB, 200x126px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 200x126px

>>3117434
Wow, I never thought about trying to put all my mental images inside a frame, a thumbnail drawing even, just to examine the placement. I think I'll try to meditate before going to sleep and see if I can make it work.


Some Anon earlier said something about simplifying complexity, reduce the mental images info into the core basics that can be easily translated into the canvas, maybe that's the key? I wonder of this is what the human printer uses to draw at will from memory super fast. I think KJG was heavy into meditation too, right?

>>3117430
I'll let you know then. ITs not about what you see with your eyes closed because the people who look at your work are looking at with their eyes open.
You need to see your image on the canvas with your eyes open because no one else can see into your mind.

File: workin.jpg (120KB, 500x594px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 500x594px

>>3116280
I've beed researching into this shit. Trying to figure out a good way to really draw from what you actually visualize. My current model involves teaching yourself to visualized more nuanced images so they stay in your min stronger.

Been experimenting with gesture and fining ways to describe figures in ways that are visually redundant. So far, it has been going ok. Methods of exercise involve simplifying figures from observation into a gesture and then redrawing that gesture from memory. This requires some level of visualization or at least the ability to know which visual information goes where.

If you can wire your workflow in such a way in which you can reference these gestures as you draw, it should become much easier.

Only one slight miscalculation is proportion. That tends to mess up with my current process. Looking for a remedy for that, but it could just be forcing good proportions until it seeps into your subconscious.

Generally, visualizations become much clearer when you actually study how something looks an internalize it. Rather than using perspective lines, I had a go at studying the cube from different angles. This has improved my ability to see the cube "clearer" than before.

You mention how the image fizzles out when you try putting it into paper. This is because your short term visual memory skills lack, and your idea of what the object is isn't as in depth as you think it is. You think it is vivid because your visualizations are detailed enough to match your schema of how the object should look like.

Overall though, this is a really inefficient method of producing work. Gi can do it, but it is probably a side effect of inadvertently training these skills for decades as well as years of drawing. Might post some more later/create a thread if people are interested

WOW this post is probably really long and autistic huh.

>>3117444
>You need to see your image on the canvas with your eyes open because no one else can see into your mind.

No shit, Sherlock. That doesn't mean you cannot extrapolate the information you see in your mind's eye into a full concept in the canvas once you have found a way to simply that info and express it accurately. That's the whole points of fundies, ins't it?
What are you implying, that gestating designs inside your mind is not the bread and butter of many jobs in the art industry? Are you saying people like Feng Zhu and Scott Robertson don't see images in their heads about the drawings they want to do, then explore them in the canvas thanks to their super good fundamental knowledge?
-

A big reason of why I got into art at all, is because I personally take satisfaction from just sitting there and visualizing things in my mind.

>>3117454

Very interesting info, Anon.

>>3117463
Another thing to post real quick is this thread chain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqOjCx4PG0&lc=z12dhz2hdobafv2f223dtxkh5sfnenjfy.1501435270743084

This "Uyeno" talks about his own interpretation on the methodology needed to draw like Gi. He talks about how information is 'memorized'. I am not quite sure his process, but here is his instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/uyeno_art/

Proko's famous imagination stream also plays with similar memory based exercises though I don't think it is specifically for drawing what you visualize. There is a difference in use of short term and long term visual memory especially when it comes to drawing like this. Long term generally deals with visual library - which Proko seems to be more focused on. This is just developed by careful observation and repetition.

>>3117461
>Scott Robertson
Couldn't have picked a worse example, he is the poster child of construction

Art is an optical illusion, the bread and butter of the art industry is tricking people into seeing something that isn't there.
All you have is ideas not complete work because you don't have the tools to make you capable of tricking someones eyes into seeing your idea.

File: 1456695457266.jpg (23KB, 482x453px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 482x453px

>>3117485
>he is the poster child of construction

How's that a bad thing? Do you even draw, bro?

>>3117483

Awesome stuff, I have to try this way of drawing but it definitely depends on having a very particular brain. I don't think all artists out there could just sit for then 10 minutes observing something, then drawing it almost perfectly from memory not matter how much they tried to analyze.


But, maybe doing that for years could lead someone to very interesting skills.

File: 1451521464721.jpg (13KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x300px

>>3117483
>>3117871

I've been meditating and observing a motorcycle, then trying to recreate it in my mind and proceed to draw it. Much to my surprise, this does indeed work, it is probably the fastest way to learn how to draw from imagination, no kidding. I am pretty sure I could have a bike design with all the complexity down in a week if I continued this, after that I could draw a motorcycle at will and explore design shapes.


This, coupled with a good understanding of perspective and construction is likely the key to KJG drawing process, like you said. No wonder he always says to draw a box.

I think that I have visual and spatial aphantasia, so I can't really help you. All I can do is grind constructive methods, anatomy, perspective and practice and using a lot of references.
Recently I've been meditating hard and trying to develop my visualisation skills, but I have a long way to go. My thoughts about visualisation might be a misconception, thought...

>>3118008

Are you completely unable to see images in your mind at all?

>>3116280
Usually I imagine what the whole image would look like in my mind, then "zoom in" to the parts that more undefined to get the details.

File: yunno_horrified.png (826KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

826KB, 1920x1080px

>>3118008
Why are you doing this to yourself, anon? Aphantasia puts you in the bottom 2% by visualization ability and no matter what compensatory talents such as mathematical intelligence you have up your sleeve, you are surely confined to the bottom 10% by raw artistic ability.
Have you ever felt sorry for the slowest kids in the classroom? If you were ever to attend a hobby art course you would be that retarded kid.
Assuming you don't have other deficits you would statistically do better in any other human endeavor.
You may argue that you do art for fun but even if you're having fun you'll never experience the joy of getting quite good because you are fundamentally unable to build a mental library, so enjoy drawing redundant perspective lines, making redundant measurements, destroying the canvas by redrawing a nontrivial pose until you finally get it by sheer luck, never being in the zone because you have to constantly look up references.
I am not much better than you, I can only imagine a few basic shapes and faintest silhouettes of faces. Wasting a part of a limited, human existence on a hobby one wasn't born to do is truly horrifying.
But maybe you're a stronger man than me, so have fun, anon!

>>3119075
>>3118008

Have you guys ever tried staring at an object intently for 10 minutes straight, analyzing the shapes, forms and proportions of the object?

Have you then, tried to visualize it in your mind and draw it? Is it literally impossible for you guys to see images in your mind?

>>3118008
>>3119075
You simply might be too smart to visualize. I'm serious. Read this post.

https://warosu.org/ic/thread/S3031637#p3033480

>>3121704
That's a pretty ingenious post. I don't see simplified shapes that my brain considers to be the same as reality. I literally see shapes that I can translate into paper, and align with reality.

Specially when I start falling asleep, it becomes specially easy.

>>3121704

This is sorta what I was getting at here.

>You think it is vivid because your visualizations are detailed enough to match your schema of how the object should look like.

Glad someone explained this better than me though, and hey my observations are not completely crazy!

I have personally heard accounts of people being able to just [by habit] deconstruct the forms of everyday objects (Peter Han, Modern day james). I personally haven't reached that level yet however, but understanding what you see does help a lot from experience of drawing a cup.