Observational drawing

File: catconstruction.jpg (45KB, 489x638px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 489x638px

As a comparison why wouldn't I do observational drawing like this pic instead?

It breaks down ideas into forms like spheres and cylinders. This is much more valuable for exaggerating cartoons & comics, but it also captures the likeness of the real thing. Isn't this a superior use of drawing time if I'm going to do observational work?

Not looking for memes or bantz just want honest feedback from other artists. Again my focus is comics/cartoons only so I never really want to be "that good" at realism. Maybe one day. But when first starting what value would I get from taking observational drawings to such a finely polished level, rather than doing construction-style art from observation?

>Pic related is a good example of observational drawing.
It isn't though. It's a tacky looking photo-copy

It seems like you have a shallow understanding of what drawing and art in general entails.

Go ahead and start drawing some cartoons, you'll find that you can't get very far drawing from purely imagination, but sometimes it takes hitting that block to truely see the merit in other methods.

Or I guess, you could just stagnate and/or give up

File: glenkeane.jpg (68KB, 452x640px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 452x640px

>>3116863
>from purely imagination
You can draw from life but not do realism. The cat picture is a good example. Or what about this pic from Glen Keane?

Not very detailed but didn't stop that guy from working as a pro animator.

Nobody said anything about JUST drawing from imagination. Where was this stated?

I understand the value of drawing from life and observing life. Already good, we're on the same page. It needs to be done.

What I'm asking about is realistic observational drawing with perfect proportions & finely rendered shadows. Why is that valuable for comics or cartooning? What skills are learned through extremely accurate observational drawing that carry over to construction-based cartoons(ie. Star Butterfly is a bunch of spheres and cylinders; how does realism help me do that?)

File: 00.jpg (62KB, 564x925px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 564x925px

>>3116863
Here's an example of what I'd considered "extremely detailed" life drawing.

How does this much detail ever translate into cartooning? Why wouldn't I do observational drawing more like >>3116867

This thread can be about any observational drawing but I'm asking a very specific question. When drawing from life you can either do construction-based work like DrawABox, or full-blown atelier realism like pic related. Neither is wrong.

But it seems construction is geared towards cartoons since cartoon characters are literally a bunch of forms. So how does realistic work help someone create cartoons? How does rendering a pixel-perfect reflected light over a trapezius muscle translate into cartooning?

>>3116872
>When drawing from life you can either do construction-based work like DrawABox, or full-blown atelier realism like pic related
it is not aut aut, construction is actually used in realism quite a lot

>>3116872
>implying that image wasnt constructed
you can even see the simplification on the hand/arm. Try this: shut the fuck up and draw idiot

>>3116879
>>3116944
There's a huge difference in construction if you:

1. measure with pinpoint acciuracy to get te absolute most perfect accurate measurement possible

2. construct with forms more to capture likeness, not pristine accuracy

Both methods of "construction" are valid. One will get you the perfect atelier style, the other is how you draw a rhino at the zoo without measuring every single line to perfection.

The question is why would a cartoonist practice the latter? Why bring a drawing to that level of finish, what skill does it improve? What's the benefit of pinpoint accuracy like that if it's rarely used in cartooning?

To understand the subject matter, to know the "rules". Once you feel comfy you will know which rules can be bended and with ones you cannot.

Studying from cartoons will let you mimic the " rules " of that particular artist. But if you ever want to try a new style or new possibility... Well you can't. Which brings us why studying from reality as having the upper edge. And you can get some rendering skill pertaining to that material.


On the topic of sharpener, there is no point in studying it unless your goal is either:

Know how to render metallic structure,
Play with perspective
Know the basic structure of a sharpener.

Realism constructions are more used for complex subjects like animals, humans, etc.

>>3116858
You don't need to do super detailed, realistic studies of life.

The life drawings of say, an animator have minimal shading purely for suggesting form and the focus is on gestures.

What you don't understand is that if your comic is going to consist of more than just portraits, you need to understand how to fully render these random objects. If you never practice drawing a car or a door or a table, how the fuck do you expect to do it well in your comic? You need to understand how things exist in 3d space and how to properly convey them. Art is practice.

>>3117255
>drawing a car from life is the same as drawing & rendering a car from life with millimeter precision
>you must draw realism to truly understand a subject

>>3117255
>go to google
>type car,door,table
>select images

>>3117331
No one said that? I'm not saying you need to study PHOTOREALISM to be a good artist, but if you think that there is absolutely no merit to studying how to render objects from real life observation youre a retard who will suck forever. Go ahead post your work, prove me wrong.
>>3117378
cool
have fun trying to draw something without google

>>3117649
>plan your comic or pieces in advance
>go to google
>get resources and ref pics

>>3116872
Well, if you just want to just enough to cartoon, I guess that's okay, but what if after a while you want to do something else? Or, you want to do a fully rendered image for the cover of a comic? Or a poster?
Or, you could just look at it as learning art as a whole, and using parts of it for the specific needs of a career. If you don't enjoy realistic art, then don't do it - but it wouldn't hurt you as an artist to explore more than the bare minimum needed for a specific task - and who knows, you may find things you like doing, even if you never use it professionally. Plus, overall, you'll be that more confident and skilled at using a pencil.

I've never heard or seen learning to draw being questioned like this, but that's nothing new for this forum. Most cartoonists I know trained as artists, in general, and then used everything they learned to cartoon. If you want to take a means to an end approach - hey, it's your life, your career. We can't tell you what the future is. If you don't enjoy art - don't do it.

>>3117649
>photorealism is realism
keep digging that hole deeper buddy

nobody said anything about photorealism but a lot of ppl have said things about atelier realism. also notice how literally everyone in this thread agrees that observational drawing is valuable? So nice straw man, nobody is saying just doodle toons

the point is questioning why render like an atelier when you can do like animators do>>3117214

>>3117770
you've never seen anyone ask about focusing on forms over realism?

the drawabox lessons literally teach this to a tee. you observe from life/reference but you do not measure to exact precision. instead you layer in forms and use cross contour lines to show depth, perspective, and relationships

the guy who does drawabox is actually a very good artist too. I'm not sure how realistically he can render from life but his teaching method does not even remotely touch upon atelier-style rendering. even though he does recommend drawing from life you can tell it's not about rendering a shark's fin for 8 hours to get the cast shadow just right