Does anyone know of any solid routines or courses to follow that

>drawing ability in general

That's so vague. Honestly, just post your work explain your goal within said piece.

Draw something from a ref that you know will take you at least 3 hours.

File: image.png (131KB, 988x872px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 988x872px

>>3122833
Here are some quick sketches I did today. As you can see, there's some knowledge there but there's also a good number of mistakes. Obviously the perspective is off on one, the antomy is screwy in a few places, and even being able to draw figures decently at times I still don't know much on scenery and the likes, so I just want to improve my overall draftsman ship but I don't have any direction. I've read just about every art book out there that's decent and thrown around here and I think the big issue is I don't have a solid "workout routine" so to speak.

wake up
draw
do other stuff
sleep
repeat

>>3122827
Do the Bargue.

File: image.png (72KB, 1056x660px)

72KB, 1056x660px

>>3122846
Problem is that's the way I've been working for years and I'm not seeing the improvement I'd like, nor am I where I want to be for the time I've put in. I feel like this would be one of the big pluses for an art college (if they were worth anything anymore) they'd give you a clear cut schedule for improvement. You'd know the different things to focus on, how long to focus on them, and how many drawings you should do. Instead I've mostly just been working blind and picking apart my own art while just drawing random things daily trying to improve.

File: 1724.jpg (125KB, 676x600px)

125KB, 676x600px

>>3122846
>>3122848

but seriously just work on your fundamentals. study your anatomy and perspective. learn about values and edges, color etc. you need to do what is called deliberate practice (ericsson): focused, with well defined specific goals, and requires getting out of your comfort zone and doing something you have never done before, and is usually not fun. ritualize/habitize your art sessions, work on projects, challenge yourself, monitor your progress. surround yourself with people that will support and motivate you and with people that have similar goals.

and copy from other artists (a lot). this is probably one of the fastest way to improve.


probably the best advice i can give you now. good luck friend

>>3122854
You just sound lazy. You could easily search up what art schools do and take their schedule.

>>3122854
>>3122865
oops meant to tag you not the other guy

File: staples-paper-ream.png (106KB, 300x262px)

106KB, 300x262px

>>3122827
Depends on if you're a NEET or work/go to school.

Work/School:
-Devote at least 2 hours a day to art. No internet, no texting, etc.

NEET:
-Devote at least 6 hours a day to art. No internet, no texting, etc.

===
For both situations, start with:
- 1 ream of paper
- 1 pack of ballpoint pens (the clear barrel ones)
- 1 ruler (for some of the diagrams in the books I'll mention)

it's always better to start out on paper. you can work anywhere and there's less opportunity for distractions. also, no pencil because the goal is to focus on volume. this does not mean you are to be sloppy or half ass your drawings.

Books you'll need for the first few months:
-Michael Hampton's figure drawing book
-Andrew Loomis' books, "figure drawing for all it's worth" and "Drawing the head and hands"

COPY EVERY DRAWING AND DIAGRAM, LINE FOR LINE, UNTIL THE REAM OF PAPER IS DONE. use both sides of the paper. read Loomis' advice carefully too.

Once you're done with that post your progress and you'll hopefully be ready to take on perspective. Good luck, anon!

>>3122865
I think perspective and color are my two biggest weak points at the moment. Perspective has never seemed to click with me no matter how many times I've read Perspective Made Easy. Perhaps I'll focus a bit more on that.
>>3122866
I am lazy, and I think that goes hand in hand with me not having a goal, and not having a clear cut curriculum. At the moment I don't have much more to work towards besides just gitting gud, and I need some form of a schedule to get gud, but a specific one. For instance body builders work out certain parts of the body right? Well they have to target those parts, work them out for so long, and alternate between them at to help them grow. There's routines to achieve different body images but most lead to success. That's what I'm looking for now for art. Just mindlessly doodling each day or over focusing on one subject of study leaves me lacking.
>>3122881
Copying is a bit of a double edged blade I think, especially when doing it out of a book where you can't really see the process of its creation.

>>3122827
As other anons have said, fundamentals are the only 'general' thing you can study and even if you master all your fundamentals you aren't going to be able to draw everything. Fundamentals are just tools to help you understand the world from an artists perspective .

Its worth acknowledging that you are never going to be a master at drawing everything, for an example look at any portrait artists attempt at landscape painting or visa versa. You will notice that outside their area of expertise they are awful, even with a good foundation of fundamentals and transferable skills they cant hope to be good at everything without the mileage in that specific niche. Even within certain disciplines certain artists have specialty's within specialty's, Aaron Blaise draws a lot of animals, and he is good at it, but he is especially good at drawing bears because he has drawn a fuck-ton of bears.

>>3122881
loomis is and always was a meme friendo, study bridgeman > peck > bammes > hampton, in that order.

>>3123120
loomis isn't a meme if you actually read the words in his book. he gives very practical advice about drawing and creating illustrations. his methods are good enough for someone who is learning at home and cannot take classes (even though he encourages that you do). most importantly, of all the authors you mentioned he is the only one that was a successful working illustrator.

bridgman and peck's books are only useful as reference in the atelier setting with live models because that was how art was taught when they were learning and became instructors themselves. if you copy and follow bridgman's guides you'll end up drawing the same blocky, gorilla shaped people he does.

bammes' book is far too dense for a beginner to use as instruction. it's really only useful for intermediate and advanced artists as reference.

>>3123153
You're literally memeing loomis here by attempting to downgrade these books, please. bridgeman and peck are great resources outside of atelier setting, They've existed as *books* as a resource, when ateliers went out of fashion just fine.

>>3123153
Also you're not suppose to interpret bridgeman literally as made obvious by the drawings themselves. We know humans don't look like this, but it demonstrates something very valuable about construction.

>>3123165
>attempting to downgrade these books
never said they weren't useful. they were created to be supplements to life drawing classes, regardless of how people use them now.

>Also you're not suppose to interpret bridgeman literally as made obvious by the drawings themselves. We know humans don't look like this, but it demonstrates something very valuable about construction.
once again, bridgman and peck did not write their books as standalone art instruction books. you were to bring their books with you to life drawing classes, preferably the one they taught. why add another barrier for a beginner learning to draw? loomis (and hampton, to an extent) already gives idealized figures and basic construction methods for the beginner to learn from without the need to guess and interpret what the drawings are supposed to mean.

>>3123093
>Reply
Grinding fundies only makes you good at grinding fundies. Art is iterative - you build on top of what you learned. "Fundies" are the various lego shapes, but you need to learn the "fundies" of constructing more complex compositions, to progress. Otherwise you're just grinding the same lego shapes over and over.

The major failing of this forum is there aren't enough people around who have progressed past fundamentals, and have no experience in the next steps. Also, the people here who sneer at art education fail to understand, it's not just learning fundamentals, an art teacher can be instrumental in guiding you towards putting fundamentals together into more complex compositions.

>>3123482
>an art teacher can be instrumental in guiding you towards putting fundamentals together into more complex compositions.

The hard part is finding a school with art teachers worth anything. I've been to several and was pitched pretty nice deals, but then I looked at the students and teachers art and was stunned at how novice it all was. I myself was better than them. I also had two of my friends graduate two different art college. Neither learned gesture, both have stuck to their styles, neither can draw anything above what you'd see a middle schooler doodle.

>>3122865
>>3122881
Please don't fall for the study meme.

>>3123346
>bridgman and peck did not write their books as standalone art instruction books. you were to bring their books with you to life drawing classes, preferably the one they taught. why add another barrier for a beginner learning to draw? loomis (and hampton, to an extent) already gives idealized figures and basic construction methods for the beginner to learn from without the need to guess and interpret what the drawings are supposed to mean.
if you can't visually infer the value from their plates you're ngmi, sorry but how low intel can you be that you need your hand held thru every step by supporting copy or taught by the author himself? This isn't engineering, these are visual problems, and they can be solved mostly intuitively.

Peck especially is very comprehensive, to the point where i think you've mistaken him for someone else. That or you're more concerned with spreading semi-obscure facts.

File: just draw whatever.png (27KB, 797x482px)

27KB, 797x482px

>>3122881
Please don't listen to this person.

>>3122827
Probably drawing from life will help the most

File: 1475417293240.jpg (146KB, 605x345px)

146KB, 605x345px

>>3122881
>COPY EVERY DRAWING AND DIAGRAM, LINE FOR LINE

>>3122848
NO NOT THE BARGUE

seriously I hate that shit, is it even useful

File: image.jpg (99KB, 640x565px)

99KB, 640x565px

>>3123992
>>3124049
That's what I'm doing at the moment, though the worry there is becoming reliant on live models or scenes and weakening creating from the imagination. Also, trying to come up with a routine now but I'll have to cut some times and balance it to make it realistic for gitting gud, but also getting things done. I can't just keep studying, I need to do a project or go for work at some point.

>>3124068
Yes, immensely so. The earlier you start the better. I recommend doing a few plates before even touching Loomis.

How do you study perspective if you're just trying to draw from live models/photos?

>>3124124
you think those dont have perspective?

>>3124124
Make sure you do not neglect drawing your figures in proper perspective. I'm fairly certain that is a big reason I'm having the trouble I am.

Perspective is more of a natural checking tool I've come to find.

File: 1504406533059.jpg (570KB, 1280x1811px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 1280x1811px

>>3124112
>that fucking schedule

Honestly, this "speed" attitude will just fuck you over. Anyone decent will tell you focusing on speed as a beginner is fucking retarded and will only instill sloppy, bad, weak technique you will have to spend time later fixing before coming back to square one and actually doing what you're avoiding now which is long, concentrated, singular works. Pros would be happy to get 2 paintings out a day.

Do Bargues, copy references, get shit accurate even the tiny bits you could "just fix later if you actually cared about the piece." Learn values first, but still have fun with colour - 10/20 min sketch bullshit. You can suffer through colour in a few months after values. Dont ignore still lives. Construction is a meme that is fucking useless if you cant see shit properly and measure with your eyes. You could know what every subcutaneous bump means or how sss works in your mind prison but without recognising and analysing them SLOWLY in a subject, person, landscape or still life, progress will be slow. For learning, quality always beats quantity. Speed comes with time.

>>3124211
>beginner
Problem is I've been at this 5 years, know all the tools, but learned everything in a funky order and now I have a ton of trouble putting it all into practice. I spent the first year learning animation thinking I'd just get by with "muh style" which obviously didn't get me far. Now I know gesture, form, anatomy, and light/shadow fairly well, but almost completely glazed over perspective which led to a ton of problems and bad habits. Also, I spent most of my time just drawing naked figures so my visual library is limited. Still, I used to get pretty consistent work back in the day, but had a belief change and stopped doing that kind of art work and after realized how limited I was.

But like the other anon said, I'm pretty casual and lazy with it and I think it's because I don't have any clear cut goals or a proper schedule. To just "draw" and get in pencil mileage isn't terribly helpful. I need to know the subjects that will help me improve and how long to focus on those a day. About my only goal now is just working towards animation which I'm fairly good at spacing and timing wise, but I want it to be more visually appealing.

>>3123986
>if you can't visually infer the value from their plates you're ngmi, sorry but how low intel can you be that you need your hand held thru every step by supporting copy or taught by the author himself?.....
you're operating under the assumption that what you know about drawing (and perhaps art in general) at the present is common knowledge to everyone. ask any random person on the street who brigdman, peck, loomis, etc. are and they wouldn't know. at most they know names like picasso, da vinci, van gogh. for this reason when starting out the average person DOES need to be spoon-fed. most beginners are people who never drew since 3rd grade and are stuck on symbol drawing. they are not gonna understand those diagrams fully. let them improve their technical skills with easy to understand material that loomis gives. telling them to dive head first into the intricacies of the human form before they can even begin to render in 3D is like giving a F1 car to a 15 year old who just got their learner's permit.

>>3122827
if i were to start over again, i'd really focus more on simply composing images from imagination & then study everything necessary to make the final image good. studies are much more useful if you have a purposeful way to apply what you're learning.

>>3124278
Problem is I'm not looking to paint or do extravagant pictures. Things like that never interested me, though I could see that being useful advice.