/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4996773
example 1, the guy that runs huevaluechroma and dedicated his life to studying color and light physics isn't very good landscape artist. His colors aren't even that great

>>4996774
example 2, the guy that runs handprint which has a very in detail perspective and color theory articles

>>4996773
Post examples

>>4996775
I've also noticed this trend amongst my fellow artists. People who spend tons and tons of hours studying technical details are either average or below. Whereas seeing interviews with artists who are masters usually just go by what "feels" right

>>4996773
That's why practice matter.

Talent > Skill

>>4996775
I think this guy also has a pHd

Usually as most cases in art, it’s entirely favour practice over technical skill, just because you know the insertion/origin of the pectoralis or whatever it’s called doesn’t mean you can draw it being raised/lowered in a variety of different angles. That’s why actually drawing and mileage really matter

>>4996780
possibly, but anecdotally I've found this true in my own works honestly. Like I used to overanalyze everything like color and specifics of tiny details of line and how boxes fit in forms etc. But I got a lot better when I stopped trying to cram 1000 technical details into my art and just focus on feeling form and gesture and painting colors that just I FELT like harmonized

>>4996785
I mean is this even true either? You see people with webcomics running for the last decade publishing weekly who literally haven't improved at all

>>4996789
Obviously, there will be retards like that who never improve because they didn’t even studied/copied crap. Dude this is just common sense, you improve if you study, you improve if you study and draw, you improve you study the same shit and drawing it over and over again from multiple angles and dissecting it and try to find a way to draw it easier by using gesture, construction, or what ever means works the best.

>>4996793
(Cont)
Here I’ll even break your balls for you, if one method was found to work really well for everyone, there will be an exceptional “talented” artist that will improve using the method with only half the effort that he puts in compared to you and still be better than you by 10 fold.

>>4996773

All of the Old Masters, Academic Painters, and hell, even Picasso's early work as a student- had a VERY high ceiling of technical knowledge.
Coping wont help you pass the barrier.
Go draw and study.

Has anyone noticed people with zero technical knowledge (color theory, perspective, anatomy) tend to be mediocre artists who make excuses and shitposting Reddit frog threads instead of actually getting good?

>>4996854
I have noticed that, one example is a 4chan shitposter mocking people with deep technical knowledge who sacrificed producing art for themselves, instead, shared what they learned for the wealth of other aspiring artists. We are supposed to be thankful to these people.

>>4996856
This is like great engineering professors who sacrificed actually practicing in their field just to teach and guide the upcoming future engineers.

Stupid, talentless, unskilled, shallow 4chan /beg/ don't understand the value of these people when they themselves has absolutely NOTHING to offer. Not even a decent drawing of sphere or apple.

>>4996856
>>4996858
Frogposting faggots can never comprehend a concept as nuanced as 'it is possible to have a high level of understanding without also having a high level of execution'.
If dumb shitposters like these spent half as much time drawing as they did hunting down justifications for their own laziness they would already be skilled artists.

>>4996865
Agreed, although we should still be grateful, low tier humanoid arteests like this keep society's interest in art without actively competing in the market, aka stepping stones. Same dumb faggots will be buying online tutorials we might put up in the future.

>>4996865
STERPERD FRERGPERSTERRRR

>>4996865
STERPERD FRERGPERSTERRRR

>>4996880
Thanks for proving my point, you obnoxious spaz.

>>4996856
>people with deep technical knowledge who sacrificed producing art for themselves
so Proko, Villppu, Scoro?

>>4996780
Honestly, this. I'm beginning to realize that talent is very real and many artists just don't have it.

>>4996865
> 'it is possible to have a high level of understanding without also having a high level of execution'.

>>4996901
Doctors have better understanding of anatomy than artist, and somehow bad at art. Must be talent.

>>4996907
this
talent is everything and no amount of floating loomis heads will save your ass

>>4996934
how about loomis heads attached to villpu bodies standing in robertson rooms?

>>4996959
Hori shido, you forgot rendering the anime boobies on top of it tho.

>>4996959
Literally what you’re supposed to do

>>4996959
>>4996969
>>4996971
Based af, looks like a recipe to wreak any "talent"fag.

>Talent is important
Is this how basic people cope with the fact that art is harder to make than it seems like initially? Interesting

>>4996773
pyw crab

>>4996901
Yes, anon. This is self evident to anyone that isn't a massive brainlet.

>>4996934
Did you really not catch the sarcasm in the talent comment?

>>4996858
this is retarded analogy. Most engineering professors are practicing in their field you dumb fuck. All engineering professors do tons of important research and design while also teaching.

>>4996865
>>4996901
If they know all the theory why can't they apply it? Whats the missing link here? There's tons of artist who just go by what they feel when it comes to perspective and color and their art is great. Why do we even need this extreme in depth technical knowledge beyond basic perspective and color?

>>4998019
>Whats the missing link here?
Practice. Art is both physical and mental, to be a good artist you need a good balance of both.

>Why do we even need this extreme in depth technical knowledge beyond basic perspective and color?
That depends on what you consider extreme. If you think scaling and rotating an object in perspective, or understanding how local color changes under different lighting conditions counts as extreme, then you absolutely need that much knowledge.

>>4996774
>>4996775
They might not paint enough to apply their knowledge well. Hand skill is lagging.

>>4996907
Not visual anatomy
Stupid argument

>>4998019
>If they know all the theory why can't they apply it? Whats the missing link here?
You answered your own question tard

>>4996773

The Great Masters often gave reat effort to study technical knowledge as intensely as they would study their subject. Read Leonardo DaVinci's collection of codexes for more information.

>>4998153
>Not visual anatomy
I would love to see you try to explain what non-visual anatomy entails.

>>4998449
Didn't Da Vinci say that he accomplished nothing right before he died? Or what is michaelangelo. Essentially nobody on their deathbed says >i wish I studied more anatomy
If you spend your whole life studying and not making art your gonna regret it

>>4998524
Lol most doctors don't know their anatomy at all once they pass that unit for med school. Unless its their specialty they won't know anything.
Someone who has to sculpt the anatomy has a much better understanding of how every muscle's shape and gesture and how they insert and connect. I would literally say that Michaelangelo's understanding of anatomy would btfo 99% of today's doctors

>>4998537
Sick dodge.
In your own words, explain what 'non-visual anatomy' entails.

>>4998541
I'm not the original OP you replied to so I can't say exactly what they mean but I do have some friends in med school. They may memorize where the muscles are and their function but they would have a very hard time sculpting or drawing these muscles. Their knowledge of anatomy is more like "where" and "what" it does. Even that knowledge rapidly fades as they go into their specialties. (The average family doctor doesn't know anatomy at all).
For an artist we're much more concerned with the form and gesture of the muscle. This is why sculpting is such a great way to learn anatomy. Its very difficult to learn anatomy from looking at 2D anatomy diagrams. You may be able to understand where the muscles are (the three parts of the quads, where the hamstrings are etc) but you won't be able to rotate these forms mentally unless you "feel" the form.
Another example a medical school anatomy exam is just filling in blanks on an anatomy diagram. At the Russian Academy of Arts one of their exams is to draw the parts of the skulls from imagination from different angles. Different understandings of anatomy

>>4998530
You can do both; people have an issue with trying to order the way in which they learn and study (first ill study x, then ill move onto y, then to z, then when i'm really good at those, then i can start doing what i want).

Do both the fundies, AND your subject at the same time.

>>4998559
So many words to say so little.
In summary, you are a retard inserting yourself into a conversation you have nothing to do with and on which you have no input.

>>4998564
why are you seething so hard lmao. I just casually answered your question. Are you mentally ill?

>>4998567
You did not answer my question, you ranted about shit that has nothing to do with my question.
Calling a retard a retard isn't seething either.

>>4998568

>>4996773
they lose the soul along the way

>>4998014
>research
And that's academic in nature, for accreditation purposes to elevate their position as a professor. What I meant is engineers on field, working in plants and factories, those who supervise and lead, it's different because they're actually applying theoretical knowledge.

Oh but what do I know? I'm just a "dumb fuck" who spent 5 years in electrical engineering and earned a degree.

>people with the most technical knowledge have the shittiest art
That knowledge isn’t yours until you can apply it on paper, kiddo

maybe the good ones just dont need to talk about knowledge.

>>4998571
>fb6

>>4998594
LOL you really think research is for accreditation purposes. Most engineering professors would consider themselves researchers and engineers before instructors. Professors are at universities mainly to lead million dollar research labs funded by giant companies, not to teach. Most of these universities have more robust manufacturing facilities than some random plant.
>What I meant is engineers on field, working in plants and factories, those who supervise and lead, it's different because they're actually applying theoretical knowledge.
Running an OEM factory in the middle of flyover countryside is barely engineering. Moving boxes around on a Gantt chart and fixing broken gate valves barely applies theoretical knowledge
>Oh but what do I know? I'm just a "dumb fuck" who spent 5 years in electrical engineering and earned a degree.
So you spent 4 years in school and one year in industry lol. Congrats on your degree wagie, I'll let you know when I need someone to rearrange shapes on labview

It's because past a certain point that knowledge won't make you a better artist. Learning the physics of light and how to derive perspective geometrically is fairly useless unless you're developing 3d software

>>4998647
Right now I'm convinced you have no idea what you're talking about, thanks for wasting my time reading all that.

>>4996789
those people generally do improve, but I don't think repetition and practice are the same thing. if you're just drawing the same stuff in the same amateur style over and over you'll only end up more confident at that amateur style.
it's like practicing guitar by playing the same song over and over for 5 years. yeah you'll get good at that song, but you'll stop improving as soon as that song stops having any new challenges for you.

>>4996773
Yes, you also need talent to get good.

>>4996773
At the end of the day, technique is necessary but many artists master technique. The important element, the X factor, the true keystone to success is producing original pieces. Things that peak curiosity, breakthrough concepts, never before seen creations. You can be a god of anatomy and perspective and lighting and color but if your content is nothing new, it will never inspire and people will never notice you.
Earlier today i was reading Tatsumi's stories. Guy was a disciple of Tezuka, but technically was very, very sketchy. Downright lazy sometimes, just drawing by hand some elaborate curvy staircase of even chicken scratching many details in his drawings. He attained success because in the time these manga were published (1950/1960) his themes were new, he was credited with inventing modern seinen or adult themed manga. Manga was seen as children's stuff, but Tatsumi created everyday life stories with sad salarymen, hookers, pregnant mistresses of company owners, depressing urban settings, unloved husbands, emotionally abusive elderly mothers and so on. It was new, it was real, it resonated with grown-ups and made them reflect upon their own lives. And i'd rank his style maybe at 6/10.
Many artists can create perfect drawings, but can they make interesting art?

Damn I can't believe to become a good artist you have to actually drawing and actively applying your knowledge, rather than spending most of your time staring at anatomical charts

>>4996789

Repeating something as part of a routine isn't really the same as actively studying and learning to improve. Reps are important, but you'll get efficient at what you're repeating for better and worse.

Those people have probably become extremely efficient at making something consistent and easy to reproduce regularly, rather than working on improving their quality.

I think ideally you want to set aside time to basically 'drill' consistency but also set aside time to experiment, play, and try to innovate.

>>4998567
You answered it fine, he’s just retarded.

>>4996773
You need two things to make interesting art. 1. Ideas (creativity) and 2. understanding (knowledge). Artist-teachers who are knowledgeable and make good teachers have great understanding but lack interesting ideas. So they make unoriginal, theory-supported, sometimes "correct" art, because theory is all they know. When really, art is about understanding the theory, and then moving past it to generate an original idea.

Since even a good teacher is fallible, he may mistakenly assume that the reason his art is dull is because he just don't know enough, so he studies more, further deepening the divide between art and theory. Or he may just be oblivious how dull his art is -- can't fix a problem you're not even aware of. I've seen that too.

It takes so much to master a complex skill. So so much, and you've never done learning and growing. The best realize this, but also know you ultimately need ideas or knowledge is like a key to an unknown house. There are few greats at all. Knowledge will never make you worse if you know how to apply it.

Studying without applying it enough means you’ll be knowledgeable but not create good art. I.e the examples you’ve given.

Applying your knowledge without studying means you’ll never improve. I.e. the various twitter or webcomic artists

Only drawing and not studying means you

>>4996773
Nope, haven’t noticed that but I have noticed something very alarming!!! An alarming amount of People who aren’t knowledgeable in the fundamentals/technical aspects of art consistently produce unimaginative and terrible looking art, I was completely dumbfounded to realize this correlation. But you know, maybe it’s just coincidence...

>>4996775
O yeah, i learned a lot from handprint! Many years ago. What a phenomenal site, this guy should be given a medal.

But yeah, his work... I think he is an amateur artist, untrained. And his use of colour is shockingly bad and jarring.

>>4999343
Yeah, long term webcomic people tend to be really really good at drawing whatever it is they primarily draw in whatever style they use. Gets cleaner, images include more shit and they can do it pretty quick, they just don't move past whatever general level that comic is at without trying to change stuff up.

>>4996777
Not to give another name to the whole "some people just have talent" concept, but the same argument exists in poker, where the best players can do their best at explaining what makes their playstyle work so well but at the end of the day, most of them just have a better *game sense* than the legions of normies who follow their advice and practice all their tricks and techniques but at the end of the day, the pros just have a naturally strong game sense which, although it can be honed in someone who has it, just can't be developed by someone who doesn't.

tl;dr the masters just have a better game sense, but many people never will.

>>5000340
the same thing exists everywhere really, there is some underlying talent in every field that impacts how fast you progress and how good you can get at your absolute peak. it's just fairly irrelevant to most people and mostly used as a justification for being shit.
to put it in easy to quantify terms in another field, the vast vast majority of people could never hit a 400kg deadlift no matter how hard they train, but the beginners stuck at 120kg bitching about their genetics are still retarded.

I think most people get that there is just some genetic factor at play, it's just not worth talking about most of the time and generally is nothing but an excuse.

>>4998567
I agree that you answered fine too

>>4996780
Talent = skill = pursued interest

Faggot

>>4996773
because theory and technicality cannot be substitute for organic creative thought, intelligent decision making and ultimately, legitimate talent. anyone can grind long enough to put lines, shapes and colours in the right place. but an innate understanding of why something works is an affinity one is born with.

>>5001941
>an innate understanding of why something works is an affinity one is born with.
This knowledge is in a diaper shitting baby’s head?