/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.2733470]

so i realized some cool shit about perspective (from drawing boxes via d-a-b, muh autism, and free time), and i was wondering if anyone wants to discuss/knows where to learn more

this is gonna be messy b/c i just wanna get these ideas down

in graphical projection (i.e., turning 3-space into 2-space), one dimension must be "compressed" - this is where we get the axiom that parallel lines converge. (my physics is shit, but these are my thoughts: this theoretical understanding is remarkably congruent with our experience of reality - things of the same size get smaller the farther away they are, because they takes up less space in our field of vision. i believe there's a whole discussion in analytic philosophy about whether math is invented or discovered, which sorta falls into this. but let's not get into that here.).

some intuitive proofs can show that:
given parallel lines (which require a plane to exist in) converge to a point (i actually don't know what the proof for this is, i'm guessing it has to do with the whole compression idea). if this is what we want to draw, we can consider that when we draw two lines there is an implied 2-space, in which we illustrate lines of 1-space, and undergoing projection, they converge to 0-space.

[Anonymous No.2733471]

>>2733470
you can actually carry this idea over to all the other dimensions (which can lead to some cool results). the most useful is probably knowing that when we draw parallel planes going to infinity, they converge into a line. (+1 to all dimensions.) this is why the whole horizon line principle works. instead of the earth as a sphere, imagine as a cube and you're standing on one of the sides. that plane goes ass-far, mimicking infinity. if you're standing straight up, you can imagine a line going horizontally straight through your center of vision (the middle of the cone/pp/whatever), and this line really represents the "edge" of plane (like when you wear goggles in the pool and can see the "line" of the surface of the water separating water and air) going out to infinity (ie, a plane orthogonal to the pp). since both planes go to "infinity", they converge, which is why eye-level and the HL always seem to be the same. this changes if the plane you're standing on is really short (like in a spaceship or something) or if you're ridiculously high.
continuing from the line-example, parallel planes imply there's a 3-space that contains them.

and of course there's volumes of 3-space, which can be drawn given the earlier two observations.

any higher than this is not draw-able. what if we have parallel volumes, you ask? theoretically, they'd converge at a plane. i can't imagine this either, so dwbi. the reason is that parallel volumes of 3-space implies there's 4-space! and ofc we're only working with euclidean 3-space turned into 2-space here, so we couldn't draw this even if we tried.

[Anonymous No.2733473]

>>2733471
in other words, you can imagine the world as a theoretical euclidean space that consists only of points, lines, planes, and volumes. with only the axiom (or provable theory? idk) that when compressing dimensions (in this case all that matters is from 3-space -> 2-space), the dimensions contained within must converge (planes -> lines, lines -> points) (note that parallel convergence and foreshortening are essentially mathematically the same idea - things that aren't parallel will converge even more dramatically) w.r.t. the picture plane.

the trouble with all this is that it's impossible to convert from 2-space to 3-space. it's like not being able to go backwwards - b/c we've lost an entire dimension, there's no way to know what a 2-space illustration "actually" looks like in 3-space (theoretically). there are infinite 3-space forms to represent what we see in 2-space. an easy example would be placing a point on a page. there's no way to tell how far away that point is from the picture plane. there's no way to tell if it's actually a line directly orthogonal to the pp, or how long that line is for that matter.

of course, the way to get over this is with your sensibilities as artists. we don't want to draw random lines and points and work those into 3-d things. we always start with an idea, in 3-d, of what we want to illustrate, AND THEN we position our pp wrt. the 3-space model, AND THEN applying these rules. common sense/learning should take care of readability issues.

[Anonymous No.2733474]

>>2733473
another thought: why does kjg encourage the use of cubes to draw things in perspective? this is my theory (it may be obvious, but if you ever wondered why specifically these are my thoughts): we know that the basic forms are spheres, cylinders (-> cones), and cubes (-> pyramids). we want to stay within the bounds of these basic forms - they are most useful to the artist, and anything else would be too confusing (nobody wants to draw using a hexagonal prism as an artistic tool). out of these, we want the form that contains the most perspectival information - that is, the most discrete parallel dimensions. this is where the sphere, which contains infinitely many parallel tangent lines and planes, fails. (this basically applies to the cylinder too.) so if we know how to rotate cubes, we can pretty much apprehend anything in 3-space with a 3-point perspective (any more would be curvilinear perspective, which isn't what we're concerned with here).

[Anonymous No.2733476]

Babbies first mushroom trip

[Anonymous No.2733478]

>>2733476
I don't blame him. I was exactly like this.

[Anonymous No.2733480]

>>2733470
I'll be honest I started reading all your posts and gave up. You're not making a whole lot of sense, or at least not describing things well. You also don't seem to understand why things get smaller when they get farther away from us.

Regarding >>2733474 I thought it was just common knowledge. Like yeah, people use cubes because they're the simplest form that has a distinct front, sides, back, top, and bottom, so the orientation in space is very clear. For what it's worth though some artists think of forms in spheres though, like some of Vilppu's drawings do this and same with some Renaissance artists like da Vinci.

[Anonymous No.2733483]

OP, I'm going to assume it's meth or adderall. I'm not judging you, and as I'm drunk I tried to read everything you wrote to give you the benefit of the doubt. You aren't making any sense at all. I'd recommend you try to formulate a thesis in your mind and work backwards from there. What you've written is rambling and incoherent. I'd be willing to humor you if I had any idea what the fuck you were talking about.

[Anonymous No.2733495]

>>2733473
>>the trouble with all this is that it's impossible to convert from 2-space to 3-space

u trippin hard mane

[Anonymous No.2733498]

>>2733470
Yeah perspective is pretty dope.

There is nothing more important than perspective, it's the alpha and the omega of drawing. Best entry point into learning the skill itself and most depth of all fundamentals.

[Anonymous No.2733505]

>>2733476
>>2733478
ofc

>>2733480
yea, i figured. the way it is in my mind though, olson's stuff seems way easier to remember now.

and yea, i don't know the physical reason for it. mathematically speaking, if you have a row of trees of the same size, you can essentially wrap a group of parallel lines around their silhouettes to make a horizontal "cylinder" of trees. looking at this straight on, those parallel lines would converge, and the trees that are further look smaller. so there's an explanation working backwards, fwiw.

and about the second point, i just wanted some teleological "reason" though i realized it's not much more complicated than "any other form is just inconvenient"

>>2733483
the basic idea is, drawing is turning 3-space into 2-space. in math, this requires that sub-dimensions get compressed.

points are 0-d
lines are 1-d
planes are 2-d
volumes are 3-d

***if we want to turn 1-d to 0-d:
planes (2-d) are necessary for multiple lines to inhabit (ie a plane contains at least two lines. alternatively, for two lines to exist there must be a plane containing them). lines (1-d) converge to points (0-d)

going off of this, we can realize that

[Anonymous No.2733507]

>>2733483
>>2733505
***if we want to turn 2-d to 1-d:
volumes (3-d) are necessary for multiple planes to inhabit. planes (2-d) converge to lines (1-d). this explains why the HL seems to be the same as EL most of the time.

***if we want to turn 3-d to 2-d (drawing!):
time (4-d) is necessary for multiple volumes to inhabit. volumes (3-d) converge to planes (2-d). this convergence cannot be illustrated in 2-d. it's just an interesting mathematical curiosity.

so, we are forced to work with the previous two observations (1 to 0, and 2 to 1). when we draw a volume, the only way we can do that is by illustrating its outer planes (2-d), which in turn we can illustrate only with its outer lines (1-d), which are really (ontologically) a collection of infinitely many points (0-d).

******it is interesting to note that it's impossible to go backwards, from 1 to 2-d, and so on. a 0-d point on a page has infinitely many three-dimensional interpretations. it could be a foot away or a mile away from the pp. it could even be a line that you're looking at straight-on. this is why, common sense in mind, it's important to imagine the 3-d forms first, and then apply your rules. (this is more of a tip for myself.)

>>2733495
i mean in the mathematical sense. for example, there are theoretically infinitely many 3-space volumes that would project to those floorplans. in a purely abstract sense, you cannot get a grasp on their size, for instance. we can "convert" those into houses only with a basis in reality - one inch on the page being X many feet.

[Anonymous No.2733508]

>>2733498
yeah, there seems to be the most math behind it, which i thought i'd avoid entirely when doing art

art really seems like a science

perspective, which contains ideas of form and line, is honestly just math. my profs had studied this shit before - projective geometry and graphical projection. i think there are loads of theoretical texts on this shit.

and then there's light and color, which is really just physics/chemistry.

and anatomy, which is really biology. i've found having even a basic overview of the evolutionary motivations for certain anatomical features in people and animals pretty helpful as far as conceptual understanding and memorization goes. plus it's just cool.

[Anonymous No.2733518]

>>2733505
>the basic idea is, drawing is turning 3-space into 2-space. in math, this requires that sub-dimensions get compressed.
>>2733507
>it is interesting to note that it's impossible to go backwards

What you're describing is similar to taking the derivative of a function. To go "backwards" the best you can do is add a constant. I think you're grasping a concept you'd be able to better describe if you knew a little more calculus. I'm fairly certain I understand what you're alluding to, but it's really hard to comment more when you're not describing it in terms the math or art folk can really relate to.

>>2733508
>plus it's just cool.
There are a lot of subtle and profound things to realize in art and science. I've come to settle on the entirety of it being far outside of my ability to comprehend and enjoying the little glimpses of it my mind allows me. Keep at it and try to articulate things so people can relate to them if you want to have a conversation.

[Anonymous No.2733890]

>>2733474
https://youtu.be/3uEtdDvK6Xo?t=2m26s

the cube gives information about how the shape is angled on each of the three axis, a more a simpler shape would be easier but not give as much information, a more complicated shape would be harder to draw and not give any more information

[Anonymous No.2733896]

>>2733470
>>2733505
Are you actually tripping or not though?
Is this acid or mushrooms?

Regardless I like this thread

[Anonymous No.2733902]

>>2733470
>this fucking thread
w-whoa

[Anonymous No.2733916]

Math based anon here to tell you somethings. This you're talking about is projective geometry, which requires a bit of calculus to get the full understanding.
When you said "for 3d to become 2d you have to compress one dimension" I got to think of a better explanation and it goes like this: the same way a fraction of a circumference when the radius approaches infinity tends to be a line -thus d(sin(x))=tan(x) Lim x→0- two parallel lines converge at a point in infinity. If a line is defined by two points in space and a plane in defined by at least three points in space, the line of thought is analogous, and since a plane is a set of infinite lines and those of each plane parallel to one another, then all lines converge in infinity forming a line . When you say "compress" a dimension I think you mean to say "express" a dimension. See, with a plane (read: paper sheet) you can plot an xyz graphic, but it won't be in three dimensions because of the plane limitations, all you can do is suggest the other axis.

[Anonymous No.2734012]

>>2733470

Doing philosophy doesn't necessary make you better at art and vice versa.

Instead, try to understand why you're trying to come up with a groundbreaking theory that will instantly make you better at drawing.

As for philosophy, we don't have to use complicated math to figure out that parallel lines converge. In fact, we don't have to use math at all - it is evident, unless you are blind. One could argue that they might only appear to do so, but we're dealing with visual arts and appearance is usually sufficient.

[Anonymous No.2734016]

[Anonymous No.2734025]

>>2734012
You are new to art, aren't you? Why do new artists neglect useful knowledge art wise just because there is no "art" in the name? Math has some useful explanation on art, the same goes to physics. Okay, discussing if two lines do or don't converge in infinity does not matter because it's obvious, but the explanation might just be the insight needed to make someone understand the full subject and apply on arts.

[Anonymous No.2734042]

>>2734025
How do I onto art math? Keep in mind, I don't even know how to use a calculator.

[Anonymous No.2734052]

>>2734042
What do you mean by art math? Geometry and graphical analysis are most of it, the other concepts are more abstract and will only be useful for your understanding of certain subjects.

[Anonymous No.2734055]

>>2734042
I also find that the concept of calculus helps a lot with art. Not learning how to do derivatives or integrals, but that thing of what tends to what when you approach something.

[Anonymous No.2734061]

>>2734052
>>2734055
I'm too simple for this, in all honesty. Uhhhh can you help me figure out how to make appealing shapes and learn fashion stuff? Not trolling, I'm genuinely struggling with these things and you sound genuinely helpful. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.2734072]

>>2734061
If you want appeal you should go into the psychology of it. And also there are different kinds of appeal, for each there are ways of you to express through art. Now, fashion is mostly appeal. Appealing shapes, again, come from psychology, where people find comfort on soft and simple shapes and pleasure on "sexual" shapes.

If you're stuck go on Google images and search what you want. Copy the things you like until you understand the concept or get the common points down and try until you get it.

[Anonymous No.2734075]

>>2734072
Noted, thanks a lot. I guess I'm just scared as I've been locking down my fundamentals for the past couple of years and never once studied good designing. Thanks again. I guess I have to go familiarize myself with fashion designers as much as with artists.

[Anonymous No.2734087]

>>2734075

After studying fashion and mass psychology, make sure you delve deeper into math.

Few people know that, but Craig Mullins's greatest art breakthroughs came after he defended his thesis on topological field theory.

[Anonymous No.2734089]

>>2733470
You're retarded.
One reason a lot of people come up with retarded stuff like this, is because of the brain's reward system. You can get an emotional experience of clarity and understanding, which can make you feel you've reached some sort of enlightenment even when you're wrong. Basically, you're taking your highly subjective experience and acting like it's an objective truth, because you're incapable of separating evidence based logic from your emotionally induced sense of enlightenment.

It's the same shit that happens when people get high on weed, or when they do psychedelics.

[Anonymous No.2734097]

>>2734089
To be honest, I've made that mistake myself in the past.

It came from fear of hard work and instead of practicing and accepting my imperfections, I would look for some secret formula that, once understood, would instantly elevate me to masterhood.

[Anonymous No.2734098]

>>2734087
looks like I have lots to read tonight. Thank you!

[Anonymous No.2734107]

>>2734012
>>2734089
>s-stop having fun this instant!!!!
/ic/'s toxicity never fails to surprise me.

[Anonymous No.2734128]

>>2734098
I'd say the secret is to enjoy what you do. If you have any hobbies, apply them to art and you'll learn a bunch. I see art as a frame and everything I learn is an add-on to it.

[Anonymous No.2734144]

>>2734128

Listen to this man.

Don't just learn "art". Use art to tell a story, use art to come up with an interesting design.

Find something that makes you passionate and see how art can help you explore that.

[Anonymous No.2734155]

You don't need perspective to do fashion design, but perspective is cool.

[Anonymous No.2734157]

>>2734128
>>2734144
I'm really excited to be able to tell stories and such and have my own flare on my works, but it's terms like "shape language" that confuse me. I'm taking my first baby steps into this, if you guys have more advice, I'd be appreciative.

[Anonymous No.2734158]

[Anonymous No.2734160]

[Anonymous No.2734163]

Some anon's might tell you that you can do 6 point perspective in 3 dimensions, but it's just a bastardization of 5 point.

[Anonymous No.2734166]

>>2734128
Also, in all honesty, I have poor taste, I liked sword ladies (kek) and it's only until now that I'm realizing how unrefined my taste is or had been.

[Anonymous No.2734174]

>>2734163
not gonna make it

[Anonymous No.2734202]

>>2734166
Try to understand what made that attractive to you on a deeper level and use that to fuel your passion.

Was it sword girls exclusively? Was it a particular artist? What made him stand out? Was it the way he used his colors? Was it his quality of line? Design of his characters? His ability to convey emotion through gestures and facial expressions?

Try to analyze things you've enjoyed in the past this way and you'll be able to understand yourself better. And as you do, you'll be able to find a passion to fuel your art with.

[Anonymous No.2734214]

>>2734202
Thanks a lot, anon.

[Anonymous No.2734247]

>>2733470
you lost me at "in graphical projection"

[Anonymous No.2734250]

>>2734247
>you lost me at "in graphical projection"
We all did, welcome to the club.

[Anonymous No.2734258]

>>2734163

Not gonna make it, like seriously.