/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3219467]

>j-just sketch the initial drawing and you will be fine :)

Meanwhile, there are artists out there that can literally draw a realistic-looking character without first wasting time building them out of basic forms and still have them look realistic and 3-Dimensional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN94kc7VHns

Just look at that. No time wasted with stupid garbage like "shapes" or "sketching". He just goes right into it and it looks great.

[Anonymous No.3219468]

>>3218938

[Anonymous No.3219473]

>>3219468

I'm not asking a question, I'm making a statement.

[Anonymous No.3219474]

Not gonna watch the video
But learning construction and gesture is important. Once you know them well enough you don't have to do them at all since the basics will be in your head. Just like drawing books tell you to "draw the owl" and then add details, some artists, once they've drawn something enough, can start with the details.
I don't understand why this is a thread, it's like you think there's only one way of learning art, and one correct way to draw when in reality everyone draws and learns differently.

[Anonymous No.3219476]

>>3219467

Jesus christ how much weed does this man smoke?

[Anonymous No.3219480]

OP is retard

[Anonymous No.3219482]

>>3219467
Because he already has the construction down on point, so he developed his own drawing shortcuts.
Dumb-ass.

[Anonymous No.3219484]

>>3219467
i personally think that this fat outline he does sucks really bad. cheap gimmick

[Anonymous No.3219486]

>OP pic is from Steve Huston book
>OP didn't even read it before creating shit thread
Degenerate

[Anonymous No.3219488]

>>3219486
>breaking shit down into segments, bc for some reason "all bodies are the same"
>wondering why you draw the same shit with the same mistakes all the time after "learning" from these books

you miserable sheeps

[Anonymous No.3219494]

>>3219488

Can you at least change your

"posting s-style"

?

I can recognize your shitposts in other threads.

[Anonymous No.3219497]

>>3219488
you didnt even read the book. He literallly says the exact same thing. The straight up positions are only there for proportions. Get off /IC/

[Anonymous No.3219498]

>>3219467
do you honestly think that this looks as good as steve hustons drawing?

Steve Huston is trying to portray a model, not draw some wacky ass figure from imagination.

[Anonymous No.3219499]

>>3219497

>muh proportions
still defending generic drawing schools.

>>3219494
how about you change yours.

[Anonymous No.3219502]

Why the FUCK is ic idolizing sinix while at the same time blasting any other artist?

[Anonymous No.3219508]

>>3219499
>>3219467
Post your art. You have zero credibility.

[Anonymous No.3219510]

>>3219467
He does construction from his head because he has internalized the process from doing it so much. A lot of you guys don't see the preceding steps, but the current outcome so you mistakeningly assume that you can start at that position. You can't because you're not familiarized with form or construction yet.

[Anonymous No.3219512]

>>3219508

>p-post ur work
Okay. What's the next part of your master plan?

[Anonymous No.3219513]

>>3219508

i have never even touched any of these shitass books you fuckers keep praising like it's a fucking bible session. you cunts are completely incapable. i drew this when i was twenty. all i did was practice daily, draw for 1 to 2 hours everyday. my own stuff, NOT any of this Loomis bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3219515]

>>3219499
so you dont like proportions? Well that is called extreme stylization and i guess its fine if you are some fucking indie neckbeard working on a comic, but it doesnt belong in fine art. What are you even doing here.

[Anonymous No.3219518]

>>3219512
just to clarify, this poster is not me.

this is mine (I hate Loomis)
>>3219513

[Anonymous No.3219519]

>>3219515
>so you dont like proportions? Well that is called extreme stylization and i guess its fine if you are some fucking indie neckbeard working on a comic, but it doesnt belong in fine art. What are you even doing here.

hands down, this is the most idiotic statement I've read on art on /ic/ so far.

[Anonymous No.3219521]

>>3219513
so you just talk shit without ever reading the books. The only reason i dont like loomis is because i read his book and think its shit. You are officially the worst shitposter of IC.

[Anonymous No.3219523]

>>3219519
did i hurt your "self taught" artist feelings?

[Anonymous No.3219524]

>>3219513
just to clarify, this poster is not me.

this is mine (I like Loomis)
>>3219512

[Anonymous No.3219526]

>>3219513
Glad that you did life drawing, but Loomis teaches you the methods of how to do figure drawing, composition, and perspective from imagination.

[Anonymous No.3219528]

>>3219524
>>3219523
Any shithead can steal an image off goyimbook and claim it as their own because it does not pick up in google search. Draw the same face as a quick sketch then I'll believe you.

[Anonymous No.3219529]

>>3219513
LMAO

[Anonymous No.3219533]

>>3219529
>here's a portrait I did from a movie screenshot
i hope this is baiting

[Anonymous No.3219536]

>>3219521
I have read his fucking book, you moron.

The only meaning in reading books on fine art are studies on materials.
How to prepare your own canvas, how to mix colors, what are oil colors made of?, how do you grind and mix pigments (if you want to do that), what types of materials you can mix, suggestions on grounds in combination with materials (wood and charcoal, Bristol paper and watercolors), what types of brushes there are and where to use them (preperation, oils, aquarells, varnishes)

That is an essential read, if you want to become an artist. Colin Hayes for example.

Max Doerner, Thomas Hoppe "Malmaterial und seine Verwendung im Bilde" - has been republished numerous times, bc it is still valid. one of the most thorough books on painting materials.

Loomis and all his peers are for people who openly admit "I don't really have it in me and I need help to become at least mediocre!"

[Anonymous No.3219537]

>>3219529
>>3219533
that is me in the other thread.
what is bait about that, you loser?

[Anonymous No.3219540]

>>3219523
> stylization … doesnt belong in fine art

oh, you make the decisions now? do you coin art history? I guess El Greco was an idiot for stylizing his art then. glad you enlightened me, pleb

[Anonymous No.3219542]

>>3219528
you won't find this image anywhere. go trace it back.

[Anonymous No.3219543]

>>3219536
You need knowledge of anatomy and perspective if you want to create anything besides portraits and bones. He doesn't teach anything false with regards to them and it's neat to have more control over your pieces.

Don't refuse a resource because of pride. Not worth abandoning it for 20 years to spite us.

[Anonymous No.3219545]

[Anonymous No.3219546]

>>3219542
Of course I won't. You're a master at finding untraceable images, rep.

[Anonymous No.3219548]

>>3219540
if you learned to read you would see i said "extreme stylization". And by any means you can do it. But i would love to see anyone from this site be original enough to come up with something that is self taught and still works.

[Anonymous No.3219550]

>>3219486
That Libyan Sibyl sketch is so fucking beautiful

[Anonymous No.3219551]

>>3219512
This is Miles Johnston old self portrait.

[Anonymous No.3219553]

>>3219533
>this is OP skill level.

[Anonymous No.3219555]

Sure OP, you do what that guy does and skip all you want, when you get to his level make a video and I'll bawk all over you.
you'd have to prove it to me that you skipped all fundamentals though :^)

[Anonymous No.3219558]

>>3219546
look at this bitch whining that I pulled this right from my HD
Here are some highres details from both drawings for your wise ass.

>>3219548
>But i would love to see anyone from this site be original enough to come up with something that is self taught and still works.

you will hardly find that up here on /ic/. All I read is manga and illustration cunts giving each other smartass recommendations on reading LOOMIS and all this fucking bullshit, because that's what they did and they think they developed their own style.

[Anonymous No.3219560]

>>3219543

I'm making a clear distinction here:
If you want to be an illustrator, just pleasing commissions, drawing characters you have at call, because you learned all our proportion bullshit by thinking in schemes, measurment lines, spheres and rectangles. by all means, do so.

If you want to create original art (be a painter, fine artist, drawing artist etc.), you need to get as far away from all this "how to" bullshit as possible. learn materisla and paint and draw everyday like your life depends on it.

[Anonymous No.3219562]

>>3219546
did i shut you up? oooh ….
let's see yours, bitch!

[Anonymous No.3219563]

>>3219558


Alright, but even if it is, that image of yours isn't impressive in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.3219564]

>it's not baiting
This thread gonna be comedy gold.

[Anonymous No.3219565]

>>3219529
>>3219533

so, you two cunts. what's good? what the fuck is supposed to be bait here? did I "steal from myself" from the other thread?

[Anonymous No.3219567]

>>3219562
you type to fast

find another hobby, like drawing.....oh wait you really don't draw because someone who does won't shitpost with their art.

[Anonymous No.3219568]

>>3219563
yeah sure, big talk. lets see your skills then.

>>3219567
I can do whatever the fuck I want. I have all the time in the world. Let's see your work.

[Anonymous No.3219569]

>>3219567
>hobby
it's my fucking job, you loser. don't project on others, just because you are (probably) mediocre at something. or show us your art for a change, you chicken.

[Anonymous No.3219570]

>>3219529
thanks for screencapping my posts, lmao.

[Anonymous No.3219571]

>>3219568
>lets see your skills then

Sure. Let me know when you post some personal work and not studies (-:

[Anonymous No.3219572]

>>3219467

[Anonymous No.3219573]

>>3219571
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEWDhOXgUbY

[Anonymous No.3219577]

>>3219571
>childrens drawings
>literally generic manga influenced shit

I've wasted my time with you. lmao.

Look at this lame shit you adopted with the index finger of the girl, slightly apart from the other fingers. this is what 90% of illustrators do. it's a complete cliché.

foggy feminine figure on lower left. not better than anything from any highschool boy who "likes to draw a lot" … how old are you?
the smoke, going in these regular S curves, has nothing to do with what smoke or fog actually looks like. good enough for a fridge or pinwall decoration of some non-art related individual for sure.

a raven with meaningless ornaments, a careless background made of fast, dry strokes with a felted pen that doesn't give any space. and your usual made up symbol bullshit.

this is lower than entry level. complete waste of time on my side.

[Anonymous No.3219578]

>>3219558
Can Dunning Kruger effect be even more real? Or this is Nosebro RP?

[Anonymous No.3219579]

>>3219577

Not him but it's more appealing than your (((studies))).

[Anonymous No.3219580]

>>3219578
oh look, it's the "DUNNING KRUGER!" yellling idiot.

elaborate on that claim please, i'm waiting.

[Anonymous No.3219581]

>>3219577

I said post some personal works. I am waiting for them.

[Anonymous No.3219582]

he probably pulled his shitty drawings from reddit

[Anonymous No.3219583]

>>3219579

sure, and since that is coming from another manga cunt probably, i couldn't care less. only proves that fine art and illustration doesn't go well together.

[Anonymous No.3219587]

>>3219582
of course. got any better excuse? here's details from both. >>3219558

I smell a lot of butthurt here.

[Anonymous No.3219589]

>>3219583
I don't draw, I do 3D. I'm just telling you like it is.

[Anonymous No.3219591]

>>3219581

get fucked, you little Loomis asskisser.
this is exactly what this whole argument is about: developing technique on your own.

you haven't got shit coming.

>>3219589
even better. how's your interest in fine art? anything beyond your entry level Van Gogh and Picasso knowledge? do you go to exhibitions regularly?

[Anonymous No.3219593]

>>3219580
>elaborate on that claim please, i'm waiting.
Your drawings are trash. You don't know anatomy and fundamentals, you can't into form, you can't into light and you don't know how to use pencil.

[Anonymous No.3219595]

[Anonymous No.3219596]

>>3219572
>tfw we've got everyone here

[Anonymous No.3219599]

[Anonymous No.3219600]

>>3219583
>''fine'' art
found your problem

[Anonymous No.3219602]

>>3219571
oh and looking at it again, i notice you've also adopted the standard way of drawing your noses: either red with a reflection, or white with a dark shading around … like, that's soo original!

>>3219593
if those are your sketches, you have one simplified way of doing shading. you stop midway in the drawing for whatever reason, probably because you think "it's cool" and looks like you're a "pro". when in reality, you neglect the bg trees on the left (first row, left), the spacing of the floor (middle) and any liveliness in the grass (right).

there's talent in the drawings, but you are a nostalgic little student, trying to adopt a way of drawing that is long gone, nothing more than that.

[Anonymous No.3219609]

>>3219482
Sinix explicitly mentions that he never used construction, even as a beginner. Nice try though.

[Anonymous No.3219610]

>>3219602
>you have one simplified way of doing shading
You don't even know how to shade.

[Anonymous No.3219612]

[Anonymous No.3219616]

>>3219609

… which proves once again that Loomis and Sinix books are for people who would love to draw, but can't do it on their own. So they adopt technical crutches and shortcuts to give an illusion, which is good enough to fool people of their own kind: complete art philistines.

>>3219610
obvious troll.
but the cool thing about amateur drawing is that you can still derive very interesting aspects: they seem to focus a lot on the eyes, which really are important in any portrait. they emphasize negative space (the smooth skin on the cheeks, which only has subtle shades) and create clear outlines - mouth, nose, eyes, chin. also, drawing each individual hair is another such thing that amateurs do - they seem to think that these have to be treated individually, since there are so many of them, instead of looking for generalized shades, shadows and spots.

you can learn a lot about perception from amateur drawings.

[Anonymous No.3219619]

>>3219612
what an idiot. glass makes for a perfect pallett. just take an old glass from a big frame, put a piece of neutral white paper underneath and you have a perfect pallett for oil colors. the oil won't dry bc it doesn't soak, you can cover it with plastic wrap during brakes, easy to clean and re-use.

[Anonymous No.3219621]

>>3219602
top kek, that guy is way fucking better than you, your stuff has no appeal - you are just a xerox nigger. Prove me wrong and post something from imagination.

[Anonymous No.3219622]

the thing that /ic/ lacks is artists.
All I see is illustrators, manga plebs, complete /beg/ers and above all, some mediocre illustrators who throw these "drawing bible" authors at each other and fail to realize that these authors are mainly into writing these "drawing for dummies" books for the cash. and the publishers just love to throw another one of these shit-ass books on the market every half a year.

[Anonymous No.3219625]

>>3219533
Can you post original photo?

[Anonymous No.3219627]

>>3219621
look at this meme hurling little shitstain.
as a peer, I see talent in his drawings. But the thing with his drawings is that he seems to go to a reactionary univesity with a very traditional approach. that way, you base your art in a time that is long gone. it is great to learn from old masters, but at some point, you will have to branch out to do your own thing. I don't see that happening so much in his studies, except maybe for the drawing of the workers and the caterpillar on the bottom, but that's it. the rest is literally a catalogue of drawings that you can see in the Krakow university first years (very traditional and scholastic approach) or any Eastern university, which are largerly sceptical of contemporary art.

But this goes beyond your understanding, meme-boy.

[Anonymous No.3219628]

>>3219622
That might be true for people like Christopher Hart but Huston just needs to teach 1 semester at some school and he'll make more money than your whole family for an entire 3 years. His 1 book is less than .00003% of his entire income. Lets not forget he is the FOUNDER of NMA. Let that sink in how much $$$ he is making.

[Anonymous No.3219632]

Who would win?

[Anonymous No.3219634]

>>3219632
the cross hatching on the jacket is fucking disgusting

[Anonymous No.3219637]

>>3219632
look at how the hair of the guy in the lower right corner is done. you get that thin outline on the top to say "look, that's were it stops!" and the rest is unmotivated, generelized shading, mostly going parallel like bricks …

the lower left has some very unnecessary hatching spots on the cheek, which are overall too dark in respect to the rest.

nice studies nonetheless, certainly better than most of what /ic/ sees in a week. but come on, it's another set of very traditional studies. you could get these from literally any serious art student in any Eastern art university even back in the 1950s …. and we've got 2017….

>>3219634
its not ideal, i give you that. but that comes down to priorities and the style you choose.

[Anonymous No.3219641]

>this fucking retard 100% shitting in other threads
And this is why we can't have nice things.

[Anonymous No.3219644]

>>3219632

[Anonymous No.3219657]

>>3219644
Your entire portrait is problematic. Go back to /beg/. You're not funny anymore

[Anonymous No.3219658]

>>3219657
break it down for me then. what's the problem with it?

[Anonymous No.3219660]

>>3219657
I don't like your "brick"-like shading style. it very much reminds me of the things that you can learn in all these hundreds of "how to draw" books. these fat brick-like shading patches don't do anything for the structures (hair) or shapes. frankly, all they do is scream "look at the ease in my drawing!" (laziness)

[Anonymous No.3219662]

>>3219660
I mean, you aren't lazy when it comes to details. But upon finishing the head, you just seem to think that these blocks of shading do any good. it's like a very boring tribute to age old art school teachings.

[Anonymous No.3219673]

>>3219662
>>3219660
Don't you think that for such detailed approach proportions and composition are too loose?

[Anonymous No.3219674]

>>3219673
I would at least give the cross-hatching in the hair a curvature, if it is excecuted that loosely. the blocks of crosshatching remind me of chiseling with wood sculptures. I mean, it's legit, because it is his way of doing it or how he was taught to do it, but I wouldn't use it in drawings that way myself. I personally think it doesn't do any good for the hair as a structure.

[Anonymous No.3219682]

>>3219473
And your statement is fucking retarded....

[Anonymous No.3219689]

>>3219657
>>3219634
>>3219637
>It's my style!

[Anonymous No.3219699]

Take a nap OP

[Anonymous No.3219708]

>>3219644
>/beg/ trying to criticize Loomis

[Anonymous No.3219714]

>>3219708
is this >>3219632 on the right side Loomis? lmao, I was thinking it's your basic art student with a strong sterile, traditional tendency. it all makes sense now, lol.

[Anonymous No.3219718]

>>3219708
>>3219714
cont. oh lord, it is Loomis. He's doing that shit with the boring hair outline and the block-like shading all the fucking time.
And you plebs seriously want to copy this assholes style.

[Anonymous No.3219727]

>>3219718
dude, it is time to stop. Your work is shit, you have no credibility to criticize loomis. I'm going to repeat this because I want you to understand: your work is shit.

[Anonymous No.3219730]

>>3219718
I copied your style.
Rate me.

[Anonymous No.3219731]

>>3219533
Needs more Loomis

[Anonymous No.3219734]

>>3219730
>>3219727
butthurt Loomis sheeps lmao

[Anonymous No.3219745]

>oh god they're actually posting their work

[Anonymous No.3219756]

>>3219727
"your work is shit" doesn't say anything.
if you managed to actually talk about weak spots in the drawing, you might have a point, but you don't.

so far, only some little manga lover posted his lame sketch book pages in response. nothing from you so far. do you have anything to legitimize your ranting?

[Anonymous No.3219767]

>>3219756
>so far, only some little manga lover posted his lame sketch book pages in response
>/beg/ trying to criticize Loomis
>/beg/ trying to criticize this >>3219593
Hilarious.

[Anonymous No.3219775]

>>3219767
give me some hard facts, criticize my drawings.
saying "I suck" doesn't hit me at all.

show your work. criticize my drawing. or shut the fuck up instead of saying "is shit". or just shut up, if you're incompetent to do so.

[Anonymous No.3219779]

>>3219533
surprise, it's shit

[Anonymous No.3219781]

>>3219775
>give me some hard facts, criticize my drawings.
You don't know anatomy and fundamentals, you can't into form, you can't into light and you don't know how to use pencil.

[Anonymous No.3219782]

>>3219599
gold

[Anonymous No.3219783]

>>3219781
complete bullshit
I've worked with pencils for years.
"can't into" is not even english
there are no lacks in light/shade and form whatsoever. this is literally making shit up.

tell me where the drawing lacks space or lighting.

>>3219779
read >>3219775

[Anonymous No.3219784]

>>3219756
>"your work is shit" doesn't say anything.
>give me some hard facts
Meanwhile >>3219577

[Anonymous No.3219788]

>>3219784
yeah i've pointed out exactly what I criticize and argued why.
>Meanwhile
what's your point, dickhead?

[Anonymous No.3219792]

>>3219788
>yeah i've pointed out exactly what I criticize and argued why.
Complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3219797]

>>3219783
The kids' ear looks like it's being drawn in profile rather than from the same 3/4 view the rest of the face is oriented, also his eyes are very uneven. I'm not saying these are outright mistakes without seeing the reference you drew from though-not every head is perfect, this is known. In either case, your work doesn't show much beyond the student entries in "Drawiing on the Right Side of the Brain"; a beginners introduction to observational drawing :^)

[Anonymous No.3219801]

>>3219792
oh, is this the butthurt manga boy with no base of judgement?
that's why shy away from giving indepth criticism.
like a schoolkid …. "surprise, it's shit" … "your work is shit" … why is it shit? no response….

[Anonymous No.3219813]

>>3219797
there, that's how you address some specific things.

>ear.
the boy has jutting ears.

>eyes
the right eye is a little off and they vary in sizes. this drawing was done without pre-sketching and erasing anything. these are mistakes in this quick sketch

>doesn't show much beyond the student entries
I'd like to see yours, see how you excell in drawing that makes you say it is "student entry level"

[Anonymous No.3219833]

You people should be drawing.

[Anonymous No.3219839]

>>3219813
You said it took you 30 to 50 minutes

[Anonymous No.3219842]

>>3219839
For a full drawing that size (bit larger than A4) I will work one to two hours.

[Anonymous No.3219847]

>>3219833
Yes, but aggressive delusional Dunning Kruger patient like OP is problem for the board. We can't gas him. He will post his bullshit in other threads. Like a plague. And you can't know for sure is this clown real or just Trollchan roleplay.

[Anonymous No.3219853]

>>3219847
>Dunning Kruger
>Dunning Kruger
>Dunning Kruger

You are seriously autistic. Do you ever have any real criticism, or do you just copypaste your Dunning Kruger accusations all over the place?

I'm not OP btw. I just got into the argument bc everyone keeps hailing these shit authors like there's no other way to learn (yourself!!) how to draw. first post by me: >>3219488
not sure where OP was in this thread.

>>3219847
and you seem like a manga pleb who can't accept a different view.
it's funny how /ic/ jups at you, when you dare be sceptic about drawing schools and especially these popular books, which only mean sell out.

[Anonymous No.3219871]

>>3219783
>there are no lacks in light/shade and form whatsoever
dude, the contour of your drawing gives way more information about the form than your hatching, even without considering style or the horrible lines on the jacket.
I'm not sure about your values either, but that may be the problem of using an overexposed picture as reference.

>>3219853
>when you dare be sceptic about drawing schools
but that's not being sceptic, that's just bullshit. Let me put it another way
>breaking down complex forms into smaller, abstract forms.
>exagerate certain aspects of these basic forms.
>refine until you get a more organic look.
vs
>just wing it/muh style

[Anonymous No.3219874]

>>3219842
Seems like a waste of paper but ok.
I'm /beg/tier, and I wonder if you have any drawings of a human body made from imagination, since that is what I mainly want to be able to do.

[Anonymous No.3219875]

Пpoфхyдoжник, этo ты?

[Anonymous No.3219887]

>>3219853
"Dunning Kruger" is the new "Post Your Work" or "Not Gonna Make It" - it's invoked to either shit on someone for no reason, or when they're losing the shitfit argument they've started. When I see those two words, I move on, because I know nothing of substance is being posted.

[Anonymous No.3219889]

>>3219871
>dude, the contour of your drawing gives way more information about the form than your hatching
that is not an issue. the hatching in the face defines the cheek bone, chin, light source … do you even think about what you're saying?

>horrible lines on jacket
the lines on the jacket come from it being a fuzzy furr structure in the reference. since it is a movie still, the lighting is specific to the film and video conversion, hence less defined grades, more edges. it's not from real life.

>just win it/muh style
My main point is that Loomis Clipp or whatever these authors are called are promoting a school of drawing that will brand anyone who only just started drawing with a certain approach.
once you have indoctrinated yourself with this school, with all the schematics, the measurements and everything, you will stick to it.

again, if you go into character design, go for it.
if you want to become an artist and refine your own style, then you can't fucking start poisoning yourself with simplification instead of drawing from real life and discovering what works best for you.
you are buying yourself an easy way in. that is not fit in fine art.
if you want to be a commercial artist, character designer, video game designer, do whatever you want. it's not the same as being in fine art. that's all i'm saying.
if /ic/ is 95% commercial illustration artists or manga plebs, than the residual 5% will understand what I'm getting at.

[Anonymous No.3219892]

>>3219887

Pretty sure it means what it says it means, anon. You're shitting on Loomis while being a /beg/ tier artist. Yes indeed, you are a prime example of a Dunning-Kruger.

[Anonymous No.3219893]

>>3219467
>He just goes right into it and it looks great.
Artists who have been dealing with a subject matter can do that, they've put the time in to learn and know the subject. I'd bet if you ask them, they had to use traditional approaches like construction starting out.
You can't shortcut to talent. You either have it, or don't, and if you have it, you develop it, or don't. This isn't a big mystery. If you want to draw well, you have to draw a lot, and you have to start with training wheels, like construction.

[Anonymous No.3219894]

>>3219887
thanks for pointing that out.

[Anonymous No.3219897]

>>3219887
>/beg/ retard talk shit about Loomis, Hampton, Huston
>not Dunning Kruger example

[Anonymous No.3219903]

>if you want to be a commercial artist, character designer, video game designer, do whatever you want. it's not the same as being in fine art. that's all i'm saying.
>if /ic/ is 95% commercial illustration artists or manga plebs, than the residual 5% will understand what I'm getting at
And now he's literally tipping fedora.

[Anonymous No.3220276]

>>3219893
>and you have to start with training wheels, like construction.
No. wrong.

what you describe is the path to becoming a mediocre style-copying artist.

[Anonymous No.3220343]

>>3219658
You don't intentionally design anything you make. Any aspect of stylization in your drawing is the result of a mistake. You try and cram necessary details into the drawing without taking the time to come up with a simplification because the understanding of art and drawing that you claim to know is all fake. Simplifications make the drawing more appealing and cohesive. Artists are not supposed to be mindless photo-copiers, for fuck's sake.

I can tell by your lines that you are timid and incompetent, but you mask this by being overly aggressive. Not convinced? Let's take a look at the jacket collar for example. This should be relatively easy to convey with simple unidirectional hatching going along the slope of the collar, followed up by perpendicular hatching along the bottom edge to imply a shadow. That's ample. However, you completely bungled this up by making unevenly overlapping patches of hatching and scribbles all over the coat. A classic case of the inexperienced beginner bull-shitting an understanding of form through artistic mark making.

[Anonymous No.3220378]

>>3220276
Just wow.
Please stop anon, your just embarrassing yourself at this point.

[Anonymous No.3220394]

>>3219658
Critique=love. We recognize that you suck and are in a bad place, and we just wanna help.

The nose and mouth are pushed really far down and squishing the chin, making it tiny. This is precisely the thing loomis or similar would help with. The distant eye is crammed in there weird, should have looked more carefully to notice exactly how the eye and socket curve back in perspective Not sure loomis could help with that tho, just practice + patience. The hatching is... maybe not as bad as people are bitching about, but it's pretty lazy. Much of it doesn't add to the picture, or describe anything it's just messy hatching for the sake of it.

[Anonymous No.3220464]

>>3219467

I just posted this Sinix video to another thread. I really hope I had no part in you making this shitty thread. I'm amazed at how many people took the bate. And no, I'm not going to comment on the subject at hand. All of this is just a huge waste of everybody's time.

[Anonymous No.3220486]

So /ic/ what's the takeaway from this thread?