...instead of starting new threads and spamming up the board with every single one, hehe. :) I'm subscribing to Draw and starting Vilppu's online course and all sorts of stuff, so hopefully that'll take care of a bunch of these questions before I bug too many people with them - but to start things off...
All this morning, I've just been trying to draw a functionally perfect circle. Just to work on my control. I just don't know if it's "better for me" -- for, you know, improving -- if I do all these practice-circles in one stroke (that is, put the pencil on the paper, move my arm around once, hope I nail a circle) or can I "scratch" the circles into being? Like, right now, if I try to draw the circle in just one motion, well, I don't quite get it - but if I "build" the circle with little marks, I can eventually get one that's all right. But is it going to teach me bad habits to do it that way - do I need to learn to do a circle in just one motion in order to really improve?
I know what I need to do is practice - just don't want to do it the wrong way, that's all.
If you're "scratching" the circle using multiple short strokes around the perimeter, that's not so good. It teaches you to be tentative about your line.
It's better to go around the circle more than once, refining the shape as you go. You can always erase the lines that don't constitute the perfect circle.
I know very few artists who can draw a perfect circle in one stroke. It's simply not a skill that you'll need very often. That's what erasers and cleanup are for ;).
Not only for perfect circles, but for the ovals of arms and legs, etc in perspective, I swirl my technical pencil around and around a few times until I get it. The lead never leaves the paper. Then I make a point on my kneaded eraser, and find my line. And all ink is traced on to a seperate sheet of paper, leaving the sloppy sketches intact. I kind of like them.
Oh okay!, that works too. :) I'd actually done that but thought the result unusable due to all the inaccurate lines, didn't think to just erase them. :P Duh. :D
Thanks!! :)
I'm with you, Doc. The sketches are where the creativity happens, and they always look better to me than the cleanup. Well, most of the time anyway...
Curious about Vilppu due to my impending involvement in the correspondence program, I checked out his articles/videos that he'd submitted to AWN a few years ago. He said some really neat things about drawing the basic spherical shape!...but I feel like I don't quite understand what he said.
Check this! :)
http://mag.awn.com/issue3.05/3.05clips/villpu2.mov
See what he does? He doesn't try to draw a perfect sphere right away - at least, that's how I understand it, just from watching. He makes one large section of its curve, draws "around" and "through", and then sort of finishes-up with the last piece of the curve. That's really cool! :) But I just don't get how to connect the ideas of "volume" and "center" with that process. I've tried making a little dot on my paper - to help me have a "center" - and, invariably, it ends up being off-center somehow, and that last-section-of-the-curve turns into a sloppy mess as I never get it quite right.
I'm still doing what you guys have suggested, in making lots of round-and-rounds with my pencil then erasing down to something usable, but this seemed really interesting and I wanted to give it a try, too...especially considering the fact I'd just enrolled in his program and would need to learn this soon anyway!
But anyway - I was just wondering if anyone can help me sort of understand this process a bit better? I watch him draw, and listen to him speak - and it looks good and it sounds right!, but I'm just not conceiving of the link between the two well.
Thanks again! :)
learning volume is hard Ecec, and it takes a lot of practice. One way to maybe help you out is to get a solid color ball, like a red playground ball. Then put a piece of tape around the middle of it. Now you can set the ball down and tip it up and down and draw it and see how the tape arcs around the ball.
Aloha,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
It also helps to visualize. I've always liked drawing even when I've sucked, but it was always something I saw in my head (or with my eyes, or both thanks to memory) and then transcribed. Lately I've been practicing "seeing" an afterimage (that isn't really there but is in the same way it is in your mind's eye) -on- the paper, and then pretty much tracing that, or marking it down, if that makes any sense. If you practice your imagination can take it pretty far and your sensibility for spatial relations improves enormously.
I think I've just realized a fundamental misconception of cartooning that has caused me terrible grief since I began to draw:
The "shapes" that are used to build-up a character's form in any given action/gesture/pose are not actual pieces of the character, but simply guides to make sure you put into the right places the lines, which come later and are a completely seperate process.
Is that right? :-o
I was working all this time under the impression that the shapes needed to be, like, in and of themselves, pieces of the character's final image - outlines would remain basically unaltered, as if I were building a 3d model or puppet or something. If I was wrong, that makes things a lot easier - and makes me feel pretty silly!
If I'm right about this, is there anything additional anyone could tell me about this particular process, since it's a bit clearer now just how backwards I was on it? Like, anything else I should've known from the start?, that kind of thing. :o
I'm trying to find a transparent ball, AA, that's a good idea!, and I think a balloon might just work for the eggshape too. Thanks! :)
Hi SL! I tried to do what you suggested -- seeing the finished image and tracing it -- and, man, it's so much harder than it sounds! Maybe I just don't have a good-enough idea of what I want my finished drawing to look like - I'm still really caught up in worrying about circleshapes and boxshapes and guiding-lines - and I really don't know what I'll get at the end, I just hope that I picked the right guiding lines and shapes to get me there! But I'll continue to try your idea!, sounds smart! Thank you! :)
EDIT: ...too, i've been doing everything with a 4B pencil, which didn't help at all in distinguishing between guides and final lines. :-o i'll try using something in the H range for the guides (if I'm right about the above), that will probably help. :]
You mean like this? Yep, you're right, although the shapes can be part of the final character, they aren't necessarily.
Try using an HB pencil - you can usually get a pretty good range of darks and lights out of them. A 4B? Yikes - I create a black hole every time I touch one of those to the paper... :)
Yeah, see, I've been trying to learn primarily from the Preston Blair lessons - and the way that first lesson is explained, it really seemed to me that the first shapes were of primary importance to doing anything properly (the way the egghead's shape is perfect, and it appears that the only difference between the shape and the character is the addition of facial features, the way the first character starts with a perfect circle, etc.) It didn't show any starting-point but the shape, so I thought one had to get a perfect shape before proceeding.
I'm still a bit confused though because I've seen a couple student pages for the PB/John K drawing course, and they seem to have the shape down pretty perfectly from the start - I still don't know if I'm really on the right track. :|
I've got the Vilppu book/DVD now though so I think I might just work on that for a week or two now, see if it helps.
How do you know they have the shape down perfectly from the start? The only way you could be sure of that is to be watching over their shoulder as they draw.
You are most likely seeing the drawing in the state they want to present it - probably cleaned up, definitely not a rough. You aren"t seeing the construction of it because they are not showing it. Don"t jump to conclusions based on what you see.
As far as Blair goes, of course the shape is perfect as presented; he"s showing what you should be aiming for (the shape, not the perfect one-line circle). Again, you"re not seeing the rough (well, later in the book you are, but...). If you look at most of the heads on the image I linked to, you"ll see that the construction shapes are just that - construction. The final line work doesn"t necessarily follow those contours.
I actually asked about that after watching Akira and Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (bonus points if you can find the link between those two; the hint is "explosions")...some of the finished drawings I couldn't identify as just that, so the goodness was freaking me out. I asked an animator whose site I had recently visited and he said in his experience most of the (in this case) DVD commentaries and things are staged to show off. The guy could've spent a good 12 minutes getting a drawing right, and maybe it's under the sheet you see, but they either scratch nothingness into an existing drawing or trace what they already did to look whiz-bang.
Just an incidental anecdote.
I was re-reading the "So You Want to be An Animator" sticky, and hence re-reading some of Mister Ken Davis' posts, and he something he said struck a chord -- "copy". Find things you like and copy them to learn from them.
Killer.
The problem is, I really don't know too much that I like. I'm unexcited by a lot of what I see, and can pick it apart in my head, plug in a few little details here and there - but there's no one thing that really wows me in every way.
I love the expressions John Kricfalusi does, but the style tends to read a touch flat -- I love Bluth for his depth and design, but the expressions aren't so extreme as I would really care for -- I go nuts over Fleischer, but it's all made of circles, you can't go too far like that. I saw a book of Gonzo art at a Barnes and Nobles earlier tonight - I loved how severe it was, but how the heck could you ever animate something like that?
Now, I can pick up on the fact, from his post, that one thing to do would be to copy all of them -- awesome, you can bet I will.
But my reason for posting this was just, since I figure a lot of you have been exposed to a lot more animation/cartooning/illustration than I have, I was wondering if any of you guys could suggest the works of any studio or artist that you think would square with my tastes, that I ought to check out for inspiration, for their techqnique?, to find something perhaps a bit-more-singular that I can "aim" for?
I've tried to explain what I like and don't like - maybe you can just recommend some folks to check out. That's all I'm after really. :)
Again, thanks bunches for reading! Take it easy. :)
Ec, what do you intend to do with your newly-honed drawing skills? Are you aiming at a career in animation, or are you more interested in doing personal work? The answer to that will help a lot in pointing you in a certain direction.
Based on what you said, I'd say take the parts of the things that you like that work for you and build on them. John K's work looks a little flat to you? Then work toward a John K-like style that has more dimensionality to it. Bluth doesn't go extreme enough in his expressions for your taste? Then work on a Bluth-like style with the expressions pushed farther. Keep in mind that each of the guys you admire had people that he admired and borrowed from, adding their own touches along the way.
There probably isn't an artist out there who incorporates everything you like into one style - that's your job!
Here's an artist that I've been fond of for many years. Can't say I agree with her point of view on everything, but I sure like her drawing style!
I think that it is valuable to sketch always. Do some 'warm ups' with no particular direction or aim. If you are not thinking so much about the outcome
you can loosen up and get some valuable insights into how you work and what is 'lurking' in your style.
I would recomend to keep all of these pages of sketches for reference. It is surprising what comes out. One little thumbnail can later be a trigger for a bigger idea.
You need to get to the point in perspective drawing where you can draw a box. Then you find the center lines by connecting the corners of each side and drawing little X's. Boxes with center lines will take you a long way, when you learn to draw into them.
http://www.fineart.sk/show.php?w=912 (Notice how I worked in a link to Loomis? Pretty slick.) This process will seem a little strange at first, but I find it mandatory for most backgrounds and some characters.
I would say buying or making a light box is pretty essential, if you're going to pursue this seriously. Those construction lines never really go away, and you just end up wasting lots of time erasing perfectly good pencils. Inking onto a seperate piece of paper is how you make it seem easy.
Lately, I've been looking at some Krigstein comic work.
http://www.bkrigstein.com/comics.html
It's kind of a more complex version of the style of the Tex Avery MGM stuff, and seems to have some expressionism in it, too.
I also just got a book with a lot of the movie posters of Ernesto Cabral.
http://www.geocities.com/nebojsa01242/archive/4f0041_ErnestoCabral.jpg
I'd put some of his work up there with the best of Jack Davis-- which is saying a lot.
Hey everybody, thanks for your input! I've checked out all your links and will keep well in mind your suggestions. :)
EDIT: Response edited out of embarrasment. :P
...at this point, considering the way I draw, I just look forward to the day when drawing takes on the character of experimentation, instead of frustration. :|
Ok, this is pretty humiliating. :| But you're all made of internets so it really doesn't matter what you think of this digital-text-representation-of-me I guess. :]
So, there's a bear I'm really beginning to hate. You've seen him before.
http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/pbanimation02-big.jpg
There he is. Right at the top. Starts off a circle, ends up a bear.
I've been trying to copy him. I've had some that ended up closer than these attempts, and some that were even worse. But the following videos, in DivX 5.1.2, are basically how things go - and I'd love to know if anyone can see things I'm doing wrong. Not things I'm getting wrong - I can look at the end result and see tons of differences, it's a wholly childish attempt. But I mean - seeing problems with my method, the way I'm going about things, because even when I get more accurate results, I'm still going about them basically this same way - and it's just not working out.
The first sketch was done on a whim - there was really no 'warm up', I just swirled my pen on the Cintiq, made a few spirals and circles and lines, and got going. Between the first and the second sketch was a break of about 2-3 minutes, and between the second and third a break of about 15 seconds -- so this whole progression is one session, starting completely fresh...if that matters? Just saying.
Here goes. :(
http://rapidshare.de/files/27225206/drawingtest.avi.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/27226412/drawingtest2.avi.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/27226654/drawingtest3.avi.html
oh, also, too, general suggestions for just things to do/practice would be appreciated too, unless your suggestion is "give up" :o
-
EDIT:
And, to kind of explain the way I approached it, what I did was, of course, try to start with as-close-to-a-perfect-circle as I could, then draw the lines as they're seen in the third "step" in the Blair book, then copy the shapes of snout and eyes as seen in the fourth, and then add pupils, nose and ear-shapes as seen in the final step.
Is that 'canvas' you're drawing onto exclusive to Cintiq? Or could someone with XP and a tablet use it? Doesn't look exactly like anything I've seen...
Hi SL! :)
It's just Alias Sketchbook - but to keep the filesize and resolution down in the video, I restricted the recording software to the area I was going to draw within. But beyond that, it's all the usual stuff. :)
Ec, you really need to work more "sketchy" as you did in the third example. The first two AVIs you laid down a head shape in one stroke, and then went from there. It's much more common to draw around the shape several times, refining as you go and ultimately selecting the line that works best for what you're trying to accomplish. You'll get rid of the other lines in a later step.
You have to get the main head shape right to start out with or the drawing will never look like the one you're trying to reproduce. Blair's head shape is circular; yours were more oval, shorter in height than in width. That's going to alter the final result dramatically.
You also need to stop "scratching" your way around a shape. Small strokes strung together always are tentative, and it ends up looking tentative.
Draw through the shapes. What I mean is - think of the head circle as a sphere (3D) not a circle (2D), and when you put down the center line and eyeline, draw all the way around the shape, as shown by the dotted line in Blair (again, in several passes and not with sketchy strokes). Drawing through helps reinforce the idea that you're trying to represent a solid mass.
What are you thinking when you're drawing? Are you thinking about representing a 3D form in 2D space, or are you just drawing lines? I ask because in a couple of the examples it looked like you were just reproducing the lines that were there, which might indicate that you're copying linework rather than thinking about the 3D shapes the lines represent.
Do you work mostly on the Cintiq? Frankly, I'd suggest you get some paper and pencils and work with those. Using a tablet at this point distances you a bit from the work. Paper and pencil are immediate and tangible.
Keep at it.
Hi DSB! :)
Thanks for your input!
I definitely have a lot of trouble conceiving-of and visualizing, not only in terms of details-to-be but, as you noticed, when it comes to thinking 3d shape. I really wasn't thinking of anything beyond the idea of a circle - not even "seeing" it on the paper. A big problem for me! It seems like whenever I touch my pencil to paper (or pen to the screen), my mind just goes blank - I lose all perspective on what I was so sure I was about to do. :P But I'll turn my chair away from the computer, go back to pencil and paper, and keep trying - with all your suggestions in mind.
Thanks again!
Hello.
Here are some more tips about drawing.
When you draw circles- draw from your shoulder- do not engage your wrist! Your elbow should be making small circles when you draw circles.
One of my absolutely best students was Bee, a gal from Thailand. She is a terrific artist who does great work in storyboarding, character design and layout. Her work is simply amazing!!!
She had a daily route of 300 vertical lines, 300 horizontal lines, 600 diagonal line (300 each way) and 300 circles.
Bee alo did the 6 week Nicholaides THE WAY TO DRAW- during EVERY 10 week term she was in school.
Once during my layout class, she misunderstood the assignment and instead of 13 -3 inch by 4 inch storyboard panels due in two days later - she created 13 full-sized 12-16 field layouts. Each one was really amazing.!!!
Also, Glenn Vilppu is a national treasure!!! We have become good friends and his methods and approach to teaching his information about location drawing and firgure drawing is truly amazing!!!
His work and teaching have struck an artistic cord in me....I love it!
You will learn a plethera of information and have fun, too.
Thanks.
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
I'll start on that same daily routine, though I don't know how I'll manage to keep from losing count. :D
Yesterday I drew probably around 100 circles, and still wasn't really confident that any of them had perfect proportions, though some were quite close - for some reason I seem to tend to make them wide.
I'll search for "The Way To Draw" that you mentioned, find out more about it, see if I can do it too. :)
I'm in Vilppu's correspondence course, trying to work on his first section on gestures when I'm not trying to draw circles/bear heads. :) I got one of his DVD's too - he's great!, and the first little inklings I've gotten of how to "think 3d" have come from watching his DVD and reading his book -- but like he says, until it's "down on paper", you "don't have it".
Thanks a bunch Larry! :)
Hey Larry --
Should I only "count" (towards the 300) circles/lines that are effectively 'perfect', or do any attempts count?
Just trying to figure this out so I can get started on it. :) Thanks!
EDIT:
...and by that I mean, not perfect-perfect, but like...do i count the kind I'm doing now?, where it's really kinda more oval than circular? Like that. :) Thanks.
The point of doing 300 (or however many) lines, circles, etc. is to get a lot of reps in so that you improve. No, you don't only count the perfect ones; the imperfect ones have to get out of your system to allow for the perfect ones. Each circle (line, whatever) counts.
Hi DSB! :)
Thanks a million for the response - as soon as I read it, I went through the routine, and really enjoyed it, so much so that I've resolved to complete the routine twice a day. The improvement was immediately apparent - and I think I'm finally getting in touch with the psychology behind drawing; when it came to drawing spheres, almost without even thinking about it, just as a natural development, after drawing about 100 circles far too hastily, something changed and I started to 'search out' the boundaries of the ball with a soft, sketchy line, instead of trying to - as heretofore I'd practiced - 'define' the border with a hard, definite line...and slowly-but-steadily I seem to be coming nearer to some kind of consistent form -- there are even some examples of "functionally perfect" circles on my paper now, which is nice. So that's my big breakthrough - I can almost draw a circle. :rolleyes: ;)
Thanks again! :)
Hello.
What DSB said is correct!
Thanks.
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
Just got through with six - does it seem like I've got the underlying circle okay now? :) On the sixth one, it suddenly occured to me that the eyes are shaped like "upside-down almonds", so I tried drawing them like that and it worked, instead of trying to imitate the angle of the curves. I still don't really "get" what shape the snout is supposed to be, though.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e102/thelastusernamenotalreadytaken/07302006-bearhead1.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e102/thelastusernamenotalreadytaken/07302006-bearhead2.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e102/thelastusernamenotalreadytaken/07302006-bearhead3.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e102/thelastusernamenotalreadytaken/07302006-bearhead4.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e102/thelastusernamenotalreadytaken/07302006-bearhead5.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e102/thelastusernamenotalreadytaken/07302006-bearhead6.jpg
Thanks everybody. :)
Use shapes as a guide though, since even though they're light the eyes are masses, and masses surrounded by wrinkles and folds. Just a tiny hatch line of something being occluded at the top can really help put over the dimensionality.
Hi SL! Thanks for your input!
Though...I'm not confident I understand what you mean exactly, sorry. :( I get what you mean by occlusion (bringing the eye out of the socket as if it were convex?), but I don't understand, "use shapes as a guide."
Sorry. :|
I mean the area around the eye (the socket as an example) creating lines by how it delineates a soft edge of one part blocking another within the area.
*Is seeing how he can be confusing*
As far as shapes as a guide, you mentioned "upside-down almonds." Use shapes only as a guide, and retain the idea that the actual drawing will rely on very specific spatialization and be situational. I did a doodle a few years back that haunts me where I drew someone in profile who was wearing glasses, so for their glasses I put in the lens shape...except I literally put in the SYMBOL for the lens, which in my mind is the rounded upside-down trapezoid, instead of what was in front of me, which was the side of the glasses.
Not that you'd ever make the same mistake but just something to watch out for. I don't believe in putting a ritual or formula to anything freeing unless it's absolutely necessary to give it structure. That's me though. :D
Oh but I'm sure I will. :o
Anyhow - yeah, when I draw some design of my own, or something with that kind of spatialization, I'll be very sure to keep that in mind, and really put a lot of thought into every feature, but unless I'm mistaken there's not any of that going in the bear head picture I'm trying to copy? If there is and I'm missing it, let me know! :)
I'm still not sure if I completely understand your meaning - is it kind of like this?
http://aavish1.tripod.com/photo_fun/albumcomment?i=0&s=1
(blech one of the "sports-2-the-xtreme"-type pictures :mad: but anyway, the eye there?)
Anyhow, I did some more bear heads this evening, here are the last three attempts -- and, actually, with #9, I feel I've begun to come close!, but the two that come before it kinda make me worry it's a fluke. ;) I'll find out though! Here goes:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e102/thelastusernamenotalreadytaken/07302006-bearhead7.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e102/thelastusernamenotalreadytaken/07302006-bearhead8.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e102/thelastusernamenotalreadytaken/07302006-bearhead9.jpg
Thanks again everybody!
I'll let you in on a little secret. I've been drawing since I was less than 3, and after I got into AnimationMentor because I had another school going on at the same time my ability to practice drawing and stay exposed, I really sucked ass. I kind of fell out of it, obvious-ability-wise. Since the end of spring I've found pockets and it comes back quicker than you'd think (like some people speak of muscle memory)...but I'm still working on getting back to full stride....anyhow, I tried that Preston bear when John K posted about it -- and I did them VERY quick so that's part of the problem -- but even I with those years of plugging away find it difficult to stay onto the simplest of models like that...At first I impressed myself with "Damn, that's pretty close!" since I did a small one in under a minute....Yah, it was damn close, till I took his next suggestion and scanned it, and then overlaid it in Photoshop. Total trash. Head tilt was weird, eyes were spaced funny, it was...destined for the recycling center, shall we say.
Chin up, no matter what you do, no matter the field of interest, even if you're an expert, there's a bad day or a bad piece of work waiting to get its kinks worked out somewhere along the line. They just get more rare. They don't go away...especially if you're experimenting. The definition of experimenting is tripping on horrible crap until something smooth and steady arrives =P
Well, I don't think I've got it nailed yet by any means - but at least it's finally beginning to resemble the original character. I've compared the ninth one to the original side-by-side, and there are tons of differences - but just as striking as those differences are the improvements I've made over those first three recordings, and that's been nice. :)
I got my acceptance email from AnimationMentor a few weeks ago myself!, but I'm considering stopping-before-I-start, telling them to cross me off the list and I'll apply again later -- so that I can actually learn how to draw and be able to make the animations I'll be assigned, hehe. :P I guess I just jumped the gun there. I could almost stay in and go solely for the 3D animation, instead of both (with a focus on 2D) as I originally intended, but I'm still just as confused as ever about what I think of 3D, I still change my opinion every few days, I'm nuts -- and in any case, I hear from everybody that one needs to learn how to draw regardless, so, if that's the way it's done, I'll do it the right way.
Anyhow!, thanks again!, I appreciate the encouragement! :) I'm still really far from where I need to be; this silly little attempt at a bear-copy is worlds away from the Clampetty Kricfalusiesque Bluthyness I see whenever I imagine what cartoons I want to make, but when any amount of progress is actually being made, as opposed to recently when I feared I was going nowhere, I feel as if it could all just be a "matter of time" - and to me that's great. And the tips from you guys have been precisely the kinds of things I've needed to hear to get me moving along!, so anyway message over, too long already. ;)
Thanks. :D
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I'm having a hard time understanding why John K wants everyone to copy the Blair drawings so precisely. What's important is the technique behind them, not getting every line in exactly the same place as Blair did. Blair wasn't copying anything when he did them; he was creating them based on certain principles.
I will admit that I've avoided expressing my confusion on the John K blogsite, simply due to the fact that I know the "true believers" will spend their time hammering me and my "not getting it" rather than answering the question. I've been flamed there before for suggesting that John K. may not be right 100% of the time, and I'd rather avoid a second helping.
I see your point DSB! :)
But at the same time, I wonder how anybody who can't do John K's Preston Blair lessons pretty-nearly could ever work on a proper production? I mean - if you can't get the character looking consistent in a lot of different poses, how could you get through a scene - or have a new scene link up with an old one?
I'm not trying to argue you - that's just the way I see it now, and maybe I'm wrong. :)
Anyhow, thanks again for your replies. :)
Well and that's kind of it. As ecec noted, he's repurposed the exercises with the idea that it's a necessary skill. So even people that knew what was up were going to follow suit. I like the challenge. I know the ideas behind construction and I popped out of my mom thinking in terms of 3D in my drawing. It's not an issue. But if I can nail someone else's things as nicely as possible when I go to lay in detail, makes me feel more useful.
By that same token if you don't want an error-ridden human element to -drawings- 2D isn't the place for you =P Besides, solidity and consistency is one thing but part of the medium is busting things up to get certain effects.
As far as John K's concerned, I'm trying to avoid corresponding with him in any way because I disagree with 90% of what he has to say and if it's possible am far more stubborn.
As far as the glasses, I tend to either bounce back and forth a lot, remember one thing I saw and go to down drawing from what my mind captured just then, or go as long as possible without ever looking. Those are my main three modes, but mostly habits that came from college. :D
But that's exactly my point - the exercise isn't to get the character looking the same in a variety of poses; it's to get the character looking exactly the same in the exact same pose. That's not about drawing on-model to me.
A far more valuable exercise would be to take those Blair heads and do a turnaround of the character, or a sheet full of typical poses. That's how you get the feel of a character; not by slavishly copying one drawing in one pose over and over. Once you've got it, can you honestly say you'll be able to draw that character in the variety of poses necessary for the scene you describe?
The irony in all this is that the class in question is being led by John K. - a guy who's never met a character he wouldn't take off-model in a heartbeat...:rolleyes:
Well the book does say to turn the heads around - and I planned to. :) [Though I noticed a lot of the 'students' are skipping that part, strangely.] But if I can't get the character right on even one angle, there's really not much chance I could get any kind of consistent form throughout a turnaround - so I think that, for me, doing at least the first and second lessons would be good practice.
I'm not doing what JohnK says just because he's JohnK -- I just want to get better, and JohnK/PB's lessons seemed, to me, pretty sensible, and relevant whereas I'd attempted a short storybook-cartoon ("illustrated radio", I guess) but couldn't keep the character consistent from scene-to-scene -- but if someone asserted that focusing on Vilppu 100 percent right now would be better for me, or had any other ideas, well, I'm all ears!, totally open to suggestion. :)
Thanks again!
ec, my previous comments were meant generally, not directed specifically at you. You're obviously improving, and I wouldn't dream of telling you to stop doing what you're doing. I was just expressing general dismay at what I think are odd goals in the John K. lessons (which are really Preston Blair lessons, when you get right down to it....)
Hey DSB! :)
Well I didn't think you were trying to discourage me or anything - but, seriously, if you think my time would be better spent on a different track, by all means let me know what you think would be best!
I have no "fetish" for any particular set of lessons or any particular instructor - I just want to get better!
EDIT:
I will say, though, that I plan to shift my focus over to Vilppu's lesson, and make JK/PB's the "spare time" lessons, over the course of this week.
This is a trap that most people who strive to learn drawing fall into. Learning to draw is as much about learning to see what's in front of you as it is learning to control the pencil and capture what you're seeing.