I'm looking for help finding a reprint of a famous painting of a Parisian street scene my sister used to have. It was a very wide painting, and according to her, there were several other versions form the same artist that depicted the same scene from different angles. It was (I'm guessing) an impressionist style painting and IIRC depicted the Arc de Triumph.
Thanks!
ninja edit: I think it might be Antoine Blanchard...
Well, a cursory search with my usual sources showsthreepaintings which might fit the "wide" description, with width-to-height ratios around 1.5 (which isn't particularly wide, but what're you gonna do?); of those three, only one (the last one) has the Arc de Triumph, though it isn't particularly prominent in the scene. He's got other paintings which feature the landmark a bit more, so I'd follow the first link to check the other paintings, since you'd probably remember what the painting looks like better than I.
Let's suppose that you have a friend who commissions you.
There's your problem right there.
Friends and family don't make good clients...
But I'm not really helping,so my suggestion would be to say it to his face when you see him out next, politely but firmly expressing that it's not cool to avoid responding to you and he needs to sort it out.
I'm trying to adjust my CRT monitor settings and can't seem to get my colors looking right. What do you guys use/suggest?
Buy a digital color calibration device. If you’re doing this for professional reasons and really need the colors close to print you might want to invest in a monitor designed accurate color reproduction (they cost a couple times more than regular monitors.)
I get a text saying 'Wow I didn't know you did work for this Guy!'
I call Guy and he says 'Aw it was just an image I liked on my desktop I didn't realise it was yours hardy har har'
Turns out it was just for a demo, not for sale, etc. He didn't credit me anywhere. Highly annoyed by this. Do I have to start posting my work online with obnoxious watermarks?
Personally, I'm not into seeing watermarks on people's work, as it spoils my enjoyment of viewing it... For my own work, I avoid ever posting anything too large (even when people request 'desktop sized versions') and that seems to minimise seeing stuff used elsewhere.
I'd say the important thing is to educate people who 'appropriate' your work. Most people do it because they genuinely like the work and simply don't see anything wrong with using it without permission and they just need to be politely told how rights management works and how artists/designers/illustrators actually make money!
I get a text saying 'Wow I didn't know you did work for this Guy!'
I call Guy and he says 'Aw it was just an image I liked on my desktop I didn't realise it was yours hardy har har'
Turns out it was just for a demo, not for sale, etc. He didn't credit me anywhere. Highly annoyed by this. Do I have to start posting my work online with obnoxious watermarks?
Does the musician in question have enough money to justify a lawsuit? If so, retain a lawyer and go after his ass. Even if the album isn’t being sold, he’s using it to promote himself so that he can sell music later. At a minimum you should go for a court order requiring him to recall and destroy every demo with your work on it.
If your work is good enough for people to rip it off, only post small versions, and use an innocuous watermark in one of the corners. It won’t stop everyone, but it will keep people who know what they’re doing from using it in print.
What makes an image interesting? Particularly, a character illustration. What makes it successful in a general way? How do you create an image that draws the viewer in?
EDIT:
It's just, everything I post goes by unnoticed, mostly. I want to know how to make a compelling image, how to get a response.
What makes an image interesting? Particularly, a character illustration. What makes it successful in a general way? How do you create an image that draws the viewer in?
EDIT:
It's just, everything I post goes by unnoticed, mostly. I want to know how to make a compelling image, how to get a response.
Are you just posting in the doodle thread? I would say I look at everything, but by the time I see something, it might already be three pages old. Post your own thread if you're really interested in critiques.
It looks like most of the stuff you've posted in the doodle thread are just doodles. Unfinished pieces without composition. Just character studies, really. Your stuff looks good, but for me at least it's hard to critique doodles other than, "looks good, please finish it."
And yeah, you need an avatar! It shows you're gonna stay around for a bit.
Yeah, Frank, seriously. Pick a username and stick with it! :P
As far as your characters go...make a thread for them, and mention specifically that you're looking for crits on how to make your characters more interesting.
I'd say that judging from your posts, you need to work on composition, posing, color, clothing variations, and setting a mood (through color, contrast, lighting, etc). You don't need all of these to create a successful character illustration, obviously...but it just seems like you don't typically consider these things as much as you could in your illustrations.
Okay, so I'm interested in suggestions on how people cope with being in a bit of an art slump, and how to get back the motivation to start being proactive again.
For background's sake: my day job is taking up a lot more of my time and has been for the past few months and while I DO get to do some graphic design/marketing work, I have a lot more responsibility, am working later and basically when I get home I just want to spend time with my gf/relax/play a few games, etc. Consequently, I decided to take a bit of a break from art/design over christmas but that break has quietly drawn itself out and turned into a new feeling of total complacency over not producing anything -- this is very new to me, as I've always been someone who feels a very real, internal NEED to create and produce.
Don't get me wrong, I still trawl through tonnes of daily art via my RSS reader, and still get excited by work and make mental notes of new things I'd like to produce, even attend friends' exhibitions, but when it comes to actually DOING things, I just can't seem to summon the energy. I'm also still selling my prints and poster work, and getting enqiries about doing exhibitions, etc. I have commercial work there for the taking but I don't need the money, and there's this horrid part of me which would actually prefer to just slip away and stop even replying to emails.
I'm far, far from lazy (I walk at least 2 miles a day, play football and squash two or three times a week, socialise regularly) and I just joined a new band, so am even making music again, but I do need some kind of impetus to start producing art in earnest again, or at the very least to somehow quash this feeling of being OK about being artistically unproductive.
Anyone feel in a similar situation, or has any suggestions?
It usually works for me, I play starcraft. And then when the koreans kick my ass for about 1-2 hours of painful 10 minute games in 1v1 I go oooooooooooohhh my goooooddd. Then I basically get guilted into drawing. I don't know if that would work for you but it sure does help motivate me into drawing! Probably sounds silly but that is what I dooooo!
Cheers for the suggestion Loom... not sure if Starcraft per se will work for me but I may find other avenues to attempt to guilt myself into getting back to it.
I haven't drawn in 10 years (and was never any good at it back then) but the book puts out a very Zen-like, logical feel that appeals a bit. I can definitely see how the problem isn't moving the pencil around, but seeing better. The example stuff on the back cover is probably not typical, but man, it's phenominal.
I haven't drawn in 10 years (and was never any good at it back then) but the book puts out a very Zen-like, logical feel that appeals a bit. I can definitely see how the problem isn't moving the pencil around, but seeing better. The example stuff on the back cover is probably not typical, but man, it's phenominal.
So, anyone went through it? Did it help?
I think it's a decent book but once it gets the message across that you are training your eye, not your hand...it doesn't really serve a purpose. It's an important message, but I think there are probably better ways to communicate it even, as the rest of the book is a little rocky.
I haven't drawn in 10 years (and was never any good at it back then) but the book puts out a very Zen-like, logical feel that appeals a bit. I can definitely see how the problem isn't moving the pencil around, but seeing better. The example stuff on the back cover is probably not typical, but man, it's phenominal.
So, anyone went through it? Did it help?
I agree with Cakemikz: it makes a good point and then goes on for two-hundred pages. Of course that’s probably because it’s for people who never went to art school and it was developed as a class and then turned into a book.
The book is good for beginners, but you have to continue past it to get to an acceptable point. It is necessary that people learn to 'see' instead of just read their pre-registered schema.
One of the problems that I have with a lot of other books (Loomis included) is that they jump straight into proportions, simply replacing a person's schema with a more accurate schema to work from. Then we have tons of artists pumping out the same figures built from the same manikins with the same features on them. Also, the Loomis book was written in the age of illustration by an illustrator, therefore the proportions given for figures are about as accurate as those in "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way." When you're done, you'll be able to draw heroes and heroines but not real people.
I'm teaching a drawing class now, and I've started the students off with work from the beginning of Right Side. From that book, I had them start with the pre-instruction, so I can always reference them back to it for support, then we did Upside-down drawing, and we've been doing blind contours, moving them onto the modified contours. I'm going to push them through the positive-negative shapes section of that and then move from there on to The Natural Way to Draw for gesture, weight-studies, modeling, more contour, extended sessions and composition. I'll probably introduce proportions alongside the Natural Way stuff and then bring them back around to value with a little from Right Side and a little from Natural Way, maybe some perspective from Loomis, and so forth.
I downloaded the Andrew Loomis books, but I'm having trouble with the ball/plane method, It never seems to come out right for me, does anyone have a more indepth tutorial, or know another tutorial for doing it?
I assume you're talking about head construction, in which case, you should... draw more heads. Copy all the head plates in the book, draw some from life and from photos or wherever. All the systems for head construction are more or less equally usable and equally just a supplement to your base skills, not a blueprint.
There isn't going to be a tutorial for everything you need to learn to be a good draftsman. Sometimes you have to buckle down and do stuff the hard way, and make a lot of shitty drawings before it clicks.
.. Im bringing this here because it seems more appropriate, than flooding the Book Cover thread.
Beavo doesn't agree that doing more simplified art is easier. (Im not attacking you beavo your just the most recent person Ive seen saying this)
Ok I can understand that making good simplified art is not easy. You have to make intelligent editing decisions regarding the information you are going to show.
But doing a flat vector image that is primarily concerned with shape and has about one value per shape possibly two, is easier than doing a fully rendered oil painting.
This doesnt put down the vector art. But in no way is the same amount of effort exerted for both. I know this because I have done both. Doing simpler art is easier. Doing it well is not easy. But the actual creation is not as challenging because you simply have less variables.
That leads to the next thing that propably bothers people that do simpler stuff. Most people (non artists I guess) arent going to recognize the difference between good "simple" work and bad "simple" work and only see that it requires less effort than say an oil painting therefore they would assume that said artist isnt as good as the oil painter..
But to have the mentality that a vector cartoon should be held in the same light as say Repin's painting of Ivan the terrible, is a little absurd. All art is not created equal.
Im not trying to start a flame war, my point in making this post was to see if any one would refute/challenge my views.
Kendeathwalker on
0
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
I've been arguing with myself all day on the subject. I think vector art lends itself to speed, but easier? I'm not so sure.
my personal point of view, however, is that art should serve a purpose (whether that be to meet a client's brief, convey feelings or a message to the viewer, or relay actual information) and sometimes simpler work achieves that purpose better.
Granted, being able to see the amount of effort gone into a painting is interesting to me - it's something I can show appreciation for, but if two artists can convey the same message in their work, one achieving it with a giant, 100+ hour oil painting, and the other with a few simple brushstrokes -- who is actually the better artist?
The answer is, of course: it's completely subjective and down to the viewer. :winky:
Grenn I agree that art can serve a purpose. Generally professionals dont get hired to do something that doesn't fit their work. But if your going to compare two approaches to achieving the same end let me illustrate an example for you
Im just sticking with Ivan the terrible because I already brought it up in my first post.
Now both of those communicate the same essential message. Why bother with details when a brief sentence says it so much simpler?
I think you are correct in your statement that it is subjective and up to the viewer.
Now if both of those peices of art sold for the same amount of money, would it bother you?
Now if both of those peices of art sold for the same amount of money, would it bother you?
Well, with regard to this particular comparison I believe the oil painting clearly captures a hell of a lot more of what the artist was hoping to convey than the stick drawing.
But, to answer the question: I couldn't really care less. The value a random buyer attributes to a piece of art is a poor method of detirmining whether the art is 'successful' or not.
On the other side of the coin, take a look at David Shrigley's work. If a great painter were to attempt to reproduce one of Shrigley's pieces, would it be more successful? It is my belief that it would lose the charm and simplicity that is vital in conveying the ideas and notions behind Shrigley's work.
But again... just my point of view, which is as subjective as any other's.
Well I suppose it depends on what you want to get out of your work. I personally don't want someone to look at one of my pieces and go 'neat' or 'clever' and then move on a few seconds later. I want my work to be immersive pieces of storytelling masterwork. I personally couldn't give less of a shit about David Shrigley's work. My life doesn't feel at all enriched having seen it. But then again I am looking at the work independant of the writing, which really shouldn't count in a discussion about art anyways.
However, this does not mean that I believe all work should be finely rendered incredibly detailed paintings. John Harris is successful at what he does because he creates an ambiguous vision of the future. Allowing you to kind of fill the gaps with your imagination, which will always look better to you than whatever some random illustrator comes up with. But then Donato Giancola renders out every detail of his battle scenes, leaving nothing to the imagination, but making you feel like you are a part of it with its sheer realism. He creates the world, and makes it real for his viewers.
David Shrigley's work doesn't stimulate your imagination or your heart. It stimulates your cynicism, and humor perhaps...
Posts
Thanks!
ninja edit: I think it might be Antoine Blanchard...
There's your problem right there.
Friends and family don't make good clients...
But I'm not really helping,so my suggestion would be to say it to his face when you see him out next, politely but firmly expressing that it's not cool to avoid responding to you and he needs to sort it out.
The only decent program I know of is Flash, but is there a better program available some where?
Edit: Also, got any tutorials?
Try looking up a couple of images of color wheels, maybe, and adjust your settings until all the colors across the color wheels look accurate?
I suggest multiple color wheels because there will probably be variations, and it would be best to look at all of them as a whole.
Buy a digital color calibration device. If you’re doing this for professional reasons and really need the colors close to print you might want to invest in a monitor designed accurate color reproduction (they cost a couple times more than regular monitors.)
Housemate working at local radio station sees it.
I get a text saying 'Wow I didn't know you did work for this Guy!'
I call Guy and he says 'Aw it was just an image I liked on my desktop I didn't realise it was yours hardy har har'
Turns out it was just for a demo, not for sale, etc. He didn't credit me anywhere. Highly annoyed by this. Do I have to start posting my work online with obnoxious watermarks?
I'd say the important thing is to educate people who 'appropriate' your work. Most people do it because they genuinely like the work and simply don't see anything wrong with using it without permission and they just need to be politely told how rights management works and how artists/designers/illustrators actually make money!
In any scenario.
Does the musician in question have enough money to justify a lawsuit? If so, retain a lawyer and go after his ass. Even if the album isn’t being sold, he’s using it to promote himself so that he can sell music later. At a minimum you should go for a court order requiring him to recall and destroy every demo with your work on it.
If your work is good enough for people to rip it off, only post small versions, and use an innocuous watermark in one of the corners. It won’t stop everyone, but it will keep people who know what they’re doing from using it in print.
What makes an image interesting? Particularly, a character illustration. What makes it successful in a general way? How do you create an image that draws the viewer in?
EDIT:
It's just, everything I post goes by unnoticed, mostly. I want to know how to make a compelling image, how to get a response.
Good composition.
Well composed sex.
Interesting subject matter.
Your lack of a witty and/or charming avatar and title make you inconspicuous, so work on that. Also jumbo tits improve every illustration.
Are you just posting in the doodle thread? I would say I look at everything, but by the time I see something, it might already be three pages old. Post your own thread if you're really interested in critiques.
It looks like most of the stuff you've posted in the doodle thread are just doodles. Unfinished pieces without composition. Just character studies, really. Your stuff looks good, but for me at least it's hard to critique doodles other than, "looks good, please finish it."
And yeah, you need an avatar! It shows you're gonna stay around for a bit.
As far as your characters go...make a thread for them, and mention specifically that you're looking for crits on how to make your characters more interesting.
I'd say that judging from your posts, you need to work on composition, posing, color, clothing variations, and setting a mood (through color, contrast, lighting, etc). You don't need all of these to create a successful character illustration, obviously...but it just seems like you don't typically consider these things as much as you could in your illustrations.
For background's sake: my day job is taking up a lot more of my time and has been for the past few months and while I DO get to do some graphic design/marketing work, I have a lot more responsibility, am working later and basically when I get home I just want to spend time with my gf/relax/play a few games, etc. Consequently, I decided to take a bit of a break from art/design over christmas but that break has quietly drawn itself out and turned into a new feeling of total complacency over not producing anything -- this is very new to me, as I've always been someone who feels a very real, internal NEED to create and produce.
Don't get me wrong, I still trawl through tonnes of daily art via my RSS reader, and still get excited by work and make mental notes of new things I'd like to produce, even attend friends' exhibitions, but when it comes to actually DOING things, I just can't seem to summon the energy. I'm also still selling my prints and poster work, and getting enqiries about doing exhibitions, etc. I have commercial work there for the taking but I don't need the money, and there's this horrid part of me which would actually prefer to just slip away and stop even replying to emails.
I'm far, far from lazy (I walk at least 2 miles a day, play football and squash two or three times a week, socialise regularly) and I just joined a new band, so am even making music again, but I do need some kind of impetus to start producing art in earnest again, or at the very least to somehow quash this feeling of being OK about being artistically unproductive.
Anyone feel in a similar situation, or has any suggestions?
Meanwhile........... *guiltguiltguiltguilt*
Trying again...
Has anyone went through "Drawing on the Right Side of The Brain" and its exercises et all?
I haven't drawn in 10 years (and was never any good at it back then) but the book puts out a very Zen-like, logical feel that appeals a bit. I can definitely see how the problem isn't moving the pencil around, but seeing better. The example stuff on the back cover is probably not typical, but man, it's phenominal.
So, anyone went through it? Did it help?
I think it's a decent book but once it gets the message across that you are training your eye, not your hand...it doesn't really serve a purpose. It's an important message, but I think there are probably better ways to communicate it even, as the rest of the book is a little rocky.
I agree with Cakemikz: it makes a good point and then goes on for two-hundred pages. Of course that’s probably because it’s for people who never went to art school and it was developed as a class and then turned into a book.
One of the problems that I have with a lot of other books (Loomis included) is that they jump straight into proportions, simply replacing a person's schema with a more accurate schema to work from. Then we have tons of artists pumping out the same figures built from the same manikins with the same features on them. Also, the Loomis book was written in the age of illustration by an illustrator, therefore the proportions given for figures are about as accurate as those in "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way." When you're done, you'll be able to draw heroes and heroines but not real people.
I'm teaching a drawing class now, and I've started the students off with work from the beginning of Right Side. From that book, I had them start with the pre-instruction, so I can always reference them back to it for support, then we did Upside-down drawing, and we've been doing blind contours, moving them onto the modified contours. I'm going to push them through the positive-negative shapes section of that and then move from there on to The Natural Way to Draw for gesture, weight-studies, modeling, more contour, extended sessions and composition. I'll probably introduce proportions alongside the Natural Way stuff and then bring them back around to value with a little from Right Side and a little from Natural Way, maybe some perspective from Loomis, and so forth.
There isn't going to be a tutorial for everything you need to learn to be a good draftsman. Sometimes you have to buckle down and do stuff the hard way, and make a lot of shitty drawings before it clicks.
Beavo doesn't agree that doing more simplified art is easier. (Im not attacking you beavo your just the most recent person Ive seen saying this)
Ok I can understand that making good simplified art is not easy. You have to make intelligent editing decisions regarding the information you are going to show.
But doing a flat vector image that is primarily concerned with shape and has about one value per shape possibly two, is easier than doing a fully rendered oil painting.
This doesnt put down the vector art. But in no way is the same amount of effort exerted for both. I know this because I have done both. Doing simpler art is easier. Doing it well is not easy. But the actual creation is not as challenging because you simply have less variables.
That leads to the next thing that propably bothers people that do simpler stuff. Most people (non artists I guess) arent going to recognize the difference between good "simple" work and bad "simple" work and only see that it requires less effort than say an oil painting therefore they would assume that said artist isnt as good as the oil painter..
But to have the mentality that a vector cartoon should be held in the same light as say Repin's painting of Ivan the terrible, is a little absurd. All art is not created equal.
Im not trying to start a flame war, my point in making this post was to see if any one would refute/challenge my views.
my personal point of view, however, is that art should serve a purpose (whether that be to meet a client's brief, convey feelings or a message to the viewer, or relay actual information) and sometimes simpler work achieves that purpose better.
Granted, being able to see the amount of effort gone into a painting is interesting to me - it's something I can show appreciation for, but if two artists can convey the same message in their work, one achieving it with a giant, 100+ hour oil painting, and the other with a few simple brushstrokes -- who is actually the better artist?
The answer is, of course: it's completely subjective and down to the viewer. :winky:
Now both of those communicate the same essential message. Why bother with details when a brief sentence says it so much simpler?
I think you are correct in your statement that it is subjective and up to the viewer.
Now if both of those peices of art sold for the same amount of money, would it bother you?
Well, with regard to this particular comparison I believe the oil painting clearly captures a hell of a lot more of what the artist was hoping to convey than the stick drawing.
But, to answer the question: I couldn't really care less. The value a random buyer attributes to a piece of art is a poor method of detirmining whether the art is 'successful' or not.
On the other side of the coin, take a look at David Shrigley's work. If a great painter were to attempt to reproduce one of Shrigley's pieces, would it be more successful? It is my belief that it would lose the charm and simplicity that is vital in conveying the ideas and notions behind Shrigley's work.
But again... just my point of view, which is as subjective as any other's.
However, this does not mean that I believe all work should be finely rendered incredibly detailed paintings. John Harris is successful at what he does because he creates an ambiguous vision of the future. Allowing you to kind of fill the gaps with your imagination, which will always look better to you than whatever some random illustrator comes up with. But then Donato Giancola renders out every detail of his battle scenes, leaving nothing to the imagination, but making you feel like you are a part of it with its sheer realism. He creates the world, and makes it real for his viewers.
David Shrigley's work doesn't stimulate your imagination or your heart. It stimulates your cynicism, and humor perhaps...