.. were you just rusty in that first update? because the improvement leap is pretty noticeable and it hasn't really been that long..
Figure invention.. how is that class structured? or is that a homework assignment? By structured I mean does the teacher say, draw some one doing this, and then walk around and point out errors or what?
.. were you just rusty in that first update? because the improvement leap is pretty noticeable and it hasn't really been that long..
Possibly, but I wouldn't say probably. It's just doing a lot of drawing in a consistent manner and being taught well in a consistent manner has been helping a lot. I'm too used to being all over the place, so this has really helped here.
Figure invention.. how is that class structured? or is that a homework assignment? By structured I mean does the teacher say, draw some one doing this, and then walk around and point out errors or what?
The exercises kind of switch around- first week or two was drawing from photos/art ref and making maniquennized figures, then there was a class where did exercises from the model, and the other classes were all making up figures performing an action dictated in a handout ("draw a figure throwing a heavy object, draw 2 figures in a boxing match", etc.) So yeah, you can probably tell which figures were from ref/model and which are from my head pretty easily.
Depends on what you mean by "proper", I suppose. I did go to a 4-year university art program and got a degree, and I did have some teachers that were good at realistic painting, but the focus at the school was so far off from solid, fundamental training at representational art that I got a lot less out of it that I would have liked.
zzzz I thought as much you'll probably be learning at this speed for atleast 2-3 months minimal, but 4 years jeeze louise you are going to be crazy good by the end of this semester.
Nice improvement Bacon, a lot of the issues I am seeing are superficial dexterity type stuff. But I think your next phase is really going to be looking for more subtlety in the figures. Subtlety in all three categories, shape, value and edge. You have the big picture stuff pretty solid. You are showing me up in figure invention easily.
Hopefully you and your hat manage to stick around for another quarter.
This is awesome. I think I actually like the saving it all up for one massive post thing. Though I think I would have to shoot mine as I do them still anyways just because I would lose or destroy most of them before I got to the end of the quarter.
I am really impressed with these. Good likenesses too, I can name every single model.
I still think the way you draw women is off-putting. Not your life drawings, but the ones from your imaginations.
Every one of them is missing that important X factor that makes them visually appealing, and the faces always seem too flat. Actually, that last part seems to fall in line with some of your women portraits to boot, but only a little. It's like there's this layer of depth in your males that simply refuses to carry over to the females.
It's crazy man.
It's just so ironic that this only applies to your ladies; the gents you draw, both from imagination and from life, always seem to be two steps ahead compared to the opposite sex.
Yeah I know, I have no natural sense of grace so I'm usually heavy on construction, which you can't have too much of in women's faces because then they end up looking like Rutger Hauer or something. Then being aware of that, I waffle between jowly faces with sharp features and erasing it all back until there's nothing left at all and aghhhhhhhhhhhh. I can't ever seem to get the balance quite right.
I blame this on being raised Catholic, and therefore spending my teenage years looking at books of Michelangelo drawings instead of porn like normal people.
Also dudes look more dudely when they're ugly motherfuckers so that work in my favor as well.
Not that I am the best at drawing women, but part of the issue is that you aren't always making the right decision as to what to play up and what to play down.
Not that I am the best at drawing women, but part of the issue is that you aren't always making the right decision as to what to play up and what to play down.
You're right, though could you go into a bit more detail? Leaving it at "MAKE BETTER DECISIONS" is just a tiny bit vague.
Or I could just do nothing but copy Elvgren faces for the next 3 weeks and hope some of it rubs off.
You just need to work on the rhythm and flow of your women studies. What works for your men doesn't always carry over to your women.
Arnold Tsang (a current Capcom artist and a personal favorite of mine) builds up his male imagination forms with nothing but blocky, angled shapes, like so:
His women, on the other hand, amplify nothing but curves, with the a strong gesture dominating above all else (NSFW):
John Coletrain had a saying about Jazz that applies to art in general. I can't remember the exact phrase, but it pretty much boiled down to "anyone can make the simple complicated, it's making the complicated simple that's the challenge."
Try and go farther than you're normally comfortable with. I'm not saying drawing stickbox women with super tits, but try emphasizing that gesture in the spine, the curvature of the form, and simplify, simplify, simplify.
Great progress! Really cool to see a bunch of work all at once.. The master studies looked great. Funny you chose one of the worst sargeant paintings however heh.. As for women.. honestly, just take some time to study Elvgren, or other pin-up guys like sunbloom or vargas. They just so over-idealized how a pretty woman looks, but it'll give you an extreme to copy so you can see how they're changing features to fit an ideal archetype. Then you can always hold back when you're doing your life studies.. don't want to over idealize those. Really cool guoache too.
I am going to be bold here and say that Shizu is claiming that painting to be one of Sargent's worst because so many other people like it. Not that it's my favorite but it's a far cry from one of his worst.
It's also one of the most ripped-off paintings in history.
Haha.. now now gents.. You have to realize, Sargent was not a muralist, which is essentially what El Jaleo is trying to be.. none of sargents mural paintings were as good as his more formal portraits/group portraits.. Sorolla was bit more adept to that as far as sargents contemporaries go.... off the top of my head.. Lady Agnew(sp?), Madame X, The D. Boit children, Dr. Pozzi,etc.. all much much stronger portraits imo.. Anyhoo, to each their own.. as great as Sargent is, theres quite a few painters I like better so.. heh.
Haha.. now now gents.. You have to realize, Sargent was not a muralist, which is essentially what El Jaleo is trying to be.. none of sargents mural paintings were as good as his more formal portraits/group portraits.. Sorolla was bit more adept to that as far as sargents contemporaries go.... off the top of my head.. Lady Agnew(sp?), Madame X, The D. Boit children, Dr. Pozzi,etc.. all much much stronger portraits imo.. Anyhoo, to each their own.. as great as Sargent is, theres quite a few painters I like better so.. heh.
this isn't an explanation as to why you found a painting which is not Sargent's worst to be Sargent's worst.
this is some rambling about which painters you feel are better and why
which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread and choosing paintings to produce studies from.
Haha.. now now gents.. You have to realize, Sargent was not a muralist, which is essentially what El Jaleo is trying to be.. none of sargents mural paintings were as good as his more formal portraits/group portraits.. Sorolla was bit more adept to that as far as sargents contemporaries go.... off the top of my head.. Lady Agnew(sp?), Madame X, The D. Boit children, Dr. Pozzi,etc.. all much much stronger portraits imo.. Anyhoo, to each their own.. as great as Sargent is, theres quite a few painters I like better so.. heh.
this isn't an explanation as to why you found a painting which is not Sargent's worst to be Sargent's worst.
this is some rambling about which painters you feel are better and why
which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread and choosing paintings to produce studies from.
Okay... first, I didn't say it was his worst, but one of his worst.. I've seen plenty of sargents that weren't all that great, that probably weren't even meant to be seen in the first place.. That said, compositionally, the painting is a little meh.. its a little too linear. The figures in the background, despite being secondary, if not tertiary center of interest, really aren't painted up to snuff compared to a lot of his other works. Then again, this is a mural more than anything, which is not really what sargent did.. that wasn't his forte, which I think is why the painting in general falls a little short. I said I like other painters better, but I didn't mention any names so don't put words in my mouth. I just listed some of Sargents other works. My original statement was more so out of curiosity because of the vignette that bacon did. Which he did do a great study of.. there are just a lot of other iconic sargents that come to mind that i'd pick to study first.. thats all. Does that answer work better for you?
AH.... then thats my misunderstanding... I thought you just vignetted a portion of El Jaleo... well now I feel silly.. haha.. please accept my apologies.. that painting does hold up much better.. the only reason I ranted cause I thought it was el jaleo... haha.. sorry dude.. The individual carmencita(pretty damn sure sargent used the same dancer for el jaleo and studies) paintings that both chase and sargent did are awesome.. of the formal ones they both did, chase's is actually quite better.. anyhow.. sorry for all the confusion and ass-hattary
Posts
Figure invention.. how is that class structured? or is that a homework assignment? By structured I mean does the teacher say, draw some one doing this, and then walk around and point out errors or what?
edit: AHAHAHA, is that a fucking giant gameboy?
Possibly, but I wouldn't say probably. It's just doing a lot of drawing in a consistent manner and being taught well in a consistent manner has been helping a lot. I'm too used to being all over the place, so this has really helped here.
The exercises kind of switch around- first week or two was drawing from photos/art ref and making maniquennized figures, then there was a class where did exercises from the model, and the other classes were all making up figures performing an action dictated in a handout ("draw a figure throwing a heavy object, draw 2 figures in a boxing match", etc.) So yeah, you can probably tell which figures were from ref/model and which are from my head pretty easily.
And yes, yes it is Tam.
Twitter
Twitter
<cries into pillow>
Twitter
Hopefully you and your hat manage to stick around for another quarter.
This term's drawings, most 20min. figure lay-ins omitted because there's a lot of them so I don't feel like dealing with them at the moment.
These are not in any kind of chronological order.
Figure Drawing, Bridgman studies thrown in there as well
Heads, tiny ones are from a book of Life magazine photos, trying to get practice for tiny details needed in
Hands
Feet
Master Copies, Sargent and Schoonover
EDIT: Might as well repost the stuff I already posted in the doodle thread as well, painting stuff:
Gouache portrait from photo
Robot digital, robot gouache fail, robot gouache attempt #2 WIP
Freidrich copy
Twitter
I am really impressed with these. Good likenesses too, I can name every single model.
Every one of them is missing that important X factor that makes them visually appealing, and the faces always seem too flat. Actually, that last part seems to fall in line with some of your women portraits to boot, but only a little. It's like there's this layer of depth in your males that simply refuses to carry over to the females.
It's crazy man.
It's just so ironic that this only applies to your ladies; the gents you draw, both from imagination and from life, always seem to be two steps ahead compared to the opposite sex.
I blame this on being raised Catholic, and therefore spending my teenage years looking at books of Michelangelo drawings instead of porn like normal people.
Also dudes look more dudely when they're ugly motherfuckers so that work in my favor as well.
Twitter
Seriously nice work on those, duder. You've got some especially nice pieces in there.
*claps*
You're right, though could you go into a bit more detail? Leaving it at "MAKE BETTER DECISIONS" is just a tiny bit vague.
Or I could just do nothing but copy Elvgren faces for the next 3 weeks and hope some of it rubs off.
ps: finish your pinup dammit
Twitter
Twitter
http://kevinoneill.iseenothing.com/WattsArt/Summer2009/Watts055.jpg
Twitter
Arnold Tsang (a current Capcom artist and a personal favorite of mine) builds up his male imagination forms with nothing but blocky, angled shapes, like so:
His women, on the other hand, amplify nothing but curves, with the a strong gesture dominating above all else (NSFW):
John Coletrain had a saying about Jazz that applies to art in general. I can't remember the exact phrase, but it pretty much boiled down to "anyone can make the simple complicated, it's making the complicated simple that's the challenge."
Try and go farther than you're normally comfortable with. I'm not saying drawing stickbox women with super tits, but try emphasizing that gesture in the spine, the curvature of the form, and simplify, simplify, simplify.
Twitter
bacon man, you've improved so goddamn much
this stuff is gorgeous
I am so convinced to go and try and learn something at this school this summer
look what you fools have done!
gotten into my head and done things that can't be undone
Stong solid work though. Definitely showing time well spent.
Edit: Also sargents worst paintings are still worth studying.
It's also one of the most ripped-off paintings in history.
Are you out of your fucking mind?!
Twitter
this isn't an explanation as to why you found a painting which is not Sargent's worst to be Sargent's worst.
this is some rambling about which painters you feel are better and why
which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread and choosing paintings to produce studies from.
Okay... first, I didn't say it was his worst, but one of his worst.. I've seen plenty of sargents that weren't all that great, that probably weren't even meant to be seen in the first place.. That said, compositionally, the painting is a little meh.. its a little too linear. The figures in the background, despite being secondary, if not tertiary center of interest, really aren't painted up to snuff compared to a lot of his other works. Then again, this is a mural more than anything, which is not really what sargent did.. that wasn't his forte, which I think is why the painting in general falls a little short. I said I like other painters better, but I didn't mention any names so don't put words in my mouth. I just listed some of Sargents other works. My original statement was more so out of curiosity because of the vignette that bacon did. Which he did do a great study of.. there are just a lot of other iconic sargents that come to mind that i'd pick to study first.. thats all. Does that answer work better for you?
If it was El Jaleo I might agree with you, but we're talking about different things.
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/The-Spanish-Dancer-Study-for-El-Jaleo-1882-Posters_i1348548_.htm
Twitter
AH.... then thats my misunderstanding... I thought you just vignetted a portion of El Jaleo... well now I feel silly.. haha.. please accept my apologies.. that painting does hold up much better.. the only reason I ranted cause I thought it was el jaleo... haha.. sorry dude.. The individual carmencita(pretty damn sure sargent used the same dancer for el jaleo and studies) paintings that both chase and sargent did are awesome.. of the formal ones they both did, chase's is actually quite better.. anyhow.. sorry for all the confusion and ass-hattary