Repost: Computer or Traditional
Fal Leac
Which is better... computer of traditional furry art?
Does traditional art really preserve quality? or is this just an excuse used by
those intimidated by the digital revolution?
...and what if the two are combined ie. traditional inking scanned and then
painted on Photoshop? Where then does the argument stand?
A quote I've recieved from a well known furry artist-
"What we like to... try to encourage on **** is traditional tools like colored
pencils and watercolors as opposed to computer
everything. It's our way of keeping the content on **** at its best."
I've left his name out because the quote and not the person is the issue...
The point is... how do you evaluate Furry art...
If you evaluate it from an editors point of view, the certain issues of quality
come into play that concern the eventual printing of an image. These issues may
not be favorable to computer of film images.
The same goes for computer graphics... they don't neccesarrily follow the same
standards.
I've worked with film and animation for about four years now... and I'm
surprised by some of the answers I've heard in the determination of furry art.
One of the most famous is...
"We want to follow the traditional Animation Cel Format"
There is no such format other than frame size...
Alot of furry art may be influenced by animation, but it is definitely rooted
in illustration... ie. comic based.
I'm sure alot of people would agree that there is no standards for determining
the quality of furry art... unless it has actually become an industry instead
of
a hobby. Opinions determine Furry art... people determine the quality... and no
one is so important or qualified to say what is good and what isn't. There are
no authorities on furry art... it's all objective.
Some interesting facts that pertain to this argument...
1.Rembrandt used a primitive camera to create his paintings (Camera Curioscuro)
2.Norman Rockwell traced and copied photographs to obtain some of his realistic
images.
Robin Fal Leac, Pray for peace in Northern Ireland... God bless.
(Fal Leac is pronounced F-lack in Gaelic)
Steve Carter
news:20010709221857...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> Which is better... computer of traditional furry art?
Computer art is more physically presentable with smoother gradations and
such things, but it's also got an artificial quality as well. Traditional
art takes longer, is more prone to idiosynchrasies and faults, but
everything hand-made is. It rather depends on what you want out of the end
product.
You could say that people who do traditional fear the digital revolution,
but that assigns a motivation when in fact it could be disinterest, or a
desire to avoid the accusation that "the computer did it, you didn't." My
own opinion is that when a person submits a computer-composed piece of work
to an art show, the programme should also be credited as the creator instead
of the media.
Jarad
news:9ifa9k$bm8$1...@velox.critter.net...
> "Fal Leac" <fal...@aol.comEire> wrote in message
> news:20010709221857...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> > Which is better... computer of traditional furry art?
>
> Computer art is more physically presentable with smoother gradations and
> such things, but it's also got an artificial quality as well. Traditional
> art takes longer, is more prone to idiosynchrasies and faults, but
> everything hand-made is. It rather depends on what you want out of the
end
> product.
Yup. Computer art always gives a much cleaner, fault-free result. And people
will always notice things like that. But it doesn't make it any less an art
form.
> You could say that people who do traditional fear the digital revolution,
> but that assigns a motivation when in fact it could be disinterest, or a
> desire to avoid the accusation that "the computer did it, you didn't."
My
> own opinion is that when a person submits a computer-composed piece of
work
> to an art show, the programme should also be credited as the creator
instead
> of the media.
I wouldn't say so. The program used is just the tool. If you sketch out a
doodle in an artpad, do you credit the pencil/artpad manufacturer? The
computer and it's programs are just the medium, if the person sitting in
front of the machine can't draw and is colour blind (no offense, I mean it
in the term of someone who doesn't have an eye for which colours go well
together and don't clash) then you're still going to end up with a piece of
crap.
An example. The picture I've linked to below was drawn by me - not very well
I admit - entirely freehand. But did I draw it on a computer, or on a piece
of paper?
http://www.furdom.com/jarad/BunnySketch.gif
--
Jarad
Steve Carter
news:9iflrs$a18$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> Computer art always gives a much cleaner, fault-free result. And people
> will always notice things like that. But it doesn't make it any less an
art
> form.
Aah! A computer artist!
> I wouldn't say so. The program used is just the tool. If you sketch out a
> doodle in an artpad, do you credit the pencil/artpad manufacturer?
Actually I have cited Strathmore and Berol on my former webpage, the
MouseHouse. I suppose it's a measure of the amount of work that the
computer does instead of the composer.
I've commented earlier on the MouseHouse about your above passage. The
computer won't replace the artist, but it might sit alongside the pencil as
the next tool in the toolbox. However, technology grows increasingly more
competent at taking the work off the artist's hand and doing it for him/her.
This is an issue I have with players who use drum machines, sequencers, and
pre-programmed synthesized sounds, rearrange them, and say, "This is my
music." Jeff Lynne or Vangelis can get away with such a thing because
they've actually laid hands on real instruments and use synthetics as a
backup, but those who simply mix 'n match pre-existing things annoy me.
> The computer and it's programs are just the medium, if the person sitting
in
> front of the machine can't draw and is colour blind (no offense, I mean it
> in the term of someone who doesn't have an eye for which colours go well
> together and don't clash) then you're still going to end up with a piece
of
> crap.
True, and I've used digital effects myself, but only FOR effects, not whole
compositions. In my own mind it betrays the concept of being a "real"
artist inasmuch as I have to have direct contact with the medium in order to
own it.
Keep up the computer work, tho. :o) Boundaries constantly need expanding.
Jace
Ok, what about the people that use 3D modelling programs that come
with some models already installed? A lot of the time, they do just
download and install features like chairs and stuff, but there _is_ a
lot of customisation going on in creating something like, say, a
furry.
I suppose that's somewhere in-between, huh?
---
Jace
ja...@softhome.net
ICQ# 4654209
http://sydewinder.tripod.com/default.html
falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~qandrews
Freeform fantasy RP
Fal Leac
photoshop to lift the inked lines onto a layer, and painting the object using
the paint/ airbrush tools... including the background?
It's less messy, compact, sizable, and just as much hardwork... besides the
same skills needed for traditional art is used to make an image look good.
BR
<Jarad.W...@furkingdom.com> wrote:
<snip>
> An example. The picture I've linked to below was drawn by me - not very
> well I admit - entirely freehand. But did I draw it on a computer, or on
> a piece of paper?
>
> http://www.furdom.com/jarad/BunnySketch.gif
>
> --
> Jarad
Problems connecting with site.
Slight question.
What is a good graphics tablet?
What features should one look for?
Jarad
> "Jarad" <Jarad.W...@furkingdom.com> wrote in message
> news:9iflrs$a18$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> > Computer art always gives a much cleaner, fault-free result. And people
> > will always notice things like that. But it doesn't make it any less an
> art
> > form.
>
> Aah! A computer artist!
Designer really. I spend most of my day tarting up graphics and designing
logos for websites. What artistic talents I do have mostly lie in designing
interfaces. And unlike my boss, I can tell turqoise from blue.
> > I wouldn't say so. The program used is just the tool. If you sketch out
a
> > doodle in an artpad, do you credit the pencil/artpad manufacturer?
>
> Actually I have cited Strathmore and Berol on my former webpage, the
> MouseHouse. I suppose it's a measure of the amount of work that the
> computer does instead of the composer.
Fair enough then :)
> I've commented earlier on the MouseHouse about your above passage. The
> computer won't replace the artist, but it might sit alongside the pencil
as
> the next tool in the toolbox. However, technology grows increasingly more
> competent at taking the work off the artist's hand and doing it for
him/her.
True. Unfortunatly though, most of those technologies are expensive. A
decent computer, good graphics program and a graphics tablet can easily
run you up to well over a thousand pounds (I'm UK here, it'd probably be
about 1500 dollars I think) and requires a good deal of learning as you need
to know how to draw first, but then you need to learn how to use these new
tools. Whereas anyone can walk into an art supply store and pick up a
handful of pencils and paper for a few dollars. Pencils and paper will
always be the first choice over a computer.
Plus there's something kind of satisfying about having a hand-drawn picture
in your hand :)
> This is an issue I have with players who use drum machines, sequencers,
and
> pre-programmed synthesized sounds, rearrange them, and say, "This is my
> music." Jeff Lynne or Vangelis can get away with such a thing because
> they've actually laid hands on real instruments and use synthetics as a
> backup, but those who simply mix 'n match pre-existing things annoy me.
Indeed, one of the reasons I can't stand techno music. Any fool with about
450 dollars to waste can buy the necessary kit to make chart-quality techno
music. I know, cause I did work for a guy that sold the equipment one time.
There's no skill in it.
> > The computer and it's programs are just the medium, if the person
sitting
> in
> > front of the machine can't draw and is colour blind (no offense, I mean
it
> > in the term of someone who doesn't have an eye for which colours go well
> > together and don't clash) then you're still going to end up with a piece
> of
> > crap.
>
> True, and I've used digital effects myself, but only FOR effects, not
whole
> compositions. In my own mind it betrays the concept of being a "real"
> artist inasmuch as I have to have direct contact with the medium in order
to
> own it.
Yup, here's a question though. I draw using a graphics tablet, so if I run
my graphics program, select the "pencil" tool and proceed to draw something
completely freehand, only using the eraser tool as any normal,
pencil-and-paper artist would, does it really make it not-art?
> Keep up the computer work, tho. :o) Boundaries constantly need
expanding.
Cheers :)
--
Jarad
http://www.furdom.com/
Jarad
news:3b4be211$0$62142$a05e...@news.netdirect.net...
> In article <9iflrs$a18$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "Jarad"
> <Jarad.W...@furkingdom.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > An example. The picture I've linked to below was drawn by me - not very
> > well I admit - entirely freehand. But did I draw it on a computer, or on
> > a piece of paper?
> >
> > http://www.furdom.com/jarad/BunnySketch.gif
>
Seems to be a bit flakey at the moment.
> Slight question.
>
> What is a good graphics tablet?
>
> What features should one look for?
Wacom are reputed to make the best ones, but are frankly, hideously
expensive. I bought one not so long ago from Jungle.com called a "Nises G2".
Works perfectly in everything I've tried it on, has a decent drawing area,
and the stylus/mouse are wireless although battery powered.
Avoid anything that involves a wire going from the stylus/pen to the
tablet/computer. It'll make it top-heavy and make things much harder to
draw.
--
Jarad
http://www.furdom.com/
Elf Sternberg
fal...@aol.comEire (Fal Leac) writes:
>Which is better... computer of traditional furry art?
I think it's a null-issue, and anyone who's read Scott McCloud's
"Reinventing Comics" would understand why. The question in a bit like
asking which is better: charcoal or graphite, COPIC or color pencil.
It's a religious argument, like about what paper is preferable, what
inks, what pencils.
>A quote I've recieved from a well known furry artist-
>"What we like to... try to encourage on **** is traditional tools like
>colored pencils and watercolors as opposed to computer everything.
>It's our way of keeping the content on **** at its best."
Which is complete nonsense. The computer is a tool. It's no
different from a pencil. You can make crap with it or you can be Doug
Winger, who, despite his themes, has proportion, color, depth of field,
perspective, and all that achieved in front of a computer screen.
Anybody who thinks the _medium_ is what makes an artistic
product "good" is simply wrong. Art should be judged by the effect it
has on the viewer, not the material of which it is made. Any artist who
contemplates issues like quality of line; one, two, or three-point
perspective; anatomy; composition of scene; juxtaposition and all of the
other things that go into illustration is a good artist. She is trying
to produce art that affects you-- and whether she's doing it to say
something or just to say something she hopes you want to buy is up to
her.
I'm a writer and an erstwhile artist. I used to write longhand
in a notebook. These days, I write on a laptop with an incredibly tuned
environment, including a modified keyboard that only a handful of people
in the world know how to use. I use absolutely no WYSIWIG; fiddling
with fonts and layouts is as much a waste of my time as running out of
ink (or having my battery die), but while it's running I acheive 110
words a minute. I have my eye on a customized Charmit notebook machine.
It's expensive as Hell-- around $6000-- but the first time I tried to
use it, without help, I managed to get around 200 words per minute, and
an experienced user showed me that his maximum was 330 words per minute.
Finally, a machine that lets me type as fast as I think.
Is this a bad thing? Would the web administrator quoted above
not want my contributions because I didn't write them out with paper and
pen?
How is art different?
As an artist, I'm a beginner. My tools of choice are a
Clairefontaine sketchbook, a Berol H Turquoise graphite pencil, a C-Thru
ruler, a Staedtler Mars eraser, and some Sakura Pigma pens. That's just
what I happen to have on hand. My visual vocabulary is terribly small
and insufficient, and my sense of perspective is well, wrong. I don't
have time to draw as much as I like, chasing after two young children as
I do (the younger one found my ukioye pens the other day and drew all
over my new car! Little rodent...), and I cannot draw during my commute
the way I can write.
If I could port my art the way I can my writing, I'd do it.
Tossing away all of the little annoying things in my collection and
having their capabilities immediately at hand in a portable, fold-away
electronic sketchpad would be a dream come true. It would have be as
good as the art supplies I currently use, but if it were, I would use
it.
Gerhard (of "Cerebus" fame) is a great artist not because he
uses a Zebra Aluminum nib, manga ink, and blue pencil outlines, but
because his backgrounds and scenery are simply lovely to behold with the
human eye. It wouldn't be any different if he were using a computer.
What's the difference between buying Letraset tone and using a
decent gradation and fill algorithm? In both cases the artist is trying
to acheive the same effect.
The only difference here is that the end product, for the
computer-using artist, is still infinitely malleable. The wise
computer-using artist has layers of history saved for every project and
can go back and review, revise, re-invent his picture at will. The
computer-using artist is prepared to distribute his work in a thousand
different ways, to reproduce it on all but the most atavistic of
printing presses, and to make it, and its history, available to the
whole world now, immediately, in real time.
I, personally, like illustration where the process of creation
is visible in the end product. Set pieces, like purchased models one
puts into Poser and just changes the coloration and proportion, do not
impress me as much as simple drawings where one has started from scratch
and demonstrated mastery of the line, perspective, color, and so on.
But that's just me.
And there is probably merit to exploring different media. I
didn't know how expressive line drawings could be until I started
playing with charcoal, for example. And the idea of working with color
makes me break out in a cold sweat.
It's worth noting that McCloud uses Photoshop almost exclusively
these days, as do most of the artists over at Image. Computer inking,
coloring, and lettering have replaced the traditional arts, and
companies that use them are doing quite well, thank you. The color work
on Protomecha E.V.E. or the entire CrossGen line is phenomenal. That's
a human being making those decisions about what colors to put where; the
computer simply gave him or her much better control over gradation,
shade, and quality. Combined with the better paper those shops are
using, the effect is stunning.
Art is no different from any other creative medium such as music
or writing. The computer has simply given people a bigger and cheaper
palette with which to work, and those who disdain it for that reason are
simply missing the point. More art is better than less art; more
artists are better than fewer artists. MP3.com gives musicians a way to
express themselves; so does Furnation. The ones people like will get
applause, end of story. Traditionalists should realize that the world
has changed and that, while griping about it may soothe their souls,
drawing about it might be a more effective response.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
Chris Johnson
<mouseboy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> This is an issue I have with players who use drum machines, sequencers, and
> pre-programmed synthesized sounds, rearrange them, and say, "This is my
> music." Jeff Lynne or Vangelis can get away with such a thing because
> they've actually laid hands on real instruments and use synthetics as a
> backup, but those who simply mix 'n match pre-existing things annoy me.
I can bring something to this discussion...
I've been recording music for quite a while now, starting back in the
old tape-oriented days and now working extensively with digital on a
pretty high level.
I've found that the thing with computer art is this: in order to really
get the most out of it you must approach it on its own level. I could fool
with mic placement in analog, overdrive the tape just the right amount,
etc while thinking of it in a sort of broad, analog sense. It was very
'artistic' and I could pull off slightly out-of-the-ordinary tricks like
backwards echoes synched to forwards echoes, without too much need to go
into detail. I'd rebuild some effects and things on an electronic level
and that qualified me as a pretty major audio hacker, because most people
don't.
With the computer, I _must_ understand the essentials of how the sound
is stored digitally in order to be able to take similar advantage of it. I
need to know why 0.01 gain change from unity is insignificant in analog
and fairly significant in digital. I need to understand tech details like
what dither is, how to do it, when to do it or not do it... and only
through being totally immersed in this brutal, gearhead, morass of digital
trivia am I able to get results that take as much advantage of the medium
as I used to in analog. And only since I started doing just this have I
been getting results that really, seriously satisfy me...
It occurs to me that I'm fairly well suited to this- I like
programming, am not easily overwhelmed by insane masses of techie trivia,
and am capable of completely detaching from the music in order to fixate
on, say, the amount of steeliness on a particular cymbal hit, or whether a
snare drum sounds like you're listening from over or under it.
But not everybody would be suited to this particular approach, of
getting utterly buried in the geek computer details until it becomes
second nature. Some people aren't doing stuff that calls out for it. For
example, MouseHouse doesn't call out for computer enhancement at all- it's
stylized stuff that works really well with natural media. By contrast,
I've seen a lot of Wookiee stuff that is startlingly photoreal,
particularly with use of transparencies in coloring that just lend
themselves to computerization- I would be stunned to learn that Wookiee
did that with natural media because the whole effect is as grainless and
seamless as airbrushing, and the luminosity, transparency etc. are very
characteristic of what you can do when you take a computer and say, "OK,
if I submerge myself in 'brush modes' and study of things like
'luminosity', what will I get that's not easily produced with natural
media alone? What can you do, computer, that's easier for you than it
would be for a paintbrush?"
In digital audio, layering and runnning sidechain effects and dynamics
effects are the features that are easier to get- equalization can be done
as well with analog means, or better, I feel. There's a whole spectrum of
picky little ambience adjustments that digital makes possible- I know a
guy who makes a digital ambience _processor_- thing lets you turn up or
down reverb on pre-recorded tracks, when it's part of the track. The irony
is that digital isn't great at ambience out of the box- you have to really
sweat at it to get exceptional results, but at that point you have a range
of control wildly beyond anything analog could give you! It's not just
that computers replicate existing tools- in a lot of ways they often fall
short, but the trick is that they bring _other_ tools to fruition, that
you may or may not like. If you are really into photo retouching the
computer is an absolute boon- if you're into pastel drawing or sumi-e ink
drawing, you lose something unless you're also adding something else, like
a person who wants to make a sumi-e drawing be animated and move, when the
process isn't controlled enough to do traditional animation cels with.
I think it comes down to the proposition that only certain types of
artwork call for computer aided production. Some things just keep getting
better and better the more effort you put into them, and some don't ask
for effort at all. Poser's a good example- unless you're altering the
models, all you can do with that is posing and texturing and lighting. If
you did a fantastic animation using stock Poser figures and textures, the
art you'd be practicing would be _choreography_...
Chris Johnson
PeterCat
> Ok, what about the people that use 3D modelling programs that come
> with some models already installed? A lot of the time, they do just
> download and install features like chairs and stuff, but there _is_ a
> lot of customisation going on in creating something like, say, a
> furry.
I don't think there's any direct correlation. Using only pre-built
models, it's akin to photography, where the art is in the choice of
pose, background, lighting, composition. If the models are customized,
then you get into aspects of sculpture, costuming, and makeup.
It's all art.
--
The Furry InfoPage! http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/
pete...@Furry.fan.org (PeterCat) Rhal on FurryMUCK (come cuddle!)
--
"I can't believe what he's doing with those shiitake mushrooms!"
Watch "Iron Chef," Fridays and Saturdays at 10pm (ET) on Food Network!
Elf Sternberg
something like that, sorry.
Betty Edwards once wrote:
Imagine the following scenario: our society claims to treasure
reading and writing, but does not teach people to read and write.
Instead, first graders are invited daily to simply play with books,
lined paper, and pencils, and told to teach themselves reading and
writing simply by 'trying it out for themselves.' One or two
children might succeed in puzzling out the process for themselves.
The read are simply labeled, 'lacks the talent for reading and
writing,' and society lives with the consequences.
If that's not acceptable with regards to literacy, why is it
acceptable in art? Teachers in early education give students
pencils and paper and encourage them to draw, but never give any
actual instruction, all the while maintaining that the criteria by
which art is to be judged is its realism. Those that create
realistic drawings are labeled, 'talented in art' and the rest are
labeled as lacking that talent.
Obviously it's acceptable in our society because despite claims
that we 'treasure' artistic ability, we don't value it.
So, my question is: if you're going to put your child through
the process of learning grammar, sentence structure, spelling, and
composition, are you also going to give him or her a formal introduction
to things like perspective, anatomy, proportion, and quality of line?
Now that I've read _Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain_,
from which that quote comes, I intend to do exactly that. I've learned
that drawing is a skill, not a talent; everyone has it, but few are
given the tools with which to express themselves in it. But I'd like to
hear other people's reactions to it.
I'm putting this in a.f.f. because I feel most connected to the
artistic talent here than anywhere else.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Dvorak Keyboards: Frgp ucpoy ncb. ru e.u.bo.v
Elf Sternberg
teaching myself to draw in a rather old-fashioned way. I'm dedicating
about an hour a day, four days a week, to drawing; and I'm teaching
myself out of a collection of books, including _Drawing on the Right
Side of the Brain_, _How To Draw What You See_, and the Drawing Manga
collection which another kind friend gave to me after he gave up.
Now, my friend, who is also not an artist, claims that I will
never learn to draw this way. She says that drawing *is* a talent, that
I have to want to draw something, and that if I want to draw scenes from
my stories I should not bother with line, perspective, proportion, and
anatomy, and just "draw what [I] see in [my] head." "Sure," she says,
"they'll be terrible in the beginning, but if you don't want to draw
them now it's because you don't want to draw them, period. You don't
have the talent for it and deep down you know that."
She makes the analogy from writing. When I come up with a story
idea, I don't worry about pacing, character, theme, or structure; I just
start writing a story idea, and impose those things afterwards, or let
them express themselves, afterwards. I'm certainly not thinking too
much about the mechanics of writing, such as grammar, sentence
structure, or paragraph composition.
I argue that the reason I'm free to start "at the top" with a
story is because all of those other items are skills I *already* have.
I was forced to learn them through years of study. I was not a writer
is high school at all, but I was forced to write fiction, essay,
argument, and the like by the various English classes I had to take, and
when I finally started writing in my college years I had the essential
skills necessary to write. I had gotten them through hard and often
involuntary lessons.
By the same token, I argue that I won't be free to start
anywhere near "the top" of a drawing until I master the basics of
perspective, anatomy, etc., and that I should study those-- just as
seriously as I learned the difference between a gerund and a participle
in English-- before I go trying to use them in something I'd be willing
to show other people.
Am I wrong? Is there a different way to learn art from the one
put forth in all the art books (which, admittedly, have an agenda, to
convince people they can learn to draw and, oh, by the way, buy my book
to do it)? Or is this the right way to go about learning to draw?
Jace
> the process of learning grammar, sentence structure, spelling, and
> composition, are you also going to give him or her a formal introduction
> to things like perspective, anatomy, proportion, and quality of line?
Sure as hell might have helped me. I'm one hell of a reader, but I
struggle with drawing well... and I'd like to be able to, you know?
But art class never actually taught anything. We just 'did'.
Jace
> put forth in all the art books (which, admittedly, have an agenda, to
> convince people they can learn to draw and, oh, by the way, buy my book
> to do it)? Or is this the right way to go about learning to draw?
>
> Elf
Sounds good to me.
Everyone is born with an aptitude for something, I feel. But all that
means is they pick it up quicker. If you try, you can do it
eventually.
TygerMoon Foxx
>
> So, I'm having a disagreement with a friend of mine. I'm
> teaching myself to draw in a rather old-fashioned way. I'm dedicating
> about an hour a day, four days a week, to drawing; and I'm teaching
> myself out of a collection of books, including _Drawing on the Right
> Side of the Brain_, _How To Draw What You See_, and the Drawing Manga
> collection which another kind friend gave to me after he gave up.
No reason why this shouldn't work. It's basically what I have been
doing. If you want to see the difference, look at my old FurNation site
(http://www.FurNation.com/MSonata) and then, if you're going to
Anthrocon, take a look at the art I'm displaying there (those of you not
going will have to wait; my husband is in the process of preparing a new
website for me and it won't be finished until after Anthrocon).
Practice will bring anyone up to some mode of competence; it does, I
feel, take talent to be able to turn that competence toward fantasy
images and realistically combine them or to be able to capture emotion
and moment in the pose. Some can do it, some cannot. I'm not one of the
artists who can and I envy those who do. My art, for all that has
improved anatomically and proportionally, will always seem a little
stiff and posed with the characters devoid of all but elementary
emotion.
--
In Light and Shadow,
TygerMoon Foxx
----------------------------------------------------------------
I am darkness and light, the shadow hunter and king of the sun.
My claws hold the earth, my tongue tastes the sky.
I am steadfast and strong, compassionate and caring.
I am tiger, and my words are pure.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Welcome to the 21st century. Dang, everybody's still stupid."
-----Simtra Kyphrion Firefox
"Ah...springtime and the assholes are in full bloom..." ----- Bo
Samantha Ann Patterson
determination if you really want to. Often, I find that what people
mean when they say 'talnet' is really more like 'Supportive parents
who let them expand their creativity in that direction when they were
small children'. With enough determination and practice, virtually
anyone can learn to create representational art.
Now let me qualify that a bit. :) First, I'd like to make a
distinction between representational art and art with feeling and
meaning... Representational is the type everyone seems to aspire to
in furry art. making your drawing like real and tangible. However,
making something look real and tangible isn't the same as making it
look interesting, or being able to find something you want to render.
Those may be the parts your friend is talking about. Much like
photography. Anyone can learn to take a photo that will always be in
focus and properly lit. The web probably contains no less than a
billion such photographs of people's children, cats, dogs, etc. Yet
how many of these photographs actually hold interest for the rest of
our society?
On a secondary side note, I'd say many drawing books is better
than one or two. You can frequently pick up all kinds of random books
on different types of art at a second hand bookstore for next to
nothing. Even if they aren't always the sort of work you like, they're
often worth a read. Occassionally, they'll say something in just the
right way that it 'clicks' in your head. This is particularly the
case when it comes to things like rendering shadows in real perspective
with the perspective used in your drawing. It's a lot of angular
fiddling, and what made it click for me was a water-damaged 30-year-old
book that I got for 50 cents. :)
Anyhow, if you're really criminally bored, I wrote a whole long
web-page on this topic (The philosophy and mindset of learning to
draw) It can be found at http://circle.twu.net/dungeon.html
It is an ongoing document which is not grammar or spell checked.
(Just a warning)
Sincerely,
Samantha
In article <9itiqe$4rv$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>,
PeterCat
> So, my question is: if you're going to put your child through the process
> of learning grammar, sentence structure, spelling, and composition, are
> you also going to give him or her a formal introduction to things like
> perspective, anatomy, proportion, and quality of line?
I heartily agree. A few years ago someone started a movement called
"numeracy" which promotes mathematics literacy. I'd like to propose the
term "artisticy" (ar-TIS-tis-ee) to mean this sense of artistic literacy.
Gingercat
"Elf Sternberg" <e...@halcyon.com> wrote in message
news:9itipd$4rt$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> So, my question is: if you're going to put your child through
> the process of learning grammar, sentence structure, spelling, and
> composition, are you also going to give him or her a formal introduction
> to things like perspective, anatomy, proportion, and quality of line?
> Now that I've read _Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain_,
> from which that quote comes, I intend to do exactly that. I've learned
> that drawing is a skill, not a talent; everyone has it, but few are
> given the tools with which to express themselves in it. But I'd like to
> hear other people's reactions to it.
I've heard that before and I tend to agree. I know that I tend to treat
drawing as a skillset, though the ease with which some people pick that
skillset up may vary. (Have a friend who's convinced they can't draw
people, and it's so frustrating, because I'd bet my sketchbook that if
they'd relax and not - block off the option? wrong words, right concept -
that they could and would be drawing very good pictures... *sigh* Just
me, I guess.)
A/y, correct me if I'm wrong, but was it _Drawing on the Right Side of the
Brain_ that suggested that a child's sense of proportion or balance is
actually passably good during the early years, and tends to get worse as
they get older, if they don't receive instruction?
Gingercat
Gingercat
> Now, my friend, who is also not an artist, claims that I will
> never learn to draw this way. She says that drawing *is* a talent, that
> I have to want to draw something, and that if I want to draw scenes from
> my stories I should not bother with line, perspective, proportion, and
> anatomy, and just "draw what [I] see in [my] head." "Sure," she says,
> "they'll be terrible in the beginning, but if you don't want to draw
> them now it's because you don't want to draw them, period. You don't
> have the talent for it and deep down you know that."
I'd get annoyed if someone tried to convince me of that. There's nothing
wrong with waiting until you feel you can do something before you actually
try to do it.
I draw; I also make jewelry. I have an idea for a jewelry piece that I'd
love to put together, and I'm not even beginning to do the work required
to create the physical piece, because I *know* I don't have the skills to
do it yet.
This doesn't mean I don't want to do it. It means I'm not going to do it
yet, because this idea has really captured me and I want to be able to do
it justice when I *do* do it, and not have the memory of five or ten
failed efforts hanging in front of my eyes.
> Am I wrong? Is there a different way to learn art from the one
> put forth in all the art books (which, admittedly, have an agenda, to
> convince people they can learn to draw and, oh, by the way, buy my book
> to do it)? Or is this the right way to go about learning to draw?
I think it's a very good way to go about learning how to draw.
I don't think it's an action plan that will give you the desire to draw
if you don't already have it, but it sounds like you already have it.
Luck, skill, and all such things. :)
Gingercat
Berios
>
>"Elf Sternberg" <e...@halcyon.com> wrote in message
>news:9itiqe$4rv$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
>
>> Now, my friend, who is also not an artist, claims that I will
>> never learn to draw this way. She says that drawing *is* a talent, that
>> I have to want to draw something, and that if I want to draw scenes from
>> my stories I should not bother with line, perspective, proportion, and
>> anatomy, and just "draw what [I] see in [my] head." "Sure," she says,
>> "they'll be terrible in the beginning, but if you don't want to draw
>> them now it's because you don't want to draw them, period. You don't
>> have the talent for it and deep down you know that."
I do not believe in talent. Yes, some people get really turned
on to drawing at a young age, and some people enjoy drawing more than others
.. but it is quite possible to FORCE yourself to learn to draw.. which is
no harder than many jobs out there, or being in the military.
The problem with drawing is that there is nobody out there
who will push you hard to learn to draw, the way you learn to read.
You dont get a drawing tutor.. youre expected to magicly have this desire
to push yourself to draw regularly. It doesnt work like that for everyone.
Once you learn to draw well, it's fun and you dont have much trouble being
motivated (I would imagine).
Dont accept that bullshit about "if you dont FEEL like drawing regularly,
you'll never be an artist". Part of being intelligent beings means
we can overcome whatever drawbacks we have.. there is always a way.
There is no question that to get good as an artist, you'll have to draw a
lot for a number of years... but maybe it means finding some kind
of "artist's boot camp".
Drwing is a mechanical process. It is not mystical or magical. It is
like learning a language or playing an instrument.
- B