Am I practicing wrong or right?

[ZombieChinchilla]

Hmmm, that is true, but I still think that if you look at drawings from those kind of people from one year to the next, there's probably some kind of improvement, no matter how minimal. Will they improved any usable skills? Probably not. Will they get a job in the industry at that rate? Probably not. But it's still improvement. That was me for the first few years of drawing when I was in high school, but I did still improve some.

[ReneAigner]

Hmmm, that is true, but I still think that if you look at drawings from those kind of people from one year to the next, there's probably some kind of improvement, no matter how minimal. Will they improved any usable skills? Probably not. Will they get a job in the industry at that rate? Probably not. But it's still improvement. That was me for the first few years of drawing when I was in high school, but I did still improve some.

True, one will invariably get better at producing one's own idiosyncratic mistakes. They'll get more polished, if you will, and certain purely technical skills may also get better through sheer repetition.

But that's not what most people are really after, which is where I was coming from.

[Farvus]

The examples I posted are artists who don't use photobashing. I think they are just really good at analyzing flaws in their work and improving stuff with every new illustration. Also you can learn from reference that you use to produce finished piece of work.

Another example is concept artist David "Vyle" Levy. I remember on CA forums he did post regular digital life paintings for a while but it wasn't enormous amounts in comparison to some people. He mentioned that he learns most about the specific subject right before the project. He doesn't have to keep doing cast studies or still life forever. I'm pretty sure it would help him in some way but sometimes it can be counterproductive when you can just focus on improving the actual work you're going for.

[ReneAigner]

The examples I posted are artists who don't use photobashing.

Of course they do. At least Verhasselt certainly uses photos in some pieces and quite a bit of 3D as well.

Vyle also uses 3D and photo elements in his professional work.

Also, you need to make a distinction here between designers and Illustrators. Illustrators need a much better understanding of light and colour than designers do- which is why FZD doesn't teach life drawing/painting at all, but tons and tons of constructive perspective.

[Farvus]

Well. 3d is another thing. Even if you use it you still need to have some knowledge of the subject in order to make things look believable. Also by learning modelling you can actually improve your drawing/painting skills.
Matthias Verhasselt mentioned that he learned a lot about atmosphere from setting up lights and materials for rendering. Then after many years of doing 3d he switched to speedpainting and he quickly got things right without lots of searching.

As for the photobashing. You might be right. However I remember period of time where they posted only fully painted work without doing lots of studies and they were already pro level. I think the danger of stagnation can come if the artist does only the same type of projects with the same subject matter (that was studied to death).

[ReneAigner]

Well. 3d is another thing. Even if you use it you still need to have some knowledge of the subject in order to make things look believable. Also by learning modelling you can actually improve your drawing/painting skills.
Matthias Verhasselt mentioned that he learned a lot about atmosphere from setting up lights and materials for rendering. Then after many years of doing 3d he switched to speedpainting and he quickly got things right without lots of searching.

As for the photobashing. You might be right. However I remember period of time where they posted only fully painted work without doing lots of studies and they were already pro level. I think the danger of stagnation can come if the artist does only the same type of projects with the same subject matter (that was studied to death).

I'm not sure anymore what your point is, sorry :D
Are you saying that it is possible to reach proficiency without using references of any kind (life studies, photo, 3D, photobash)? 'cause that's not going to happen. No chance. Unles you're a one-in-a-billion savant.
You're also not going to truly understand light and colour without life studies. Also just not going to happen, the best you can hope for is learning how to replicate the effects of a camera if you study photos.

[Farvus]

I'm saying it's possible to reach proficiency from doing only studies necessary for particular illustration you're aiming for instead of drawing for months only life/photo study of every single pose, body part, animal, landscape imaginable (so that you might be "ready" one day). Maybe the exception would be animation where you need to learn about the totality of the motion so constant learning of gesture is important.

I'm will risk to say that you can even incorporate some information in illustration/concept by just having reference on the side and looking at it instead of producing additional studies. Or you can make a study of mountain range from photo and add monster in the foreground. You have two birds killed with one stone this way. Illustration becomes studying at the same time.

[ReneAigner]

Oh, I do agree with that to a degree! That's more or less what I meant with my original post about techniques that transfer the reference (3D, photos etc.) directly into the final image.

The only caveat is that for certain areas/sujets, like the human body or light and colour in general, a lot of practice is necessary to not just understand the concept (which you can do by intellectual analysis, which need not necessarily take long) but also to be able to actually execute it on your canvas. The latter is a skill that needs honing over a prolonged period of time.

But yes, at some point in time doing still lifes, for example, yields only minimal gains if you've aleady done a lot of them with varying objects. At that point those studies can become a "spinning your wheel" problem. This all goes back to deliberate practice- identify weaknesses and ruthlessly eliminate them. Easier said than done in my experience :D

[Farvus]

This time I can agree with everything you wrote :).

I see so many artist "spinning the wheel" and it's sometimes sad to watch so much wasted energy without noticable improvement over the years.

[Amit Dutta]

It seems you guys are debating the efficiency of improvement.

I can see the truth in what each of you have said. A key thing to remember is that all truth is relative. There isn't one single way that applies to everybody equally.
Sure there are logical ways of attacking things (identify weakness, tailor study, improve) that are proven to work and more intuitive ways (do project pieces, learn through experimentation and iteration) that have also worked for people.

I think what is a must is to have an open but determined mind, lots of passion and the dedication to improve. The balance of how much study in what way, with what tools that will be most efficient for a particular person is always going to come down to a mix that is best suited for that individual.

[appleseed00]

way too much i see people creating the same photostudies and gestures. Like ReneAlgier said, spinning the wheel.

I like to refer to this as the banking model of education. you can find out more about it here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_education

"Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the "banking" concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits."

So this type of study leads to an endless cycle of untargeted effort and disappointment when you come to do your own original work.

An alternative was proposed by Paulo Freire; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem-posing_education

its a little too broad in scope and depth to sum up nicely in a few sentences, however the general gist of it is that it is about a Results based design problem solving approach.

This perhaps can help artists who are struggling to level up, focus on results orientated strategies for growth rather than rote learning.

I agree with amit, that Dedication and drive will do the hard work and an open mind is key.

[Zearthus]

I think these can contribute to this topic:

http://www.explore-drawing-and-painting....inger.html

http://www.explore-drawing-and-painting....r-art.html

[KurtJeremy]

way too much i see people creating the same photostudies and gestures. Like ReneAlgier said, spinning the wheel.

I like to refer to this as the banking model of education. you can find out more about it here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_education

"Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the "banking" concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits."

So this type of study leads to an endless cycle of untargeted effort and disappointment when you come to do your own original work.

An alternative was proposed by Paulo Freire; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem-posing_education

its a little too broad in scope and depth to sum up nicely in a few sentences, however the general gist of it is that it is about a Results based design problem solving approach.

This perhaps can help artists who are struggling to level up, focus on results orientated strategies for growth rather than rote learning.

I agree with amit, that Dedication and drive will do the hard work and an open mind is key.

wow i like that link you gave appleseed. definitely opened my mind.
heres a useful one that i found:

Transmission model
Banking education follows the transmission model of education. This model views education as a specific body of knowledge that is transmitted from the teacher to the student. It emphasizes teacher-centric learning where students are passive absorbers of information and that the purpose of learning is memorization of facts.[6] Unfortunately this model does not emphasize understanding; students can simply memorize facts without truly comprehending what they are learning.

simply memorizing stuff isnt going to cut it. you need to emphasize understanding in order to improve. or else your skill level is only going to plateau

I think these can contribute to this topic:

http://www.explore-drawing-and-painting....inger.html

http://www.explore-drawing-and-painting....r-art.html

very interesting links. ill have a go with it. thanks