What Is & Isn't A Fundamental.

[OtherMuzz]

Gosh, the world of art teaching is a messy thing... Below be controversial opinions.

Something that I've seen in nearly every sketchbook is people trying to learn anatomy gestures like they are a fundamental building block, and totally ignoring the studies that are going to help them improve.

Rhythm, gesture, composition, colour appeal, emotion are all the results of fundamentals. They are nothing more than labels and categorizations of the results. They are an abstraction of the world.

Things exist in this world without any quantifiable level of rhythm, And drawing it as such is not a mistake.

Actual fundamentals are physical things and skills that you can strip back until you can explain it without any other fundamental. Of course, the terms are a bit nebulous, and if this weren't such an issue with artist progress, then I would just dismiss this as silly semantics and move on.

Light, Perspective, Proportion, these are real fundamentals.

-------------------------------

Over the course of the last century, you can map out a general trajectory of how anatomy textbooks have changed.

A rough timeline being Bridgman>Loomis>Rielly>Hogarth>Hampton, and one thing you will notice is that as each generation tried to improve on the last, they made a general move to abstract the forms even more than their predecessor to add something meaningful to the pile. But I'm not sure that anyone stood back and asked why greater levels of abstraction are superior, having been watching students try and learn on forums for a decade, I have to conclude that you can't just learn the abstraction and expect it to work.

Gestures in their most pure form were meant to be the starting stages of a drawing, which you could take the whole way to being an illustration. They are distilling things you know about the human body to as few marks as possible so you can quickly evaluate poses, and make ideas. They are a shorthand for years of studying the actual body.



Drawings like this only come when you know where all the bones are, and understand the forms you are trying to represent. And although I don't discount the possibility of making so many gestures of feet that you can pick it up, it is by far a slow and inconsistent method that I can't recommend. Once you learn the forms, fret not young padawan, learning how to pose it so it looks nice isn't so hard.

So I'll say it again, if you can't draw box perfectly, how in Odin's name do you expect to draw a human.

If you can't draw it. You don't understand the form, or even worse, you don't even know how to draw form.



p.s, Loomis doesn't even mention gesture, until after explaining perspective and proportion, and even then the mannequin he gives is concrete, not random scribbles.

[smrr]

Well bloody put, Muzz
I can't add to your charming observations, you've nailed it imo

+rep bc so much yes

[devinn]

There's nothing controversial about this; just facts. I can see how laying it out in such a manner can help really logical people, though.

Nobody is an exception to the observations and statements in your post, unless one is a savant or 'prodigious' savant. Anyone that thinks otherwise is quite simply a bit more congenital or a downright asshole lol.

Awesome. Thanks for sharing, Muzz!

[OtherMuzz]

"I can see how laying it out in such a manner can help really logical people, though. "

I'd like to think all people were logical and thought in this manner but a cursory glance at the most popular youtube art teachers, Proko aside make me think otherwise. If this doesn't seem controversial simply means i did a good job of explaining.

Most people just lack the tools to break things down in a way they make sense. Abstraction is one way to measure an idea, but there are many others.

This site is awesome for learning about your own mental biases that prevent you from thinking cleanly and logically. https://youarenotsosmart.com/

I really wish there was a culture of skepticism within the illustration community...

[devinn]

Many people learn things without needing much verbage behind such practices. Take for example, a person that grew up drawing as a child, simply because it was fun. They can be an amazing artist fundamentally and not know shit about teaching it or the regimen behind his childhood passion that increased his skills in the technical sense.

When an aspiring artist asks how to get good, more often than not, the older experienced artist (with the background written above) may respond with something akin to "just draw a loooot!" but nowadays; especially with how intimate this industry has become; a industry 99% based on representational art; the older would instead say:"study the fundamentals" because the "secret" to getting good is so public.

The older artist didn't set out to "study the fundamentals" as a child. He just drew. He drew what he liked, he copied artists or media that inspired him and he drewwwww. He was logical in the pursuit of his passion, but intuitive when it came to the exposition of proper image making, abiding by the standards of representational art.



It's definitely a perspective thing.

[OtherMuzz]

Of course there are artists that can create without an active knowledge, i don't blame them or really care until they step into the role of teacher and start doing a bad job.

Don't take what im saying as berating beginners, it's not, it's berating people not doing due diligence of research for the training materials they are making, and causing harm. And having to tell somebody that the textbook or tutorial they are learning from is wrong just makes me look like an asshole.

[devinn]

Ah, I understand your point.

But you can't immediately or completely discredit ANY method of learning if it helps one person...even if it is a horrible detriment to the majority, lol. Unorthodox approaches are still valid.

In the case of a younger artist...yeah, it's definitely SAFER to steer him towards tried and true methods and more often than not, advisable haha. Anomalies definitely exist in many disciplines. But, if he or she chooses to deviate towards other systems, so be it. I guess.

I don't think I have anything else to add; I agree with you on most of your points...just wanted to incite a discussion.

[Amit Dutta]

I totally agree that gestures can't be taken as a fundamental to figure drawing. It's just one technique for shorthand as you said. Couldn't agree more.

I would however also like to put forward the notion that because learning is a very individual thing, one has to be a little careful about saying outright that one approach is wrong compared to another. Not because there aren't bad approaches, but in my opinion, especially when we talk about something as subjective as the right way to learn , it is mostly based on an opinion.

Most education formats appear to be dictatorial...it's what we are used to.
We want to be told how to do things, rather than spend the time to figure things out ourselves. So if a bunch of people think one way is the way, a beginner really doesn't know enough to be able to judge their approach because they have no frame of reference.

I personally learn very intuitively and by repeated trial and error. As a kid I always liked to figure out how things worked by breaking them and taking them apart. I rarely could put things back together again haha...damn spring loaded little dohickies!

If I learn software, I press everything and see what it does and break it way way before feeling the fear of "I don't know what I'm doing" and going to hunt for a tutorial. I know many people have the opposite attitude. The fear of "I don't know what I'm doing" sends them fleeing for the knowledge meal plated up and garnished.

If someone wants to go down a particular path, that you have already been down, and didn't work for you, well...I say let 'em. You can't force someone to be critically skeptical or think for themselves by telling them they are wrong because they have absolutely no way of judging your rightness, over the other person's rightness.

As a teacher I would say it is better to suggest things, and encourage people to find out for themselves and use a questioning approach rather than saying THIS IS THE WAY IT IS, because that tends to be a restrictive model of thought.

[OtherMuzz]

But you can't immediately or completely discredit ANY method of learning if it helps one person...even if it is a horrible detriment to the majority, lol. Unorthodox approaches are still valid.

Of course i can, we do this every day in the real world. If a restaurant causes food poisoning to people it gets shut down.

If the majority of people are not improving with a method, then I would argue that the people that improved are not improving because of it, but rather in-spite of it.

But anyway, ridding the world of shitty art tutorials isn't going to happen any time soon, so I'd rather we just acknowledge that they are shit, why they are shit, and how we make better material that is more effective.

[OtherMuzz]

Not sure where i implied that there is only one way to learn. There isn't, and i would never prescribe a single superior curriculum because of it. But we can most certainly tell people what simply does not work.

We can say definitively that drawing faces in profile and front 10,000 times will not give you the skill to draw a head in perspective.

There is a bias I love to think about called survivor bias. If you study the victors that survived out of something, you are getting a biased sample. We can look at all the pros and go, these are the things they are doing to get good, but it is way more useful to look at what beginners are doing and not progressing, and cross reference.

We know that if you don't force yourself to draw correct form it's never going to happen.

But see this is what really annoys me. As soon as anyone even attempts to think skeptically about illustration techniques, out comes the special snowflake defence, of "it didn't work for you, but it might work for others". This isn't useful, this is about debugging issues and easing the pain as much as possible in an ideal situation. So lets try and not derail the discussion please.

[devinn]

But you can't immediately or completely discredit ANY method of learning if it helps one person...even if it is a horrible detriment to the majority, lol. Unorthodox approaches are still valid.

Of course i can, we do this every day in the real world. If a restaurant causes food poisoning to people it gets shut down.

If the majority of people are not improving with a method, then I would argue that the people that improved are not improving because of it, but rather in-spite of it.

But anyway, ridding the world of shitty art tutorials isn't going to happen any time soon, so I'd rather we just acknowledge that they are shit, why they are shit, and how we make better material that is more effective.

Meh, you could've used a better example since we are talking about the abstraction of thought and learning....

A valid argument, but I can turn around and just as easily state that everyone is different.

Everyone is different. Many people learn differently.

[OtherMuzz]

A valid argument, but I can turn around and just as easily state that everyone is different.

This claim is silly, and it also misses the point, if the information is fundamentally broken, no matter how you learn, you aren't getting past it unless you have a change in strategy.

The book I've started writing is actually about linking the modern science we have on the brain with techniques to learn creativity. I could start pulling out the studies but... i'd rather just leave that for the book.

lol... so much for not controversial huh.

[devinn]

Learning is controversial. Your initial post wasn't. Very nice discussion; I like the points you bring up muzz.

Your first post is everything we can mostly agree on...at least I think so.

[Amit Dutta]

Oh no, you didn't explicitly say that, but implicit in your words (and I might be wrong) it sounded like you were saying gestures are pointless unless you do anatomy and form first. I don't have that fundamental a view, that is all.

Of course any one thing taken to extremes without focusing on the other important things will result in a bad outcome.

I see no issues with someone doing gesture studies, as long as, they also end up filling in the gaps with anatomy at some point. Does it matter if one is first? Well probably it does if we want to talk about efficiency of learning, but as long as they know they are going to have to do anatomy and form study, this isn't the same as a case of only drawing one profile a billion times and doing nothing else.

Yeah, the survivor bias is a funny one. "If I do things exactly like that person, I will be able to do exactly what they do, and look at how awesome they are". It's like the guru chasing syndrome you will find in spiritual circles. Same human nature shit. Idolise another, go to them for teaching, assume they will do the work for you.

I think the issue you might have been having is that gesture is seen as so important to beginners...but you seem to be equating that to a singular focus on gesture as if that is all they know and will ever learn. Probably not, given how much is out there on form, construction, anatomy etc. :) I totally agree with you on your main point.

[OtherMuzz]

Edit: i just reread your post, your last paragraph has me confused, it agrees with my opening premise, but your first paragraph disagrees.

I'll leave my post up because I'm not sure. Also, I just want to check how my tone is coming across, am I coming across as too harshly?

-------------------------------------------------

Oh no, you didn't explicitly say that, but implicit in your words (and I might be wrong) it sounded like you were saying gestures are pointless unless you do anatomy and form first. I don't have that fundamental a view, that is all.

Yes I do have this view. So I have a some questions, would you recommend to a beginner that they should do gesture drawings, and what exactly are you suggesting they do? And if so what are they trying to learn? You must have some arguments to back up your claim here, and tradition really isn't a suitable answer.  

You haven't addressed my problems with gestures being nothing but a shorthand for learned knowledge, otherwise, they are just really bad copies from life.

I think it's time to pull this article out, not because I think people don't know how to argue, but because i think it might help with the self awareness of how we are discussing this.

http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

So far, at best, using this scale, the best argument in favour of gestures as a starting point has been a contradiction without a supporting case.

[Lodratio]

I think part of the reason there's a controversy on this topic is simply that people have two major different definitions of fundamentals, which creates misunderstandings whenever someone is talking about one thing and we think they mean the other. There's the idea is that they are 'hysical things and skills that you can strip back until you can explain it without any other fundamental', and that they're 'universally applicable principles as opposed to situational knowledge'.

With the second definition something like edge control would be a fundamental concept, whereas understanding architectural shapes is situational. Both ways of looking at it make sense to a certain degree. With 'universally applicaple principles', the edges start to blurr when it comes to creature anatomy, very specific lighting situations, materials, lineweight and similar things. One artist may use them in all of their work, which means they are universally applicable to them, another barely relies on them, so they become situational knowledge instead.

Let's talk about the first definition, because that's what this thread is about:
Your observation about people needing an understanding of forms, both in general and the ones they are specifically trying to draw, and shadow and light if they are trying to render them are correct I think. That does not mean that they're actually the kind of fundamental principles you make them out to be though. The concept of solving a problem by starting with 'first principles' is thinking in computer terms, right? I'd argue that all concepts rely on other concepts, and nothing comes 'first'.  People learn by juggling a lot of tasks in parallel or switching between them. Pushing boundaries by trying to learn some kind of fundamental principle and 'moving up' from there is much less efficient than using different modes of understanding to tackle problems according to ones current ability to comprehend them, move on to different problems, find new methods of comprehending, and repeat that process over and over again. Anything can be a 'fundamental' principle at a certain point in time, meaning that it serves as the basis for you to build upon at that point in time.

Understanding lineweight helps to understand forms, understanding forms helps to understand lineweight. Values help with edges and edges help with values, color relies on both... not sure what it helps with other than itself. With flow and rythm, you a solid understanding of form to make it work, but it can also help with figuring out new aspects of lineweight and composition.

Well, that's my argument. Nothing comes first and nothing comes last, so fundamentals aren't a constant.

[OtherMuzz]

Sure i agree there are two definitions, but i defined the terms at the start so arguing against a different definition would be intellectually dishonest, and nobody has argued like that, so no that isn't where the controversy comes from. It comes from that I have the gall to suggest that one specific activity might be demonstrably hindering students, one which I might add that nobody has thought of a redeeming quality of said activity.

I agree that you can pick-up multiple skills at the same time, and yes you are correct in that people learn these things by juggling lots of different ideas, but the core idea at play here is that abstracted drawing concepts hide the true nature of what is going on from the student. In fact you are actually arguing for everything I agree with except for this.

Pushing boundaries by trying to learn some kind of fundamental principle and 'moving up' from there is much less efficient than using different modes of understanding to tackle problems according to ones current ability to comprehend them, move on to different problems, find new methods of comprehending, and repeat that process over and over again. Anything can be a 'fundamental' principle at a certain point in time, meaning that it serves as the basis for you to build upon at that point in time.

There is a theory in psychology referred to as cognitive loading, [science paper] which proposes that there is an upper limit to what the human brain can process at one time.

Here is a direct quote

The elements of most schemas must be learned simultaneously because they interact and it is the interaction that is critical. If, as in some areas, interactions between many elements must be learned, then intrinsic cognitive load will be high. In contrast, in different areas, if elements can be learned successively rather than instantaneously because they do not interact, intrinsic cognitive load will be low.

So what you say has elements of truth. If the student is able to learn multiple things at once then great, but I think you are seriously misunderstanding just how difficult the problem of form and accuracy actually are. I know artists that are top of industry but they still practice it daily.

The entire point of using the method I pointed out of splitting out fundamentals is specifically because they are the lowest possible cognitive load, because otherwise learning is "severely reduced". Of course we can never fully reduce any skill to being completely by itself, you will always need line or value to represent perspective for example.

[Lodratio]

"Arguing against a different definition would be intellectually dishonest, and nobody has argued like that, so no that isn't where the controversy comes from."

Let's not go there, alright? My point about the two common definitions wasn't directed at your argument, but the meta-discussion about why fundamentals are such a controversial topic. My laying out the two definitions wasn't directed at your line of reasoning at all. It was directed at the assumptions we might be making about why there is a controversy.


On your second point, of course there is an upper limit to how many tasks the mind can effectively deal with at any given time. Otherwise you wouldn't need thought processes at all. You could just arive at the solution for any problem, no matter how complex it may be, if you have a sufficient understanding of both subjectmatter and methods. It would be a simple matter of execution. The sad reality is that people can't even begin to comprehend the world 'as it really is' (if that's a thing), which is why simplification and abstraction are important.
So yeah, I agree with you that people don't benefit much from attempting to solve tasks they don't have the 'tools' for. If you can't break down a problem you have no way of solving it, and you don't gain any new understanding. The problem I see is the opposite of that: Not gaining any new understanding because you have tools that sort of solve your problems and you default to using them for everything.

Maybe if I give you an example of what I think the danger of thinking that way is you'll understand where I'm coming from. I'm sure you've seen people who learned 'formulas' on how to do linework, construct a body, shade a form, etc. and who then apply that same process to everything they do. Sure, their endresults look finished, but they are limited by their tools to those kinds of results. They can't improve beyond a certain point, because their process is a dead end.

Form may be good things to try and get a basic understanding of to start with, but calling that understanding fundamentals is misleading. The tools you use to solve problems have to evolve with your problems. By using the same 'set' tools to tackle problems you get more proficient at using them, but they don't get any better.

[OtherMuzz]

simplification and abstraction

Abstraction and simplification are totally different concepts in this context, simplification is reducing information, abstraction is adding new information to get a different understanding or representation of the information. I'm not arguing against simplification, but I prefer the word isolation to simplification here.

I'm sure you've seen people who learned 'formulas' on how to do linework, construct a body, shade a form, etc. and who then apply that same process to everything they do. Sure, their endresults look finished, but they are limited by their tools to those kinds of results. They can't improve beyond a certain point, because their process is a dead end.

I've actually never seen somebody with perfect form or proportion with these properties. If you are following a formula (in the way you are talking) then they don't understand it plain and simple. But if you have any specific examples of such people, I'd love to see them.

Again this all comes back to, if you can't draw a box how can you expect to draw a human.

Also, I've got to say and i only mention it because it is directly relevant to this conversation, but looking at your drawings, your understanding of form and proportion are still developmental. So i want to ask you, what is your plan on improving these things? This conversation directly relates to struggles you currently have with your own art, so even if the advice you follow isn't mine, there is something you need to sit down and work out.

[Amit Dutta]

hehe ok, I admit I am sort of agreeing AND disagreeing with you in some ways. Sorry for any confusion.

I do in theory agree with you on your main point, that gesture alone before more accurate work probably isn't the best way to start if we are talking an effective progression for a beginner in figurative work. But I disagree that this necessitates the approach that gesture needs to be totally chucked out of the bag of tools because all it is is a shorthand.

I think that some gesture study which focuses on rhythm and balance (and a loose proportion) isn't a bad way to think about how to quickly break down figures in the most simple way, in a way that constructive work does more painstakingly. I think gestural work is highly useful for traditional animation and helps with exaggeration of poses, that you might not get any practice from if you are only doing accurate constructive studies.

There is a different method of approach to quick analysis and more methodical measurement/construction analysis and I believe they both have their place. As to which comes first, I definitely recommend people I mentor focus more on accurate constructive study first, but here's the kicker, I am not against them doing gesture study, if they really want to.

If anything it shows me a measure of how well the shorthand of their internal knowledge is developing, and gives me an idea of some things that they might be misrepresenting in their approach to breaking down figures when pushed. Most of the mitigations won't lie in more gesture study, it will be in more accurate study.

To me gestures are really just quick time figure lay-ins, so I don't see them as somehow totally at odds to form and accurate figure drawing and I don't see a need to vilify them. I do understand that they are often misrepresented in learning resources and perhaps given more weight depending on the teacher, and they can be taken totally out of context, but I don't think it's that big a deal. All it takes is someone (anyone who understands the figure to a competent level) to tell them well actually gestures alone aren't the best way to consolidate your figure knowledge...but they can complement things, and add some variety and fun to things as well.

As with most of my approach to things, I think a balance must be struck, which takes into account and often is dependent on how somebody wishes to learn and not only what studies tell us that their brain is capable of learning or not.

Again, I'm not arguing against your main point, but for me, I approach teaching not as a step by step, by the numbers thing where we are inputting data sheets and instructions into a meat robot machine. Much of the time approaches have to change to meet the students needs as well.

Not sure if that made where I'm coming from any clearer?

Oh and you aren't coming off as too harsh at all, but sometimes the push at people about how unscientific and non-rational we all tend to be might be seen as a tad righteous. I know that's not your meaning of course. :)

Anyways, good post man...sturrred up some shit. :P