Anvar's Sketchbook till I get better
#1
Hey guys, my name is Anvar. Have been drawing for a while now, and been looking for an art community for at least as long. Happy to be here even though the forum is not in it's prime anymore, I would really hope we can revive it to its former glory. Thanks!



Here are some studies I made yesterday. I took master paintings and used their lighting scenario to inform my decisions. I find straight up copying a master painting does not give you much in terms of gaining knowledge, it simply does not challenge you enough, so to make it more challenging and engaging, I added a little twist in a form of adding my own figure into the composition. What do you guys think?


Attached Files Image(s)



Reply
#2
Hi.Sorry to inform you but the picture you provided is broke i suggest learning to post picture in here instead of relying on external website for the future.

As for using master work for light by personal take it that it not really about what someone did but understanding the different scenario it rather comparing master to inform your decision because you are in between A vand B because you can neither be A or B . You can't extract pattern of ''success'' or logic by isolating one artist there as to be a separation it that information that inform you about deliberate vs none deliberate decision making. For example why does the cast shadow fall opposite to the sun and why do successful artist understand that and utilize that concept to create realism. A rule come from accurate understand the interrelation of different concept via repetitive recontextualize of those rule under different scenario. By understanding the variable of the equation it no longer and abstract and naive observation but a increasingly inform understanding of the interelation of those different variable.


Yes you can compare an artist against itself but how will you know if he not misinforming you after all if you look at master before perspective was establish they did not properly understand the rule yet people would follow there misguided masterful work because it what was understood at that time. But it by comparing work from yesterday with work of to day artist that we can establish who is right and who is wrong.

As for recontextualizing someone else artwork that a step up from copying. But why not try to do that scene from a different perspective, change the time of the day, change the time period there is many way you can recontextualize a work without simply doing 1+1 but sometime doing the 1+1 is the clearest and safest way to experiment without giving yourself more than you can chew.

There even other concept such as caricature or doing the opposite of what you see that expand how you think. Going beyond copying and adding there concept such as subtracting ,multiplying, dividing, grouping, separating, fusing, reducing, shifting hue to name a few.

My Sketchbook

Perfection is unmeasurable therefor it impossible to reach it.
Reply
#3
(01-10-2025, 02:34 PM)darktiste Wrote: Hi.Sorry to inform you but the picture you provided is broke i suggest learning to post picture in here instead of relying on external website for the future.

As for using master work for light by personal take it that it not really about what someone did but understanding the different scenario it rather comparing master to inform your decision because you are in between A vand B because you can neither be A or B . You can't extract pattern of ''success'' or logic by isolating one artist there as to be a separation it that information that inform you about deliberate vs none deliberate decision making. For example why does the cast shadow fall opposite to the sun and why do successful artist understand that and utilize that concept to create realism. A rule come from accurate understand the interrelation of different concept via repetitive recontextualize of those rule under different scenario. By understanding the variable of the equation it no longer and abstract and naive observation but a increasingly inform understanding of the interelation of those different variable.


Yes you can compare an artist against itself but how will you know if he not misinforming you after all if you look at master before perspective was establish they did not properly understand the rule yet people would follow there misguided masterful work because it what was understood at that time. But it by comparing work from yesterday with work of to day artist that we can establish who is right and who is wrong.

As for recontextualizing someone else artwork that a step up from copying. But why not try to do that scene from a different perspective, change the time of the day, change the time period there is many way you can recontextualize a work without simply doing 1+1 but  something doing the 1+1 is the clearest and safest way to experiment without giving yourself more than you can chew.

There even other concept such as caricature or doing the opposite of what you see that expand how you think. Going beyond copying and adding there concept such as subtracting ,multiplying, dividing, grouping, separating, fusing, reducing, shifting hue to name a few.

Hey, darktiste, thank you for telling me about the broken images, they should work fine right now. 

As per your note on the usefulness of these exercises, in my opinion, isolating an area of study and working on it while other fundamental areas are not causing you trouble is a good way to learn. In this example of work that I posted, I have deliberately chose to practice my lighting and not focus on things like composition and, say, perspective. Other exercises help you with isolating other fundamentals. The best examples of that would be anatomical studies where you are focusing on the internal machine of a human being, and even figure drawing, a very close subject, does not really interfere with your exercise. 

On the point of misinformation I wanted to say that misinformation happens in most circumstances while learning art as art is not an exact science. I would call it interpretation rather than misinformation because we are dealing with how people perceive and feel and that always lies beyond the scope of objective truth. 

I am also not very convinced that masters of the past are in some way wrong about things even though they didn't have all the knowledge of the present. Of course, I would not learn about anatomy and perspective from artists of the Northern Renaissance, but I cannot say that what they were doing is in its entirety wrong. I, as a realist painter, have different goals than them, but I am no more right about things than they are. Again, we are dealing with art where intention and direction matter more than pure factual knowledge of things. 

Lastly, re-contextualizing matters but it matters more what your goal is for any given exercise. You do not want to change too much about a master's work because then the point of making a master study is no longer there. A master study, in my opinion, is a puzzle you are trying to solve by mimicking and analyzing what another artist did. There are paintings that contain answer to most of your questions, but asking that question and completely understanding the answer is the hard part. I do not consider copying hard anymore, at some point when you have been painting enough, repeating the same stroke and same colors on canvas is no longer a challenge, but what is definitely a challenge is the act of deciphering the information that is embedded into a masterful work of art.
Reply
#4
Realism to me is at the opposite end of intention because the artistic freedom or initial intention are mostly about the setting there is no room for breaking the rule it a 1 to 1 relation to what we experience.

All intention in that artistic path are driven by one thing achieving realism .To discard any rule of realism no longer define the work as realistic. No matter what intension or story you want to tell there is no cheating because the viewer live in that world. Let take caricature there is alot more room for intentional break in reality for example a elephant who use it ears to fly.

Right now what i see in this sketchbook so far is more impressionistic in nature more concern with brush work then a complete and flesh out result that mirror reality. I would expect some kind of ''finish study'' if you are going for realism meaning the closest 1 to 1 to relation you can to what the eye perceive. But i also understand that study are rarely that extensive even when realism is the goal as we often seeking an understanding of concept we need to put into practice what we learn and it often blur the line between the end goal and what we were doing at that time to get closer to were own artistic intention. There is master study and master copy and i think it also important that you establish that as your goal but anyways it hasty of to me presume you don't know what impressionism is since you are probably more knowledgeable than me when it come to art history specially since if you have a realistic background it often come with an art history introduction.

All i am saying is i hope to see a master copy to the best of your ability soon.

My Sketchbook

Perfection is unmeasurable therefor it impossible to reach it.
Reply
#5
Here are some studies I made from imagination. The focus here was the lighting and colors. Even though I am fairly satisfied with both of them, there is still a lot of work to be done. 

What works:
- I was very pleased that I could conjure a scene with a convincing light out of my head.
- Intensity and mood are very close to what I was imagining them to be. 

What needs more love (work):
- Palette is definitely quite literal, lacks some interest. It is better in the second scene with those violets and greens in the background, but that is not enough. 
- Harmonizing the color is an issue still, seems like colors jump and cohesion between them is not as strong. As an example, the red in the second picture is too red and really makes the image too literal. Not sure how to harmonize the colors yet, driving them through grey would not be optimal here, the colors have to be saturated (or do they?)
- Environment is still an afterthought, or at least, serves very little purpose, it is there to accentuate the figure, but I know it can do so much more. It can become a character of its own and then become one with the figure at some point, which would be ideal. 

Overall, I am pretty happy with how things are coming through, though I surely do need to mature my palette. Maybe looking at master work will help. Thanks!


Attached Files Image(s)



Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: Anvar Khamidov, 11 Guest(s)