05-29-2016, 03:38 AM
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
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