09-16-2016, 10:46 AM
Zipfelzeus "Literally all master paintings you ever saw were not done from imagination"... Well, not really. Many artists, especially in the Peredvizhniki movement would frequently fill in large areas of their work with stuff that didn't exist. Repin probably being one of the most famous examples where many of his faces in his larger works never really existed. This isn't to say that he in no way didn't use reference, rather that being able to draw form one's imagination has always existed however it was done out of a necessity when other means weren't available (or in the case of Repin, for aesthetic reasons)
The examples of reference posted in this thread are very poor examples within the context of what's actually going on. If one wishes to develop the skills to be able to paint what does not exist, does it not make sense to isolate this challenge and dedicate one's time to solving the problems that appear without distractions? Read what genosgrande has said, he does this to weed out that which he does not know. He hasn't said this is portfolio work that will be used to get professional jobs, he hasn't said that all he cares about is the final product, rather it looks like this is an exercise in creating something from his imagination in order to learn something. So why do you guys jump down his throat about it? He hasn't dismissed the practice of using reference as a tool or that the study of reality is an important practice if one wishes to recreate it. He just wants to try his hand at something and you can't help yourself but preach "the one true way".
"If you don't use reference for your longer illustrations you're really just wasting your time struggling and the final result will definitely suffer" what if the extra time spent is to solve problems that otherwise wouldn't be solved by doing shorter paintings? I know that solving something on my own without reference has greatly helped me in the understanding of many subjects, even if the final image could have been better and been made faster with reference, the value exists in what is learned.
The response to someone just saying that in their imaginative work they'd prefer not to use reference is kinda fucked up. When did this become verboten?
The examples of reference posted in this thread are very poor examples within the context of what's actually going on. If one wishes to develop the skills to be able to paint what does not exist, does it not make sense to isolate this challenge and dedicate one's time to solving the problems that appear without distractions? Read what genosgrande has said, he does this to weed out that which he does not know. He hasn't said this is portfolio work that will be used to get professional jobs, he hasn't said that all he cares about is the final product, rather it looks like this is an exercise in creating something from his imagination in order to learn something. So why do you guys jump down his throat about it? He hasn't dismissed the practice of using reference as a tool or that the study of reality is an important practice if one wishes to recreate it. He just wants to try his hand at something and you can't help yourself but preach "the one true way".
"If you don't use reference for your longer illustrations you're really just wasting your time struggling and the final result will definitely suffer" what if the extra time spent is to solve problems that otherwise wouldn't be solved by doing shorter paintings? I know that solving something on my own without reference has greatly helped me in the understanding of many subjects, even if the final image could have been better and been made faster with reference, the value exists in what is learned.
The response to someone just saying that in their imaginative work they'd prefer not to use reference is kinda fucked up. When did this become verboten?
Discord - JetJaguar#8954