02-25-2020, 02:33 PM
Since when does a good painting or drawing have to have "beautiful" or "sexy" people in it? This is the worst conflation of ideas and self projection I've likely ever read on this forum. These things are highly subjective anyway.
You drew munted females with faces like squirrels that were knocked in the mouth and head for years chasing "beauty" fedo. This is likely why you over inflate its importance. The only thing that started to fix that was technical rigorous observational drawing.
The fact that you believe most people are ugly and that outward physical beauty is the reason people get laid, is...well, kinda sad. Perhaps might help to reflect on how you have shaped your worldview a little deeper.
Peter does not have this issue of not making faces look beautiful. He does have proportional and observational things to work on that will get him out of uncanny valley more. These are technical in nature , not subjective.
The appealing shape design I believe fedo is referring to, is something that is an important factor. This develops through studying other artists with that in mind, as well as focusing on that more consciously in your own work, but it is largely an organic process that comes from developing your own sensitivity and preferences and workflow as you grow as an artist, not by only drawing so called 'beautiful' people
There are some consistent proportional issues you have with heads Peter, this is true, and you are improving them. The guy likely has a suspiciously small chin structure, but fwiw, in general I think the rugged grizzled character coming through fits the illustration better than if it was boyband member wanna be.
In all the portraits from life I have done, all of them were more impressed when I captured a better likeness or some form of truth of their character...not whether I made them more good looking.
EDIT: With your edges you tend to overemphasize straight lines and hard edges where it may benefit them not being so hard. This, especially on women, tends to make things more masculine. Over-emphasising lines such as laugh lines and wrinkles or forms under the eyes can also age faces a lot. This is what happened to this last drawing and you can see it in your paintings. Easy to do when only working from photos too until you learn better what to modify from photo reference to get a better more naturalistic result.
There is also a major drawback to Watts approach I feel. They apply a too rigid formula to viewing and categorising edges and how it fits into the overall process. It is likely why everyone from Watt's school tends to look very same-y and exhibit the same problems (at least at first) Don't get me wrong, I myself have learned from the Reilly/Watts approach for some fundamental basics when going back to learn traditional media, and it was good, but for me, it quickly became obvious it was quite limited in scope on being able to be used to push your own artistic choices further. Keep that in mind as you go on with their program.
You drew munted females with faces like squirrels that were knocked in the mouth and head for years chasing "beauty" fedo. This is likely why you over inflate its importance. The only thing that started to fix that was technical rigorous observational drawing.
The fact that you believe most people are ugly and that outward physical beauty is the reason people get laid, is...well, kinda sad. Perhaps might help to reflect on how you have shaped your worldview a little deeper.
Peter does not have this issue of not making faces look beautiful. He does have proportional and observational things to work on that will get him out of uncanny valley more. These are technical in nature , not subjective.
The appealing shape design I believe fedo is referring to, is something that is an important factor. This develops through studying other artists with that in mind, as well as focusing on that more consciously in your own work, but it is largely an organic process that comes from developing your own sensitivity and preferences and workflow as you grow as an artist, not by only drawing so called 'beautiful' people
There are some consistent proportional issues you have with heads Peter, this is true, and you are improving them. The guy likely has a suspiciously small chin structure, but fwiw, in general I think the rugged grizzled character coming through fits the illustration better than if it was boyband member wanna be.
In all the portraits from life I have done, all of them were more impressed when I captured a better likeness or some form of truth of their character...not whether I made them more good looking.
EDIT: With your edges you tend to overemphasize straight lines and hard edges where it may benefit them not being so hard. This, especially on women, tends to make things more masculine. Over-emphasising lines such as laugh lines and wrinkles or forms under the eyes can also age faces a lot. This is what happened to this last drawing and you can see it in your paintings. Easy to do when only working from photos too until you learn better what to modify from photo reference to get a better more naturalistic result.
There is also a major drawback to Watts approach I feel. They apply a too rigid formula to viewing and categorising edges and how it fits into the overall process. It is likely why everyone from Watt's school tends to look very same-y and exhibit the same problems (at least at first) Don't get me wrong, I myself have learned from the Reilly/Watts approach for some fundamental basics when going back to learn traditional media, and it was good, but for me, it quickly became obvious it was quite limited in scope on being able to be used to push your own artistic choices further. Keep that in mind as you go on with their program.