01-24-2014, 10:10 AM
Quote:In regards to Doolios hypothetical experiment. I think if guy A, whos only practicing in his head, was imagining fully fleshed out images in his mind after practicing this for many years, he would be a better artist than you think. And if guy B, who physically practiced, only practiced mindlessly and never thought critically about what he was creating, his art would still be very lacking even after all his work. The difference would be that guy A has trained his intention while guy B has only trained his hand to preform his intention.Yes, but I voted 50-50, I am not for any 90 -10 option:) - my opinion is also that the mindless practice doesn't do you any good. And I will again point out the fact that we have sketchbook threads which are, well, full of sketches and our other topics are full of links and books that teach us how to practically exercise stuff. We rarely advance by only looking at something and soaking in the info. In fact, majority (almost all) of our exercises involve active interventions in physical world and repeating that active intervention many times.
My example included person A that only visualizes and person B that BOTH visualizes AND applies it through sketches and studies and my point was that the person A wouldn't possess 90% of the skill of person B. You tweaked the example to make your point, which is of course, valid, but I don't put "mind stuff" at 10%, so I would basically say the same thing about the person who draws mindlessly - they wouldn't progress much (or at all). But I think the same for the person that doesn't draw at all, but is doing mind practice.
I'll try to rephrase it - if the ratio was 90-10 for the mind, that would mean that if I were to practice for ten years with applying BOTH kinds of practice, I would end up as, say lvl10 artist. And if I would practice for ten years with applying ONLY mental practice, I would end up as a lvl9 artist.
Quote:Lots of comic artists actually do repeat this mantra, of thinking a lot and drawing just a little. Planning ahead.Yes, but those who can't draw - or in other words, put that knowledge and planning into practical piece of visual communication - their panel will look awful:)
Again, maybe we still misunderstand each other:) I mean, we do pretty much everything with our brain, but that wasn't my point. For example, Ursula, you talk about tools, I think that's "too physical", if you know what I mean. What I am trying to say is that all of our practicing has a strong physical component to it, the evidence are our sketchbook threads which are full of our "physical products", instead of having, for example a Michelangelo's painting in a post with accompanying text that reads "I studied this painting today for five hours, I was analyzing it back and forth", without your actual study because you did it in your head.
Again, I must point out that I voted 50-50. I never said you'll advance if you do mindless doodles without understanding, memorization and application of knowledge.
For example
Quote:However, the tool we use has more influence over the results than a keyboard to a writer, and it does require mastering. But once you have understood the enormity of the task that is good visual communication, you know that tool mastery will just happen along the way.I believe I see that tool mastery as even smaller factor than you do, yet it doesn't affect my "50-50" theory:)
Which strengthens my feeling that we keep misunderstanding each other:)
Ah well:)