05-29-2016, 12:39 AM
I think part of the reason there's a controversy on this topic is simply that people have two major different definitions of fundamentals, which creates misunderstandings whenever someone is talking about one thing and we think they mean the other. There's the idea is that they are 'hysical things and skills that you can strip back until you can explain it without any other fundamental', and that they're 'universally applicable principles as opposed to situational knowledge'.
With the second definition something like edge control would be a fundamental concept, whereas understanding architectural shapes is situational. Both ways of looking at it make sense to a certain degree. With 'universally applicaple principles', the edges start to blurr when it comes to creature anatomy, very specific lighting situations, materials, lineweight and similar things. One artist may use them in all of their work, which means they are universally applicable to them, another barely relies on them, so they become situational knowledge instead.
Let's talk about the first definition, because that's what this thread is about:
Your observation about people needing an understanding of forms, both in general and the ones they are specifically trying to draw, and shadow and light if they are trying to render them are correct I think. That does not mean that they're actually the kind of fundamental principles you make them out to be though. The concept of solving a problem by starting with 'first principles' is thinking in computer terms, right? I'd argue that all concepts rely on other concepts, and nothing comes 'first'. People learn by juggling a lot of tasks in parallel or switching between them. Pushing boundaries by trying to learn some kind of fundamental principle and 'moving up' from there is much less efficient than using different modes of understanding to tackle problems according to ones current ability to comprehend them, move on to different problems, find new methods of comprehending, and repeat that process over and over again. Anything can be a 'fundamental' principle at a certain point in time, meaning that it serves as the basis for you to build upon at that point in time.
Understanding lineweight helps to understand forms, understanding forms helps to understand lineweight. Values help with edges and edges help with values, color relies on both... not sure what it helps with other than itself. With flow and rythm, you a solid understanding of form to make it work, but it can also help with figuring out new aspects of lineweight and composition.
Well, that's my argument. Nothing comes first and nothing comes last, so fundamentals aren't a constant.
With the second definition something like edge control would be a fundamental concept, whereas understanding architectural shapes is situational. Both ways of looking at it make sense to a certain degree. With 'universally applicaple principles', the edges start to blurr when it comes to creature anatomy, very specific lighting situations, materials, lineweight and similar things. One artist may use them in all of their work, which means they are universally applicable to them, another barely relies on them, so they become situational knowledge instead.
Let's talk about the first definition, because that's what this thread is about:
Your observation about people needing an understanding of forms, both in general and the ones they are specifically trying to draw, and shadow and light if they are trying to render them are correct I think. That does not mean that they're actually the kind of fundamental principles you make them out to be though. The concept of solving a problem by starting with 'first principles' is thinking in computer terms, right? I'd argue that all concepts rely on other concepts, and nothing comes 'first'. People learn by juggling a lot of tasks in parallel or switching between them. Pushing boundaries by trying to learn some kind of fundamental principle and 'moving up' from there is much less efficient than using different modes of understanding to tackle problems according to ones current ability to comprehend them, move on to different problems, find new methods of comprehending, and repeat that process over and over again. Anything can be a 'fundamental' principle at a certain point in time, meaning that it serves as the basis for you to build upon at that point in time.
Understanding lineweight helps to understand forms, understanding forms helps to understand lineweight. Values help with edges and edges help with values, color relies on both... not sure what it helps with other than itself. With flow and rythm, you a solid understanding of form to make it work, but it can also help with figuring out new aspects of lineweight and composition.
Well, that's my argument. Nothing comes first and nothing comes last, so fundamentals aren't a constant.