seeking critiques for figure drawing (nudity)
#1
[Image: NJZIXW1.jpg]

[Image: b9b4e948f51c063a5d42a0428e8457b8.jpg]


[Image: 2OwvVqx.jpg]

[Image: 2eacc3f9369beff416d74e87bff7d081.jpg] [Image: 2345ef3f43924b70ee237187dbbe2443.jpg]

I've been practicing in the hampton method for figure drawing and I've been practicing more in terms of construction of the figure. I have trouble drawing through the figure and those who are in profile view or who are twsting the body. I'm wondering if there are ways I could practice this more and improve?
Reply
#2
The only thing i notice right away is the man under the waterfall sketch is lower leg is super thin and leak any kind of knee indication.Also you made is pelvis or i will refer to it as is underwear inaccurate.I think the arm that face us is probably where you had the most trouble.

To learn to draw figure that twist you need to know the landmark of the body and you need to be able to draw the body as if it was made of glass.I propose to start with primitive cylinder box egg sphere and you increase the difficulty to meet with your current skill adding primitive or removing from those primitive.It also important to learn the motion range of the limb and to know where muscle insert and how they look when the bend contract or twist.

If i know a master of drawing through it glen vilppu

My Sketchbook
The journey of an artist truly begin when he can learn from is own error.
Reply
#3
We all have biases when it comes to drawing. We make assumptions and these assumptions lead to errors that we find very difficult to notice because they fit into our preconceived bias. By making these loose gestural drawings, you're in a sense obscuring the comparison between your drawing and the subject, making them look very different from one another. When the relationship between your drawing and the subject is obscured, it makes it even harder than before to notice our errors. This is one reason I strongly dislike approaches to drawing that don't emphasise visual information over other types of information. The visual comparison between our drawing and subject is the only effective way to see if our drawings are accurate and even then, the challenge of noticing our errors is still difficult. Any other approach is very prone to errors and very inappropriate for students trying to get the hang of drawing.

So all this is to say that when you draw like this, where the drawing looks very different from the subject, you make it harder for yourself to notice your errors and correct them. Traditionally, drawings were made to be as close to the visual impression of the subject as possible so the student or artist could easily compare the two and tease out the errors they've made and correct them.

Another note I'd like to bring up is that you haven't tried to correct your drawing. You've essentially left your first draft and not taken on the challenge of improving your work to the best to your ability. If I for example say that the negative shape between the legs of the waterfall guy is wrong, there's no real value in that because anyone can notice it and it was just not corrected.

So all this is just to caution you when it comes to very modern technique of drawing. I don't want to tell people that they can only do very traditional types of drawing. I do however think it's important to present a traditional counterweight to modern gimmicky techniques that seem to permeate modern art schools and the internet.

Discord - JetJaguar#8954
Reply
#4
(07-13-2019, 09:55 PM)Tristan Berndt Wrote: We all have biases when it comes to drawing. We make assumptions and these assumptions lead to errors that we find very difficult to notice because they fit into our preconceived bias. By making these loose gestural drawings, you're in a sense obscuring the comparison between your drawing and the subject, making them look very different from one another. When the relationship between your drawing and the subject is obscured, it makes it even harder than before to notice our errors. This is one reason I strongly dislike approaches to drawing that don't emphasise visual information over other types of information. The visual comparison between our drawing and subject is the only effective way to see if our drawings are accurate and even then, the challenge of noticing our errors is still difficult. Any other approach is very prone to errors and very inappropriate for students trying to get the hang of drawing.

So all this is to say that when you draw like this, where the drawing looks very different from the subject, you make it harder for yourself to notice your errors and correct them. Traditionally, drawings were made to be as close to the visual impression of the subject as possible so the student or artist could easily compare the two and tease out the errors they've made and correct them.

Another note I'd like to bring up is that you haven't tried to correct your drawing. You've essentially left your first draft and not taken on the challenge of improving your work to the best to your ability. If I for example say that the negative shape between the legs of the waterfall guy is wrong, there's no real value in that because anyone can notice it and it was just not corrected.

So all this is just to caution you when it comes to very modern technique of drawing. I don't want to tell people that they can only do very traditional types of drawing. I do however think it's important to present a traditional counterweight to modern gimmicky techniques that seem to permeate modern art schools and the internet.



Oh wow, I've actually never quite thought of it that way. It does make sense that, in order to actually get a drawing done and to improve on it you'd have to have an accurate reproduction or representation of said subject of what is being drawn. Since the only way you could actually troubleshoot something is when you can compare the two to see what is right and wrong. Though, in the subject of accurately representing something I feel like I've been through pitfalls where I'd get into the copy mode rather than analyzing and reconstructing something. I'm wondering if there are any methods in which I could use to catch myself when I get into these bad habits? 

Anyhow, I think I will try to redo the figures and fix the problems that were pointed out.
Reply
#5
(07-13-2019, 09:24 PM)darktiste Wrote: The only thing i notice right away is the man under the waterfall sketch is lower leg is super thin and leak any kind of knee indication.Also you made is pelvis or i will refer to it as is underwear inaccurate.I think the arm that face us is probably where you had the most trouble.

To learn to draw figure that twist you need to know the landmark of the body and you need to be able to draw the body as if it was made of glass.I propose to start with primitive cylinder box egg sphere and you increase the difficulty to meet with your current skill adding primitive or removing from those primitive.It also important to learn the motion range of the limb and to know where muscle insert and how they look when the bend contract or twist.

If i know a master of drawing through it glen vilppu


Hmm, now that you mention it I can see where I got wrong with the waterfall sketch. I'm guessing the proportions and the placements of the landmarks are off by quite a bit. I will try to make a fix of those and try to get something more accurate. 

Also, when you meant by the primitive forms do you mean studying only the primitive forms interlocking with one another to practice? or that together in conjunction with implementing them into the figures? I know the Hampton method works similarly with Glenn's in that they both try to reconstruct the figure from basic primitive forms. 

Anyhow, thank you for the advice! I'll try to implement that more when I'm doing my next batch of figures.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)