So let me restate my basic points since this subject came up originally in this thread.
http://crimsondaggers.com/forum/thread-4669.html
I say that when you are drawing a line a substantial aspect of the process goes into visualizing its beginning and end point and all the sexiness in between. More so than being able to draw smooth clean lines using pure muscle memory. Also when copying a reference one can not actually look at the subject and focus on it at the exact same time as they are applying lines to the page. Thus a window of visualization from the short term visual memory must occur in order for the artist to successfully depict the subject. This is why almost everyone can trace an image but few can achieve the same accuracy free handing.
Yeah, I am neglecting the poll for the time being, because I don't think it's much of a question of muscle memory.
I'd compare it more to learning a language.
As you know, English is not my first language. As I am self taught in it too, I did take my time to learn about the language, to learn about the learning process, to learn what mastery a new idiom really means, and I did find some pretty interesting stuff.
On one of those, I read that you have a solid grasp of the language when you read poetry and you understand multiple meanings and nuances under it. You master it when you can write poems yourself - not being a poet and recognized as such, but you master the nuances enough to build your own metaphors and get it across. It made a lot of sense - and I was really happy when those nuances started to be actually perceived on a daily basis.
So yeah. Since I am more and more into comparing visual arts to languages, I feel that is the case here. The fact that I know anatomy does not make me able to talk about it in a language that is not my first. I have the knowledge, but I can't build the proper message with the building blocks I have to use right now. I can't articulate the proper sentences; I don't have enough vocabulary yet, my grasp on grammar isn't solid enough to make my message clear.
The fact that a surgeon knows anatomy, does not means he can translate it into paper - because that is a language on it's own. You have to know how to translate form, how the perspective works, how to properly overlap masses, what a straight or curve line will read to get your message across.
So it's not muscle memory. It's practicing your language skills. You know what really helped me to learn English? Actually using it. Trying to type very broken messages, forming very bad sentences, in forums and in online games. People helped me at the beginning, helping me understand the basic of what I was missing. But the more I used, the easier it was.
Now I think I can get my message across even if I mess up verb tense and the in/on/at thing haha! I rarely have problems getting my point across or being misunderstood; I can even work nuances on it, and sometimes even irony! haha :p
So, the way I see it - when you're drawing, it's not muscle memory as much as it is learning a language. When you start, you're still translating things in your head BEFORE you speak, but as you get used to it, you start forming sentences straight into the language you want. But you need to practice it to really be able to use it easily. And the more you do, the more complex messages and texts you try to produce, the more you learn. The more it makes sense.
And when we are able to put nuances in there, the magic starts happening.
And I nowadays see a lot of more stylized art as very small and very well written poems - they give you everything you need for the message and nothing more. And it's awesome <3
90M & 10P, all the time for me.
I was 16 when I found out why other artists drew circles for head & then a line through it.
It was awkward for me back then cuz damn...this is not how I drew at all :/.
I can just see & imagine like complete images in my mind and then I just drew lines over it.
When I tend to lose focus....it screws up the drawing & I lose interest in it.
90% mental, and my mentality is kicking my ass right now :(
Wait guys, maybe we all misunderstand each other lol:)
If it was 90% mental and 10% physical, that would mean that if we have two guys (same guys, same conditions and all that experimental stuff) and we get one to just learn, acknowledge and visualize perspective, anatomy, colors, light, values etc. without picking up a pencil or brush and the other to do that + constant practice of actual drawing/painting, after, let's say, ten years, the second one would be 10% better in DOING art?:) And not like zillion times better?:)
I mean, this is the neverending discussion (like two people discussing about god's existence), but that ratio just seems really, really odd to me. I mean, we all have sketchbook threads and they're not filled with photos or excerpts from anatomy books we stare at and gain art skills:)
Maybe I'm missing something, maybe we see "physical" and "mental" dfferently... I can't explain this much discrepancy otherwise...
Of course you'll do a bad drawing if you break focus or if your mind is somewhere else, but I'm talking about gaining actual drawing skills. I mean, if we look it that way, we may as well say that everything is 99% mind, because we govern things with our minds, we don't mindlessly go to the store to buy milk either:)
I voted 50-50.
I was thinking it was a some what ambiguous question to ask or perhaps its explained poorly. I'll try explaining it differently. Its been proven that imagining yourself preforming a task, imagining your body preforming each motion, is practically the same as doing it in reality. Basketball players who visualized themselves practicing basketball while they were not at the court progressed at the same rate of players that actually practiced more. Now drawing is different from basketball in that it takes more coordination to preform a layup than to draw a circle. But just being able to make a layup wont allow you to win a basketball game. And just being able to make a circle wont make you able to depict 3D objects convincingly.
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.
In regards to Ursula, I think that is an excellent point you've made. Art is a form of communication after all. Everyone knows what looks realistic and what doesnt naturally. We even have symbols for things in real life, like a graphic symbol of an eye. Part of learning to draw an eye realistically is not thinking about things as their symbols but seeing them as we see them in reality and translating that to a page. Someone who hasnt realized this may spend a very long time attempting to draw an eye realistically and failing without learning what they're doing wrong. So practicing wont help them until they change the way theyre thinking about it.
Hmm, so I was mulling this over the whole day today.
There is an actual physical part of this, indeed, and it is, well, small. It's the tool - your mastery of pencil, or charcoal, or paint, or photoshop. I think the confusion arises because there is not clear separation when the visual language ends and the tool begins - but we sort of mess up the ability to do a smooth gradient or a hard edge with actual good communication!
I was thinking about it and it suddenly hit me - the question "what are your brushes?" comes from this, it seems. And anyone that is barely deep into it knows that is NOT the question you're supposed to be asking, but about the though process behind it. You're not supposed to be asking what words are good to use, but why you chose this words over others! And now that I made the parallel - that is like going to your favorite author and asking him what keyboard he is using to write his last novel.
How silly can it get? lol
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.
And Stanley Lau (Artgerm) saying he was practicing drawing with his mind? Well, I do think he was practicing.. visual communication. He had a pretty solid idea of what he was going to say before he even touched the pencil. And thinking about it today, it made sense to me that this was what other pros were talking about, like Bobby Chiu and his visualization technique. It's having a clear notion of what you're going to say - the message you're going to paint, instead of starting with just a vague idea and seeing what happens. You can look at something and ask yourself "how would I paint this? What angle? Would I put this in or out? Maybe move this there? Make this bigger?" and all of it would be practicing your language skills, dealing with the enormous problem of making an image work.
Then you'd go for the pencil.
Lots of comic artists actually do repeat this mantra, of thinking a lot and drawing just a little. Planning ahead.
It all clicked into place today, so thanks for bringing it up! :D
Now it's very clear why they say brushes don't matter, and why a pro can make a pretty awesome picture with the most basic tools. We need to clearly separate what is tool mastery to visual communication mastery. The language you can apply to any tool, but mastering a tool will not make you good at the others - hence the so called crutches.
Yay!
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:)
No, actually, I do understand and agree with you: drawing in itself is a skill that requires practice. But once you have learned the gesture, I don't think it's even tied to your hand, you know? You could replicate with a lot of other means.
Makes sense?
Yup, I can agree with you on that matter, but only to some degree (hence why I don't see it as 90-10).
If you were to guide some random dude through a painting - he would hold the brush and mix the colors and you would command like "mix yellow and a bit of brown and put a 2cm line here at this angle" (only MUCH more detailed), I believe he would create much better painting than without having you painting it "through him". But I also believe that painting would be much worse than if you would actually paint it with your hand and not only 10% worse.
On the other hand, if you had some kind of supercomputer which could read mind waves or whatever it should read lol:) and which has an ultra precise and sensitive mechanic hand or something, you could produce a painting at your standard level without lifting a finger. But in this example, we have an apparatus that has perfect dexterity and control. So, you could maybe even produce a picture that is actually above your level. Perhaps similar to using a drawing program with option to turn on smoothing when doing linework (like SAI or manga studio).
I mean, I know everything there is about circles. There's not much to know. And I can visualize the circle and give it properties that I want etc. Yet, I can't draw a good circle yet. And that bad circle would be ten times worse if I was using my legs, for example:)
Where is the 100% mental option
im sure you all know frank frazetta, he had a problem with a thyroid disesase that nearly killed him and it destroyed his relationship with his family. he was 25 micrograms off his precribed dose and that was that the difference between spending eight entire years of being suicidal and not being able to mentally think about how to draw, and being frazetta that entire time. the moral of the story is that your mental self/your brain extends itself into your physical body and they work together to create whatever it is in your head. You cant neglect one for the other and one cant exist without the other, so i would say 50-50.
Im not trying to say people should try to draw in their heads as a replacement for real drawing, but that our conceptions of reality have a much larger impact on our ability to draw realistically than our ability to move a pen/brush/pencil around on a page. For me personally when people tell me my lines have improved, they're really misunderstanding what I've improved upon. My ability to make smooth controlled lines varies greatly depending upon how strong my conception of the subject matter is. When I practice specific subjects and commit their forms and proportions to memory I can then draw them with one single confident stroke rather than several uncertain strokes. Id say that my eye hand coordination (and Im guessing the majority of the rest of you, whether you realize or not) is at its near maximum potential and fluctuates depending on my emotional state.
How much of art is mental and how much is physical...are people robots? Do you not learn and grow from your mistakes? If you are using the same amount of brain power and physical stress EVERY TIME YOU DO SOMETHING ART RELATED then hot damn I feel sorry for you all of you that voted! That implies that nothing gets easier; creating a doodle is just as hard as completing a full illustration. If it takes you 90% of your brain power to achieve the same result 5 years prior to your journey as an artist, then jessssus I'm so so sorry that is your reality.
See what I'm getting at? The work load between mind and body varies...
If you are learning something new, then yes, your brain is doing the majority of the workload. If you are drawing something that you are familiar with, inherently, your brain won't be working as hard; which leads to art in this instance being more physical...albeit, effortlessly, of course.
It depends on the individual as well: somebody that is use to working within realism may have a harder time putting a stylistic twist upon their art and vice versa; working outside your comfort zone affects how hard one must think. And of course, a more seasoned artist will have less of a learning curve oppose to a beginner: his learning curve will be much steeper. Both will have to exercise a bit more brain power, but the amount of thinking that is required for a desired result is GUARANTEED to be different between the two. The variables are ever changing; they're way too dynamic to arrive at a conclusion, especially when you consider the individual. There isn't an "one size fit all" answer but perhaps you could ask us what we think as INDIVIDUALS how much of art is mental vs physical. It's hard to have objective conversations about learning and brain output when art, in the very meaning of the word, is subjective.
Oh and I disagree with the whole "imagining things for years and pondering concepts of fundamentals will make you a better artist". Why? Well ask your doctor, personal trainer, chiropractor, or yoga instructor if they can draw a human body perfectly. Unless they practice drawing in their free time, I 100% guarantee you that these MASTERS OF ANATOMY (because, ya know, that's their job) won't be able to draw anything that remotely looks like a healthy, well-proportioned human being.
So no; you can't just sit and think about the mechanics of holding a pencil and rubbing it's graphite tip on paper with the end result being a coherent picture without actually committing to the ACT drawing and expect to get better. It doesn't work that way. Sheeeit, LIFE doesn't work that way.
But if we are talking about the semantics of action beginning with thought (which I'm sure isn't the true subject of this discussion lol) well, that's a entirely different subject all together...
Someone whos a doctor studies anatomy in a much different way than someone whos intending to draw anatomy. An artist focuses primarily on memorizing what things look like. Someone who studies medicine focuses primarily on how things work and possible illnesses related to specific areas. Most of their knowledge of the body is geared toward understanding the intricate complexities which is mostly useless for artists.
Yeah, I should have used a better example, but hopefully you understand what I mean when I say mulling over a concept in your head rarely matches execution of repetitive practice.
This is a nice discussion you have sparked. However, because things usually get easier as we practice, to say that we use a fixed amount of our mind and body energies to produce art is pretty crazy. That only suggests that things would never get easier or things will never get harder if the output of mental stress and physical stress never changes, OR, we learn at a steady rate ALLLLL THE TIIIIME....FOREVER. You must consider the individual first of all, and the rate of GROWTH of an individual secondly along with their propensities...so on and so forth.
I guess what I even mean by mind and body keeps shifting around. I've kinda lost track of what my original point was from the other thread... Oh someone was comparing sports to art and I said there wasnt much point in comparing the two. Then I go and compare sports to art myself later on XD I get your point but I think we're just talking past each other. I dunno lol
Yeah i agree with you well I'd like to think that in the future a lot of so called modern art will be dismissed as rubbish
Isn't the simplest experience for metal/physical thing is just trying to draw with your second hand? or try to paint with your foot :D
But besides that I have to point out that your hand does not have brain on it's own. You're using same mental power to set your hand in motion and to imagine picture. Even if you would be connected to super computer that let's you paint without moving a finger, your brain probably will still firing same neurons signals to muscle in you primary hand and that signal would be translated to picture on the screen.
I also think that muscles learn much faster. If you would be forced to use your second hand for drawing, you will catch up fast to your previous level. What does not mean only imagining doing art makes you better at it. You have to learn using your brain not only to analyze your vision but also to move muscles in precise way.