08-16-2018, 02:26 PM
"One of the problem with accuracy without mileage it that it will slow down a beginner like me and if you add a time frame to that it result into sloppyness"
Yes but it's not a "problem". It's a fact that needs to be taken account of. I agree with Joseph. That's why it's not a good choice to impose an arbitrary time limit so low that it constrains your ability to actually focus properly on what the study is about. Doing more of this kind of thing is a waste of that time that you think you are saving in the first place. Do you want to learn how to do something half assed for half the value in half the time, or spend the right amount of time and get the most you can out of the study goal? Definitely something to find a balance for. I say start without time limits, figure out how long you need to actually get what you want out of the type of study, then start restricting time if you really want to for some reason or are noodling too much and being inefficient.
In general if you are studying other people's work, for sure copying for the sake of it isn't good. However accuracy to the study is all about expanding one's observational skills for specific reasons (value simplification, or colour or form or whatever). But being accurate doesn't mean you are automatically copying exactly for the sake of it. What you are doing is trying to condense the observational practice into concepts or ideas and an actual process (because you are painting it) that you internalise for yourself and can then use for your own work later. However If you don't practice any form of accurate observational standard in your study you probably won't even be extracting a 10th of the learning value you could have out of that study however long it may take you.
You cannot short time education well. usually it ends up in learning things badly that need to be fixed later, or having to redo things over and over. The fundamentals are the same no matter if you are a concept artist or illustrator. If you don't learn them properly you'll be a worse artist overall. it's not about what role you want to get a job doing.
Yes but it's not a "problem". It's a fact that needs to be taken account of. I agree with Joseph. That's why it's not a good choice to impose an arbitrary time limit so low that it constrains your ability to actually focus properly on what the study is about. Doing more of this kind of thing is a waste of that time that you think you are saving in the first place. Do you want to learn how to do something half assed for half the value in half the time, or spend the right amount of time and get the most you can out of the study goal? Definitely something to find a balance for. I say start without time limits, figure out how long you need to actually get what you want out of the type of study, then start restricting time if you really want to for some reason or are noodling too much and being inefficient.
In general if you are studying other people's work, for sure copying for the sake of it isn't good. However accuracy to the study is all about expanding one's observational skills for specific reasons (value simplification, or colour or form or whatever). But being accurate doesn't mean you are automatically copying exactly for the sake of it. What you are doing is trying to condense the observational practice into concepts or ideas and an actual process (because you are painting it) that you internalise for yourself and can then use for your own work later. However If you don't practice any form of accurate observational standard in your study you probably won't even be extracting a 10th of the learning value you could have out of that study however long it may take you.
You cannot short time education well. usually it ends up in learning things badly that need to be fixed later, or having to redo things over and over. The fundamentals are the same no matter if you are a concept artist or illustrator. If you don't learn them properly you'll be a worse artist overall. it's not about what role you want to get a job doing.