That there are figure drawing artist and portrait artist and landscape artists doesn't mean that studying a figure or a landscape or a portrait is not a study. I'm not saying they aren't art or anything like that.
Well fair enough but I still don't agree. Yes a study is still a study even when the subject is interesting, but the line between personal project and study can be blurred. Just because you have a clear idea of what you want to improve on, or you're trying a new approach from a tutorial you just watched, doesn't mean it's just an exercise.
A figure drawing session, that includes both semi-structured content like figuary and some time to draw entirely as you please, seems like a good counter-balance to drawabox's "pure" exercises, and imo, it's counterproductive to discourage that by viewing everything educational as equivalent to grinding drawabox.
If you take a look at my initial comment you can see that I said "figure drawing studies" specifically. I did not say that it's not a good counter balance to drawabox pure exercises. I did myself a lot of figure drawing since I started drawabox.
Figure drawing is a good counter balance that complements drawabox well but that doesn't mean that it counts as "fun drawing" for the 50% rule.
Right from when students hit the 50% rule early on in Lesson 0, they ask the same question - "What am I supposed to draw?"
It's not magic. We're made to think that when someone just whips off interesting things to draw, that they're gifted in a way that we are not. The problem isn't that we don't have ideas - it's that the ideas we have are so vague, they feel like nothing at all. In this course, we're going to look at how we can explore, pursue, and develop those fuzzy notions into something more concrete.
This website uses cookies. You can read more about what we do with them, read our privacy policy.
