Since I'm not doing free critiques this month, I dug through the demos I drew for individual students - here are some of those that should help you guys with some of the more common, general challenges
I have a lot of trouble recognizing forms that make up a figure. Do you have any tips or suggestions on how to get into that? I feel like I'm just drawing 2D circles that overlay what I'm looking at, not drawing the forms underneath.
At this stage, a couple well-placed contour curves will help you recognize how the surface of your ball form turns and bends in space. It's this warping surface that separates a 2D circle from a 3D sphere, so contour lines can help you describe it visually, forcing your mind to acknowledge that feature of what you're drawing.
So, I can totally see a ball or square as 3d. Simple shapes are okay. My main problem though is looking at a person, or an animal, and seeing shapes underneath it. Like in this, for example, I get that you used a sphere to represent the shoulder and upper front arm. (er, leg.)
But whenever I draw animals, I can't see where I would draw that sphere, or the upper-body sphere, for example.
In the lesson, I describe how each 'sphere' (technically not a sphere, I usually refer to them as balls because they can be stretched and manipulated in ways that no longer them qualify for that distinction) represents a specific part of the body. They are by no means arbitrary, and their shape and angle relative to the spine is based on the part of the body they reflect.
The 'head' ball represents the cranium - this is not the head in its entirety, but rather the spherical portion of the skull, onto which the face/jaw is attached. The upper-body ball represents the ribcage, and the lower-body ball represents the pelvis. While this overall constructional approach differs in some ways from purely observational drawing, it is at its core still hinged upon the fact that you need to observe and study your reference very carefully. It's just that you're identifying these somewhat hidden, simplified features rather than getting encumbered by all of the detail all at once.
[deleted]
2016-06-03 17:40
I really appreciated this. Thank you so much for posting it.
I've been doodling quite a bit more recently, but have been dissatisfied with how full objects/creatures look because I focus on the details first, trying to build a form around it, rather than doing the opposite. I really enjoyed the bit about showing textures only at converging areas, because I've been wanting to add some pizzaz to my little doodles.
Glad you like it! I definitely think you'll benefit from reversing that manner of thinking, focusing entirely on building up your form first before worrying about any details.
Excellent! I've actually been gathering them in browser tabs (only on the relevant subject thought) and thought of making an album, never got around to it though!
But I can't wrap my head around something with your contour lines of organic forms. Specifically, this part.
I agree overshooting the contour curves help seeing the depth of the shape, (and I'm actually amazed how well it convinces me on your sketches), but I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Why does it work? Or why does the normal way of doing it doesn't? It seems "counter-realistic".
What you refer to as the normal way is just.. incorrect. The curves don't follow the trajectory of the entire ellipse that wraps around the form. The curve itself needs to accelerate and wrap around the organic form as it reaches the edges, so that it can give the impression that it is hooking back around and continuing on along the other side. When we draw the whole ellipse, we don't make this mistake. Overshooting the curve is the same deal - you're actually drawing it continuing on, so your curve comes out more correctly. Ultimately the goal is to achieve the correct curvature without overshooting, but first you need to get accustomed to what the difference is, and why one tends to get it wrong when drawing the visible curve alone.
At the end of the day, it's an extension of the idea that in order to convince others that what you're drawing is in fact 3D forms with weight and volume to them, you need to first convince yourself. If you still think you're drawing 2D images on a flat page, then these mistakes are inevitable. As you slowly begin to fool yourself into buying into that 3D illusion, however, your hands too will alter how they draw marks due to subtle shifts in how you perceive what you're drawing.
Think of it this way - say you draw two circles on a page. Circles are just 2D shapes, but let's say your brain is convinced that the one on the right is actually a sphere. Right now, what's apparent on the page is identical between the two. But now, say you want to draw a line across both of them. For the one on the left, the flat circle, you'll draw a straight line across. There's nothing stopping you from doing this, it's just flat. The on on the right however, you're convinced that it's a sphere - so your brain will fight against the notion that you could simply draw a straight line across it. Instead, in conforming to this illusion, your line will arc to wrap around it, following the contour and the surface of the perceived form.
So, back to the question, overshooting your curves is similar to drawing the full ellipse, but you're slowly reducing the amount that you overshoot until eventually you don't need to do it at all. It's like training wheels.
KindOfBadassTho
2016-06-03 15:10
This is awesome!
BipedSnowman
2016-06-03 16:32
I have a lot of trouble recognizing forms that make up a figure. Do you have any tips or suggestions on how to get into that? I feel like I'm just drawing 2D circles that overlay what I'm looking at, not drawing the forms underneath.
Uncomfortable
2016-06-03 16:37
At this stage, a couple well-placed contour curves will help you recognize how the surface of your ball form turns and bends in space. It's this warping surface that separates a 2D circle from a 3D sphere, so contour lines can help you describe it visually, forcing your mind to acknowledge that feature of what you're drawing.
BipedSnowman
2016-06-05 04:32
So, I can totally see a ball or square as 3d. Simple shapes are okay. My main problem though is looking at a person, or an animal, and seeing shapes underneath it. Like in this, for example, I get that you used a sphere to represent the shoulder and upper front arm. (er, leg.)
But whenever I draw animals, I can't see where I would draw that sphere, or the upper-body sphere, for example.
Uncomfortable
2016-06-05 16:13
In the lesson, I describe how each 'sphere' (technically not a sphere, I usually refer to them as balls because they can be stretched and manipulated in ways that no longer them qualify for that distinction) represents a specific part of the body. They are by no means arbitrary, and their shape and angle relative to the spine is based on the part of the body they reflect.
The 'head' ball represents the cranium - this is not the head in its entirety, but rather the spherical portion of the skull, onto which the face/jaw is attached. The upper-body ball represents the ribcage, and the lower-body ball represents the pelvis. While this overall constructional approach differs in some ways from purely observational drawing, it is at its core still hinged upon the fact that you need to observe and study your reference very carefully. It's just that you're identifying these somewhat hidden, simplified features rather than getting encumbered by all of the detail all at once.
[deleted]
2016-06-03 17:40
I really appreciated this. Thank you so much for posting it.
I've been doodling quite a bit more recently, but have been dissatisfied with how full objects/creatures look because I focus on the details first, trying to build a form around it, rather than doing the opposite. I really enjoyed the bit about showing textures only at converging areas, because I've been wanting to add some pizzaz to my little doodles.
Uncomfortable
2016-06-03 18:05
Glad you like it! I definitely think you'll benefit from reversing that manner of thinking, focusing entirely on building up your form first before worrying about any details.
LipstickSingularity
2016-06-03 17:47
This is fantastic. Thanks!
sumwulf
2016-06-03 19:15
You are one of the very few truly helpful people on Reddit (or anywhere).
Uncomfortable
2016-06-03 19:17
Aw, you're makin' me blush.
personalcheesecake
2016-06-03 22:41
Great information for reference, thanks for sharing with us!
darthsketcher
2016-06-04 03:30
This is amazing, thank you! I saw some mistakes I've made myself.
Lobachevskiy
2016-06-04 07:58
Excellent! I've actually been gathering them in browser tabs (only on the relevant subject thought) and thought of making an album, never got around to it though!
disies
2016-06-04 11:50
I've been doing the same. Got an album with many demos on my desktop.. :)
lcq92
2016-06-11 22:23
Incredibly helpful, thanks.
But I can't wrap my head around something with your contour lines of organic forms. Specifically, this part.
I agree overshooting the contour curves help seeing the depth of the shape, (and I'm actually amazed how well it convinces me on your sketches), but I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Why does it work? Or why does the normal way of doing it doesn't? It seems "counter-realistic".
Thanks x10001602 for your website.
Uncomfortable
2016-06-11 22:33
What you refer to as the normal way is just.. incorrect. The curves don't follow the trajectory of the entire ellipse that wraps around the form. The curve itself needs to accelerate and wrap around the organic form as it reaches the edges, so that it can give the impression that it is hooking back around and continuing on along the other side. When we draw the whole ellipse, we don't make this mistake. Overshooting the curve is the same deal - you're actually drawing it continuing on, so your curve comes out more correctly. Ultimately the goal is to achieve the correct curvature without overshooting, but first you need to get accustomed to what the difference is, and why one tends to get it wrong when drawing the visible curve alone.
At the end of the day, it's an extension of the idea that in order to convince others that what you're drawing is in fact 3D forms with weight and volume to them, you need to first convince yourself. If you still think you're drawing 2D images on a flat page, then these mistakes are inevitable. As you slowly begin to fool yourself into buying into that 3D illusion, however, your hands too will alter how they draw marks due to subtle shifts in how you perceive what you're drawing.
Think of it this way - say you draw two circles on a page. Circles are just 2D shapes, but let's say your brain is convinced that the one on the right is actually a sphere. Right now, what's apparent on the page is identical between the two. But now, say you want to draw a line across both of them. For the one on the left, the flat circle, you'll draw a straight line across. There's nothing stopping you from doing this, it's just flat. The on on the right however, you're convinced that it's a sphere - so your brain will fight against the notion that you could simply draw a straight line across it. Instead, in conforming to this illusion, your line will arc to wrap around it, following the contour and the surface of the perceived form.
So, back to the question, overshooting your curves is similar to drawing the full ellipse, but you're slowly reducing the amount that you overshoot until eventually you don't need to do it at all. It's like training wheels.
[deleted]
2016-06-14 11:38
More amazing stuff!!!!