Forum posts by Tired in a Tree

I think what is missing from the conversation is really just what is going on internally, and how to find something that works for you.  

Like, someone with a really strong inner eye is likely going to have an easier time drawing from life (as you described) than someone with aphantasia. Measuring from memory is a lot easier to undertake if you can visualize what you saw well and for a long time - I'd never even thought about it in those terms, because while I don't have aphantasia, I know the image I can hold in my brain isn't strong enough at all. My approach has always been drawing very fast.

Everyone who instructs people on art acts as if it's the One True Solution to drawing, but the fact of the matter of it is that all our brains function differently - and that is never really acknowledged by tutorials. Sometimes the thing that opens the door to greatness for one person, makes another person feel like they're trying to walk through a wall.

For example... When you say it's "the undeniable quality of each poem ever, that it is astonishingly easy to remember?" I just respond to that with bafflement. Like I can deny that very easy because I am absolutely awful at remembering any text - poetry included. 

I think you are particularly harsh on stiffness and flow because they are examples of concepts that don't work for you. Sure there are many people that make mistakes because of it, but this is also the case for literally any other artistic concept. I don't think any of us have the numbers of how many people make mistakes vs how many people are helped by it.
Essential vs Detail would have the same problem, because who gets to decide what is and isn't essential? That's going to depend on the person, and it's also going to make people fall into traps because their 'detailed' version is another person's 'essential' and vice versa.

Traditionally, instead of trying to get them right by eye, you'd measure with a pencil. So it being hard for you to do that only makes sense - the main technique used in live drawing literally exists because we cannot observe objectively. It may be a bit too much work to really apply when doing these warmups, but it could certainly help you use references more efficiently. 
(Like you can use it on warmups but you won't end up with a lot on the page, which is also fine bc you're still training your brain to observe)

The reason I don't instantly recommend it, is because it can be kinda hard to pull off when drawing from a screen. I personally don't use this when using this website, but I do use it when drawing from a live subject. 

Here's a vid by Proko on how it works: 
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sdnvjyVOP4k

Though... Keep in mind, this is also something that takes practice to really be able to use efficiently! So no worries if it doesn't work for you straight away.

I think you're harsh on yourself, because they do look very much like human bodies. 30 seconds isn't an amount of time that's going to let you fix a lot of (or any) mistakes, so when it's wonky it stays wonky. (maybe it's simply a timer that doesn't work for you, like are your 60 second sketches more comfortable for you?)

Personally I try not to put any value in what my 30 second sketches look like, because they're just warm ups. They're generally not great, but when I'm done with them it's a lot easier to work on something that's going to have more polish, as I've already made a ton of mistakes (like misjudging the size of the canvas etc, shoddy proportions, etc). Doing that doesn't prevent making more mistakes, but it makes them easier to spot and fix when I'm working on a more serious piece. 

Also: I don't think you should give up based on your work!
Hmmm... How to say this. Do you have a reason to stick to this, that is unrelated to how good or bad you are at it? I think it's good to pick up these type of studies when they serve a purpose, instead of just doing it because of the abstract goal of wanting to learn how to draw. It doesn't have to be anything deep or anything, just something that keeps you afloat when your sketches suck. (And I mean that in a "when the artist thinks their sketches suck" kinda way, because I feel like we all have days where we just don't like the thing we made.) 
If you have a goal that brings you joy, it's worth sitting through a ton of bad sketches for. For me at least.

ETA: What I mean to say with all that is: if gesture drawing is something that is not-fun for you in a way that it sucks all the joy/feeling of accomplishment/whatever-you-gain-from-creating right out of doing art, then it's def something you can consider giving up on. But it shouldn't be based on your skills, bc improvement is gradual and not always visible. (And even if you don't improve at all, that's fine too.)

However if you DO give up on it for this reason, please don't think you have failed. There's never one right way to do art, and figuring out what you like or don't like doing is succeeding at it actually.

I think this is where it can be very helpful to both trace your lineart AND the reference image! That way you can see the difference between what you observed and what is actually present in the reference image very clearly. 

It would look something like this: 


As you can see with these two tracings next to each other, to me there's two simple observations to make on why the chest looks flatter in your sketch.
One is that your sketch lines are rather straight and don't quite capture muscle curvature (which can be fine btw because sometimes that gets distracting, depends on where you want to put your focus).

The second (and more important) one is that you have, in a way, stretched out the body. Because are used to seeing humans straight on, even when we look at something that's as foreshortened as this image, we tend to want to draw it as if we see it head on. This is where you kind of have to fight your brain to be able to draw what's there, for me that looks like trying to no longer read the model as a human, but just as shape. 

As a more direct edit to the piece you made, you have to give some space to the shoulder muscle and ribcage. A lot of the lines you've drawn inside the torso should be up higher to communicate the width of the chest! 

Hope that helps you!

I guess the question is: What do you find weird about them to begin with? Especially if your portrait drawings made with reference don't give you that feeling, what's the difference between them? 

Like to me your portrait doesn't look weird  - which isn't to say there isn't any place for improvement or advice to give, but it's solid enough where there isn't really an easy-to-explain fix that'll help you elevate your work. (Esp since weird is such an abstract concept to want help with.)

I think when it comes to "incorrect proportions" it might also seem that you do better with animals because you are more familiar with human proportions? (just you know, because you are seeing humans on a daily base, but perhaps not exotic frogs)

Ahh, yeah that makes sense.

Hmmm, I feel like simplifying too much isn't really related to something looking amateurish? There are styles that are extremely simple, that still look professional. It's often polish, composition and confidence that make them succesful - like a little dot for a nose doesn't HAVE to mean someone has no anatomical knowledge of noses, etc.

Maybe if wanting to simplify (to an extent) and getting that ingrained in your system is your goal, then it could work to make it so you don't have time to draw all those details? Or maybe time isn't even the word, like what if you draw a comic pages and force yourself to pare things down just because you don't want to draw a certain amount of detail ten times over?
Like uh, these aren't hard suggestions, I guess it's more of a "Is there a way you can force your own hand here" type of thought. (Which of course... Whatever forces your hand is something you're more likely to know than I am)

Hmm what kind of stylistic choices are you talking about? Like, are we on the level of "I draw nose wrong" or like "I always do this type of composition"? (Like there's such a huge range of things this can cover)



I feel like copying stylistic choices often doesn't stick because... Well, they're fueled by your entire mindset, but on paper it's just This One Small Thing that you're copying. Reaching in and "understanding everything that resulted in that stylistic choice to come naturally to the artist" is very difficult, so don't feel too bad for not being able to make it stick.





ETA: I think this is a difficult one, and it seems unlikely there's gonna be a direct answer to your question, but I'm interested in this discussion!

Mhm!

If you don't like the way they come out currently, maybe what you could do is draw on top of photographs to figure out which lines you'd LIKE to capture.

Hm, it may just be that you're too fast! like judging by your line quality and their confidence, it only makes sense not to "just" draw a line of action, because you have time to draw an entire dang figure!

I feel like the only way you can force a line of action is by making it so you literally only have time to draw a single line before moving on to the next picture.

I don't use a ton of guidelines myself either, I often find them distracting. If you've try using them and they don't work for you? That's totally fine.



I think one way you can improve is giving your drawings enough space - Like, I can tell some of your observations are quite good, but then you run out of space bc of a different drawing, or the edge of the page, and it sorta forces you to warp your lines.

Another thing I think could really help you is pencil weight, right now all your lines are pretty much equally heavy, which makes it difficult to communicate volume. For example, you now have these very clear outlines around the lips, but if you colour them with a lighter grey, they will look less rigid and permanent. It'll be easier to slightly correct them, AND it'll be easier to get stuff in the right locations based on them.



Hope those are maybe useful to you!

Nice, that's the perfect skill for this tbh :D



(Oh and please don't consider that a dig at P3's art, I love it too! But you can see him get technically better over time and that's really neat!)

They do have a way more complex way of bending than a leg, so it makes sense that arms are more difficult to grasp. A leg has a hinge and then a literal cap at the knee, it keeps the location of the muscles at pretty consistent places in comparison to an arm.

(I think this is why I feel like boxes also is a weird approach to arms, because there are two bones in a forearm for a reason)



But since you have those artists you like - I know Shigenori Soejima has a TON of art with foreshortening just in the P5 series. (Heck, so do all the persona dancing entries) It's always an option to minimalistically trace his work and see what exactly makes it go from arm blob to very dynamic art, and what you feel is the difference between your sketches now and those pieces. Although that may be easier when you get your laptop back.

(I think his work is especially fun to study because you have this whole timeline of his skill developing. Persona 3 has great art but it's nowhere NEAR metaphor. Which I really want to play. sobs.)



When it comes to clothing btw, I think the BEST thing you can do is learn a little bit about how garments are constructed - You can gain a lot of knowledge just from owning a tshirt and a pair of pants. If you put seams in the right place, that's half the battle right there. (the other half is 'just' making sure the perspective in the body and garment is the same)

So I have bad news for you... But I think you actually capture those things pretty well. Especially the legs, I had to double check your post to make sure you said you don't feel like they have a 3d feel to them.

But that also makes it really hard to give any suggestions, because if I see the depth in your drawings then to me there's not really a problem to solve. (Doesn't mean I think you can't learn anything on this front, obviously there's always something to improve. But right now it's very "Hm, I don't think your art looks like what you think it looks like.")


Is there a specific visual that you are working towards? As in, do you have an artist in mind who's amazing at foreshortening that you'd like to draw like, but that you feel you don't live up to? Something like that?



(p.s. yeah the coil foreshortening etc always feels like a party trick to me. It sorta works but also it doesn't actually give you any structure to work with.)

Ahhh I've been looking at this art like "I don't think the size is what makes the eyes look off." I couldn't put my finger on it, but just like you, did agree it didn't look entirely right, even though I really like the rest of the drawing.

However, I just realized it's the eye shape - the outer corner of the eyes specfically don't line up.

This is just a quick sketchy version of what I mean because I think it's easier to see what I mean when illustrated, I hope that's alright.

[img]https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0781/1055/6489/files/loa_eyes.png?v=1731147672[/img]