Aunt Herbert的論壇貼

Ahhhm... impressions about what? I see two buttons (?) indicating images in your post, but there is nowhere to look at them or open them. A lot of people use imgur and link to that, if they want to show something in forum. It is really quick to set up.

I am not an anatomy expert, but I think there is also a shorter muscle above the clavicula, that looks like an extension of the shoulder muscle. If I remember correctly, one is for lifting the upper arm to the side, while the short one is to move the clavicula upwards towards the ears. And it's not the green neck muscle, that one is for moving the head to the side.

The important thing, on a really shredded shoulder, the muscle doesnt stop underneath the clavicula.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.hw7_Suxf-xoHOE96qUKVnQHaEK&pid=Api

checking, if the link works

One thought about the top 1: The way you indicated the hip does not fit to where you then decided the upper joints for the legs should start from. Those joints are called hip joints for a reason. I don't know about the OG image, but I guess the problem isn't with the legs, but with the hip. You indicated it far too horizontal, with an almost straight spine.

Same problem with the lower pose, although it is less obvious. Spine is too straight, the angle between hip and ribcage should be more dramatic. I think it is less obvious, as you cheated a bit on both the hip and the ribcage. If the ribcage was at a steeper angle, the shoulders would be a bit less upright, and the way the lower arm protrudes from the shoulder wouldn't look as uncomfortable.

Wanting to indicate the spine too straight is a common beginner mistake. If you don't see other clear indicators for where the hip should be, the joints are usually easy to spot from looking at the upper legs, and their position towards the hip is pretty much fixed. Shoulder joints towards the ribcage are way more flexibel in position, but the neck should always be visible, and usually the solar plexus can be at least guesstimated to orient the ribcage.

Also, don't be afraid to pretty much always try to exaggerate the bend of the spine. It helps counteract the beginner mistake of normalizing it, which leads to stiff poses. Even if your bent is stronger than on the OG photo, you end up with a more dramatic pose, which usually looks great, anyways.

• Aunt Herbert edited this post on December 11, 2023 6:59pm.

I am admittedly treading on a bit of thin ice here, as I myself haven't found the impetus to dedicate myself to drawing from imagination in a structured manner. I have been wanting to get there eventually, but for now I kind of always get stuck on yet another problem I want to overcome in drawing from observation first. I at least bought a mannequin, now.

But the general plan looks sound.

For step 1 I think the source numero uno that has to be mentioned is drawabox.com. Great introduction to the concept of line quality, short and crisp, and then goes straight into explaining how to solve the most important problems in perpective drawing. I also love the pedagogical approach, as they provide a good experience of how important structured training for art development is, and how fulfilling it is to watch your own fast progress.

Been there, done that, can recommend, would do it again, 10/10!

Step 3 I would recommend doing a course first. I personally did the Figure Drawing Fundamentals on proko.com. Stan Prokopenko offers free courses and paid courses, but the free courses pretty much include all the essential stuff. I think the idea behind his paid courses is rather, that if you found his teachings valuable enough, you can send him some money, and get some extra freebies as a sign of gratitude.

The human figure course on proko.com starts first and foremost by explaining what basically the torso does, "the masses", before he adds a more detailed explanation about the joints and limbs. I found his lessons and assignments convincing, easy to follow, and feel confident in applying what I learned from the course. I am pretty certain the principles taught apply equally to drawing both form observation and imagination, just I personally have been glued to one side so far.

There are probably other good tutorials on the topic, too, but proko.com is at least extremely solid, 9/10, I would say.

For gesture drawing from observation, you need stuff to observe. You are already on line-of-action.com, but I feel quickposes.com also deserves a recommendation. Very similar concept, just without the forum and critique aspect, but a different set of photographers and models, which actually makes more of a difference, than I would have expected.

The step 2, the mannequin... all I can say, quite a while back I experimented with just trying to draw a model that I could observe from one side also from all the other sides, and the attempt drove me nuts. Which is why I decided to get the mannequin, so I could solve the 99 problems with perspective, that immediately appeared. Now I just need the drive to rate drawing from imagination higher on my to do list, and to find the energy to finish my other projects quicker to get to it.

A quite popular author for gesture drawing seems to be Mike Matessi, who is associated with the Force method. I personally must say, he is certainly a heck of an artist, his style is amazing, and the results he and people who studied his method produce are top notch. But to be heretical, I personally just don't understand, what he is talking about, when he explains his stuff. Clearly a lot of the words he uses are quite metaphorical, and when I can watch him or an accomplished pupil perform their drawings on video, while rapping Matessi's explanations in an inner monologue style, I kinda start to understand, what the words are meant to convey, but to me, his private language just ain't simple english.

• Aunt Herbert edited this post on December 7, 2023 8:28pm.
• Aunt Herbert edited this post on December 7, 2023 8:29pm.

I finished Stan Prokopenkos "Figure Drawing Fundamental" course, and and also watched some random youtubers on the topic. I strongly recommend watching at least the free courses on the topic, the paid version is more a "go fund me" with some extra content for gratitude, it doesn't reserve any really essential informations.

If the method you try to follow is supposed to include the ribcage, then I understand even less, why you don't sketch in the ribcage. As I said, it is a rather simple geometric form, and best of all, it is somewhat stiff AND defines pretty much one third of where the spine has to go... right down the curvature in the center back of the ribcage. If you know where the ribcage, the pelvis and the head are, the spine is pretty much already defined. And the exact placement of the ribcage is also pretty easy to spot from the front. If you look at the dip in between the clavicles for the top and draw a short line down to the solar plexus, then you already know its exact orientation.

Caveat: I personally did not train following Hampton, so I am not familiar with the exact details of his method.

First observation: You are obviously already applying a lot of thoughts and critiques to your own drawings. This is great. (I should maybe do that a bit more myself)

Your lines look purposeful and clean, that is always good.

About your construction method,... I don't know how Hampton does it, but I personally found that my construction of the human form made good progress, once I found a good abstraction of the ribcage and pelvis first, and then the placement of the joints as a next step. I see you are using the pelvis, but so far you don't include an indication of the ribcage. Instead you mention the spine.

I guess the logic of focusing on the spine is to make it easier to progress from an initial line of action. I am a big fan of indicating ribcage and pelvis first.

a) Ribcage isn't a very complex geometrical form to incorporate: more or less a flattened upright egg, with the underside cut off along the lower ribs.

b) The ribcage pretty much defines the center third of the spine anyways, so finding the ribcage already answers a lot of questions. Add shoulder joints, head, and tissue (muscles, breasts, body fat, as needed), and you are already done with the construction of the upper body.

I am not an expert on cow anatomy, I can just say, that the hindquarters look perfectly natural to me, while I have some doubts about the physiology of the front side and head.

I feel like there should be some type of shoulderbones visible, to indicate how the neck, forelegs and torso connect, and the connection between neck and head also lacks definition.

It depends on your goal for the piece, whether that is actually even a problem. If you go for a children's book depiction, the flatness doesn't even matter so much, but then I would probably stylize the eyes a bit more to look a bit bigger and rounder, and generally try to fuse as many straight lines as possible into smooth curves for maximum cuteness.

If you aim for naturalism and/or perspective, the lines you chose for the front part do not sufficiently indicate the geometry in 3D. For example, the intersection of leg and head make clear, that the head is above the leg, but I couldn't tell, whether it is resting on the leg, or extended towards the viewer. I believe if the way the neck connects all the other animal parts was made clear, that flatness would be reduced a lot.

As I said, I am not an expert on bovine anatomy either, I just feel like my eyes keep searching for where the front shoulder would go, where and how the neck curves up to the head, and... shouldn't there be something from a right front leg peeking out somewhere, too? Can cows in that position completely hide that one leg by lying on it?

The tip of the front hoof also looks a bit off. Too small, or too pointy, maybe?

• Aunt Herbert edited this post on December 4, 2023 8:46am.
• Aunt Herbert edited this post on December 4, 2023 8:49am.

Your lines are clean and very deliberate and controlled, and I like your shapes. You seem to be struggling a bit with depicting body fat on overweight models for some reason. Just an observation, I don't exactly have a silver bullet recipe for that, but maybe just keeping an eye on that may help you find a solution.

The girl on the upper left side of your 5 minute page has an interesting mistake: you focused a lot on drawing her big hair, and as a consequence drew her entire head too big in proportion.

The 10 minute figure seems to have posed you more of a problem, than the shorter timed stuff. Maybe just bad luck in the random choice of image. Me personally, when on the final draft something shows up, that I don't feel confident with, I tend to use the forward arrow to get a different choice, so the session doesn't end on an anti-climax.

OK, got 3 more.

Bingo 4 is almost cheating. If that doesn't work I will have to reconsider some life choices:

13 lines, and there probably could have been fewer:

https://imgur.com/JJbGlDe

Bingo 5 should be clear, I think,... 21 lines

https://imgur.com/7PGfZYu

Bingo 6 I saw on the way to work, but only drew it on the way home. It looked a lot simpler, than it turned out to be. I pondered the old problem of when there is enough detail added, and whether more was necessary to clear up the context at around line 30, then I lost concentration on line placement and orientation and added a bit of a mess on the very left side. 35-ish lines total:

https://imgur.com/fG9BtLa

-

Some general observations about finding simple shapes/pattern in urban environments: The simplest ones all seem to be either technical or architectural.

There are ofc also people and some animals in cities, but they usually aren't willing or able to hold interesting poses long enough to make good motifs for a stylized drawing. Unless you catch someone sleeping in a public transport or in a park, it is less a question of drawing from observation, and more a challenge of drawing from memory, which seems to be the next harder task after mastering the drawing from observation task.

With warmer weather the chances to actually find someone in a relaxed pose outside is better, but at -1 degrees Celsius with light snowfall, there is no chance at all.

And then there are plants, usually trees or brushes, and they pose a special problem: Being essentially fractal structures, it is very hard to find good shortcuts to actually draw them as individual entities. The usual solution is to jump to some level of symbolism to depict them, starting from the old classic child drawing of a brown vertical line for the stem, with a green circle for the crown on top. Architectural schematics usually don't go beyond that level of detail either, and the question of how deep to explore and depict their fractal nature seems completely arbitrary, and therefor not really well suited to go competitive in regards of line economy.

So, back to technical and architectural motifs, and one pecularity thereoff, that does have an impact on line economy, and that is repetition. There are tons of repetitions in both types of motifs, identical rows of windows or bricks, columns in a roster, etcetera, and while they cetrainly drive up the line count like crazy, (and make the draft process extremely hard, as you have to be extremely disciplined to echo the identical repetition, without inserting noise) on the reception side they do not make the motif look a lot more complex. To a viewer 3 columns of 4 files of identical window frames look hardly more complex than a single window. Don't know exactly, why I find this thought intriguing, but for some reasons it bothered me today.

A very related thought: If you zoom in just at the centre of the upper part of a modern glass window, complete with its integration into the stone wall of a house, you basically see nothing but almost a dozen of perfectly parallel lines, with only the shades, textures, colours and angles (the angles of the planes in between, relative to the point of view) between those lines varying.

• Aunt Herbert edited this post on December 2, 2023 2:01pm.

You do have a good grasp of proportions of the human figure, and on the simpler poses the static construction makes intuitive sense. They look like people standing comfortably and secure.

The line work on the other hand looks searching and sketchy, a bit trial and error, until one of the lines looks right.

If you want to develop cleaner lines and grow towards a more finished look, you should probably spend time doing some courses on drawing the human form. I think figuring out tricks like working from an anatomical foundation all from just practice and your own invention would be a way longer and harsher path to follow, and with uncertain results.

There are free courses and cheap courses. I can recommend proko.com, even the free version, but it certainly isn't the only available course.

Aaargh. 2 and 3 would have needed more lines for clarification. 2 is actually a car tire, and 3 is one of the historical window frames in Hamburg, so no actual bingos, there. But now, that you mentioned it, I see, why they aren't as clear, as I thought. Getting actual feedback IS better than playing solitair and just guessing, what is enough to define the visual idea, and what needs more information.

I'll post some new attempts tomorrow.

OK, here are my first 3 bingo entries: (i hope the link works)

bingo 1: 15 lines
https://imgur.com/4HI47Mu

bingo 2: 8 lines

https://imgur.com/C3Zc058

bingo 3: 13 lines

https://imgur.com/WD8Tlqo

So, the # of lines are noted on the drawings, I would say those are bingo 1, bingo 2, and bingo 3, for everyone who is willing to take a guess at what is depicted, and the next person posting a bingo here, for us to guess, should therefore name its artwork bingo 4, etc.

Polyvios, I don't even exactly know, what a study group is. Is that a forum feature, that could be useful for this type of exchange?

From doing it again this morning, and from past experience, one of the challenges after having found a good motif and the right lines, is stepping on the break. A good bingo, i.e. an interesting shape or pattern that conveys a lot of information with sparse means, is also always a great center piece for a drawing, and begs to be expanded. So telling myself, "Nope, that is enough to convey the information, stop it with the embellishing" is really hard.

On the other hand, the actual drawing portion is done really fast, with about a dozen lines or a few more or less, so it is good to keep the motivation for drawing started on a low energy day.

• Aunt Herbert edited this post on December 1, 2023 12:04pm.
• Aunt Herbert edited this post on December 1, 2023 12:05pm.

OK, here is a little challenge, that I mostly developed for myself to keep urban sketching interesting. I always dreamt about playing it in a kind of friendly competition with other people and compare results, but I never got a group of people organized to play it with, so I mostly did it kind of solitairy game mode.

Here are the rules:

#1: Chose any simple object or point of view around you, but don't tell anyone which it is.

#2: Draw it with as few lines as possible. Count the lines you use.

#2a: For purpose of this game one line only counts as a single line, if it follows the CSI rule: It has to be either a straight line (I), a simple curve (c), or a bent curve (S) with no more than one change of direction. If a line changes curvature more than once and starts to squiggle around a lot, it counts as a series of lines, which have to be counted separately.

#3: When all are done, everybody compares drafts. Each object, that can be identified by all participants counts as a "bingo". The person, who's "bingo" was drawn from the least amount of lines can feel themselves as the winner and celebrate/be celebrated appropriately.

#4: In new rounds of the game, all objects, that have achieved a bingo are excluded from further rounds (at least for the day or session), to keep everybody on their toes. I found it necessary to include this, from my experience of urban sketching. Roads are part of every city, roads are always marked with traffic signs, and sketching a traffic sign is a cheeky way to make sure you win the first round, which is totally within the rules of the game. But if everyone just kept sketching traffic signs on further rounds, the game would become boring quickly.

As I said, since I invented the game, I only played it in solitairy mode, but I do feel it helped my development as a artist quite a bit.

a)Drawing with few and simple lines helps focusing on drawing clean lines.

b)To find stuff to identify with few lines, you have to start watching your surroundings for simple and expressive shapes. This helps overcome the tendency to get lost in unnecessary details when sketching, and also develops clearer, more stylized results.

c)The goal of the game is not to achieve photorealism or any other specific artistic goal, like mastering perspective (although skills in drawing from perspective defintely help) but to communicate clearly with visual means. This does open the possibility of inventive ways to "cheat the system" without breaking rules, (I never forbid symbolism for example, although written letters should probably be excluded, or the game might divulge into an assembly of four-letter words) and bending rules can be an excellent way of overcoming monotony in daily practice.

Noooow, the most obvious way to start a forum game would be for me to take the first step and post a few examples. Here are the true reasons, why I don't do it for now: a) It's getting dark outside in Hamburg right now, the thermometer shows -2° Celsius and it occassionally snows, and I don't feel the drive to put on warm clothes to go do a round of urban sketching right now. Not even a short one. b) I could probably start searching through some of my old sketchbooks and scan some examples from there, but I don't want to get lost in memories right now. Also, the spirit of the game is to produce new art, not re-upload old stuff.

Maybe I will post some still life sketches of furniture or household objects in a bit later this evening. Tomorrow I got an early shift, and I will take pen and paper with me and at least draw a few bingos on my way home and post them here.

Sadly, the activity in this forum seems to have died down quite a bit, since I was here regularly in march, so I don't expect a lot of responses in a short amount of time. But if someone reads this and has a first go, before I post again, it would make me extremely happy.

I think the desire to sort poses by difficulty could be widespread, but to fulfill it, there is a technical obstacle to overcome: someone would have to sort and rate the poses by difficulty, and difficulty is also highly subjetive, and influenced by the chosen method and exact aesthetical goal of the individual exercise.

A first step towards ordering the images by difficulty could be to include a rating scale for each image at the end of the exercise, when all the images included in the exercise are presented again, so participants can leave their individual subjective rating.

It would still take a very long time to gather enough data to start sorting such a huge database in a meaningful way, and there could be still a few problems with data bias. Naturally only data from people, who rate images could be gathered, and the mood of people finishing a study could produce outliers that skew the overall pool.

Next step after collecting lots and lots of data about subjective impressions of the difficulty of individual images, the question how to meaningfully use this data would have to be decided. How would for example newer images with fewer overall votes be compared to older images with a lot of votes?

-

I find the desire to rate and/or sort images by difficulty understandable.

I suspect the technical challenge in implementing such an option to be at least cumbersome, and would not neither want to volonteer to such a task, nor to pressgang anyone else into doing it, but it might be doable.

I have problems with applying the Loomis method, too. My fix at the moment is realizing, that the centre of the initial circle is at the broom line, while the circumference has to extent all to the dome of the head. I find it easier to practice this from approximately front views, with the centre of the circle at the intersection of broom line and center line. The goal of the practice is purely to get used to drawing the initial circle big enough, so the cut-outs, etcetera make sense.

My hope is, that getting used to the different size, then translates easier into finding the right size for other views.

Generally I feel, like the Loomis method was expressively developed to draw from imagination. So, applying it to draw from life or to draw from another depiction is a secondary, different, and more taxing step.

My best results for drawng from a depiction usually come, when I don't do the whole Loomis schpiel with circles, cut-outs, etcetera, but instead focus on distinct shapes. Having practiced the Loomis method is then helpful, as it gives me a working memory of measuring, plazing, and sizing the shapes, and reduces the risk of distorting the head or face.

Strictly applying the Loomis method to a depiction is harder for me, and generally leads to worse results, but it is a valuable and necessary practice for me to improve my results when NOT strictly drawing by Loomis.

I feel like to get it right, I need to practice three different steps:

1.) Using Loomis to draw from imagination, to get the basic shape internalized

2.) Projecting the internalized shape onto depictions to get a reality fix and scrutinize my understanding of the method.

3.) Ignoring the conscious demands of the method, but relying on the subconscious support of it, when working on a piece for effect.

I do best, when I keep cycling through all 3 methods in practice, not just focusing on step 2.

• Aunt Herbert edited this post on November 27, 2023 1:07pm.