Fuck drawing. I'm done. Fuck you all. Unhelpful cunts, the lot of you.

>>7175776
> I thought I could make big easy money drawing big easy titties, but I have to work ;_;

Dust all over that pen there... Tells me you haven't been using it all, have you OP? Thought you could pull a fast one by breaking one of your unused pens, eh?

>>7175819
I threw it on the floor after I snapped it.

>>7175776
This is what happens when you come to 4chan of all places to look for support instead of an actual healthy community.
You asked for it.

>>7175776
And another one bites the dust.
Let this be a leason for all the lurkers, crabs who can't draw WILL drag others down until they give up.
If it can happen to OP, it can happen to (you)

>>7175809
Guess I was correct. If you have shitty motivation, you will fail. But if you can't even infer that from my previous comment, man you're going to struggle not just with drawing but with life in general.

>>7175776
>breaking your art supplies in autistic rage
Cringe.
>>7176733
NTA, but if one lives in a third world country, where 500$ / month is enough to survive, then drawing porn for a living is both possible and much better than a minimal wage job, even if it pays slightly more.

>>7176749
>where 500$ / month is enough to survive
I can live with less than that so you're right.

>>7175776
guaranteed op is from the anime copy/trace general

>digital artist
you were never going to make it lol
>>7175958
based

>>7176749
>NTA, but if one lives in a third world country, where 500$ / month is enough to survive
Side note, but I live in Western Europe and I could *live* with 500$ monthly...

That wasn't my point, at all though.

>>7176783
It baffles me how some people think digital "art" is actually art.

>>7176887
Your original point ("If you have shitty motivation, you will fail") was retarded.

>>7176957
Maybe, but you're not really making a strong case against it. Worse, your seething kinda validates it.

"2+2=5"
>"actually no, it equals 4"
"thank you, now I know for next time"

>draw something wrong
>"this is wrong"
"what's the right answer?"
>"I can't tell you, there are an infinite number of ways you can draw it, and an infinite amount of them are bad, while there are very few but still infinite number of ways to draw it well. Figure it out."

>>7178089
>"I can't tell you, there are an infinite number of ways you can draw it, and an infinite amount of them are bad, while there are very few but still infinite number of ways to draw it well. Figure it out."
That really is the issue in learning art these days. We've gone from trying to imitate life, to simply trying to draw 'appealing' images. One can be critiqued objectively, the other can only be critiqued subjectively at some point. You may be following all the art rules, and keeping your colour scheme in mind, and come up with a great composition, but a portion of the possible audience may just be turned off by your art style.

See...

>>7178142
That was their first problem, going to an art school. That looks a whole lot like those corporate "art" ads.

Anonymous

>>7175776
which sort of help beyond "just draw" do you even need?DYDSV

>>7175776
That's a 100 dollar pen
wha-
at least sell it for $50 for your next endeavor
why do you do this?
>>7175815
wow


Why is the background curved?

Why do some authors make the ground and background curved like this? Then they switch back to making the ground flat. I googled the word perspective and it says to use a flat ground.

>>7175082
I google perspective and they don't mention doing curvy stuff like this, how does it work and what is it called

>>7175082
It’s called curvilinear perspective.

>>7175082
field of view
focal length
fisheye lens
stuff like that.

Every lens works like that. (your eyes included)
A bigger field of view - a more pronounced effect.
linear perspective is simplification.

It's 5 point perspective<br>Though I've no idea how you do it

>>7175137
>>7175089
When you do this type of perspective, what's the rules for it? Can you show us what the principles are to doing this version. When drawing perspective, how do you line it up to make sure this looks good

>>7175137
>>7175082
here's how you do it
https://youtube.com/shorts/uAgcD0HP<wbr>8kY
it takes a while before you can get good at it tho

>>7175082
>Anon has yet to discover fisheye lens
>Tries to lecture people more experienced than them
Why are /begs/ like this?

>>7175894
take erik olson's course and stop asking to be spoonfed

>>7175082
Fish eye perspective. Used for various reasons, one is that you can cram in more space into a small frame.
I can't think of why it would be use as a story telling aid, only that its usefull to get a fuller picture with the limited space of a comic book panel to get a full picture.

>>7175082
It is called the kim jung gi effect. In honor to the late Korean artist.

>>7176146
I think I've seen it when a person has an "AHA" moment, usually in a sense of dread or impending doom. The perspective says "He just got the full idea of whats happening".
So other than an establishing shot
>>7175084
Its used to convey a pivotal change
>>7175082


>read keys to drawing
>Read drawing on the right side of the brain
Okay... Now what?

>>7175138
In case this isn't a troll thread: Draw whatever you want. Seriously. Even, especially if you'll suck at it.
Draw whatever you want. If it comes out terrible, think about why, then draw it again but better. If you can't think of why, ask someone for critique. Make sure you don't ask this board though because most people will tell you to give up, kill yourself and you'll never make it.
If you think you need more instruction, pick up more books. Or, copy art pieces you like and try to figure out how and why they did something, so that you can apply it to original pieces later. Just draw. Waste time, ink and paper, because every bad drawing is a step closer to a kind of okay drawing, and eventually a good drawing.

>>7175138
Draw thingsthat fill two criteria

Things you want to see
Things you aren't good at
Things you haven't drawn before (Not in terms of subject but aspects of the thing you want to see, example: if you like to draw people, draw them in different lighting, different facial expressions etc)

>>7175134
draw what motivated you to read those books

>>7175134
>read keys to drawing
>Read drawing on the right side of the brain
Please, PLEASE, tell me you actually did the exercises and did drawing studies from those books... you didn't JUST 'read' the books... right?

>>7175138
Whatever makes your cock hard bro

>>7175134
Now that you have been trolled, you can hopefully move on to a resource that actually attempts to teach the reader how to draw.

>>7175134
Draw with your left so you can rebel against society

RadioRunner's Curriculum For The Solo Artist here:
>https://imgur.com/a/radiorunners-c<wbr>urriculum-solo-artist-structured-ap<wbr>proach-to-learning-perspective-draw<wbr>ing-from-imagination-EZPc28m


I just switched from traditional drawing to a tablet, I fucking hate it, it's not the same feel, I feel like my art is actually shittier on tablet, it feels plastic, like I am molding rather than drawing,

>>7175783
Welcome aboard!
Yes drawing on tablet is several orders of magnitude more difficult than drawing on paper

>>7175794
I draw comics so the real bore is having to cancel out the pencil

>>7175787
>more difficult
Inferior. The word you're looking for is inferior.

You have to work 10x harder to make digital linework not feel like sterile garbage, it's fucking hilarious to me when begs overhype the convenience of the undo button, which is amounts to a mere corrective in such a shit medium. I got pretty decent at digital over the years and to this day it's still just a massive pain in the ass compared to a $5 marker on 5¢ paper. In general digital is very sterile without huge amounts of effort that come naturally with analog media. On other hand, it's easier and cheaper to paint digitally than traditionally and certain digital effects are quite cool.

>>7175971
this is beyond true, nothing compares to the real thing, I should've invested on a scanner instead of this cold digital pixelated shit. you are better off investing in real medium in the long run.

>>7175783
They sell tablet screen protectors to give it a paper-like texture, I hear it helps /trad/dies like you.

>>7175786
Fuck off retard, would you like another "DUHHH HOW DRAW" thread?
>>7176292
This, look up matte screen protectors, though, be aware that they generally make the display look worse and eat up stylus nibs, so you might want to get a titanium nib too

>>7176376
>would you like another "DUHHH HOW DRAW" thread?
no. the point of the question was to give OP more direction for the thread and to make it less blog-y.

>>7176386
>to shame their opponents into giving up
see >>7176379


Drawing books and video courses are useless

They don't really teach you anything that you couldn't find on Youtube or DeviantArt for free.
Those things only exist to make money and not really teach others.
You can only learn to draw by drawing, not reading or watching about it.
I read almost a 100 drawing books and watched a dozen video courses yet I barely improved.
You know what helped me improve? Practice.
>TLDR
>Don't hoard just draw

>>7175878
practice is good ngl, but in YouTube, most of the videos are clickbaits and trash influencers who do not know anything about art. Everyone is selling courses or promoting their Patreon subscriptions. That’s why most people buy courses, because learning on YouTube kinda sucks.

>>7175890
>everyone is trying to sell product so you should just ignore them and buy product

>>7175923
why buy courses when you can download their shit for free lmao

which book teaches me how to not be mentally exhausted and terrified of drawing?

>>7175878
you're just mad that lessons filter you

>>7176066
Andrew Loomis is probably the most comforting art instructor that hits a good middle ground in terms of what he actually teaches you. Start with “Fun with a Pencil”, or “I’d love to draw”

>>7175878
>Those things only exist to make money and not really teach others.
It's the same for programming, you don't want to get stuck on "Tutorial hell" by doing courses and reading books forever, you only learn to code by doing projects and reading free documentation when you're stuck. Most programming video courses are straight up useless.

>>7175890
>Everyone is selling courses or promoting their Patreon subscriptions.
>That’s why most people buy courses, because learning on YouTube kinda sucks.
And said video courses suck too, specially because the YouTuber would rather sell multiple courses than just one.
They wanna milk their fanbase dry.
>How to draw arm part 1 ($25)
>How to draw arm part 2 ($15)
Buy 2 in 1 courses and I make it for $30

>>7176109
oh holy shit yes, like fucking proko scammer, dude is like, arms 125 usd, legs 125 usd, head, 125 usd, hands 125 usd, figure drawing, 125 usd, head 125 usd, dude is greed ASF and their courses are so fucking mediocre that is insane

>>7176114
>be me
>paid for Proko's entire anatomy course
>never use it

>>7176171
oh nigga plz, can you explain to us how to use it if the content is literally garbage

>>7176114
>fucking proko scammer
SakimiChan's almost 200 video courses and they all look the same...

>>7176171
all of their courses are leaked and torrentd, you must be an absolute dumb ass retarded if you purchase that useless shit

YouTube isn't that great. You get more value watching people do speed paints than in actual tutorials.

Most things are complete garbage, appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Even in decent videos, most of the time they spit out things that you'd find in a book anyway, just with a shittier explaination.

The only time i get something of value from a youtuber on a consitant enough basis for me to subscribe is in something like animation or 3D modelling. Part of that is becuase they likely know the software better than everyone else so they can show you all the little tricks that make your life easier. The other part of it is that, animating especially, is very demanding. I think unlike digital art or even trad, animating attracts hard workers and those hard workers are the type to go through the neccersary pains to figure things out on their own as to make their lives easier. That gives them knowledge and a unique perspective on tired topic that i think can be useful.

>>7177677
>animating attracts hard workers
Hand drawn animation attracts hard workers but 2d puppet animation like Flash and Toon Boom attracts lazy fucks. I'm not sure about 3D tho.

>>7175878
>You can only learn to draw by drawing, not reading or watching about it.
>I read almost a 100 drawing books and watched a dozen video courses yet I barely improved.
>You know what helped me improve? Practice.

The books and courses arent useless just because someone doesnt actually draw along with them instead of just watching or reading them.

Nigga I can't even draw a fucking mug or shade a sphere

It still fun to draw though

Which video course shows you how to only draw things that will be popular and loved?

>>7175878
Nigger read 100 art books and thought he would get good by absorbing the information without applying it, then when that inevitably failed he came here to tell us of this a of its a startling revelation.

>>7178150
No need to read anything other than Loomis.


>soul
>soulless
don't fall for the improovment meme
just like the smarter you are the more depressed you will be
the more you understand the innerworkings of drawing the more life it will suck out of them

find your stopping point at which you're happy and take a raincheck on your pace instead of blindly gobbling up all the information on form, structure, perspective and anatomy or it will only hurt you

>>7175562
Soul transcends through the technicalities of art, that is why the soul is unique and only a few can capture it in their work regardless of their level of drawing or painting

You're a mental beg who wants to bring others down to your level. Last one is way, way better than the other two. It's not like it lost the abstract or artistic qualities of the others, which sometimes happens with improvement. It's just straight up better aesthetically and technically, squint at it in the thumbnail and see which one "pops" more.

>>7175562
Three different flavors of garbage

>Famous Latino anime artist: “Find your style”
>I want your style
>“You don’t need my style”

The style:

>>7175893
Those are all different styles.

>>7175893
did you even put an ounce of brainpower into this post. likes its so incoherent it couldve been mistaken for a bot post

Out of the three the second is the best, honestly. First one looks too flat and her nose is too small, it looks like her glasses should just slide off her face.<br>I don't know why he went realistic with the third one but she looks gross. Her eyes are all red and swollen up as if she had conjunctivitis or something

>>7175562
>the smarter you are the more depressed you will be
This explains why I never related to other people and why I avoid relationships.

>>7175562
>just like the smarter you are the more depressed you will be
This only happens if your emotional intelligence is low, which means you are only knowledgeable of the world, but not knowledgeable of yourself, causing you to be biased towards the negative things and see the world on a negative light. This is the "Nothing in life matters vs Nothing in life matters" argument all over again.
>the more you understand the innerworkings of drawing the more life it will suck out of them
Only if you let it suck the life out of it. It is true a lot of people get lost in the sauce of the inner workings of art, but that doesnt mean those are to blame, after all they are just means to an end. It's up to you how you use those tools and how they affect your craft.

>find your stopping point at which you're happy and take a raincheck on your pace instead of blindly gobbling up all the information on form, structure, perspective and anatomy or it will only hurt you
Wrong. What you should do is improve your craft through the use of your learning resources (fundies) and then apply them to the kind of art you want to make. Doesnt matter if you want your art to look like Kim Jung Gi's or Rebecca Sugar's, all knowledge you acquire for your craft will be helpful for your end and you must be able to make good use of it.

>>7176549
>you have to have similar interests and have equal intellect and xyz.
thats 100% bullshit. having similar interests just makes things easier. it doesnt dictate the outcome a relationship. In fact it makes things a little interesting. the football meme in that pic has all to do with how one contributes in a relationship. he can slowly invest in sports and trying to understand a bit of the etiquette. she can try to understand basic things about egineering. if both parties are not putting the effort in, it will fail. same thing can be about people with similar interests. its all a bunch of bullshit.

>>7176549
you avoid relationships for entirely different reasons not because youre not the same IQ lmao. Smart people tend to belittle others. I see it all the time in customer service. You people have no patience and no sense of how much an asshole you can be. HURR DURR MUH IQ. you're just an asshole and assholes deserve to be lonely.


Figure drawing is not very beginner friendly. Try drawing an apple or something.

>>7175978
you need 6 more years of practice son

>>7175989
You write like a 5 year old you need to draw at least 100,000 lines before attempting to draw

>>7175978
Nothing is wrong with you. You're on the right track, you can get good fast if you keep at it. And then do some fun shit.

>>7175978
When was the last time you practiced anatomy?

>>7175978
You've been trying to learn anatomy from blender models instead of actual anatomy.


ITT: We annihilate Anatomy / Construction trannies

>>7176096
Can you imagine the mating press?

>>7176099
same vibes. That or any orc pic

>>7176096
>>7176098
>>7176099
question is, do you actually want to draw these creatures?

If not, you will need construction. All things beautiful were built.

>>7176122
So you can only draw the same two body types?

>>7176096
Mission successful, I, a constructoid have been annihilated completely.

>>7176129
You can only draw weird blobs?

>>7176096
Who is the person in picrel? Like if I wanted to find videos with this person, what would I search for?

i will post in this thread soon<br>don’t wash

>>7176129
all things are relative to need

will I ever need to draw these fat fuckers? Probably not, if i do it will be a one-off thing and i can use other techniques for it.

Why bother spending time learning something that you'll almost never use; you don't see me going around asking people "OH SO YOU CAN SPEAK ENGLISH BUT NOT SWAHILI????" of course fucking not because no one needs to use that language

>>7176193
Johnny Elbows. He's a fucking gigachad.

Do people find this sexy? I find it hilarious

>>7176122
if construction works, you should be able to draw that creature in any angle just from seeing that one picture of him.

>>7176096
>begtard thinks construction is a method and not a teaching tool
Ngmi lmao


WHAT TO DRAW?

I finally learned how to draw but i never know what to draw, i just mindlessly sketch floating heads, torsos, limbs etc... how do you guys deal with this it's not an art block i just don't know what to draw

>I finally learned how to draw
no you didn't

>>7175821
Should be as easy as to actually draw WHATEVER YOU LIKE. Why it is so hard to embrace that simple idea? So you don't like anything at all? Do you actually LIKE something?
Seems like an issue that should be solved in a shrink session first. Identify and accept what you like. And enjoy it. Could be coom, could be nature, could be portraits, could be funny cartoons, or some weird shit. You should know. If YOU don't know that, then no one else will know "what you should draw" neither.

>>7175821
if you dont know what to draw , you can ask AI for help.

Sure, here are five interesting ideas for drawings that can help you explore different styles and techniques:

 Fantasy Landscape:
 Create a detailed scene of a fantastical world with elements like floating islands, magical creatures, and otherworldly plants. Experiment with different textures and lighting to bring the scene to life.

 Portrait with a Twist:
 Draw a portrait of a person or animal, but add an unexpected element. This could be a surreal twist like an extra eye, or incorporating elements of nature (flowers, leaves) into their hair or skin.

 Cityscape at Night:
 Capture the essence of a bustling city at night. Focus on the play of light and shadow, reflections on wet streets, and the glow of neon signs. This can help you practice perspective and urban detail.

 Steampunk Invention:
 Design and draw a steampunk-inspired gadget or vehicle. Think of Victorian-era technology mixed with futuristic elements. Include lots of gears, pipes, and intricate details to make it visually interesting.

 Animal in a Suit:
 Illustrate an animal dressed in human clothing, engaging in a human activity. For example, a fox wearing a detective outfit and solving a mystery, or a bear in a suit attending a business meeting. This can be a fun way to practice anthropomorphism and character design.

Each of these ideas can be adapted to suit different skill levels and styles, allowing for creativity and personal expression.

i had a similar problem, so now i just save whatever images i like from everywhere, games, websites, pinterest and draw/study them. works out pretty well.

>>7175972
usually i just quickly scribble down ideas I like before it's too late and my brain processes it

>>7175835
>draw WHATEVER YOU LIKE
I don't like anything. I gave up being a consoomer to draw. If I'm not drawing I'm watching my stocks go up and down (mostly down) and doomscrolling.

>>7176064
then draw yourself eating shit, that would be funny and awsome hehe an2dw

>>7176064
Draw stuff that scares you, then. You won't feel as compelled to doomscroll if you manifest the future(s) you dread as art.

>>7175821
go outside and have sex. you need to experience suffering to make transcendental art.

>>7178730
debunked by incel artists michelangelo and van gouh

>>7178733
van gogh had sex with a prostitute, he suffered like an artist is supposed to.


Institutional Art

can you fuck off and stop making garbage threads already

>>7176280
If this was made in present day some clout chasing millennial would take a shit in it in public

People are still mad about the fucking toilet? I guess it really was a masterpiece

>>7176337
Don't reply to your own garbage threads, it's pathetic


Artists in Art

What happens when we put artists in the art?

didn't you get the memo? stop making garbage threads


How do I learn to feel the form?

I understand the theory, I understand contour lines that wrap around the form, but I can't actually see it or feel it most of the time. It's like my brain is not tricked by the illusion and I just see 2D shapes with 2D lines going over them.

Draw enough and you'll start having briefs moments of feeling it. Over time that will become more often until you feel it all the time. Something that helps is using a reference and trying to draw it as if you see it from a different angle, it forces your brain to try and process 3D objects in space.

That part in vilppu's drawing manual where he supervises his students while they're grinding overlapping circular forms and imaginative gestures of caterpillars for literal hours?<br>Yeah that's how it's done - just like that upside down Picasso exercise in drawing with right side of the brain, or frontal view of the hands in keys to drawing, is used to force the brain to see things as they are, these gesture grinding is to force your brain to see objects behind objects

>>7176400
unironicaly sculpt. buy even some simple plasticine and make small model of scapula, model of simplified skull, foot etc. make them accurate, using lots of references.

>>7176400
This is one of the fundies that can't be taught. You either have it or you don't and that's it, simple as.

You have to be able to visualize the apple.

>>7176612
This is absolutely false. I didn't have it when I started but gained it after doing the right exercises for enough time.

>>7176400
Like what other anons said, it's something that will take some time, but I personally found Mark's Drawing Tutorial/moatdd's exercises on youtube to be invaluable in cultivating this. He shares a lot of them sprinkled throughout videos

>>7176400
draw my cock papi, and youll feel the form I promise <:

>>7176400
>step one focus
>step two actually imagine the thing you’re trying to feel the form of
>this includes the backside of it which you can’t see
>imagine your pencil tracing along the surface
>if there’s a recession your pencil moves into it, if there’s a bump the pencil returns to you

>>7176612
this is one of the few things in art that can be taught to anyone, maybe you're just dumb

>>7176520
this, even digital sculpting helps a ton to understand 3d space


which of these eye shapes has more character appeal?

trying to design a bird race and i like the top ones for giving more of an avian vibe, but bottom feels cuter. can't decide<br>ignore the ugly beaks those r for framing lol

>>7176459
You're too /beg/ to be trying "creativity" and it doesn't read well. Stick to what's usually done, it automatically gives a better impression for a reason; go with the bottom version.

>>7176461
well ik i'm not skilled (tho these aren't proper pieces either these r sketches for comparing designs), but why would that mean i should avoid creativity? isn't the point of practice to why things work or don't for what you want to make? i don't wanna copy things for no reason

>>7176467
>Follow the rules
>Understand the rules
>Bend the rules
>Break the rules
In that order. You are trying to skip to step 4 without even doing 1.

>>7176471
alright that's a fair take but i'm not exactly reinfenting the wheel. a lot of comics and animation do the inverted pupil thing and especially for animal characters. and the facial design is still big bright eyes for appeal eituer way right?
so ig it's more like,
>which of these established techniques is better suited to some bird people

>>7176459
I prefer the top one. Ignore >>7176461 he's just a retarded crab

>>7176484
thanks for the feedback! :)
that's the one i was leaning towards, i think it is just scary to allow myself to commit even a minor character appeal sin even when it has a purpose a la being more birdish. critic in my head raising the same concerns as the other anon lol
(picrel me erasing and redrawing pupils over and over kek)

>>7176668
wow thanks super helpful critique

>>7176459
I prefer the 2nd but they're both good
>>7176461
>STOP HAVING FUN YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE FUN
Fuck off stupid faggot.

>>7176471
>have fun is nowhere on that list
ask me how I know you're ngmi

>>7176503
Youre just using shapes you saw before. Those shade are stylisation of how light hits the eyes. Reversing like this makes no sense, doesnt read and looks weird.
Other anons are just right bro, get better before making threads like this for your underage rp

>>7176768
>prefer the 2nd
yeah i've been working on it a bit more, there's something wrong with it. i'm thinking of just making it a colored iris with a white notch instead of a notched white spot but i want the design to scan in black and white too. 2nd is the easy way but it just like... bird eyes don't look like that and these guys r birds :')
>>7176798
i know the notch is glare the same as the bubbles in anime eyes. but it's a generic enough shape that in the black-base eye (where the whole white part is stylized glare) idk that it's that out of place as a dip in the shadow and a directional indicator. and it's a shape people are familiar with. i think i need to play with the shape of the notch more for it to work but i think it can work
>underage rp
??

>>7176769
if you think fun is a specific step in the journey and not the attitude throughout, you are the true NGMI

think i got the balance i wanted with it
i did just need to take out the notch, it's never gonna look like a shadow it always makes them look like they're squinting :')
way better though i think

>>7177674
okay cool, any suggestions or do you just wanna be lame? :p

>>7176459
No offense but you can’t draw so it doesn’t matter since either choice doesn’t make your art look better.

>>7177732
Also this is probably bait or maybe op is 13 yo.

>>7177732
>you can't draw so you shouldn't learn to draw
retarded
>>7177737
it's not bait, i'm just shit at drawing and i'm cartooning to improve my fundamentals so i can be a bit less shit and draw more skilled pieces (or just nicer looking cartoons) later
idk where the hate is coming from, it's not like i was pretending to be any good yet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>7177753
okay nevermind i'm getting hate for not posting in /beg/ sorry i don't come to this board often that's mb
although someone could have just said that instead of everyone whining about my bad drawings lol

>>7177777
Holy quints, suddenly you deserve to keep this thread. Post more work for critique

>>7177807
rngesus blessed me for admitting my mistake clearly :^)
oki here's another one of >>7177407 with i think drastically improved hair silhouette

>>7177753
He didnt say you shouldn't learn

Do whatever you want, but as long as your fundamentals are shit none of your stuff will ever look heckin cuterino like the drawings you see on twitter

>>7178036
>as long as your fundamentals are shit none of your stuff will ever look heckin cuterino
didn't ask if it did i asked for design advice. i can be practicing design and fundamentals at the same time, need both :p
>like the drawings you see on twitter
don't have a xitter just a cartoon enjoyer

>>7176484
>>7176503
That triangle shape stylizes the light reflection. Even if you invert the eye color, t makes no sense having the reflection be dark. Cartoons are simplified representations of real life. Of course you can go as abstract as you want, but it'll be harder to read

>>7178380
ty! ur critique is valid and it def didn't scan, answered what i was going for with that in >>7176830
picrel also shows on the left a bit normaler version of the kind of broken up reflection i was trying to exaggerate (right is what i think i'm gonna go with instead cause ya it wasn't working lol)

>>7176459
it just look like its looking left and then right.
Pupils are drawn black for a reason.
>>7178420
stop inverting values thinking you're reinventing the wheel.

>>7178426
>stop inverting values
i'm not inverting them for no reason. i'm trying to draw beady black eyes while still giving them an expressive inner shape to play with for facial emotion
>thinking you're reinventing the wheel
wow yeah really got inventive with the way i did the whites on the beads, i can't think of any other wildly successful uses of this technique for depicting cute animal eyes, none at all (pic unrel)

>>7176461
>NOO YOU CAN'T HAVE FUN AND MAKE CUTE CHARACTERS UNTIL YOU'VE GONE THROUGH LOOMIS, DRAWABOX, VILLPU, AND ACCUMULATED 1000 HOURS OF LIVE MODEL DRAWING


So recently I got hired as a supply teacher at my old high school, however during one of the classes I was teaching I noticed this drawing stuck to the wall, I think it's meant to be of the woman who normally teaches that class but, either even if it hasn't been long since I left this school, jesus Christ hasn't it and the pupils got to shit since then, I honestly hope to god they get buIIied

Sorry for the slightly blurry photo of it btw, I tried to make it look a bit nicer but those sites that claim to deblur photos barely did shit with this one!

>>7176497
I don't think you should make fun of kids when you can barely form a coherent message

>>7176501
Listen yeah, I have seen the school's autism base, and from the kids there likely one of them did this, well unless they could actually speak let alone draw

>>7176497
>Sorry for the slightly blurry photo
"Slightly"? Have you got Parkinsons or something? I can hardly see the bottom image at all.

>>7176655
>Listen yeah, I have seen the school's autism base, and from the kids there likely one of them did this, well unless they could actually speak let alone draw
...What?

>>7176497
Insecure incel ngmi crab faggot diss literal kid's drawing to feel better. You know the chance of those kids still drawing in highschool and sharing their work like that has more than a thousand time of making it than you, right?
Overall just kys

>>7176696
My phone's camera is just shite sorry, and I'm not taking another photo of it because let's just say, I ripped that shit up and throw it in the bin

>>7176708

Because well, if this really what they're doing with there free time when jesus Christ what other stuff are they going to do when they get older, get into gender politics, become a discord or Reddit mod, or even worse just a general nonce looking to get into Japan as soon as possible

>>7176794

Finally the school I work for and where the photo was taken is a high school, like I would actually be somewhat impressed maybe if it was a primary school, but as it is indeed a high school I'm just more concerned than anything


Could you draw the princess of Wales as competently?

I did better portraits in my second semester of painting class.


the limits of mediocrity

I do believe that talent in art exists, which can perhaps best be predicted by an IQ test, but I'm skeptical whether you need a particularly high IQ to be able to gain a solid understanding of various fundamentals with which to create quality realistic art - that is, this isn't about general "creativity" or more abstract art. there is surely an abundance of people whom you could point to who have a below-average or average IQ and are not good at creating more realistic art, but in all liklihood, if you were to look at how long they've been making art for, how much they study, what and how they study, how intentional their study is, etc., you would find many shortcomings in their process. the point being, you cannot yet set the limits to their potential if you have not yet exhausted their other deficiencies as non-contributors. I can appreciate the WAGMI mindset, but honestly speaking, I don't think everyone is gonna make it - maybe not even myself. that said, I doubt whether most people who argue against WAGMI bros and use talent as their main argument aren't merely coping because of their own shortcomings or are just parroting what they've heared elsewhere because it sounds reasonable (enough). though I'm open to more conclusive proof of the relationship between artistic ability and IQ, if anyone has any.

Talent is to recognize and avoid the local minima that typically trap begs.

>>7176804
>the local minima that typically trap begs
those being what, in your opinion? and would you not also say that talent is/can be a naturally higher ability in perception and coordination?

>>7176807
>those being what, in your opinion
It comes down to taste. In reality, I mean the inverse of what I said: talent is to recognize what to learn in order to converge to producing what you want as quickly as possible. However, I don't mean "find your weaknesses and target them", instead, I mean having a higher goal that will always point you towards the right direction.

>a naturally higher ability in perception and coordination?
Perception is bootstrapped by experience (in terms of talent) and coordination is necessitated only as far as your method of input demands.

>intelligence
real
>good looks
real
>dick size
real
>tallness
real
>natural athleticism
real
>reaction time
real
>talent
not real

>>7176822
>Perception is bootstrapped by experience
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. experience can aid perception, sure, but would you disagree that people differ in their natural ability to understand the three-dimensionality and other naturally physical qualities of objects in the visible world and in their imagination?
>coordination is necessitated only as far as your method of input demands
granted, but this could be said about perception as well and has no bearing on whether here too people differ in their natural ability
>>7176824
>>talent
>not real
okay, so you would deny its existence, but how would you define it?

>>7176853
assuming (you) are 7176822 and we are using the definition of talent you gave, I agree. I do not mean to be rude, but what I'm talking about is something else, namely a hypoethetical natural ability to realistically represent the visible world in some art form; we can take away the word 'talent' if that is going to complicate things.. the question is: do you think the phenomenon I've just described exists? if not, why not?

Talent is a thing achieved, especially a skill or educational achievement. I think people earn talent by working for it. It's built by the one putting in the effort.

>>7176869
like I said in >>7176859, we can throw away the word 'talent' if need be, but what I'm talking about is mutually exclusive from something developed. this doesn't mean that everyone's artistic ability is set at birth and they can never surpass what they're able to achieve as a toddler, say - obviously that's ridiculous - but part of the contention is whether people's inherent ability absent experience is equal, which I don't agree with. though, as I said in the OP, that doesn't mean someone with less talent can't reach a high level of realism.

>>7176730
intelligence and short/long-term memory are the biggest predictors of success in most fields
talent is just a vague misnomer for those two

>>7176874
I think. To a degree. Everyone could attain a certain level of achievement. Regardless of iq. Depends on individuals practice.

>>7176836
>would you disagree that people differ in their natural ability to understand the three-dimensionality and other naturally physical qualities of objects in the visible world and in their imagination
I don't disagree. However, historically, to not have prior knowledge and experience and become proficient is to be under the tutelage of a master at a young age, or someone who can at least set you on the right path. Otherwise, natural ability can go to waste, like getting caught in local minima, where otherwise your higher goal (which could be given by a master, or discerned from knowledge/experience) would have you avoid such pitfalls. The cases where people find a path to mastery of their own accord are incredibly rare.

My idea in knowledge and experience being expressed as talent comes from those who pursue art later in life and become very skilled very quickly. I think a mental model can be developed in domains other than art, which when brought to learning art greatly excel ones progress. For example, knowledge of geographical topography (or height-maps) can prime someone to understand 'value' in art or how lighter and darker areas on a page can give the illusion of form, protruding or receding from/into the page. To be able to visualize the 'abstract' contours from a topographical map as a three-dimensional landmass in ones mind is to perceive art in one direction. To go the other direction, producing art, is to take what you see or imagine through your own ability to abstract (simplify) and put it on paper. If you understand the abstraction, execution becomes more achievable, and coordination builds as a byproduct.

>>7176874
The only upper limit to skill is one given by the cultural limit
There are no individual handicaps in art, only personal predilections or preferences, and the audiences receptivity to these

Id also like to say the concept of genius has a modern interpretation different from the typical historical. Today we have a concept of "a genius" when before the concept was a "work of genius"
sometimes some people obtain an inspiration whereby they generate a work of genius, but they themselves are not intrinsically geniuses, nor is all the work they make a work of genius

The disposition you're touching on is desire. Not everyone wants to do art, not all artists want to make what is typically considered good art, and even fewer artists are driven to what we call excellence or greatness
Of those who do work, anyone who has put the work in is capable of achieving excellence, whereby they are capable of being inspired to generate a work of genius

>>7176885
Genius is a figure of speech and as well means achievement of a skill to a high degree of understanding.

Holy fucking shit. I'm literally talking to a chat bot.

>>7176730
>I do believe that talent in art exists, which can perhaps best be predicted by an IQ test, but I'm skeptical whether you need a particularly high IQ to be able to gain a solid understanding of various fundamentals with which to create quality realistic art
Artists back then were polymaths that could do everything and they're way smarter than average.
Artists nowadays (myself included) are all dumb.

>>7176890
You lack meaningful art experience and equate talent with IQ maybe you should talk to chat about this

>>7176880
but presumably you would say there are limits to some people's potential for acheivement which don't exist for others and cannot be explained by a genetic defect, means, or general opportunity, right?
>>7176881
then I don't think there is really any major disagreement between us, even if we use different words to describe our views. I would agree that potential without development (i.e. gaining knowledge and experience) in art will yield poor results. even medieval and classical savants would be a fraction of what they were at their peak through the rearing by a respective master.
>>7176885
>The only upper limit to skill is one given by the cultural limit
I fundamentally disagree. I would agree that there's a subjective element to art, even in skills, but there is still a scope of art in which you can objectively say someone has more or less skill than another in realism - though at a certain point it gets hairy.
>The disposition you're touching on is desire
it is not. you can have all the desire in the world to draw something realistic but have less of a natural ability in it than someone who cares not about such things but has a relatively easier time approximating realism
>>7176893
you quoted the OP, but I'm not entirely sure how your point relates to it. regardless of the reason, the average artist now is dumber than the average artist in the medieval or classical period - that seems reasonable enough. but that says nothing about whether talent exists.

>>7176907
Talent comes from experience. You gain it. It's built. It can take years.

>>7176920
There is no limit. If you had 3 individuals. And each were trained the same way. And were given the opportunity to attain a level of skill. They would. One learned slowly. The other quickly, but in time attained understanding and skill.

Just because one learned quicker, doesn't make them more talented.

>>7176970
>If you had 3 individuals. And each were trained the same way. And were given the opportunity to attain a level of skill. They would.
and how do you know that for certain?
>Just because one learned quicker, doesn't make them more talented.
that is precisely one of the defining markers of talent/higher IQ: the ability to understand (and implement, to the extent possible) things faster than others under the exact same circumstances.

>>7176970
>universal definition of talent
tal·ent
/ˈtalənt/
noun
1.
natural aptitude or skill.
"he possesses more talent than any other player"
>anon's definition of talent
uhh, hard work lol!!

>Just because one learned quicker, doesn't make them more talented.
>Just because one fits the universal definition of talent, doesn't make them more talented
Just fucking stop it already, you're being infuriatingly stupid

>>7176974
The irony is the dictionary says one thing, but if you find any successful artist commonly considered talented, they say the other

>>7176730
>Born with an average IQ
>Can't be amazing at everything
>Might as well commit suicide along with the vast majority of the population.
It's the only logical line of reasoning for the entire IQ, talent and genes debate (Hitler's fave.)

>>7177003
>>Can't be amazing at everything
this is true of all people

>>7177014
That's exactly my point. These kinds of threads always bring out this type of extremist "talent is real" crab that reduces everything into the most black and white way of thinking.

Their reasoning always go something like this:

>Want to be an artist
>But I may not be talented enough to be the BEST artist
>I may not be talented enough to be one of the top artists.
>I may not be talented enough to be anything more than mediocre
>Woe is me
>Life is unfair
>Suicide / AI is my only option! I am weak and crippled and artists who are good didn't have to work hard unlike me, I am owed pity and respect by society and everyone should float me for the rest of my sad miserable life, it's not my fault fate made me retarded, it's your fault for being born gifted.

Completely ignoring that technically 'inferior' art succeeds all the time. Completely ignoring that the idea of being the 'best' at something is to strive to reach one's personal potential (and the dreaded thing no crab ever wants to hear, "art is subjective.")

I believe talent is real. I just don't think it matters in a way that is substantial to the experience of art making. It only matters to the wounded egos of those who never matured past the "I will become God and prove to everyone I am worthy of the love of my absent daddy!" phase all edgelords go through.

>>7176859
>a hypoethetical natural ability to realistically represent the visible world in some art form
Correct, some have it, some dont't.
I strongly believe in the phrase that "talent is pursued interest" or like the other anon said, talent is built. But each person has unique genetic architecture that enables them to excel in a particular field of interest, so you're not born with the "talent", you have a gift and upon exploration you will discover it, upon practicing you will notice some level of ease and competency in learning the craft so you will have more reason to cultivate further, then it becomes talent.

This is why instead of forcing yourself in art, spend more time exploring and discovering whhat you're really good at, cultivate it and excel. Any struggle and obstacles you encounter in this field becomes a motivation, not a hindrance because you know deep down, you're built for that.

>>7177022
>These kinds of threads always bring out this type of extremist "talent is real" crab that reduces everything into the most black and white way of thinking
have we really seen that yet, though? there's like one post that is a little vague on its purpose, but aside from that it's been mainly people talking about a different phenomenon and me trying to reel things back in. though to be fair, perhaps I could've been a little clearer in the OP (but since then I've clarified my meaning).
>I believe talent is real. I just don't think it matters in a way that is substantial to the experience of art making
depends on what you mean by experience. there are exceptions, at least so I've heard (namely autistic people), but in general I would bet that at a certain point those on the lower end of the IQ spectrum simply cannot reach skills people with even average IQs can, which is substantial.
>>7177028
>Correct, some have [a natural ability to realistically represent the visible world in some art form], some don't
>I strongly believe in the phrase that "talent is pursued interest" or like the other anon said, talent is built
these are contradictory. I'm not a prescriptivist, so I wouldn't argue that your usage of 'talent' is wrong in itself, but talent as something built is squarely opposed to talent as an innate ability (though that does not necessarily imply that said ability cannot be developed).

This thread is not constructive, positive, or useful. It exists only to demoralize and confuse

>>7177045
>these are contradictory.
it is not
>I wouldn't argue that your usage of 'talent' is wrong
Indeed you shouldn't, because you understood nothing of what I said.
>talent as something built is squarely opposed to talent as an innate ability
You lack reading comprehension, read what I wrote again slowly and come back. The "gift" I am referring to is not the talent, but your genes, which dictates what activities you can excel or struggle.

>>7177045
>>7176730
I would also like to express that the reason you're not going to make it is, funnily enough because of your low IQ, you're a frustrated pseudo-intellectual, desperately trying to mask your artistic incompetence. I advice you to quit.

>>7177051
>It exists only to demoralize and confuse
whom, do you figure? to be honest, I think I could've been a bit more even-handed at the end when I mentioned those who argue agaisnt WAGMI bros, and would not assume that I necessarily knew my motivations for making a given thread, but in general I was considering extreme arguments against the commoner getting good at art because of talent, came to conclusions which have reservations about such arguments, and wanted to further explore them where I normally see them. I really don't see how it's counter-productive given that the potential insights the thread prompts could help many /beg/s further pursue art in spite of a lack of talent.
>>7177058
>it is not
'talent', or whatever word one uses, cannot simultaneously be innate and something built up
>Indeed you shouldn't, because you understood nothing of what I said
my comprehension or lack thereof is not the reason, but the nature of language and the lack of necessity of certain definitions
>your genes, which dictates what activities you can excel or struggle.
we might simply have to agree to disagree here, but I would content (as research would seem to as well) that genes do contribute to whether you have an innate ability, i.e. talent as I am using it. again, as used here, talent is not cultivated. to the extent that you diverge from that sense, we're not arguing whether the same thing exists.
>>7177060
>low IQ
>frustrated pseudo-intellectual
I've never gotten it tested, but I have no assumptions about being higher than average
>you're not going to make it
as I said in the OP, I admit that I might not make it, and perhaps that is because of too low an IQ

It's destiny
You're either chosen or you're not
And I don't mean chosen from day 0
But your life path
It either takes you there or it doesn't
And you have no way of knowing unless you try

>>7177075
>'talent', or whatever word one uses, cannot simultaneously be innate and something built up
I wasn't trying to say otherwise, I merely said that in my belief the gift and the talent are two separate concepts. Why can't you understand?
>>7177075
>my comprehension or lack thereof is not the reason, but the nature of language and the lack of necessity of certain definitions
seems the problem is exclusively yours
>>7177075
>talent is not cultivated
it is, everyone is born a tabula rasa, if Peter Paul Rubens was unfortunately born with deformed limbs and no eyesight but survived, would he be able to achieve same artistic success? Will you call him talented? Perhaps no, but does this imply he doesn't have the genetic make-up of an artist? Definitely not.
>>7177075
>I admit that I might not make it, and perhaps that is because of too low an IQ
It is the only thing we can agree on, and you're kind enough to prove it.

>>7177310
>unfortunately born with
or not even born with, let's say he lost his limbs and eyesight at 4 years old and survived.

I am certifiably retarded (cycling concussion years ago)

It's not IQ, just honesty.
Dishonest, deceptive, and sinful niggas have a serious cap on their artistic ability and always cope that it's IQ, not their evil thinking.

>>7177403
>I am certifiably retarded (cycling concussion years ago)
We can tell with picrel.

>>7177417
The only thing worse than a bad drawing is no drawing, with a high IQ like yours you should know this.

>>7177418
>with a high IQ like yours you should know
that posting here is not very smart.

>7177423 (You)
But it is fun, just like drawing. :)

>>7177310
>I wasn't trying to say otherwise
>Correct, some have [a natural ability to realistically represent the visible world in some art form], some don't
>like the other anon said, talent is built
-
>[talent] is [cultivated]
>"to the extent that you diverge from that sense, we're not arguing whether the same thing exists."

Why quantify intelligence with the ability to draw things realistically?

Intelligence is exhibited when one spends time rendering what one has an aptitude for,or finding out what that could be, and not hampering a developing style with nonsensical restraints.

>>7177447
>Why quantify intelligence with the ability to draw things realistically?
the OP was speculative, but hypothetically it's the same reason you qualify intelligence how you did in your own post

>>7177433
NTA but you literally ignored the rest of what he said just to prove him wrong.
Nigga you're a dumbass for deliberately choosing the path of failure, no one can save you.

>>7177770
hey NTA anon, glad to see you in my thread.

>>7177051
It's more like mental masturbation as an excuse not to draw. Very much ngmi behavior, very tempting trap to fall in because it creates the illusion of productivity (like posting on 4chan in general.)

High IQ, low IQ, thresholds, statistics, in the end, if you don't draw, none of it matters, and if you have to write a dissertation on IQ to justify whether or not you want to draw, you were never going to draw.

>>7177780
>a dissertation on IQ to justify whether or not you want to draw
that's not what the threads about

>>7177806
no, it's about my reservations about ngmi posters using talent (which may or may not best be quantified through IQ) to justify their arguments and prompting them to make more concrete arguments. though most of the discussion has been trying to reel people back into the topic at hand and not contribute with a misunderstanding of the definitions and question the extent they believe talent exists as I've defined it (as I am also interested in that, but it's not the main reason I made the thread).

>>7176730
>IQ
That doesn't mean shit if you aren't willing to put in the work to improve OR to get anything actually done.

I just wanted to draw cool robots

Why is everyone on this board so mean to me and telling me I'll never make it because I have no creativity or talent or kim jong's genes

>>7178054
They're crabs having a mental breakdown over their failure to get gains and want to drag others down.
I do the same thing all the time, sorry about that.

drawing boils down to luck at the end of the day.

you need to be lucky and land on the aha moment that improves your art
you need to be lucky and have interesting ideas appear in your mind
you need to be lucky and make mistakes that are appealing (you can't fake this)
even if you master anatomy and perspective, your art isn't any better for it.

>>7178054
Because they need to convince others they are like themselves
Basic psychological reproduction

>>7176974
>natural aptitude

Too vague. Let's be more clear. To have a natural aptitude. The individual would need to be interested in the study. IQ is irrelevant.

>>7177051
They're training their Ai with clown memes. It's fine.

Talent exists, but not in ways that are obvious to most people. It's the difference between someone like Beethoven and all of the other technically skilled classical composers of his era. They had experience in spades, but Beethoven had that thing that allowed him to see beyond. Vermeer has that ineffable thing that sets him apart from most other Dutch painters. Ozu has that thing that sets him apart from other Japanese directors who could make family dramas, but not in the way he could. Sometimes, this spark takes time to materialize or discover: Wilfred Owen was a boring derivative Keats poet until he went through World War 1 and found a subject that fit his abilities. Experience can get you 75% of the way there, but to augur a truly novel vision you need talent/genius/insight. The good thing is most people in society can't differentiate the geniuses from the merely competent, so getting to a level where you can be praised for your skill is achievable through experience alone, although the things you make likely will not last more than a century.

>>7178423
Exactly. Talent is atained by experience. And experience involves hours of practice.

>>7178456
You can practice for hours, but if you don't have that innate spark, you'll reach Good at most, not Great.

>>7178060
>you need to be lucky and have interesting ideas appear in your mind
in order for what to happen/be possible? on a fundamental level you need to be interested in art to some capacity to go out of your way to work on your craft, if that's what you mean.
>you need to be lucky and make mistakes that are appealing (you can't fake this)
again, to what end? and "appealing" in what way? to be clear, the OP was never about "making it" as far as a career in art. if you gained a high degree of conventional skill of course there would be a portion of people who would like your work, and perhaps you would have the wherewithal to monetize your skills, but I'm just talking about gaining the skills.
>even if you master anatomy and perspective, your art isn't any better for it
define "better." if you master anatomy and perspective, your art will necessarily be anatomically and perspectively better than it would otherwise be, so presumably you mean something else, though it isn't clear exactly what.

>>7178423
Beethoven is considered a genius, not merely talented (like you eventually said). The other skilled dudes no on one remembers may very well have been talented.
I think it's strange how badly /ic/ needs talent to not be real. It's obviously a nebulous term that encompasses several variables, but it does appear that some individuals are naturally inclined towards certain skills, it isn't all explainable by dick-shriveling grind and grit. Like there are anons who think anyone has the potential to draw like KJG if they do everything right (never mind that doing everything right requires being naturally obsessed with drawing from a young age) - it's a fucking irritating level of delusion cooked up in the feverish imagination of no-draws, yes I'm going to shit on that. These people never get anywhere and quit less than a year in, because they're simply not living in reality and don't understand what drawing and art are really about.
But so what? Is that the universal standard? Do your best. You don't have to reach the moon to get something out of art.

>>7178526
>you don't have to reach the moon to get something out of art.
You do if you're mentally ill, which everyone who uses 4chan is.

>>7178526
I'm sure if you begin in your 20s and work till 30s or 40s, something akin to KJG-level drawing is achievable- just won't be at the same speed and variety. He isn't really that distinct from other technically competent illustrators in terms of his subjects or how he composes them. Just compare his average illustration to the paintings of Beksinski or Rembrandt or Dali and you can see a world of difference.

>>7178541
There's a cure. It allows moderate use of 4chan with no side effects.

>>7178545
Sorry anon, but just...no.
KJG is a freak. You'd have to have started drawing in youth to even have a sliver of a fraction of a chance to be what he became, you are not getting even close if you just casually start in your 20s - you missed that boat. People just don't seem to grasp the scope of what goes into capital-M Mastery. It's not a question of quality or artistry, as that's subjective (art is subjective - I'm not even a big KJG fan), but his technical abilities and understanding are highly, highly unusual. I've never seen anything else like it. Not Peter Han, not even Terada. Supposedly it's supposed to be achievable with pure grit, yet no one's done it.
Guys like Murata are beasts too in their own way, but KJG is singular in being able to conjure the sheer variety of subjects he drew, and to execute at that level of draftsmanship and spontaneity. That was his art.
Not to be rude, but I don't know how you guys can even say things like this. No one would take comments like this seriously for, like, Michael Jordan (in basketball), Ronnie Coleman (bodybuilding), or Magnus Carlsen (in chess). But for visual art, people have this bizarre idea that you can just do anything imaginable, conceivable, ex nihilo, with no context - with simple hard work.
Be realistic and hone your craft. Do your own thing. You're not KJG, or Dali or Rembrandt for that matter. But that's liberating. You can be yourself.

>>7178545
Kjg wasn't that old. For his age, he was insane. Beksinsli were arch mages lmao

>>7178606
It's impossible to convince some people here to be themselves because they have no stable sense of identity or self worth. This is one of the reasons why the talent/genes/hard work debate here is so toxic (and possibly the most toxic of all art debates ever, bringing out insane crabs and entitlement and narcissism.) Though this thread has managed to avoid the usual shitstorm.

The crab doesn't want to be themselves, they're uncomfortable in their own skin and their personalities are malformed. In order to feel worthy, they need to graft themselves onto (what they believe to be) an OBJECTIVE measure of artistic worth to justify hard work. They have a rigid and mechanical way of seeing the world as an input/output system with no room for the irrationalities of existence that define human experience.

They elevate guys like KJG and think "if I work hard, I can be like KJG!" When they fail, they become bitter and spend the rest of their lives raging against the "unfairness" of the world that barred them from achieving their ideal.

They then take it out on everyone who suggests that hard work is valuable at all because it makes them feel inferior.

Hard work does matter, talent is real, no amount of hard work will make you KJG, but you should work hard anyway because you (supposedly) LOVE TO DRAW and hard work deepens that love.

What I don't think teachers 'get' about crabs is that crabs are retarded and need everything spelled out to them. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The teacher says "yes, hard work is everything!" because they're assuming the student is smart enough to understand that life is unfair and are just trying t hype them up for THEIR individual journey. The crab is mentally ill, and is drawing for bad pretenses (wanna be the best to prove I matter in society!) rather than sustainable ones (wanna draw because it feels good!)

>>7176730
>I do believe that talent in art exists, which can perhaps best be predicted by an IQ test
Look ma! I posted it again!!

>>7176730
>all this faggy rambling instead of just doing the do
define "making it" btw. such a dumb fucking meme. art is what their creators make of it. not being pretentious or whatever, that's simply what it should be. some guy drawing hentai making mega bucks is not my version of "making it". something modern art tard blowing up on social media for duct taping a fork to a banana isn't either. creating things that mean something to you is more than enough, and that does not require some kind of gatekeeping requirement level. as long as it isn't AI slop, a drawing of a stick figure is still something. why care about all kinds of other irrelevant abstract nonsense

>>7179446
>define "making it" btw. such a dumb fucking meme. art is what their creators make of it. not being pretentious or whatever, that's simply what it should be. some guy drawing hentai making mega bucks is not my version of "making it". something modern art tard blowing up on social media for duct taping a fork to a banana isn't either. creating things that mean something to you is more than enough, and that does not require some kind of gatekeeping requirement level
to be clear, I'm not talking about finding external success or anything, simply gaininig a high enough level of conventional fundamentals to realistically (and I don't necessarily mean photo realism) represent any object of interest in an art form. similarly to how I did with one or more anons earlier, if you don't like the phrase "making it" we can throw it out the window. the idea I'm talking about is just as I've described it. I don't say this as a ngmi doomer, but staistically speaking I do not believe everyone who will try to gain said conventional fundamentals to a high degree will do so.
>why care about all kinds of other irrelevant abstract nonsense
I mentioned "making it," laid out as I just did, to add a rightful amount of nuance to the discussion. ngmi doomers are right in saying that not everyone will reach their goals, and so I was anticipating that. also, if hypothetically they are right in certain instances in that some people need to have a certain talent in order to reach a certain goal that they have, but they do not have that talent, it would be useful to know. depending on your goal and interests you can find some meaning in working your way to a goal, but if you cannot reach your ultimate goal, you might prefer to simply focus your time somewhere else.


Some indepedent artist went to my therapy session for some reason, teached me how to draw an anime face and holy fucking shit it was awful

People who draw like that should have their hands chopped off by law

Master Wang

>>7176760
All the pieces are there, you just gotta refine it Young Grasshopper

>>7176948
See, it's a silly little Osaka

Anonymous

>>7176760
independent english teacher next

I thought it's a man with a big ass smile and blocky jaw

>>7179545
15 years progress just to make a lineart girl floating in the void. I am in hell.


I'm getting an iPad and apple pencil soon because I'd like to improve my digital art, and I was wondering what art applications for Apple would be easy to use but still have a wide variety of brush options.

>>7176704
procreate is the standard for apple as you can import brushes

you can also get clip studio for apple if you pay monthly, but its not too much

ibis paint is a free option that you can import brushes from but you have to watch an ad to unlock the brush for that day

dunno if they have it on apple, but autodesk sketchbook is free and has good brushes


Sako Toshio

Is he the only mangaka who managed to go from significantly mediocre/amateur drawing skills to Murata/Miura/Boichi level art during the spawn of a single series? <br>It's also impressive the fact that he started Usogui in his 30s

>>7176851
>People can only improve in their teens and twenties

>>7176851
>It's also impressive the fact that he started Usogui in his 30s
I read about an animation character designer that started learning to draw at 40 and he became a pro artist at 43.
His goal was learning to draw as therapy or some BS like that but he got so good that he decided to create a portfolio and he changed careers.
OP people learn new things all the time like ladies in retirement age learning to use smartphones and you still fell for the 25 meme.
Kids learn faster but that's it.

He actually wanted to constantly improve, so he did

The wonders of hard-work and constantly trying to improve.

>>7176851
>the fact that he started Usogui in his 30s
I read that it's at 28, still past 25 but not in 30s.

>>7176851
you'd have to be a brain dead retard if you manage to still not improve despite drawing every single day, a chapter every week, with characters in all sorts of situations, angles, poses, etc etc. You'd genuinely have to try to not improve.

>>7176851
As much as I love Toshio (Usogui is one of my favorites), in my opinion his art has really dropped in recent years
Don’t get me wrong, his understanding of anatomy and dynamic action scenes are still top-tier, but something about his expressions has really fallen off. Case in point, peak Usogui (around chapter 300 or so) to the oneshot spin-off (the last picture in your collage)
He cannot draw Usogui like he used to, sad but true

>>7176851
please kill yourself if you think this is remotely good art. go back to your containment board on a or jp or one of the gay boards.


what is the least awkward position for her right leg to be in? example on the left or right?

>>7176876
if the choice is those 2, then the left.

>>7176896
I disagree, the right has more of the "about to" quality

>>7176876
right, but please find some ref. ice skaters or something...


Is it best to do studies digitally or traditionally?<br>Which do you prefer?

i took the digital pill this year and its really hard to imagine going back to traditional

Traditional because you can do it away from the computer.

t. power has been cut off and I am mad as fuck right now

>>7176960
Both are fine but i prefer traditional a bit more since i like the feel of pencil or pen on paper. It requires you to be more considerate of what you draw since you can't just control Z. On the other hand digital makes reference matching more convenient and you don't have to spend extra money on more materials like traditional once you run out usually.

>>7177325
>you can't just control Z
Digital art only gives you the option to do it, it doesn't force you to do anything.

>>7176960
IMO it's best to do both. I prefer trad though. Even with a screen tablet I don't feel like I have as much control as I do with a real pencil/pen.

>>7176960
Trad will force you to try getting your lines right in the first attempt, since erasing with a rubber requires more work than ctrl-z. Overtime this will become second nature and you will get most of your lines right in the first attempt. After getting a decent understanding of the fundamentals, move over to digital to make your life easier.

>>7177344
let's be honest most people will use CTRL-Z, selection, transformation and move tools to fix errors because it's easy.
>your drew the head to big? just use the transformation tool to shrink it.
>you drew something a bit off? Use the selection tool to cut out and the use the move tool to place it in the right place.
Drawing trad kinda force you to learn to get most things right in the first try. Since correction will be much more effort than digitally.

>>7177430
>let's be honest most people will use CTRL-Z, selection, transformation and move tools to fix errors because it's easy
For actual drawings yes, but if you're just practicing there's no point in doing that.
Also there are programs that force you to use traditional techniques on a digital canvas, like the Pixiv Sketch one. Drawings made on that website all look very distinct because it's so rudimental.


Prebeg here

I seem to suffer from a severe case of symbol drawing, what can I do to stop my brain from doing repeating this bad habit?

>>7177038
if thats what you want to do then do it. I draw cartoons and do construction. nobodys stopping you

>>7177049
>>7177053
what kind of joke is this

>>7177038
>what can i do to stop
Why stop?

>>7177038
i found that tracing/copying guidelines then filling in all the other stuff helped. Construction is your friend in the very beginning, make sure to actually USE your guide lines and study actual faces and stylize them accordingly :3

>>7177081
THEN WHY DOES MY COOLFACE/TROLLFACE LOOK LIKE SHIT

>>7177090
Because you haven't studied shit obviously it takes time
How about you draw each piece of that troll face, the mouth, the head outkine, they eyes
Do 20 of these each every day and 20 total faces
For two weeks
Repost

>>7177038
Start turning your reference upside down. This is a good exercise to stop your brain from seeing "eyes, ears, nose, mouth" and to start just seeing shapes instead.

>>7177038
learn to actually look at your reference/model

>>7177148
Actually helped me, but for how long should I do this anyway?

>>7177090
i mean are you trying to perfectly replicate a trollface? cuz I can already tell what its supposed to be

>>7178110
Yeah, it was an observation practice. I plan to do the same with other 3d objects though


How many hours per day should you study fundamentals and other artists if you want to get social media level good in 2 years max?

Assuming "social media level good" is actually the top dogs alongside smaller but still skilled artists and not amateurs/begs who got popularity purely from drawing fetish shit btw

is it just one person flooding this shitty board with social media obsessed posts or do people really care that much about social media clout?

>>7177244
If everyone learned the same we'd all be millionaires.

>>7177244
took David Finch 2 years of self-studying

>>7177244
There isn't some magic number, like if you do 6 hours a day every day in exactly 2 years you'll be a master. Everyone is different, so the answer is one you already know: as many hours as you can dedicate to it.
Although your attitude sounds like you just want to put the minimum amount possible, which is NGMI behaviour.

>>7177244
How do you expect to receive an evaluation if you won't even post your work?
Everything about your post screams "I'm never gonna make it".

>>7177244
>How many hours per day should you study fundamentals and other artists if you want to get social media level good in 2 years max?

It's really best to stop trying to calculate these stats like this because even if you do get a number, odds are it might not apply to you. Everyone learns at different rates. "Social Media level good" is highly vague because people have blown up on Social Media over low level doodles

>>7177244
if youre starting from nothing you wont be able to get very good in two years


Nightshade Antidote

Pantone 448 C

I recently found an antidote to the AI image poisoning program Nightshade. If someone could DMCA it and all of its forks with the satisfaction requirement being the removal of all of the repositories, it'd be a godsend for the artistic community<br>https://github.com/RichardAragon/Ni<wbr>ghtshadeAntidote

Anonymous

>>7177142
> https://github.com/RichardAragon/Ni<wbr>ghtshadeAntidote
>
> Credits
>
> Nightshade Antidote was created by Richard Aragon. The code implements common digital image forensics techniques based on research papers and books in the field.

> If someone could DMCA it and all of its forks
This is a dumb idea. As he states, the techniques are publicly documented; it's probably not, or will not be the only implementation; it's trivial to upload the host the code elsewhere; you're literally *advertising* it, right now.

It's a cat and mouse game. You can't win. Stop complaining about the world changing in a way you don't like, use that energy to feed your brain, and find alternatives.

I won't ever use AI, but I'm happy that it's there, because I can foresee long-term benefits, such as an increase in overall artistic quality. I'm talking like a decade from now.

Digital art in the industry has always been a way to cut costs, and is lazy way to make art;AI is merely the next logical step in that direction: you get what you deserve. Don't be lazy, don't be cheap, and if you are, then at least have the decency to endure the natural and expected consequences.

>>7177142
This has been out long before nightshade was even released, not that anyone uses nightshade anyway

>>7177352
I'm sure a good number of people do use it, but nobody is going to advertise the fact they're using it; that would only paint a target on their back. You are right that there could be far more people using it, what really needs to be done is a quick in browser version. I've heard some try it out and say that it took anywhere from an hour to five hours to get your protected image - that's just simply too inconvenient. It's somewhat telling that Adobe and co. haven't implemented some sort of protection into their image outputs for those who wish for it, the dickheads.

Anyway, it should also be noted that the nightshade people have stated that they have not seen any evidence of their obfuscation/poisoning techniques being by-passed, but just claims that they have.

>>7177362
>they have not seen any evidence of their obfuscation/poisoning techniques being by-passed
the fact that the "antidote" came out before nightshade was even released didn't clue you in?

OP... do you notice that the repository says (Deprecated)?

Also, https://x.com/ravenben/status/17172<wbr>93733765349391

>>7177369
Did you not notice that I wasn't just referring to just that particular 'antidote'?


how do YUO study

>how do you (you as in you not a general question) study

>>7177404
>try to finish a new illustration
>struggle with xxx
>copy a bunch of photos and/or learn from books and youtube tutorials about drawing it
>finish my illustration
>rinse and repeat
It's not that complex really. Alternatively I go through a course I like and just do the recommended exercises - that's studying as well.

>>7177437
This is basically what I'm doing. Draw something, analyze what sucks, do studies on that for a week or two. On the side, I go through courses that interest me to either reinforce shit I already know, or learn new things.

>>7177404
>study
I just stay bad my man.

I have an anxiety atack, then I draw for like 6 hours straight, then I don't draw for like 2 weeks, repeat


artbooru Meta thread

I wish there was an archive of safe for work art, like safebooru or e621, but for western Non-furry art, I've seen so many artists come and go over the years and other than the one's dedicated to specific subcultures/fetishes (Derpibooru, E621, etc.) there's no real archive to find western safe for work art
>"but deviantart/newgrounds/artstation exists!"
DeviantArt is a shithole run by AIpajeets and Cryptofags, Artstation is more like LinkedIn than actual artsite archive, and NG is run by oldfags that genuinely thought it was a good idea sell out to google and converted all of the new images to webp. at this point those virus riddled "porn comics" sites are better at archiving artist than those three

>>7177421
>I wish there was an archive of safe for work art, like safebooru or e621, but for western Non-furry art
>western non-furry art
The very day it gets made is the very day you get nothing but tumblr noses, hairy feminine legs, cut scars, and pointless vitiligo as far as the eye can see.

>>7177421
I like to browse wikiart.org

it can be hit or miss, and there can certainly still be nudity - but a nude human figure is a powerful image. maybe you shouldn't be so standoffish from this subject?

regardless, you should be able to find plenty of whatever you want on there. the art that is posted there is clearly open and free tho, and that may be restrictive to you if you a specific modern style in mind (like most of deviant art).

>>7177421
You're just describing regular piracy

>>7177421
>but for western Non-furry art
stop reading right there

>>7177421
>NG is run by oldfags that genuinely thought it was a good idea sell out to google and converted all of the new images to webp.
To be fair to them, they're not running the site at a profit (last I heard), so I can't blame them for trying to cut costs.
Just copy the images you like into paint and save them that way.

>>7177429
>>7177531
>yeah my Chinese porn comics are way better than Western art, which is entirely American social media slop made in the 2010s

You people are just as brainfried as the leftists on Twitter. It’s more shameful yet, even, because unlike them you presumably don’t subscribe to a worldview that demands you know nothing, so your ignorance comes solely from sloth.

>>7177421
you are not going to like this answer but unironically tumblr. there are blogs dedicated purely to specific artists and genres.

>>7177755
not a booru, and i know cos i have the same exact gripes as OP despite having my own tumblr for online art backups (just in case somehow my pc's ssd and networked storage system shit out on me)

>>7177421
I use Wikimedia. You can search for all kinds of art by movement, century, artist, genre, or any combination of the tags. It has a lot of great fine art, works from the old masters, etc. I was able to make a dedicated folder of my favorite Flemish Baroque painters just from browsing the site.

Artvee is an option for public domain.<br>There is the occasional attempt at a fine art booru like https://farb.booru.org/ , they don't seem to take off.

>>7177421
There probably is,bit it's discreet community made a vow to never reveal it to hobbiests.

>>7177421
Booru's only serve as AI training databases now.