Quote:
Originally Posted by javadog
So, what's missing? Knowledge. If I asked you to draw a cube, you could. You know what a cube looks like. Or an egg. A simple shape, you've seen a thousand of them. Where you probably run into trouble is with something more complex. You can do a portrait from observation, but not from your mind, because you don't have a detailed understanding of the anatomy of a head. If you did, it becomes easy. Or easier. Buy a few books on perspective theory. Buy a few books on anatomy for the artist. It's what the old masters studied..
|
I agree, and it's the reason all of those old dusty
learn to draw books started with circles and squares, then ellipses and rectangles, then cylinders and boxes to draw anything from a horse's head to an automobile.
The substructure of what something could be divided down to and bitten off into digestible pieces so that the brain could process it was essential.
I should say that in my method numbering system, the first method of
drawing what you see might be a waste of time as it's intended for "artists".
Drawing from a knowledge base in order to extract ideas from the brain as in methods 2 & 3 would be more productive for a "designer".