This is why I love your videos; you casually say something that breaks through obstacles I'd inadvertently put in front of myself. Only 8 minutes in and I've learned it's not that I'm doing something "wrong", it's "what great artists understand". I get that. And I am grateful
Caspar David Friedrich was so good with form in his landscapes that "Wanderer above the Sea of Fog" would go on to be concept art for video games nearly 200 years before those games would even exist!
you bring a good point on question that i've been having. We are often told to study the fundamentals, study, study, but then when we apply it we don't understand how to use it cause we got caught up letting the principles be the point in our art rather than using the principles to convey the point. The principles can't be the point itself. What are you trying to express? I think this is the difference that masters do, they study the fundamentals but also know how to break or adhere to them to best convey an image.
I enjoyed the looks into each of these books, and also specifically the discussion on Nausicaa and Akira. Over time I eventually came to realize that in the world of funny books (east or west) the marriage of graphic cartoons with detailed, more structural backgrounds is the most appealing aesthetic to my eye. I’ve only seen Nausicaa before, but need to read it. Akira is one of my favorites however, and it’s fun to see its influence on western artists as well. Frank Quietly is the first to come to my mind. Digging back into the annals of funny books however, Cerebus (sp) is one of my favorite works specifically from an aesthetic perspective. Despite the controversial thematic elements in later installments, from the beginning of Canadian artist Gerhard’s collaboration the book is a master class in this marriage of styles. Truly excellent architecture, exemplary draftsmanship with the pen for landscapes and atmosphere, and a strong mix of cartoonish figures that really run the spectrum from Loony Tunes esque to sort of what you might expect to see in Akira or contemporary Western works. Anyways thanks for the vid, that was enjoyable.
David Friend wrote a book called Composition. This is a book entirely about fine art compositions, often associated with strong form emphasis, and he emphasizes that you really need to focus on shape relationships. He specifically talks about how you should just draw things until you have the basics of the shape relationships and the very basics of what you imagine in your head and then to start a second draft. One of the real problems is trying to render before you've even finished sketching. Basically even if you want to focus on form you can use shapes to help you draft the idea until you get something worth developing into a draft with strongly defined forms. He demonstrates this process with surviving drafts showing how different artists developed their compositions one draft at a time.
Can you make a series demonstrating how to draw effects because I'm really struggling with that? Like debris from characters and their attacks crashing into buildings and the environment. crushed debris, rocks, collapsed buildings, bruises, cuts, blood, small & massive explosions, energy beams, water, fire, smoke, lava, ice, etc. The only book I've found covering the topic is in another language in that country.
Thank you very much for this video and your thoughts, this is very valuable! By the way, I'm at a fork in the road right now, becasue I'm trying to enrich my anatomycal stylization - I already have a good understanding of basic anatomy, but don't really know should I continue to study anatomy from real people and learn to stylize myself or focus more on studyning other artworks?
I honestly think you have a very limited view on how it is possible to represent form in drawing and painting. Perspective, overlaps, crosscontour drawing are all ways to also show volume and also how you think about parts of a figure or object will effect the way you enclose part of what you are drawing in a way that it also appears to be more dimensional. Shadow is only one way to describe surfaces and planes and there doesn’t even need to be a super dark shadow. Sometimes a shadow can actually flatten an area more than it gives it dimension. The quickest way to „flatten“ a drawing is just drawing the surrounding contour of a shape without overlaps and ignoring the surface on the inside, which you can indicate by shapes shifting in value or color, textures, lines for example. A lot what you consider to be flat here I wouldn’t, but with other parts you point out I would agree they are more graphic/flat and less dimensional. You can get away with implying more, when you understand the surface well enough to choose what to keep. You don’t have to though. Sometimes also more can be more 😂 Less can also be less and can also be a sign of gaps in understanding. I actually think now that it can be harmful to the development of an artist if we throw around heurisitcs and phrases we picked up from others like less is more, often even putting it in the wrong context, because it lost its true context a long time ago. I think it is a big problem people still talk about rules and breaking rules in art. If a piece of art succeeds solely depends on your intentions you have and there is different tools you can use to communicate what you want to communicate.
@@TheDrawingCodex 😂😂😂 True. Thanks for the content man. I listen and watch as I work on projects. Great stuff. Even with the drinking games. Or should I say, especially. lol
I'm going to tell you something you're not going to take seriously, but is going to resonate in your mind, in the future when you find out this person that is coming out of nowhere was right. Art style makes sense even when breaking the rules for the following reason: we artist repeat ourselfs thousands of times. And do not do studies of somebody else's art, never. Cheers.
This is why I love your videos; you casually say something that breaks through obstacles I'd inadvertently put in front of myself.
Only 8 minutes in and I've learned it's not that I'm doing something "wrong", it's "what great artists understand".
I get that. And I am grateful
I thought he said autistic not artistic😂
Caspar David Friedrich was so good with form in his landscapes that "Wanderer above the Sea of Fog" would go on to be concept art for video games nearly 200 years before those games would even exist!
so true
you bring a good point on question that i've been having. We are often told to study the fundamentals, study, study, but then when we apply it we don't understand how to use it cause we got caught up letting the principles be the point in our art rather than using the principles to convey the point. The principles can't be the point itself. What are you trying to express? I think this is the difference that masters do, they study the fundamentals but also know how to break or adhere to them to best convey an image.
Can recommend to check mangaka Kamome Shirahama and their Witch Hat Atelier manga. I think they have a great line and color illustration style.
Agreed ✨
I enjoyed the looks into each of these books, and also specifically the discussion on Nausicaa and Akira. Over time I eventually came to realize that in the world of funny books (east or west) the marriage of graphic cartoons with detailed, more structural backgrounds is the most appealing aesthetic to my eye. I’ve only seen Nausicaa before, but need to read it. Akira is one of my favorites however, and it’s fun to see its influence on western artists as well. Frank Quietly is the first to come to my mind. Digging back into the annals of funny books however, Cerebus (sp) is one of my favorite works specifically from an aesthetic perspective. Despite the controversial thematic elements in later installments, from the beginning of Canadian artist Gerhard’s collaboration the book is a master class in this marriage of styles. Truly excellent architecture, exemplary draftsmanship with the pen for landscapes and atmosphere, and a strong mix of cartoonish figures that really run the spectrum from Loony Tunes esque to sort of what you might expect to see in Akira or contemporary Western works.
Anyways thanks for the vid, that was enjoyable.
David Friend wrote a book called Composition. This is a book entirely about fine art compositions, often associated with strong form emphasis, and he emphasizes that you really need to focus on shape relationships.
He specifically talks about how you should just draw things until you have the basics of the shape relationships and the very basics of what you imagine in your head and then to start a second draft. One of the real problems is trying to render before you've even finished sketching.
Basically even if you want to focus on form you can use shapes to help you draft the idea until you get something worth developing into a draft with strongly defined forms. He demonstrates this process with surviving drafts showing how different artists developed their compositions one draft at a time.
One of the most interesting and inciteful you tube channels there is today!
Every time I watch one of those videos it makes me want to go buy art books XD
My first art book was Burne Hogarth. read the forward by Todd McFarlane and was hooked.
So weird I just had a personal break through about realizing this relationship between realism and iconography as it relates to style. Perfect timing.
This was such an important and overlooked topic! Thank you for walking us through it.
Jesse Hamm has a really good series of essays on Alex Toth
Awesome I'll check those out!
Can you make a series demonstrating how to draw effects because I'm really struggling with that? Like debris from characters and their attacks crashing into buildings and the environment. crushed debris, rocks, collapsed buildings, bruises, cuts, blood, small & massive explosions, energy beams, water, fire, smoke, lava, ice, etc. The only book I've found covering the topic is in another language in that country.
Jerome K. Jerome Bloche is super underrated!
Jerome rules!
This was so fun. Sub earned
Very informative and helpful, thank you!
Thank you very much for this video and your thoughts, this is very valuable! By the way, I'm at a fork in the road right now, becasue I'm trying to enrich my anatomycal stylization - I already have a good understanding of basic anatomy, but don't really know should I continue to study anatomy from real people and learn to stylize myself or focus more on studyning other artworks?
excelent contend, tanks
how can you get over the fear of putting your written into or story into drawings
What the heck, why am I not subscribed to this channel
Nice Video
I honestly think you have a very limited view on how it is possible to represent form in drawing and painting.
Perspective, overlaps, crosscontour drawing are all ways to also show volume and also how you think about parts of a figure or object will effect the way you enclose part of what you are drawing in a way that it also appears to be more dimensional.
Shadow is only one way to describe surfaces and planes and there doesn’t even need to be a super dark shadow. Sometimes a shadow can actually flatten an area more than it gives it dimension.
The quickest way to „flatten“ a drawing is just drawing the surrounding contour of a shape without overlaps and ignoring the surface on the inside, which you can indicate by shapes shifting in value or color, textures, lines for example.
A lot what you consider to be flat here I wouldn’t, but with other parts you point out I would agree they are more graphic/flat and less dimensional.
You can get away with implying more, when you understand the surface well enough to choose what to keep. You don’t have to though. Sometimes also more can be more 😂
Less can also be less and can also be a sign of gaps in understanding.
I actually think now that it can be harmful to the development of an artist if we throw around heurisitcs and phrases we picked up from others like less is more, often even putting it in the wrong context, because it lost its true context a long time ago.
I think it is a big problem people still talk about rules and breaking rules in art.
If a piece of art succeeds solely depends on your intentions you have and there is different tools you can use to communicate what you want to communicate.
😍😍😍
This man says “sort of way too much.” Drinking game?
The other one you can play is when I say 'Again' I wonder which would see you hammered first???
@@TheDrawingCodex 😂😂😂 True. Thanks for the content man. I listen and watch as I work on projects. Great stuff. Even with the drinking games. Or should I say, especially. lol
You’re saying autistic right ?
An empty analysis, 30 minutes of nothing
I'm going to tell you something you're not going to take seriously, but is going to resonate in your mind, in the future when you find out this person that is coming out of nowhere was right. Art style makes sense even when breaking the rules for the following reason: we artist repeat ourselfs thousands of times. And do not do studies of somebody else's art, never. Cheers.