Interesting comment in light of religions that treat the appreciation of art work as a form of idol worship. That speaks to our inherent incompatibility with such groups.
Thank you for the link to Ruskin's book! I hope to read it before you start learning to play the piano.
I think it also has to do with, what you're planning to do with your art. For example in comic art you have to consider your line weights, which are determined by the light. Comic art is about clarity and readability, so a lot of it has to do with contrast and controlling your black and whites and sometimes grey tones. There also a bit more exaggeration in character poses because a natural pose might not read as well as graphically. But this is mostly if your going for art as entertainment.
I would concur that not all art schools are created equally, my school was definitely better than my first. They actually taught the fundamentals and I had a great comics teacher, he spoke a lot about the storytelling of the page, clarity, perspective, anatomy and consistency.
John Ruskin is an interesting fellow, I need to read more of his books. I illustrated a piece of his writings for a class project. "For the sky is covered with gray cloud;-not rain cloud but a dry black veil which no ray of sun can pierce: partly diffused in mist, feeble mist, enough to make distant objects unintelligible, yet without any substance, or wreathing, or color of its own." John Ruskin, The storm Cloud of the Nineteenth Century,
I still have a lot to learn myself, art is a continual journey. Love the new direction of the channel.
Yes, it's true, and it depends on the technique too. I am talking here about realistic drawings of portraits with pencil. Caricature and comic art would be a bit different thing, although the main principles are the same.
Also -- maybe I will do another post or video about this -- I don't think "realism" or making it look exactly like the model or like a photograph, is necessarily the best quality in a drawing or painting. It's not so much about realism but about giving the impression of being something real, even when it isn't.
I think the best painters were not exactly realists. Botticelli for instance has a style that resembles a bit comic art (well, to me). In any case, it's not "realistic", whatever that means.
Agreed, it's why I prefaced about intention of your art path, and gave an example from the path I am currently on.
I heard some talk about imaginative realism, which I think that is what you're describing, using principles of realism anatomy and lightning to portray the imagined. I wouldn't mind discussing it sometime.
Albrecht Durer, Howard Pyle and Norman Rockwell would be other examples of the practice.
"...the only real art is religious art..."
Interesting comment in light of religions that treat the appreciation of art work as a form of idol worship. That speaks to our inherent incompatibility with such groups.
Thank you for the link to Ruskin's book! I hope to read it before you start learning to play the piano.
I think it also has to do with, what you're planning to do with your art. For example in comic art you have to consider your line weights, which are determined by the light. Comic art is about clarity and readability, so a lot of it has to do with contrast and controlling your black and whites and sometimes grey tones. There also a bit more exaggeration in character poses because a natural pose might not read as well as graphically. But this is mostly if your going for art as entertainment.
I would concur that not all art schools are created equally, my school was definitely better than my first. They actually taught the fundamentals and I had a great comics teacher, he spoke a lot about the storytelling of the page, clarity, perspective, anatomy and consistency.
John Ruskin is an interesting fellow, I need to read more of his books. I illustrated a piece of his writings for a class project. "For the sky is covered with gray cloud;-not rain cloud but a dry black veil which no ray of sun can pierce: partly diffused in mist, feeble mist, enough to make distant objects unintelligible, yet without any substance, or wreathing, or color of its own." John Ruskin, The storm Cloud of the Nineteenth Century,
I still have a lot to learn myself, art is a continual journey. Love the new direction of the channel.
Yes, it's true, and it depends on the technique too. I am talking here about realistic drawings of portraits with pencil. Caricature and comic art would be a bit different thing, although the main principles are the same.
Also -- maybe I will do another post or video about this -- I don't think "realism" or making it look exactly like the model or like a photograph, is necessarily the best quality in a drawing or painting. It's not so much about realism but about giving the impression of being something real, even when it isn't.
I think the best painters were not exactly realists. Botticelli for instance has a style that resembles a bit comic art (well, to me). In any case, it's not "realistic", whatever that means.
Agreed, it's why I prefaced about intention of your art path, and gave an example from the path I am currently on.
I heard some talk about imaginative realism, which I think that is what you're describing, using principles of realism anatomy and lightning to portray the imagined. I wouldn't mind discussing it sometime.
Albrecht Durer, Howard Pyle and Norman Rockwell would be other examples of the practice.