5 ms·
There is a difference that I can see in the work of artists who have spent time learning to draw, and those that haven't. I can't explain it, but I can see it.
by webnrrd2k 3y ago
There is a difference that I can see in the work of artists who have spent time learning to draw, and those that haven't. I can't explain it, but I can see it.
I think it's because classical drawing teaches you some basic perceptual skills that are very hard to pick up any other way. It gets you out of your head and gets you to see what's actually there, not what you think is there. It's kind of a subtle difference, but it's important.
Not learning to perceive things in that manner is a big handicap for many artists. They don't even need to produce work in a classic or representational style. But it's still aparent if they are lacking those skills.
Another thing is that drawing, via rough sketches and prep work, provides a way to work out the bugs in your finished work. It provides a way to actually think out what you're doing, in the same way that writing about something is actually thinking about it [1].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36560254 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36560254
- creer 3y agoLearning to see does still matter, yes. It's not the same as classical anatomy copy drawing. And seeing color (which is really hard for the common civilian) is not going to happen through classical anatomy. So we can choose our battles while still paying attention. Architecture schools try to teach seeing also - not through classical anatomy.